I have edited the main page to make it reflect Supranationalism in the dictionary sense of the word. I have also emphasised the European Debate, and placed Weiler's theory at the bottom. Will 12:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the page to make it have a better layout. I added boldness on line one, and I added a definition list. --Ysangkok 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ysangkok, it looks much better. Will 09:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
...What's the difference?--188.8.131.52 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is not about supranationalism but the EU. Supranationalism doesn't mean multinational representational government. Also, it has been used to define something more akin to pan-nationalism, only as a theory of state creation as opposed to a description of a particular (interstate nationalist) movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingwords (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added material from Robert Schuman, Prime Minister of France, who wrote a book on the subject and initiated the European Community. He also gave many speeches about the subject defining the various aspects, political, economic, governmental, theological, philosophical and historical. It seems to me important to define how democratic supranational communities work in theory, then in practice before describing realities, distortions and poor copies of the European experience which brought war to an end after some 2000+ years of continual warfare.
The editors involved in this article clearly adopt the point of view of Weiler that the EU is not true supranational body. Although there are arguments to be made these arguments are however brought across in a judgemental way. Only one reference (Weiler) is given and the much other academics, and the some academics who see EU as supranational are not named. Choice of words (paradox, deficit) is not NPOV and leads to a conclusion that is either original research, or an opinion. This section needs a lot of work Arnoutf 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Information about supranationalism in other parts of the world, e.g. South America, is missing. DanSchultz 12:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Should there be some information on the social aspects of supranationalism, or do you think it's best to keep it at the political definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
[I dont cite sources, since I am just discussing informally and rapidly here. But it is concerns the EU, Europe and the very concept and definition of the topic Supra-nationalism.]
Obviously, the term Supranationalism was introduced in the treaty of Rome, as described in the article. However, for what it looks like from where I am sitting, the entire EU project aims at creating the United States of Europe, that is, a Federal State, although multicultural.
Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism are only vehicles for this historical aim.
For instance the (Pre - Lisbon Treaty) Intergovernmental, Council of Ministers seemed to be a direct copy of the German Bundesrat, which works pretty much as the Council of Ministers but in the Federal Republic of Germany. Now the German Bundesrat is a legislative body in its federation, so, why should not the EU, with such Council of ministers be considered a federation? (Another aspect is that the German Bundesrat, in my opinion, is a way bad construction compared to the U.S Senate, but that is another discussion.)
The main reason for the EU being supranational and not federal is that it consists of National States, unlike the USA which is a federal structure consisting of 50 states but with one single American culture. No state in America is culturally lesser American than any other state. Hence, Puerto Rico was never allowed statehood, and is so far bullied for its ethnic and cultural composition, my opinion -but nevertheless true. Is the relation between Puerto Rico and the Union of the Fifty States (USA) considered a Supranational relation? Puerto Ricans are union citizens (USA) after all.
Now, my point with Supranationalism vs. Federalism is that Europe consists of several nations. A nation, in my belief, is the combination of a state and its culture. That is, the USA consists of 50 states but only one American culture. The general concept of A Nation is intertwinned with its culture and its organised society, its "state". This is a European invention from the 19th century and we may call it "nationalism".
Now, since the nature of nationalism led to the five world wars (including those three in the 19th century, the 1800s), the Europeans obviously realized that the American union of sovereign states (USA) was a good idea. After all, the US federal system is modeled after the old European dreams and ideas of peaceful coexistence. But it was never realized in Europe due to nationalism. Instead it was implemented in the monocultural America: "when the West was won" by American nationalism.
That is, it was fairly easy to create a "National" federal structure in the old british territories of America since it was one culture. That is, it was easy compared to the challenges of unifying Europe since Europe consists of not only several states, legal jurisdictions, but also several cultures, that is: any European Federal State will always be Supranational, since it indeed is multi-cultural.
What really would happen with further federalisation of Europe would be the creation of the first Supranational state since the Roman Empire. The term National and Nation will in this manner not neccessarily mean the highest soverign entity under international law. Once again, Europe leads the way, and is creating a completely new concept of an independent sovereign state: the Supranational State, or Multinational Federal State.
Now, to be really bold, but it deserves to be mentioned in the context of Supra-nationalism, What actually happened in America, when "The WEST was won" was pretty much what would have happened in Europe if the Germans had won WWII. All Europe would have spoken German, just as all Americans speak English today. That, dear reader, is the danger of nationalism and monoculturalism. Europeans invented it and spread it to America.
So the differences between the European Supra-nationalism and American Federalism is that Americans have never had nationalism on the state level as is the case in Europe. Well, California was purchased from Mexico on the premise that it would keep its Spanish culture, the result being that all street and city names remain intact - but nevertheless the culture turned American until the recent immigration once again set its mark on the western-most states. Official languages is still English though due to the National monoculturalism of America.
Now, that does not mean that European Supra-nationalism cannot turn into a fully fledged federation: the United States of Europe. But if so, the cultural dimension of the member states will always be preserved in a truly multinational federal entity. With one culture for each state of the union.
This is pretty much already the case since the main differences between the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty is that the insignia of a nation was left out in the Lisbon Treaty: the anthem, the flag, the national day of Europe (9 may).
Nevertheless, the other insignia of a federal Europe IS present: The European Supreme court which can overrule "national" Supreme courts, the dual legislative assemblies of the union population and the union states which make up 50 % of all the member state legislation, the executive commision that proposes laws to legislators. The common currency, the four freedoms, the common foreign policy. The European FBI. And the EU armed forces which is the Nato alliance which can be reflagged to EU flag whenever neccessary according to the Berlin Plus deal between the EU and "the Old Alliance". The EU is gradually taking over the Old Alliance.
The EU is a legal body consisting of its member states and can as such turn into a country when the time is ready. The EU is on its way of becomming a multicultural, democratic European Federation. Indeed supra-national.
The shift is semantic and historic: a nation does not need to mean "country" anymore. A supa-national entity such as the EU could in the future as well mean "country".
What is otherwise interesting to point out is the relation of the EEA countries, such as Norway, to the European Union, and to compare it with the relation of Puerto Rico to the United States. Norway is not a member of the European Union but nevertheless enacts all its laws by free will to facilitate trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Some interesting material on constitutions of supranational unions which might be included in this article or an associated one at some point.
Since this article has, apparently, been completely unreferenced since 2004 and has had a rewrite tag since May 2008, I have decided to be bold and attempt a rewrite based on available sources (initially concentrating on content rather than style). I may leave some of the unsourced material, where I have not yet found suitable sources; so more work may be necessary. I am attempting to deal with the various concerns raised, so I will remove the various tags, which I had previously consolidated under "article issues". --Boson (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I object to the use of the word "confederation" in the opening sentence, surely a Federal Europe would still be a supranational union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acamdc88 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Merging these topics would be a bad idea. The concepts are distinct because supranational means that political power is passed to an organization/a body beyond the nation state. On the other hand, nation states are very capable of acting multilaterally without ceding any political power to an organization beyond the nation states. BartBee (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)