Bioregions instead of national states.
I wonder if national states have not exceeded their time? Do national states not merely serve the egocentric interests of national patriarchs, who are still spilling nationalism for their own power and wealth, even today. National states, actually an expensive end-of-life model.
Would not bioregions be much better, more efficient and more sustainable? Regions not defined by political but by geographical and ecological boundaries. Large enough to preserve the integrity of ecosystems and endemic species and social groups, yet small enough to be perceived as a home by the inhabitants; with regional supply of water, food and energy, hence, with regards to resources as sovereign as possible.
A bioregional economy could – where appropriate – still protect its market by import tax for competing products and thus protect against job losses. For this, there is no need for glorifying national state ideologies that devalue and exploit each other, ultimately leading the war.
Bioregions neither wall-off nor invest in armies. They are an indispensable part of a larger territory, independent and yet interdependent. Well connected, they enrich the terrain which makes for protection.
In any case, the EU also wants to strengthen the regions through the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (http://www.coe.int/t/congress/default_en.asp)