As corporations have taken over the place of feudal overlords, the concept of "nation" has become diluted. Whereas once the concept of land, which was inextricably linked to the wealth of the elites lording over a particular tract of land, called a "nation," was their primary revenue source – and therefore necessary to protect, the agrarian societies which developed these kingdoms – and ultimately nations, have withered in the winds of change blown by the smoke of factories and the industrial and post-industrial ages.
Wealth tied to land is no longer the primary way in which elites hold their power. The concept of the "corporation" has overtaken the role of feudal overlord. Thus, it is not necessary for elites to protect tracts of land that were once the source of their incomes as feudalistic overlords, but instead, the ethereal concept of corporations allow the elite to amass wealth without the need of national boundary.
This means, it no longer is in the elites' interest to preserve nations and nationalities, but rather pursue markets or markets of consumers.
Thus, it is logical to see the creation of a the European Union, TPP, etc. to promote "free trade" which inexorably helps a corporation's (and the elite shareholders') bottom line.
In the post-industrial age, the backwards concept of "nationalism" is a joke when the elites that disproportionately own most of the world's wealth don't care about "nationality" simply because broader "multinational" and "multicultural" markets create a broader consumer base to increase their revenue stream.
It all comes down to money. That's why I generally consider the fight is futile. But please, discuss with me why I may be wrong.
—-
tl;dr - Read the whole thing.