National Identity vs European Identity

8/10/2019 National Identity vs European Identity

1/22

pdfcrowd comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

The debate continues to rage in the comments to my history: starting assumptionspost, much of it coming

from EUtopia regular Robin, a man firmly convinced of the superiority of national identities over any

European one:

your national identity comes readily to you but this EUropean identity seems manufactured by

those who are stakeholders in this EU project or its supporters.I also pointed out that Europeansmay not, depending on their nationality, have that much in common with other Europeans, and

many will have more in common with nations outside of Europe

Some fair points there, for sure. But what about the claim that your national identity comes readily to

you contrasted with this European identity seems manufactured the implication seems to be that

NOSEMONKEY'SEUTOPIA

In search of a European identity

National identity vs European identity

August 15, 2009by James Clive-Matthews

HOME ABOUT COMMENT POLICY TESTIMONIALS


2/22


national identities are somehow organically-formed.

This certainly can be the case true national identities are usually based on a closely-shared culture and

language. Think the Basques or Celts or Roma not confined within the borders of any one country, but

with a definite sense of nationhood.

The rise of national identities

Nation states, however, are entirely different beasts. The histories of France and Germany two of the

Great Powers of Europe, and key personifications of the nation state concept are dominated prior to the

last couple of hundred years by centuries of internal conflict and power struggles as their various

constituent parts battled for control. People in the 16th century may have felt French or German but

only AFTER they felt themselves Angevin, Bavarian, and so on. The same goes for Spain, Italy, Poland,

Austria, Switzerland pretty much every European state. Even England was formed from constituent parts,

albeit rather earlier than many other future European nation states.

In every case, a national identity had to be superimposed over the smaller-scale, pre-existing identities

of the units that were brought together to make up the new, larger nation state, to forge a sense of shared

identity between Angevins and Provencals, Bavarians and Saxons, Catalonians and Andalucians, where

previously there was not just none, but also frequently a sense of hostility and rivalry.


3/22


Much of the time this has been due to the perception of some external threat, either real or fictional in

the case of 16th/17th century France, the rise of the Habsburgs in Spain, the Spanish Netherlands, Austria,

Northern Italy and the Holy Roman Empire; in the case of 19th century Germany, the perceived threat from

Austria-Hungary to the south and Denmark to the north; in 1930s Germany, the perceived threat was the

Great Depression, communism and the Jews. The reason for forging a new sense of unity is aimed both

internally to promote loyalty to the state in a time of crisis and externally to demonstrate that unityto your enemies, and make clear that your constituent parts are no longer potential allies.

As Robin is so keen on his English/British identity, lets take that as a more detailed case study.

The rise of the British and English national identities

The British national identity has only been created during the last 3-400 years (first under James VI/I to try

to mesh his Scottish/English subjects together something that didnt work then after the Act of Union of

1707, mostly in response to the rise of France under Louis XIV to prevent the revival of the old Franco-

Scottish anti-England alliance). Yet this British identity *still* hasnt fully taken hold, with sizable chunks of

the population still feeling Scottish/Welsh/English/Cornish/Irish/whatever far more than they feel British

a feeling heightened by the different cultures and traditions, languages and religions and even (in the case

of Scotland) legal systems still in place in the various constituent states of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland.


4/22


ust as the British national identity rose in response to a threat, so too did the English. The Danish/Viking

invasions of the 9th/10th centuries first led to concerted efforts at defence, then to alliances, finally to the

expansion of the old Kingdom of Wessex as the Anglo-Saxons fought back against the Danes. The

Heptarchy the old kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia, Northumberland, Kent, Sussex and Essex

(not to mention smaller kingdoms like Bernicia, Deira, Surrey, Lindsey, the Isle of Wight, Hwicce,

Magonsaete, Pecsaetan, Wreocensae, Tomsaete, Haestingas, the Middle Angles, and Cornwallwhich weremostly sucked into the major seven during the course of the Dark Ages) was united as England not due to

any inherent feeling of shared identity, but thanks to the Viking threat and Alfred the Greats realisation that

the best bet was safety in numbers. (A very similar idea to that which led to the European Union, in fact.)

But thats just the creation of England as an entity not Englishnessas an identity. As Robin rightly notes,

ust because you can identify a geographical area with some common features (like England back in the 9th

century, or Europe today), doesnt mean that there is any sense of shared identity among the people of

that area.

English national identity took several centuries to emerge after Englands unification there were early

hints under Edward I as he battled the Welsh, Scots and French (again, the threat of war being a the key),

though most historians now agreeing that it was first fully conceived during the reign of Henry VII as a

more or less entirely political, top-down attempt to reunify the kingdom after the Wars of the Roses. (One

of the key manifestations of this new English identity was Henrys entirely PR-driven decision to name his

first-born son Arthur, after the legendary English King, made newly popular by Thomas Mallorys Le Mort

dArthur, published the very year that Henry seized the throne and brought the long-running civil wars of

ork vs Lancaster to a close. How much better a symbol of Englands unity could there have been than for a

new King Arthur to take the throne? Shame he died, really)


5/22


Englishness was maintained as an idea by Henry VIII , first to secure his throne and then (almost by

accident) during his dispute with the Papacy and subsequent Reformation. It was further solidified under

Elizabeth I as she tried to unite her religiously-divided country in the face of the constant threat of Spanish

and French Catholic invasions (trying to create a sense of national identity that could override the Catholic

identities of some of her subjects). But even that didnt work witness the Civil War that erupted 40 years

after her death.

Local vs national identities

Even today, there are sub-categories beneath Englishness that many people within England will pick as

their primary identity: Scouse; Geordie; Brummie; Yorkshireman; Northerner and so on. (Some of the

pre-English kingdoms have retained some sense of identity remain notably in Cornwall (mostly due to

the older Celtic national identity that pre-dates Cornwall as an entity); others have been entirely forgotten

how many people in modern-day Lincolnshire perceive themselves to be Lindseyans?)

All of these local identities are far more natural in origin than the English or British national identites

that lie above them as a broader unifying concept and such smaller-scale identities will always exist

because before both English and British identities arose, the most important identities were (quite

naturally) local the village, the town, and at a push the county.


6/22


And little wonder until the 19th century, lets not forget, it would take at least a week to travel from

London to Edinburgh or Penzance. The only other Englishmen youd be likely to meet unless you were a

politician or noble would be at the local market or the county fair. Why should someone from Devon feel

any kinship with someone from Yorkshire? They would never meet, and even if they did they would speak

differently, have different customs and traditions and after the Reformation sometimes even different

religions. (The conversion to Protestantism was a decidedly localised affair in England, despite being atop-down, state-ordained decision there are even records of neighbouring villages in early 17th century

Somerset, less than five miles apart, where one was Catholic, one was Protestant they went on to join

different sides in the Civil War, one supporting Parliament, the other the King)

This argument about not meeting people from far away and having little in common with them when you

do, of course, you could use against the concept of a European identity today what does a

orkshireman have in common with a Romanian?, etc.

Only today we are far more likely to encounter people from other EU member states than our forebears

ever were to meet a fellow Englishman from the other side of the country. You can drive to Romania in a

couple of days a journey time that, when the English national identity was being formed, wouldnt have

got you even a quarter of the way from Cornwall to London. Its quicker to fly from London to Romania

today than it would have been, back in the 16th/17th/18th centuries when national identities were forming,

to ride to the next town.


7/22


An attempt at a conclusion

All this, of course, goes to explain my belief that that broad, higher-level senses of belonging at national

or European level are less important than lower-level, primary identites.

et even this isnt entirely true because senses of identity are entirely personal things. You can pick abunch of people who were all born and raised in the same village, and yet there will still be a wide range

of opinions among them as to what their primary identity (or identities) may be. Some may pick their

national identity as most important, others that of their local area, still others their religion or their class.

Because if the case study of the manufacture of Britishness and Englishness has proved anything, it shows

that the top-down imposition of a broad identity will only ever meet with limited success.

A broad identity can be a positive unifying force the creation of a sense of Britishness in particular has

prevented war within the island of Great Britain for the last three hundred years though it can also cause

conflict as in Northern Ireland, where the imposition of the concept of Britishness continues to meet with

violent resistance.

As such, although I dont see a European identity as a threat to my own sense of identity or place, I can

see how others might. And although I agree with Robin that there have been efforts to artificially create

such a European identity just as the English and British and French and German and Spanish and Italian

(and so on) identities were artificially created before it I dont agree entirely. The growth of a European

identity is also partially natural and organic as the economies and societies of Europe grow closer

together, and as improvements in technology and transportation bring Europeans from different countries


8/22


into more regular contact with each other just as a sense of Britishness grew organically during the

course of the last few hundred years as Britains infrastructure improved and people from Devon and

orkshire and Scotland encountered each other more regularly, and grew to see the things that they had in

common as well as those things that were different.

Some pre-English and pre-British identities have been lost; others have survived. The same will doubtless

be the case in Europe if the European identity takes hold. But the process will be a long one. More than a

thousand years after the formation of England, the Cornish still feel Cornish; seven hundred years after the

conquest of Wales, the Welsh still feel Welsh; three hundred years after the Act of Union, the Scots still feel

Scottish.

And so, in short, while I have no wish to impose a European identity on anyone who doesnt wish it, I

honestly cant see how it can be seen as a threat. And likewise, I cant see how any attempt to break down

the perceived barriers between peoples of different identities in pursuit of a common good can be a bad

thing. The creation of a European identity is not an aggressive movement, like the creation of a German

identity was in the late 19th through to the mid-20th century it is a positive attempt to bring together a

continent whose entire history has been marked by warfare and conflict.

I can only see this as a good thing.

Share this:


9/22

df d mi b PRO i Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

Share

Google+

James Clive-Matthews

Categories: A bit of context, Europe, Featured, Forgotten histories| Permalink

6 7 C O M M E N T S

Leave a reply

Hunter

August 19, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Insideur: Please feel free to let me know which ones you dont agree with, and Id be more than

happy to elaborate. Perhaps my wording was off.

NM: Music to my ears.

Follow 128


10/22

df di b PRO i Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

AnoldunAugust 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Treaties can last, and do, for many, many years. The Treaty of Union that bind Scotland to England

(and Wales).for instance and Magna Carta is also a Treaty between the Crown and the people, and

the EU, as you know is planning for the next 50 years. We have had Governments that have simply

ignored our Constitution and Welcomed all that they EU has put before them. Right from 1972the people have been lied to, or perhaps misled is a slightly better word for Hunter to have used?

Hunter was right and Heath admitted that many years later on TV.. However, I have visitors from

Canada and my attention must be to them for now. I must say though, regardless of how many top

legal minds have looked at the EU Treaties and compared them to our Constitution, Germany may

have said the same yet their Constitution was probably new after the Berlin Wall came down where

as ours is hundreds of years old and parts cannot be altered. This is why Jack Straw is introducing a

new written Constitution probably with a Bill of Rights included and he will then put it forward in areferendum for the people to agree to, and in the doing they may destroy their own Magna carta

and Bill of Rights. Lisbon of course will still have competence over-all the new anyway.

For your interest, I place here some argument points

This is from HC Deb 16th Oct 1952. The law of our Constitution provides that the treaty-making

power shall rest with the Prerogative; it shall be exercised by the Executive. But the treaty-making

power is a power which cannot affect the rights of the ordinary, individual citizen.

No contract or treaty made by the Government of this country with another country can affect the

ordinary rights of an English citizen, can affect his contracts, or can affect his freedom. For the

rights of the individual to be taken away from him requires the consent of Parliament in legislation

passed for that purpose. I cannot find any separate, deliberate reference that has quite

deliberately set out to remove the peoples Rights, YET. All our rights under our Constitution are

listed for removal in the Civil Contingences Act which is only meant for temporary specific cases,


11/22

df di b PRO i A d l ? T t th HTML t PDF API

certainly not permanently. (allegedly!)

The Solicitor General:- Throughout, the treaty making power resides in the Crown, in Her Majesty

the Queen acting upon the advice of her Ministers. It is by virtue of the Royal Prerogative in the

conduct of foreign affairs that the Government initiate, sign and ratify international agreements. As

a matter of constitutional law, no parliamentary authority is necessary before the Crown may

exercise those powers. The other principle is equally important. Those prerogative powers, the

treaty-making powers, do not enable the Crown to alter the law within the United Kingdom so as to

implement the treaty. End of snippets. That paragraph is perhaps the most important because it

highlights the fact that the Crowns own Royal Prerogative does not allow the British Crown to alter

the law or Constitution within its own Kingdom, yet here we have a Government whose sworn

allegiance is to that very same Crown, transferring that same Royal Prerogative to foreigners in a

Parliament in a foreign Country strictly against the Crowns Coronation Oath. (This in order to allow

the EU Legal Personality (Art 47) to ratify Treaties. I note also that it does not say in the Treaty that

the Royal Prerogative may not be used for WAR MAKING, only for Treaty making. What if the EU

makes a treaty with Mugabe?

I must close now though, many thanks for the exercising of the little grey cells.

Insideur

August 20, 2009 at 7:39 am

Anoldun, none of what you quote shows an incompatibility between the EU treaties and the UKs

constitutional arrangements. By the way, the EU could never make a treaty with Mugabe, because

the EU cant make treaties only its Member States can.


12/22

df di b PRO i A d l ? T t th HTML t PDF API

HunterAugust 20, 2009 at 8:03 am

In fact to back up what Insideur is saying, I gather the latest draft of the Lisbon Treaty (due to the

concerns raised by the Irish) has been prepared with that in mind, that is to say the EC Civil

Servants have prepared it and worded it thus that it will not infringe on the constitutions of the

member states.

AnoldunAugust 20, 2009 at 10:30 am

See Sittings of Tuesday 1 3 June 2003 EU-USA Judicial Cooperation

agreements. Vitorino in EU Parliament. Confirmation of that is written in Hansard Official Report of

the Grand Committee) on the Extradition Bill Wednesday 18th June 2003 (GC 298 Starting on the

first page.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030618/text/30618-

12.htm#30618-12_head1

The above is just one agreement done without any debate in national

parliaments and before LISBON. I hope you can raise the debate in the EU

parliament, it is quite interesting.

InsideurAugust 20, 2009 at 11:19 am


13/22


14/22df di b PRO iAre you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

AnoldunAugust 20, 2009 at 11:47 am

You are missing the point. It was not debated in our Parliament. However, that is old news, and my

concern is Lisbon and this Countrys future, if it has one. You are way out in the first part of your

last paragraph.

HunterAugust 20, 2009 at 11:53 am

Yep, interesting stuff. Again, to support Is comments, the agreement is just an agreement made

by a non-entity. The agreement has to be ratified by each member state for it to apply in that state,

and I gather it has also gone through a few changes, notably as regards the death penalty issue.The following text is taken from the EC website:

The Agreement on extradition has not yet entered into force due to the complexity of the enter

into force conditions, in particular the ratification process:

1. all EU member States need to exchange written instruments with US to stipulate relationship

with existing bilateral treaties (one on mutual legal assistance and one on extradition), in

conformity with the two EU-US Agreements;

2. both the EU and the US have to go through the ratification process:

for the US this implies: to have 2 EU-US agreements + 2 bilateral instruments per member States

(i.e. 50 in total) ratified by US Senate.

for EU this implies that those EU member States that have declared that they have to comply

with the requirements of their own constitutional procedures as allowed by Article 24 (5) of the

Treaty on European Union (DK, NL, P, D, UK, IRL, S, I, FIN, B, ES and LU, and all new member States:

CY CZ HU LT LV PL SI SK MT d EE) h l t d th i tit ti l d O l ft


15/22df di b PRO iAre you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

CY, CZ, HU, LT, LV, PL, SI, SK, MT and EE) have completed their constitutional procedures. Only after

that has been done, can the Council decide to conclude the EU-US agreements.

As for the old 15 EU member States:

7 have finalised and signed: France; Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Spain, UK;

5 are finalised or almost finalised: Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Luxembourg;

3 still encounter difficulties: Austria, Germany and Portugal.

As for the 10 new Member States (+2: Romania and Bulgaria): Lithuania signed on June 15 2005.

The US-UK extradition treaty, of November 2003 can be found here:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=820518

An analysis of it can be found here: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

As noted therein The UK-US extradition treaty also means that the government will also avoid

normal parliamentary ratification of the controversial EU-US extradition treaty s igned on 6 June2003through the following text: The United Kingdom welcomes the Agreements between the

European Union and the United States of America on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters

and extradition. Much of the legislation necessary to implement the agreements in the United

Kingdom is already in force and, where it is not, Parliaments consideration of the draft legislation

is, for the most part, at an advanced stage. The United Kingdom aims to complete its domestic

requirements in the near future and looks forward to applying the Agreements at the earliest

opportunity thereafter

The UK set it up so that it didnt have to be debated prior to ratification. The British Government

could have done so, as every Member State has to ratify the agreement, however the elected

representatives of our nation chose not to. Not, I might stress, the fault of the EU in any way. You

might also be interested to a parallel set of decisions recently taken on the CIAs illegal extradition

of EU Members State Citizens. You should find it on google.


16/22

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

Pingback: British citizenship vs European citizenship | Nosemonkeys EUtopia

InsideurAugust 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Anoldun I did not miss that point read my last two sentences. The fact that the treaty was not

debated in Parliament is entirely the fault of HMG, and is indeed symptomatic of a broader trend of

abuse of Parliament by the executive.

Pingback: EU regionalism on the decline? | Nosemonkeys EUtopia

MANDERSONSeptember 1, 2009 at 3:31 pm

More than a thousand years after the formation of England, the Cornish.the Welshthe Scots

blah blah blah..and the English still feel English!

HunterSeptember 1, 2009 at 3:34 pm

A sound point Manderson. Its true that I rarely meet Englishmen who claim to feel Chinese,

Tanzanian or Kenyan.


17/22

pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

french derekSeptember 2, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Nm Sorry for the delay coming back weve had visitors. This post is not so much to with identity

(Ive said what I wanted to say on that); but I do need to reply to Hunter #37.

After the fall of the Bastille no-one gave much thought to celebrating it as a special event. The

Revolutionaries had to spend a year or two putting down (violently) various Royalist uprisings

around France north of the Loire. South of that line as I noted before life carried on pretty much

as normal.

The 14th July continued to be celebrated across France as St Bonaventures Day for many years to

come. It wasnt until the Third Republic that anyone proposed a Fte nationale: and then the

arguments raged as to when. It wasnt until 21 May 1880 that a law was passed instituting 14 July.

However, since St Bonaventure was regarded as a special Saint, it took many years for him to be

ousted from his day.

Yes, the Marsaillaise was played when the French Army marched. But, as I noted, the French Army

were held in very low regard outside the more genteel circles of Parisian society. And it was not

usual for it to be played at town and village marches (they were noted more for their drunken

ollities).

French nationalism did not really arrive until 1914; and by 1919 the fte nationale reached

apotheosis.

Hunter

September 2 2009 at 4:29 pm


18/22


September 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Well you seem to know more about the matter at hand than I do, so I would happily concede but

must just suggest that surely in times of military prowess and success, nationalism naturally

soars, in the same way as cricket or Henman and the like attract huge crowds when they look set

to win. Surely there must have been strong nationalist sentiments prior to 1914. Look at the

Franco Prussian war for example; the annexation of Alsace Lorraine from France was remembered

and subsequently used as propaganda in 1914 to rally troops to the cause; surely an indication of

underlying, and strong nationalist sentiment? Again, the Empirical conquests of Napoleon, or even

the cultural triumphs of the Sun King, shows that the French must in fact have one of the oldest

and best established senses of nationalism in Europe, simply for the fact that under Napoleon it

would have been appropriate for the French to feel national pride due to their worldwide

accomplishments and, under Louis, for the cultural achievements. Would this not denote a well

established, if fluctuating sense of national pride, as opposed to a lack thereof?

french derekSeptember 3, 2009 at 8:16 am

@Hunter #62. I agree that, for the bourgeoisie and the higher echelons of French society, what you

say would have been true. But, given that the main means of communication to the masses was by

word of mouth, at the local markets, ordinary folk in France knew (and cared) little of their ruling

heads doings. Except when they were conscripted into the Army, of course and were mostly

treated like animals. Life was very, very different, even in the late 19th century in France, from

what it became after WW1.

But there is no doubting the arrogant nationalism of the French today!


19/22


20/22


FROM THE ARCHI VES

One day since Medvedev's election...

Eurovision - promoter of unity, promoter of discord

Britain: Hiding under a duvet of doubt and debt

Five years after the Iraq protests, a question

On the reform treaty and a referendum (again)

Bananas, euromyths and ridiculous regulations

dLiberation - EU democracy latest

German elections roundup

Swiss and Polish elections

Ukraine crisis continued - any solution?

POSTS BY CATEGORY

Select Category

ARCHIVES

Select Month


21/22


MORE EU BLOGS

Nosemonkey's Netvibes universe(in serious need of updating)

Bloggingportal.eu(infinitely more comprehensive)

Nosemonkey on Twitter Nosemonkey on LinkedIn

SUBSCRIBE VI A EMAIL

RECENT COMMENTS

pintereston Comment Policy

@FarageNoon What percentage of laws come from the EU?

J Clive Matthews (@Nosemonkey)on The libertarian case for European integration

@LizGardiner1on What percentage of laws come from the EU?


22/22

Documents

National Identity vs European Identity