In the European Union (EU), political federalism has never been strong. The main reason for the creation and development of this institution has been economic. However, most economic integration is detrimental to the poorer regions for the benefit of the rich. That is why many examples of integration have been forcibly carried out, as when the federalist North defeated the Confederalist South in the US Civil War. On other occasions, integration has been peaceful, as was the economic colonization of the East by the German West.

A poor region may have different reasons for accepting integration: the ignorance of the economic consequences; the hope of obtaining economic aid by joining a richer region; or the desire to promote the unity of an imagined nation. However, most of the integrations that have been carried out by force or peace have a high degree of linguistic homogeneity in their favour. As a result, emigration from the poor to the rich countries serves as an escape route to calm the protests. Since the union of Germany, East Youth has migrated a great deal to the West.

In the current EU, we are experiencing a phenomenon similar to that of slow-motion German union. The symbol of the federal economic project is the euro. Countries of very different economic levels have adopted the same currency and have materialised the privatisation agenda imposed by the EU. But for whom? Slovenian companies do not have the capacity to purchase public enterprises privatised by Germany. On the contrary, Germans can buy Slovenes easily. The EU has made rich regions richer and poorer the poor.

But the EU has a problem, unlike most integration processes in the rest of the world, it has a great linguistic diversity and, therefore, the exit pipe from emigration does not work properly. The EU’s leaders need to deepen the political and cultural integration that is intimately linked in order to promote economic integration. The road is not easy, because there is competition between economic and political powers. Some (Great Britain, Sweden...) decided not to adopt the euro, as they probably saw it very closely linked to Germany. The next stage of this reflection is the open debate in Britain: Maintain within the EU with flexible links or leave. If the Conservatives won the elections in 2015, David Cameron announced that the debate will be clarified with a referendum to be held in 2017. If the decision that Britain would take was to leave, other countries could make a similar choice. Consequently, the EU’s federalisation project would reach accelerated speed on the basis of states.

Meanwhile, for stateless nations, staying out of the federative process can be very dangerous, so the need for a state can be very risky. Scotland and Catalonia have begun their journey. Flanders has a problem with territoriality, but it is opening its way by proposing confederation as the portal of secession. Euskal Herria, on the contrary, has a terrible problem with territoriality; it is not the only one, has more internal plurality next to the other nations and nationalists do not have a minimal project shared in symbolic and strategic terms. In our home or in Europe, who is going to take seriously the project of a Basque state in which its basic symbols are discussed? Euskal Herria/Euskadi/Nafarroa, ikurriña/Flag of Navarra...