"Master, the difference between unification and integration?"
"First look at Wells' 'The Passionate Friends'. He defines unity as: 'depends on a common language and common ideas and sympathies'. You see, this really defines integration, not union. Just look at the 'United States'. There is, at least 'officially', a common, shared language. One COULD call it an 'integrate', if it wasn't that within, there is such a division. The migrants' first act on arrival has always been, to search and group together in their specific cultural and lingual clusters, clods, groups. Then, -and this is very important for the basic Rights & Duties-, the very laws differ in the states, due to some insane 'tradition'. In general, a proper INTEGRATE is when all people share the utter bulk of all ideas, laws, and other circumstances, leaving sub-groupings only on a level of billiard-clubs, cardplaying or knitting societies, and so on. But ... these subclusters MUST be open, i.e. no closed doors for whatever individual. Secrecy and closed doors are the worst enemies of integration. They mean UNION, that is seclusion, hence, contempt, later, war in all its aspects. Thus is the main outcome of the two types of group-consciousness: Union makes for war, integration makes war impossible. When you look at the attemps of gaining a 'united' Europe, you will see that they are prepared to TALK about everything except a shared language. They mean not to integrate but to unite only. It is clear to see, then, that war remains a very easy possibility intra-European, just as Mussolini could go to war, while it was against the other members of the so-called League of Nations.