Interesting comment. I don't think having a nationalistic view is a nuisance at all. It's what makes countries unique and strong regardless of one's ethnic background. The US is a country of immigrants but when we had a nationalistic common thread it bound us together as one nation.
Part of why it is weakening is because we are losing sight of that perspective and as all the different factions attack each other it's crumbling from within.
Totally agree that it makes sense for the US, a nation of 350 millions souls and the most powerful economically and militarily. But nationalism is not free. It's not "all upside and no downside". The downside you can get a glimpse of in jingoism and xenophobia and poor cooperation with others.
So you need to balance upside and downside. My point is that for a typical European nation of about 10 000 000 people the downside is about as big if not bigger than the upside. Nations for which nationalism is a net positive short-medium term are typically France and Germany. Long term, you just need to look at the past 200 years to see what the "short term view" about the benefits of nationalism has led to ...
So I say: let's ditch nationalism in Europe and create a Confederation.
I don't see nationalism as to blame for those things. There are certainly MANY factors that were involved with what happened in the past 200 years in Europe. I don't see nationalism as the cause. I do see it as an EXCUSE some people that were pushing many other IDEAS would use to try to justify their actions. Yet ultimately that is not nationalism. That is imperialism. There is a difference.
Your completely working against human nature and history. Look at the European Union and Yugoslavia. If Europeans are even to exist in 200 hundred years in any dignified manner we need strong nations anything else is folly.
I've been to Switzerland, and admire the people and the government they run. The point is they run their government, unlike what is being done to Europe now with the EU. It is also unlike any other European state, in that regard, as all of the others are far more Empires than Confederations.
The USA also began as a confederation, but was nationalized in short order. While some states later tried to restore that original confederation during the Civil War, they were defeated, and the USA has become ever more imperial thereafter.
Labels aren't the things they label. There are specific mechanisms that empower the Swiss people to keep the reins of government in their grasp, and one of the strongest is that 10% of the military is required to keep their arms at hand and in good order, ready for action, after they leave active service. Another is that a popular vote of the people requiring a 75% majority is necessary for any increase in taxes. [Not 75% of those that voted, but 75% of eligible voters must vote for the increase, or new tax.]
How would you propose translating the necessary personal rights and individual power retained for centuries by the Swiss people to Europeans that are accustomed to being little more than serfs of feudal nobles, or subjects of imperial states? Perhaps less importantly, at least secondarily, how could such a confederation be prevented from the American fate, and quickly transformed into the kind of imperial nation that most Europeans are acculturated to?
I agree it is a far better way for Europe to govern itself than is being practiced now, or than has ever been done in most European states, but the cultures of those nations are not inculcated with the principles and practices that are requisite to self governance, even in the Swiss confederation model.
Thanks!