Simon Glendinning
@simonglend.bsky.social
Head of the European Institute and Professor of European Philosophy at LSE.
The US became a global power in a time when the economic-political space became planetary. However, a new global order could be constructed in that space by the global powers: one that re-configures each global power as a regional power - if they can mostly agree who gets what.
January 7, 2026 at 4:31 AM
The US became a global power in a time when the economic-political space became planetary. However, a new global order could be constructed in that space by the global powers: one that re-configures each global power as a regional power - if they can mostly agree who gets what.
Thank you for this essay! Identifying Marxism as *the* inseparable adversary of Nazism is, I think, a pre-requisite of understanding Nazism. OTOH, there is a long tradition of non-Marxist socialism (“beyond all class distinctions”) which resists identifying socialism only with its left variations.
January 3, 2026 at 7:11 AM
Thank you for this essay! Identifying Marxism as *the* inseparable adversary of Nazism is, I think, a pre-requisite of understanding Nazism. OTOH, there is a long tradition of non-Marxist socialism (“beyond all class distinctions”) which resists identifying socialism only with its left variations.
There is a passage on Europe in JS Mill’s On Liberty which could have set the tone for a distinctive and constructive British vision of Europe - but as far as I can see it was lost to the world until I attempted to resurrect it in 2021 …when it was already too late.
January 2, 2026 at 1:00 PM
There is a passage on Europe in JS Mill’s On Liberty which could have set the tone for a distinctive and constructive British vision of Europe - but as far as I can see it was lost to the world until I attempted to resurrect it in 2021 …when it was already too late.
Not especially true - every MS has its Europe - but especially truly awful. :(
January 2, 2026 at 10:46 AM
Not especially true - every MS has its Europe - but especially truly awful. :(
“Towards integration” or “towards closer union” is an undeniably teleological conception. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. The only question is about the ideal end (the telos). What is “complete” integration? You may say: a federal state. I say: something *essentially* short of that.
January 2, 2026 at 8:33 AM
“Towards integration” or “towards closer union” is an undeniably teleological conception. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. The only question is about the ideal end (the telos). What is “complete” integration? You may say: a federal state. I say: something *essentially* short of that.
Yes! Hilarious.
January 2, 2026 at 8:29 AM
Yes! Hilarious.
Not sure about the law example here. I think it would take too long trying to refine it to fit. Nevertheless, on the face of it any piece of EU legislation that harmonises across MSs either does or does not conflict with the existing law in any given MS. The rest follows (I think).
January 2, 2026 at 8:28 AM
Not sure about the law example here. I think it would take too long trying to refine it to fit. Nevertheless, on the face of it any piece of EU legislation that harmonises across MSs either does or does not conflict with the existing law in any given MS. The rest follows (I think).
No condescension intended. Teleological development does seem implied in your description of the emerging federal formation - and that would be a questionable way of looking at developments underway. But my central point is that *any* development would be constrained by the limits I identified.
January 2, 2026 at 8:19 AM
No condescension intended. Teleological development does seem implied in your description of the emerging federal formation - and that would be a questionable way of looking at developments underway. But my central point is that *any* development would be constrained by the limits I identified.
Some national constitutional courts have challenged its absolute reach, asserting limits based on national constitutional identity or fundamental rights. But of course you are right about the steps in the process of law change. I’m not sure it makes a difference to the thought experiment though.
January 2, 2026 at 8:13 AM
Some national constitutional courts have challenged its absolute reach, asserting limits based on national constitutional identity or fundamental rights. But of course you are right about the steps in the process of law change. I’m not sure it makes a difference to the thought experiment though.
A thought experiment: suppose a law that is common to all MSs - no conflict - and the ECJ asserted a demand for a change in that law. That could be a moment of consensual legal progress in some domain. But what if the MSs all opposed the proposal? Would they all have to suck it up? Idk, I hope not.
January 2, 2026 at 6:03 AM
A thought experiment: suppose a law that is common to all MSs - no conflict - and the ECJ asserted a demand for a change in that law. That could be a moment of consensual legal progress in some domain. But what if the MSs all opposed the proposal? Would they all have to suck it up? Idk, I hope not.
Quite rightly the ECJ has primacy over conflicting national laws. But even there states reserve a right to oversight. And the idea that a federal state is “emerging” is far too simplistically teleological. I have mentioned structural limits to the development of that which that idea simply ignores.
January 2, 2026 at 5:51 AM
Quite rightly the ECJ has primacy over conflicting national laws. But even there states reserve a right to oversight. And the idea that a federal state is “emerging” is far too simplistically teleological. I have mentioned structural limits to the development of that which that idea simply ignores.
The EUs current state-like powers (which, to repeat, I like) are not the powers of a state though - they are delegated powers by states. Just as the open borders of Schengen are open only because they are, by states, closable. But yes: not simply intergovernmental, not at all.
January 2, 2026 at 4:59 AM
The EUs current state-like powers (which, to repeat, I like) are not the powers of a state though - they are delegated powers by states. Just as the open borders of Schengen are open only because they are, by states, closable. But yes: not simply intergovernmental, not at all.
Fair summary. And: yes it is not desirable. A European Union short of a federal state is, however, very desirable. And in answer to your other question: it enhances the sovereignty that a MS keeps. And I focus on MS because they are the unit of membership: it is their union - a union of states.
January 1, 2026 at 4:35 PM
Fair summary. And: yes it is not desirable. A European Union short of a federal state is, however, very desirable. And in answer to your other question: it enhances the sovereignty that a MS keeps. And I focus on MS because they are the unit of membership: it is their union - a union of states.
I do not believe there is a “way” to that goal. It is barely a possible goal. The “example” I gave of a possible way was a best-case scenario- and it too would fail except in two limit exceptions: in a hegemonic MS (identity of MS and Fed interest) or in a MS “on its knees” (no existing interest).
January 1, 2026 at 3:31 PM
I do not believe there is a “way” to that goal. It is barely a possible goal. The “example” I gave of a possible way was a best-case scenario- and it too would fail except in two limit exceptions: in a hegemonic MS (identity of MS and Fed interest) or in a MS “on its knees” (no existing interest).
One possibility: you could have, in a member state, a proEUrofederal party of state-abolition. The party policy would be one thing: if it came to power it would give up that governing power and hand it to an EU authority, and become in that moment a regional “implementing authority” of a EUroFed.
January 1, 2026 at 9:16 AM
One possibility: you could have, in a member state, a proEUrofederal party of state-abolition. The party policy would be one thing: if it came to power it would give up that governing power and hand it to an EU authority, and become in that moment a regional “implementing authority” of a EUroFed.
But the national interest is distinctive since it is the domain of a state. As Kant puts it, the formation of a federal state cannot be “the will of the nations” - not because right now they are against it but because it is not the sort of thing a nation can will.
January 1, 2026 at 5:25 AM
But the national interest is distinctive since it is the domain of a state. As Kant puts it, the formation of a federal state cannot be “the will of the nations” - not because right now they are against it but because it is not the sort of thing a nation can will.
Anything (like now) that can be coherently affirmed as in the national interest for each in the all. It is never coherent to suppose it is in the national interest to have no national interest. (Read Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” on this.)
January 1, 2026 at 4:53 AM
Anything (like now) that can be coherently affirmed as in the national interest for each in the all. It is never coherent to suppose it is in the national interest to have no national interest. (Read Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” on this.)
So you can be firmly opposed to a federal state model and also in favour of voluntarily pooling sovereignty where it is in the interest of each individual in the all.
December 31, 2025 at 6:56 AM
So you can be firmly opposed to a federal state model and also in favour of voluntarily pooling sovereignty where it is in the interest of each individual in the all.
“Many Europeans may not like the idea of federalism. There are plenty of people who think that sovereignty only comes in the form of the European NSs that were created in Europe in the 19th century.” This confuses a concern with full federal state structures with attachment to national only ones.
December 31, 2025 at 6:49 AM
“Many Europeans may not like the idea of federalism. There are plenty of people who think that sovereignty only comes in the form of the European NSs that were created in Europe in the 19th century.” This confuses a concern with full federal state structures with attachment to national only ones.
There is (was) one post-war feature of the UK economy worth keeping in view: the fact that its manufacturing industries were (largely) not decimated by war. So it was not an imperative to build and build new. The economy ran on old - against economies that had shiny new and efficient fixed capital.
December 31, 2025 at 6:11 AM
There is (was) one post-war feature of the UK economy worth keeping in view: the fact that its manufacturing industries were (largely) not decimated by war. So it was not an imperative to build and build new. The economy ran on old - against economies that had shiny new and efficient fixed capital.
“…no longer…” - when was the golden age of our govts being responsive to a demo? (Council tax?)
December 19, 2025 at 9:28 AM
“…no longer…” - when was the golden age of our govts being responsive to a demo? (Council tax?)