Writings on the Dirty Word

Eurooppanuoret ry

5

Editor

Johanna Laakso

Writers

Philippe Adriaenssens, Jacopo

Barbati, Peter Claeys, Kyösti Hagert,

Matteo Manfredini, Peter Matjašic,

Tim Nilsson

Layout and illustrations

Niklas Ekholm

Proofreading

Johanna Laakso, Vello Ruus

Press

Uniprint, 2009

Contents

F-Word’s Image Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

What Is Federalism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Multiculturalism in Italy: From Ancient Divisions to Modern Fears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

“In order to gain and keep perpetual peace throughout the world, a World

Federation is needed .”

European Federalism à la Belge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

“European integration has, in my view, benefited most from the politique des petits

pas”

Federalist Replies to More Diversity and Unity in Europe . . . . . 25

“Spain has become a federalist country all but in name, and the word is usually

avoided in politics .”

Spinelli, De Gasperi and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

“We cannot afford to wait another 150 years before

feeling European .”

Half-and-half: Swedes and the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

“Swedes looked forward to borderless travel, studying and working – and the feeling

of belonging, to be a part of the continent”

JEF’s View on Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6 7

The aim of this pamphlet is to gather federalist analysis of the Euro¬pean integration process from different parts of Europe and get it all between two covers. JEF-Finland organized a writing com-petition for JEFers who were encouraged to write about their own country’s relationship to the European integration historically and tell about their personal attachment to federalism in this light. We got texts from Southern, Central and Northern Europe.

Since this pamphlet is about federalism, the most eager writers were devoted federalists. And, in my opinion, the most dedicated federalists often come from Italy or Belgium. Not to break the mold, we have Ital-ians and Belgians represented in our pamphlet. We have two Italian texts, one Belgian text and one Swedish text and one from Catalonia, Spain.

Historically, both Italy and Belgium have played a pioneering role in European integration. Both countries have their own founding fa¬thers, but the present situation between these countries differs dramati¬cally. While in Belgium it is hard to find a Belgian citizen opposed to in¬tegration, in Italy EU-scepticism is widespread. In Sweden federal-ism is truly an F-word even though in the latest elections to the Euro-pean parliament Swedes rewarded the EU-positive parties. In Spain, too, the word “federalism” is usually avoided in politics and Spain itself is a federalist country all but in name.

What unites all these countries is the fact that none of them is a fed-eration. Belgium is the only country discussed in this pamphlet which is a federal state, and at the same time it is the most positive towards inte-gration. All in all, it seems as though the word federalism is avoided in politics because of its image. Belgians, who must know its true meaning, being a federal state itself, do not avoid the f-word in EU-matters either.

The fact that federalism has a variety of definitions is no excuse not to use it – the complexity of political terms is more like a rule than an ex-ception. The texts of this pamphlet will call federalism by its real name.

Helsinki, October 2009

Johanna Laakso

Editor, JEF-Finland

Edit

or’s

Not

e

F-Word’s Image Problems

Jeunes Européens Fédéralistes, Young European Federalists1 .

8 9

What Is Federalism?

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you are presenting fed-eralism to people – and all you get is an odd look? Many times it feels like federalism is some kind of a dirty word or a taboo. Here in Europe people, and especially politicians, do not dare to talk about European integration.

Explaining politically why we need federalism, is an easy task for a JEFer, but the academic explanation might not be that easy to share, not the least because of its complexity.

Firstly, federalism is essentially a system of voluntary self-rule and shared rule.1 “This is implied in the derivation of the word ‘federal’, which comes from the Latin foedus, meaning covenant. A covenant signifies a binding partnership among co-equals in which the par-ties to the covenant retain their individual identity and integrity while creating a new entity, such as a family or a body politic, that has its own identity and integrity as well.” 2

Looking at the European integration process and the EU today we can see that the EU is a sui generis system that fits well into this defini-tion as it's built on a binding partnership among co-equals (member states), it preaches unity in diversity (having created a new entity it re-affirms and preserves the individual identity and integrity of the mem-ber states) and it functions as a system in which different decisions are taken at different levels (self-rule vs. shared rule).

In this definition the main keywords are voluntarism and retaining one’s own identity – and at the same time creating a new one. Could it be that one can be both Finnish and European? Does having European identity threaten one’s Finnish identity or make one less Finnish?

A second opinion is needed. According to Stanford Encyclopae-dia of Philosophy, federalism is the “theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area.”3 Moreover, federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodating differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common political order. Both the

division of power and the different levels of competence between the European level and national/regional/local level within the EU and the fact we have ethnically, culturally and linguistically very diverse mem-ber states also clearly point to the direction of the current EU being a federal political order, albeit a very particular one.

So, the main issue with federalism is the question over how to deal with administration and governance. Where are the political decisions made and what is the political level of decision making?

According to Italian Mario Albertini, federalism is a form of politi-cal thinking and behaviour with both a “social basis” and an “historical reference”. “The social basis corresponds to the character of a federal society, i.e. the sense of community and cosmopolitanism. The historical reference is provided by the stage of evolution of economic and political interdependence. Earlier federations (e.g. the American) consolidated so-cial groups very similar to national ones. The struggle for European fed-eration marks a new stage in the historical process, that in which federal-ism must overcome national sovereignty itself. The process of European unification is therefore seen as the beginning of a world-wide transition from the national stage of historical development to the federalist one.”5

Wikipedia’s definition gives the easiest and the most compact ex-planation. According to Wikipedia, ”Federalism is political philoso-phy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and central (state) governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.” Young European proponents are called JEFers, Jeunes Européens Fédéralistes.

Intr

oduc

tion

Intr

oduc

tion

Kyösti Hagert

Vice President of

JEF-Finland

Johanna Laakso

Editor,

JEF-Finland

Peter Matjašic

Secretary-General of

JEF-Europe

1 . Elazar, Daniel (1995) . Federalism: An Overview (Pretoria: HSRC Publishers)

2 . Kincaid, John (2000) . The Covenant Connection: From Federal Theology to Modern

Federalism(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books)

3 . Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy http://plato .stanford .edu/entries/federalism/

Mario Albertini (Il Federalismo . Antologia e definizione, Bologna, 1979) developed

a general theory of federalism as ideology; he defines ideology as the form in which

the thought deals with the future . Without thinking of the future it is not possible,

according to Albertini, to understand and to exercise, in the present, rational choices,

deep commitments, and a conscious exercise of responsibility .

4 .

11

Let us start in 1861. Before that time on the Italian peninsula, there were many small kingdoms, grand duchies, and only one bigger dis-trict, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The rest of what is now known as Italy was a very fragmented and non-homogeneous territory with hundreds of different self-ruled communities with different languages, cultural heritages and histories, which warred against their neighbors for hundreds of years. In 1861, the Savoy family, who ruled the King-dom of Piedmont, succeeded in conquering the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the rest of the smaller kingdoms. The plan was to unify the entire Italian peninsula under one single Savoy power. Savoy kept power until 1946, when Italy, by a referendum, became a Republic and the Savoy family was exiled.

The more immediate consequences of Savoy’s conquest differed from place to place: brigandage in the South of Italy (the “conquerors” from the North were not well received), the rising of the conscious-ness of Italian nationalism in the Northern territories that were part of Austria-Hungary and which wanted to join Italy, and emigration: between 1876 and 1915 about 14 million Italians emigrated, especially to the Americas.

The Fascist Period, World War II and the “Ventotene Manifesto”

During October of 1922, Benito Mussolini, leader of the National Fas-cist Party, was able to gain control of the Government of the Kingdom of Italy. At the very beginning of Mussolini’s right-wing regime, which was based on the concept of autocracy and conformity and the unique-ness of Italian society (as opposed to the recent Italian tradition and history of small divisions, and forgetting the past of a very fragmentary reality) became a harsh dictatorship, with repression of political op-ponents and legalized discrimination against homosexuals, Jews, and foreigners.

Multiculturalism in Italy: From Ancient Divisions to Modern FearsJacopo Barbati

12 13

Political opponents were killed, arrested, or exiled. One of them, Altiero Spinelli, a young representative of the Italian Communist Par-ty, was arrested in 1927 and exiled on Ventotene Island ten years later. There Spinelli had the opportunity to meet other anti-fascist intellectu-als such as Sandro Pertini, Eugenio Colorni and Ernesto Rossi. In the meantime, World War II began. In 1941 Colorni, Rossi, and Spinelli, wrote “For a Free and United Europe: Project of a Manifesto”, best known as “The Ventotene Manifesto”.

The Manifesto was divided into four parts: the first one was dedicat-ed to the analysis of the situation which brought about the horrors of the world war. The result of this analysis was that the concept of the na-tional state lost its early spirit, becoming a system that cared only about the interest of the development of the country, regardless of possible damages to other countries or to the world, making it therefore suscep-tible to drift toward world war. The second part, influenced by Kant’s

“Perpetual Peace”, stated that the only possible solution to keeping the peace in Europe after the war would be the creation of the European Federation. But this would be only a middle step; indeed, in order to gain and keep perpetual peace throughout the world, a World Federa-tion is needed. The third part talked about how to reform society in a free and united Europe; and the fourth was about the necessity of the creation of new political actors who would have led the people into the

“federal revolutions” against the old ideologies, that had already been shown to have failed.

The greatness of Spinelli’s work lies in its far-sightedness. The document was written in 1941, when Germany was winning the war. Spinelli foresaw the result of the conflict. The Manifesto became wide-spread in Italy at that time thanks to Ursula Hirschmann, Colorni’s (later Spinelli’s) wife, who was not arrested. She brought the Manifesto to the Partisans, and it became well-known in the circle of the Italian Resistance during the last years of the war.

In 1943, Spinelli was released, and a few days later he founded the Movimento Federalista Europeo (Movement of European Federalists).

From that moment on, Spinelli was very active on the Italian and Eu-ropean political scene with his struggles for the European Federation. Spinelli was also a member of the European Parliament.

Two years later World War II ended and Italy had to face a dramatic situation: the damages brought by the war to the cities and society as a whole were huge, and a radical change to the system after the epic fail-ure of fascism was required. Italy became a republic by a referendum held on June the 2nd, 1946.

The Rebuilding After World War II and the Opening to Europe

For this reason Alcide De Gasperi, Prime Minister of the Italian Govern-ment from 1945 to 1953, believed that it would be a good idea to join the organization that France and West Germany together with Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were building, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Italy had no practical reasons to join, since it has always been poor in coal and other mineral resources. But the aims of De Gasperi were to relaunch the worn-out Italian economy, to rehabilitate Italy’s image abroad, and to give Italy a leading role in the international context. Therefore, Italy played a huge role in the develop-ment of the ECSC towards the European Economic Community and the Euratom hosting the conferences that created them in 1957.

I would also like to point out the role of Altiero Spinelli hoped in pushing the elaboration of the Single European Act (even if it did not end in the way Spinelli hoped); and of the Federalist Movement in de-veloping a theory of the common currency for the European Union: it was the first to discuss it. Moreover, Italy was always amongst the first countries in implementing new institutions, such as the Euro. No doubt De Gasperi’s aims were attained: Italy was able to develop heav-ily during the 1960s partly thanks to its opening towards European partners.

“In order to gain and keep perpetual peace throughout

the world, a World Federation is needed .”

“The political configuration typical of the period before the unification of 1861 still keeps its

cultural heritage alive .”

14 15

EU and Italians Nowadays

Despite this important role in European integration, in Italy today a great part of the population is skeptical about the European Union. This is due to several factors:1) The political configuration typical of the period before the unifi-

cation of 1861 still keeps its cultural heritage alive. Italy is an ag-glomerate of different people with different cultures and languages, within short distances of each other. Everyone is proud of their own local history and often dislike the other ones’. Rivalries between neighboring cities or villages are very common and very strong: in Italy regionalism is very widespread. It is obvious that this feeling is even stronger toward foreigners. Of course, these considerations do not apply to everyone: especially amongst the young Italians, who have had more opportunities to travel and to discover foreign coun-tries, many people love multiculturalism.

2) The situation just described justifies the high number of groups of people who support independence and self-determination. This is

true especially in regions such as Vallée d’Aoste where the majority of inhabitants is French-speaking, Südtirol where the majority of inhabitants is German-speaking, Friuli-Venezia Giulia where there is a strong minority of Slovenians, Sardinia where there are many groups and also political parties that claim independence from Sar-dinia, and Emilia-Romagna where there are separatist movements that want to split into two different regions. Moreover, in a wide area that includes the biggest Northern regions, the historical re-gion of Padania, there is a big political party that claims independ-ence from Italy. For these reasons, 25% of Italian regions – Vallée d’Aoste, Südtirol, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Sardinia and Sicily – got the status of “Special Statute Region”, which gives them more inde-pendence than what the ordinary regions have.

3) The lack of political debate about Europe, the European Union and foreign affairs in general is widespread in Italy. Even during the period of the elections for the European Parliament, almost none amongst the candidates or their parties had a common vision about the future of the European Union or about some of the most dis-cussed topics over European unification. Politicians prefer to con-centrate the debate on national issues.

4) The inadequacy (scandals, corruption) showed by a great part of Italian politicians caused a lack of confidence in the people toward politicians and toward politics in general. This has caused a decreas-ing number of people to be involved in political and social activities, and a lack of interest in political issues.

5) The high rate of crimes by immigrants: In Italian jails, 65% of pris-oners are foreigners. This is a well-known problem, and for this rea-son people are becoming more and more suspicious and sometimes aggressive towards foreigners and immigrants, endorsing xenopho-bic ideologies.

6) The inadequacy of the Italian media has created a society of misin-formation. The European Union is talked about by the media only to invoke polemics against it. For example, regarding the limits im-posed by the EU on the production of milk or fruits. Above all else,

“Only with Federalism can the EU gain the powers needed to face the situations that are of continental

and worldwide importance .”

16 17

the Euro has been attacked. Since its introduction, inflation in Italy has increased heavily, and a large part of people are convinced that it is the EU’s fault. In the early period of circulation, the Euro was known by the acronym E.U.R.O. = È Una Rapina Organizzata (It’s an Organized Robbery), underestimating the fact that com-mon monetary policies would bring economic stability which Italy would not have had without it.

But, of course, popular feeling has always a real base. In Italy’s case, it is true that the EU’s limitations on agriculture and farming are more harmful than profitable, and maybe the EU should have clear policies regarding internal and external immigration. There is a high number of immigrants from Africa who want to disembark in European lands, finding Italian coasts first. An example of internal immigration is the high and uncontrollable increase in the number of Romanians in Italy after Romania joined the EU. This has caused many problems since some Romanians were responsible for well-known crime-news events, and some Italians started to become aggressive towards all Romanians.

Why Federalist?

The lack of common policies in the EU is the most general and bur-densome problem, in my opinion. For this reason, I am in favor of the development of the European Union into a federal system: only with Federalism can the EU gain the powers needed to face the situations that are of continental and worldwide importance:

- Monetary issues: the experience of the Euro has already shown that the European Union is able to give the needed protection and financial stability

- Social issues: social standards are widely different amongst the countries of the EU and common standards should represent one way towards the integration

- Environmental issues: it is, or it should be, clear that some environ-mental problems, such as global warming, are not possible to be solved

by national states. If a continental federation as big as the European Union would adopt one single policy, valid for every member state, something could be improved a little.

- Political issues: this is one of the most important aspects. Especially regarding external affairs, a common policy for the whole EU could be a big step. For example, a single seat in international organisms such as the UNO could improve the power and the credibility of the EU. Speaking with one, single, strong voice is very different than speaking with 27 small, more or less disagreeing voices. Moreover, a single exter-nal affairs policy would be also useful to optimize, for all the member states, economical partnerships with external partners. And, generally, being united and strong would represent the final step required to the EU to play the active and strong role it deserves on the international political scene.

But, in order to get a federation, one must involve and convince people that this is the right thing to do in order to get the best devel-opment possible. It is not so easy nowadays, because of the increasing nationalism in most of the European countries and the misinformation. So, good ideas are needed in order to raise the European feeling and to make the motto of the EU, In varietate concordiaare more real for the European people. How? Introducing European history rather than na-tional history as a subject in schools, teaching a common language (but not underestimating in any way the national languages) in order to fa-cilitate communication and promoting a news-giving system common to everyone. In this way, Italians can become aware on what is happen-ing in Estonia, for example, and vice versa. Eliminating some of the common problems while going abroad (similar AC power plugs and standards, no roaming coasts for phone calls, the same toll-collecting system for motorways). In one word: standardization. Creating com-mon standards everywhere for everyday life. And moreover, promot-ing intercultural exchange and mobility.

By involving the people in everyday life in different places in Eu-rope, we can move as one against nationalisms. Because “nationalism is the cancer, federalism is the answer”.

19

It is quite hard to find a Belgian citizen who is opposed to Europe. Bel-gium might have the lowest degree of patriotism among all EU member states, but its foreign policy and the convictions of its citizens have always been characterised by a pro-integrationist attitude and a strong desire for turning the EU step-by-step into a democratic European Federation.

Historical Role of Belgium in European Integration

Historically, Belgium played a pioneering role in kicking off Europe-an integration and it tirelessly emphasised the need for increased su-pranational cooperation in ever more sectors in society as well as the strengthening of the community method. The European orientation of Belgium was already articulated and embodied by the charismatic personality of Paul-Henri Spaak, one of the Pères Fondateurs (Found-ing Fathers) of the European Union. During the Second World War, he launched negotiations for the foundation of the Benelux, which fore-saw a monetary agreement with a fixed exchange rate as well as a lasting international customs union. Spaak was elected as the first chairman of the General Assembly of the United Nations, he attended the famous 1948 Conference of The Hague and became the head of the European Movement. His most important federalist contribution to the world was that, after the failure of the European Defence Community (EDC) in 1954, Spaak surmounted the deep disappointment by proposing to extend the powers of the European Coal and Steel Community. The

“Committee Spaak” was created after the 1955 Conference of Messina and laid the foundations of the most impressive effort in regional inte-gration ever. In his capacity as the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, he consequently signed in 1957 the Treaties of Rome putting the Euro-pean project back on the rails.

Belgium vigorously continued to advance federalist thinking with-in the EU. Etienne Davignon created in 1970 the system of European

European Federalism à la BelgePhilippe Adriaenssens

20 21

Political Cooperation (EPC) which created the Correspondance Eu-ropéenne (COREU) network between the Ministries of Foreign Af-fairs and was in a way the predecessor of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In 1975, Prime Minister Leo Tindemans mentioned for the very first time the EU concept in an official document titled

“Report on European Union”. Moreover, Belgium launched during its 2001 EU Presidency at the European Council in Laeken the “Con-vention on the Future of Europe” with a view to establishing a Con-stitution for Europe. Last but not least, Belgium has currently two former heads of state in the European Parliament: the federalist front-runners Jean-Luc Dehaene and Guy Verhofstadt who contribute to giving the EP a higher profile in Belgium.

Belgium’s View on European Federalism

The traditional reason for Belgium to engage in federalist-inspired in-ternational collaboration is the need to secure peace and its integrity, increase its political weight in the world and benefit from the four freedoms of movement as well as a large external market. Economic integration and the harmonisation of regulations are a factor of stability for Belgium because they make the country less dependent on its neigh-bours. Belgium has always opposed the dominance of a small number of big countries and consequently sought to increase co-decision powers for the Parliament and Qualified Majority Voting in the Council.

The EU has only partially met the Belgian expectations of what European Federalism is supposed to bring and Belgians are nowadays arguing for the restoration of the EU’s institutional balance in favour of the European Parliament and Commission. They strongly believe it to be a huge shortcoming that nationalistic interests still reign too often in a Council of Ministers that continues to possess too much power and hampers the community method.

Yet, the big success story for Belgium is that its exports gained a lot from the extended internal market, the stability of the currency and the logistical hub that Brussels became for several international companies.

Moreover, the fact that it was politically embedded in a supranational system governed by the rule of law offered a substantial platform for Belgium to play a role in international politics which would have been impossible alone.

Belgian Citizens’ View on European Federalism

Belgians find that the EU has borne many fruits already and they are most of all keen to protect the acquired achievements and further ex-pand federal cooperation into an entire range of policy fields, especially regarding combating climate change, economic growth, social progress, tackling cross-border crime and stabilising conflicts.

Living in a country that gradually moved towards the creation of a federation in 1994, Belgians are obviously quite familiar with the search for a division of competences between the federated and federal levels that combines both standards of democracy and efficiency, even if this balance is not always easy to agree on.

Being fervently attached to deepening European integration, Bel-gians focussed to a lesser extent on the widening of the EU and some might think that the EU is enlarging too fast, since their interest in enlargement has decreased proportionally to the distance to the new borders. Belgians do not traditionally perceive the democratic deficit in the EU because the system of compulsory voting always guaran-teed an increased flow of information and political debate before the elections and a high turn-out of over 90%. Consequently, Belgians feel relatively well connected with the EU and the proximity of Brus-sels adds, of course, to a stronger affection instead of a somewhere-out-there perception. Nevertheless, Belgian citizens are aware of the democratic gaps in the European decision-making process and wish for the European Parliament and Commission to be endowed with more power. In this respect, Belgians do generally not obstruct the incremental shifting of competences towards the supranational level, and they are on the whole satisfied with the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity.

“It is quite hard to find a Belgian citizen who is

opposed to Europe .”

“Belgians do not traditionally perceive the democratic deficit in the EU because the system of compulsory voting always

guaranteed an increased flow of information and political debate”

22 23

Personal View on European Federalism

My own attachment to federalism is closely intertwined with the prac-tical approach of Paul-Henri Spaak and the pro-integrationist approach of Belgium’s EU policy. I see myself as a down-to-earth federalist be-cause I wholeheartedly welcome every single step forward in building a democratic European federation, even if these are not perfect and even if I am often not completely satisfied. I love the federalist ideology and know it by heart and I therefore give it a realistic interpretation while favouring a pragmatic implementation.

The process of European integration has always been characterised by several phases of development and stagnation. But a way out of any deadlock has always been found by those who were convinced of a federal destiny for the European continent. Although I very much welcome the conceptual progress that idealists bring, I tend to admire pragmatic politicians most, who patiently yet gradually advanced Eu-ropean integration through their technical expertise and diplomatic skills in striking the best balance for a compromise text. European in-tegration has, in my view, benefited most from the politique des petits pas (politics in little steps), a method totally incarnated by Paul-Henri Spaak, whose realism in elaborating the Treaties of Rome managed to promote integration in concrete sectors, thus finding a way out of the stalemate after the EDC failure.

In my opinion, European Federalism can be generally described as the love for a complex and balanced system of supranational govern-ance that tries to guarantee the highest standards of democracy and transparency combined with effective decision-making bodies which deliver at the appropriate level tangible solutions to the problems in society. In short, a healthy mix between democracy and efficiency is thus central to the federal philosophy. The principle of subsidiarity plays a key role in this philosophy and seems to me like one single coin with two sides. On the one hand, decisions always have to reflect as closely as possible the desires of the citizen while, on the other hand, community action is allowed when an objective would be insufficiently achieved by national states and can only be effectively tackled at a high-er level in order to deliver the optimal for the citizen.

Nowadays, Europe above all needs to integrate more in the eco-nomic, social, environmental and security policy areas which concern citizens the most and which pose global challenges. It is very important that Federalists communicate to the citizens how the EU influences their daily lives, and how they in turn have an interest in more integra-tion to prepare for our common future. This can be done via proposing, among others, binding emission targets, a new Lisbon Agenda, more social welfare minimum standards and effective civil-military opera-tions. The current challenges are all cross-border in nature and because our societies are all interconnected, it is only when we convince citi-zens of the need for overcoming national short-sightedness that they will appreciate the tangible benefits that a “stronger Europe” can bring.

Conclusion

Belgium received much in return for its investment in European af-fairs and thus persisted in its integrationist approach to incrementally carve out federalist progress. As a European federalist à la belge, I also want to be a bridge-builder who wants to close the gaps in democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European constellation and equip it with the institutions and policies to prepare for the future. At the same time, I see myself as a bridge-builder between the citizens and the decision-makers in Brussels by striving to reconnect them. Federalists should insist on various institutional improvements and concentrate on policies because exactly this approach will arouse citizens’ inter-est and generate more affection for our cause of building a democratic European Federation.

Philippe Adriaenssens

JEF-Belgium

“European integration has, in my view,

benefited most from the politique des petits pas”

25

In order to construct Europe, there is much to commend from a blend that mixes the experiences of old and new, large and small, richer and poorer, unitary and decentralised member states. Make a perfect mix with all these characteristics, and you would probably obtain a region like Catalonia. The region is reflected by its past, its current situation in Spain, and the development of its society through all the difficulties and contradictions of Europe.

If Catalonia were building material, it would be concrete. It is per-fect for all uses in construction as it gradually transforms and increases its structuring capacities. As it hardens, it also shows its flexibility by adopting various forms. I have been analysing it as a neutral outsider, and have seen it responds to all the qualities. I hope I can convince you that it can serve as useful material to construct the future of Europe.

History Leaves Its Traces

History has left various traces and makes itself felt at every point in Cata-lonia. First, Spain is an ancient empire, with still fresh links to South America and its language is global. This puts it on a par with other former European powers. At the same time, centuries long decline, bad govern-ance, internal struggles, and the power of the Church have closed the re-gion from outside influences from the rest of Europe, and reduced its po-litical clout. Second, Spain shares with other EU countries the memory of ideological conflict that led to civil war, as a consequence of which it shared the burden of totalitarian rule, just like the newcomers to the EU. Third, the rich regional differences in culture, language and habits are gradually being recognised by decentralising the country. But it has also created local nationalisms that often conflict with a centralist knee-jerk reflex in Madrid. Spain has become a federalist country all but in name, and the word is usually avoided in politics. It has been a federalism à la carte, with ever more difficult coordination between different regions and the government on overlapping competences.

Federalist Replies to More Diversity and Unity in EuropePeter Claeys

26 27

The Current Sclerosis

In Spain, regional governments – often from different political colours – put local politics first, and regional presidents increasingly create local power bases. They coordinate on different subjects between themselves on some points, or directly with the central government on other points, forming coalitions to outplay the central government. Spending and tax competences are under constant discussion, and do not apply in the same way in all regions. Federalism with Spanish flavour is asymmetric. This process of decentralisation of the country is not well defined, and the constitution leaves open-ended the definition of the regional structure.

This sounds rather familiar for students of the current European Union. The only difference is that Spain arrives there from a very cen-tralised past, while EU countries struggle to transfer competences. Na-tional differences take precedence over the political colour on issues that usually see a left-right division. Governments keep up the appear-ance of being able to decide on a national basis, even if they know that they need to agree with other EU countries. Bilateral side agreements lead to unclear compromises. Despite the steps to more integration, the tendency is to concentrate powers in the hands of country presidents in the European Council, instead of the Commission. A lack of politi-cal control causes the current confusion of citizens who are not aware anymore of where the important decisions are really taken.

An Emerging Europe

This prolonged deadlock on a political Europe ignores the fact that society at large is transforming much faster, and requires further moves ahead in integration. The first steps in European integration have been relatively fast, and perhaps have been leading some changes in soci-ety. But past steps in integration are now fully starting to show their positive effects. Economic integration has boosted trade and pushed companies across borders. A common currency has strengthened links across markets, and linking economies have also created new realities for people. Trade unions, corporations and interest groups are quickly

demanding EU policies to answer labour questions, representation in decision-making and consistent legislation across borders.

EU policies have also moved people. We are nearly all part of the Erasmus generation, and naturally share a curiosity for new cultures and different languages. Mobile people mean mobile hearts, and love and relationships know no borders. We also forget that immigration has created a whole generation of new citizens, who rather than be-longing to a country share a language, culture and family ties across Europe. These truly are new Europeans. Their importance will only increase in the future.

These effects are especially strongly felt in Spain. Integration in the EU has, through economic development, benefited enormously a rath-er backward country and made it into a dynamic, open economy. Par-ticipation in the euro has weathered the country from a worse fate in the current crisis. EU membership has also firmly anchored democracy. Curiously, more than any other EU country, Spain has been attracting thousands of Erasmus students, and millions of migrants. The country is fast becoming a melting pot of these new influences.

Federalist Replies

This emerging Europe demands European answers to European prob-lems. Society is moving faster than EU politics, faster than we are even able to recognise. The emerging Europe is one that will blur ever more national characteristics, not just in economic markets, but in the people living in Europe.

Our reply exists in showing a way to organise these various interests at different levels, respecting the diversity, but finding also the unity. We have a privileged position to play in the face of these challenges, knowing which structure could fit these developments best. Federalists have a task to connect better to the current developments in society. It is necessary that we, federalists, go talk to people, not so much to talk just about the EU, but about how federalism is an answer to their needs, doubts, and questions. That does not require complicated institutional discussions,

“Spain has become a federalist countryall but in name, and the word is usually

avoided in politics .”

“We are nearly all part of the Erasmus

generation”

28 29

or hi-tech politics, but on-the-ground action to demonstrate what does and does not work. More than ever in the past, we can rise up to the challenge to make Europe from the bottom up. Instead of fighting over current EU issues, we need to look ahead to recognise the challenges in the further integration of Europe. We must dare to confront the current stalemate with audacious proposals that are a reply to future challenges.

This also requires that we put federalism to work ourselves. We should reform old structures that resemble more a sclerotic EU than a performing federation. By strengthening links between sections and members, we can create economies of scale and increase our reach.

More unity does not just mean centralised coordination with a com-mon strategy, but multi-level cooperation, making use also of modern technological means. It also means recognising the diversity of local groups that can adapt the means of common goals to local needs and preferences.

The Challenges Ahead

Writing from Catalonia gives a good perspective on these develop-ments. Catalonia feels often as a stranger to Europe, but knowing its past, it also understands the benefits of more integration. Catalonia is a region that feels ill at ease with its own local position, ambiguous about its international and local role, and aspires to have more say in Spain and the EU. It is a region that more than others takes in more new Eu-ropeans, but sticks also to its own language and traditions.

I myself arrived here about 3 years ago as a new European citizen, moving from another country that is not the one where I was born, working in a language that is not mine, living day by day in a couple of other languages. Having a Belgian passport, and an Italian degree, you may say I have a europhile bias. Certainly, Spain experiences Eu-rope in a very different way than Belgium or Italy. Much depends on historical facts, and the internal policical situation. But I have not felt strange with my Spanish residence permit as I compared to friends and relatives that all underwent similar experiences, whether coming from the EU or not. I have always found common points by look-ing at what people share, what their common needs are, regardless of their diverse backgrounds. And we increasingly share a common future, despite the historical differences and the current divergences. The new European citizens are trying to construct a common life already. For me, federalism gives the right political answer to that challenge.

Peter Claeys

JEF Catalonia

“We should reform old structures that resemble more a sclerotic EU

than a performing federation .”

31

It was over a lifetime ago when Italy became an independent state. The year was 1861 and after almost half a century of bloody wars and thou-sands of casualties King Emanuele II di Savoia was able to establish the Kingdom of Italy.

I have chosen to start from the 19th century because Italy, before its independence, was not so different from present-day Europe. Be-fore the beginning of the so-called Risorgimento (the path of wars and revolutions which led to independence) there were indeed twelve in-dependent or semi-independent states, each one with its own language, dialects, law, economy, culture, traditions, monetary system, etc.

The Italian Risorgimento can be seen as an historical success, but several mistakes were made and there are lessons we can learn from it. The first Prime Minister of Italy, Camillo Benso Earl of Cavour, said after independence, “Abbiamo fatto l’Italia ora facciamo gli Italiani” (we have made Italy, now let’s make the Italians). This statement high-lights perfectly the plight of Italy and Italians at that time. After 150 years, we can say that all of us feel Italian of course and that we have common values and common principles, but we had to wait for tel-evision and newspapers to accomplish this and to create a real nation. The most important lesson to be learnt from it is that this is what hap-pens when unification is made mainly by the political elites, without involving the people. The remote parts of Italy, till the 1950s, deeply mistrusted the central government placed in Rome and even Mussolini had trouble with them.

It is remarkable that, during the Italian independent wars, the first ideas of democratic Europe started to develop. One of the major Italian theorists and political thinkers, probably the most active and impor-tant, was Giuseppe Mazzini. Through his thoughts we can find strong concepts of humanism, Europeanism and the important global battle

Spinelli,De Gasperiand Others:What They Learnt from Italian History and What They Can Teach Us for the European Challenges Ahead

Matteo Manfredini

32 33

for human rights. He played a crucial role in the Italian Risorgimento, and through his political actions and endeavours such ideas could be spread throughout Europe, not just in Italy.

Although his thoughts were helpful for the creation of the Italian national state, in his writings we also read of the necessity for peace-ful cohabitation among peoples, fraternity and freedom. By founding Young Europe (a European association with the purpose of helping all the oppressed peoples of Europe to achieve their own independence) he underlined how European cooperation is crucial. Indeed, he tied the idea of nations together with humanity. The nation was the means, not the end, of reaching the ultimate aim, the concept of humanity.

Even though the idea of a united Europe had already been circulated before Mazzini, I think that he deserves the merit not just for thinking about a free and democratic Europe but also for trying to accomplish it by concrete political actions.

“Shelter from the Storm”

After the Risorgimento, European foreign politics was drenched in re-alpolitik, personal views, empire expansions, nationalisms and dictator-ships. All of this mixed together led to the age of wars that ruined and spoiled Europe and the European people. It is against this background that, inside the Italian resistance to the fascist regime, sprouted the idea of a Federal Europe as the only solution to prevent other bloody and raging wars among European States.

After thousands of deaths, cities bombed to the ground, after hav-ing seen the violence of the Second World War, the insanity of Fascism and of xenophobia, the federalist ideas drawn in the Ventotene Mani-festo written by Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi started to circulate among the political Italian class. Spinelli and Rossi stated that the old system of nation alliances was sick, and if it had not been changed after the Second World War, it would have led inevitably to new wars.

Italy became a republic in 1946, and the new leaders were aware of the necessity to act together with the other European states. However,

Spinelli strongly criticized the steps taken by the European Govern-ments in the late 1940s. According to him the Council of Europe and the European Coal and Steel Community were too small, and the na-tional sovereignty of the national states was not reduced in the main fields. It is thanks to his pressure that the Italian Prime Minister Alcide De Gasperi became an advocate of the European Defence Community treaty. It was indeed De Gasperi’s government, and subsequently that of Segni’s which, starting from the ECSC, gave a fundamental boost to the integration that led to the Treaties of Rome, creating the European Economic Community in 1956.

I think that it is worth remarking that the three protagonists of Eu-ropean integration during the 1950s – De Gasperi, Shumann, Adenauer

– had several things in common. All of them spoke German, all of them belonged to Catholic parties and all of them came from border regions, places where nationalisms are often tempered for the sake of pacific cohabitation.

After the obstacles to the integration of the 1960s and the financial crisis of the 1970s, it is again Spinelli (at that time member of the Euro-pean Commission) who in 1984 wrote a report demanding strengthen-ing democratic elements and a Europe of mutual support.

During the European Council of Milan in 1985, Italian diplomacy was able to place Margaret Thatcher in a minority situation and call for a reform of the Treaties of Rome by implementing political integra-tions. This led to the Single European Act (SEA), the first major change to the Founding Treaties. It is thanks to the SEA that the Qualified Majority Vote was introduced to the major political areas, and the com-petence of the European Commission was extended to environmental protection, research and technology. The SEA also set the date for the completion of the internal market as January 1st, 1993.

In regards to the Italian contribution to European integration, it is worth remembering also the great job of the President of the Euro-pean Commission Romano Prodi (between 1999-2004) who was able to bring, in 2004, ten countries within the EU (most of them formerly part of the Soviet Union) and to oversee, in 2002, the introduction of the Euro in 11 member states.

“We have made Italy, now let’s make the

Italians .”

“The old systemof nation alliances

was sick”

34 35

“Tangled Up in Blue”

Turning to current times, the contribution given by the Italian right-wing government to European integration is quite faint and confus-ing, lacking in international multilateral cooperation, Europeanism and foreign policy verve. For Mr Berlusconi, foreign relations are seen and managed as a personal matter, his unilateral relations with Russia and Libya left him few friends in other EU capitals. Moreover, his govern-ment is backed by many extreme-right parties, and its main ally is the Northern League, originally a secessionist party that fosters the crea-tion of an independent Northern Italy state (Padania). The Northern League is strongly Euro-sceptical, against the Euro, with intense racist and xenophobic propaganda and it is socially very conservative. Un-fortunately, the strength of this party has risen dramatically in the last Italian political elections. The Northern League also strives to change the Italian administrative system toward a federal state by giving more power to the regions; in fact its original secessionist dream has been watered down to an odd form of federalism in recent years. Odd be-cause their starting point is still strongly politically incorrect, they be-lieve that the northern part of the country is somehow the best one, and for this reason deserves more independence. This was their first point during the electoral campaign and it was a success.

In spite of the dreadful and regrettable political theories of this, we should also notice and perceive that its success fosters the feeling among people that a national state does not work that well anymore. People actually understand that national solutions for global challenges which we are facing nowadays are not enough. They are realizing that a single state can definitely not cope with issues like global warming, immigration, peace keeping or security.

Unfortunately, as many times throughout history, the answers to some necessities are the wrong ones. The response to the threat of com-munism in the 1920s was fascism, the reaction of economic meltdown in the 1930s was protectionism and, in this case, the result of mistrust of the central government is leading towards a dangerous kind of au-tonomy and separatism. In recent years, especially in these times of

financial crisis, Italian people have tended to shut themselves in their well-known small realities, to look just at their own backyard, to be scared of foreigners, to sing the praises of protectionism.

In this weird trend there are some useful lessons to be learnt, some little adjustments to be made in order to reverse the situation and to show people how the European Federation is the key to success, pros-perity and the welfare of all, which is what they are calling for.

A real and strong subsidiary principle, embedded in the federal view of Europe, would stipulate that decisions should be made as closely as possible to the wishes of the citizens. This would improve the decision making as a whole and would fulfil the expectations of many Italians for strong regional governments. Doing it from a European point of view would also raise awareness among people that a small government can only properly manage just a certain number of policies and would help in creating a European spirit. Moreover, this would occur peace-fully and democratically, respecting the differences among regions and member states with no separatist claims.

Today many Italians still call for a deeper involvement of the EC in many fields. The latest is surely the immigration policy, in which Ital-ian strategy is lacking in effectiveness.

Unfortunately, the current government does not help in building up a European spirit among Italians. Like many other European gov-ernments, it still considers the European institutions as international forums where they negotiate and try to bring back home as many “dip-lomatic results” as they can. In other words, they defend just the Italian interest, forgetting that they should act together (at least in the matters that fall under the communitarian competences) and for the sake of the European global interest.

In a very shrewd way, the Italian government blames the EU when things (even at a national level) are not going well but, of course, in the case of European successes, they always praise themselves for the big contribution given. The question of the milk quotas, for example, is systematically used to ease angry farmers by telling them that the

“The current government still considers the European institutions as international

forums where they negotiate and try to bring back home as many “diplomatic results” as

they can .”

36 37

reason for low prices of dairy goods and the restrictive production of Italian milk must be attributed to the European Commission. Of course, they forget to say that it is thanks to the heavily regulated agri-cultural policy created by the European Commission that Italian farm-ers can survive in this globalized world.

“The Times They Are a Changin’”

After all, it is not just because of the “Italian case”, or because of eu-ro-scepticism among European Governments, that a global European interest cannot be achieved. The EU institutions themselves do not work properly. The European Parliament, seen as the main democratic

institution, lacks in real European attitude. Too often, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the same country but from differ-ent political parties, have voted as a united front when there have been national concerns at stake.

If we want to have a real democratic Parliament, working for the sake of the interests of the European citizens, we must start putting forward some big reforms. Trans-national constituency is the first one, giving mobility to MEPs (meaning that a German MEP, for ex-ample, could be elected in an Italian constituency). Another feasible proposal is giving more power to the Committee of Regions (which should function more and more like a high chamber). And, of course, the much-hoped-for European Constitution.

The European Commission should focus more on mobility projects among young people. The key to success is up to the next generation. Programmes like Erasmus or Leonardo have already largely contrib-uted to this. The knowledge of languages is spreading all over Europe, also thanks to them, but unfortunately this is not enough. The majority of mobility projects are aimed at university students, but we cannot run the risk of having a cultured elite of graduated people with a Euro-pean background leaving all the rest behind.

Remember the lesson from the Italian Risorgimento!

Education is the turning point. If we are able to involve European citi-zens (at all levels) from a young age, we can hope for a federal Europe in the coming decades, we can hope for a European Constitution with shared values and principles and we can hope to have a democratic parliament that will pursue the global European interest. We cannot afford to wait another 150 years before feeling European.

Matteo Manfredini

JEF-Italy

“We cannot afford to wait another 150 years before

feeling European .”

39

Sweden, this small country up north and Finland’s closest neighbour, became a member of the European Union as of January 1st, 1995. In the fall of the previous year, Sweden held a referendum on the question of applying for membership in the European Communities (then and now, the EU) which was handed in by Prime Minister Carl Bildt a few years earlier. The Nordic countries are all, in a geographical sense, quite peripheral – and had also been so politically for a couple of hundred years. Sweden saw how Denmark was much more “European” and concluded that this had to do with EC membership. So Sweden applied but let its citizens have the last say in the matter. November 13th, 1994, 52.3 per cent of Swedes voted for EU membership.

The most appreciated would-be benefits of membership were prob-ably not at all political, in a sense. Swedes looked forward to borderless travel, studying and working – and, as mentioned earlier, the feeling of belonging, to be a part of the continent and not on the edge of it. It is not untrue to say that the EU has fulfilled a lot of these expecta-tions, even though I do not think most Swedes expected that borderless travel inside the EU would also bring along the consequence of closely guarded iron walls for the rest of the world.

As perhaps noticed when looking at the result of the vote, every-thing regarding the EU and EU matters in Sweden has always been a little half-and-half. About half of the population is for something, the other half is against. Sometimes it is about a single issue, sometimes it is about the Union itself, or at least Swedish membership in it. When vot-ing on the usage of the Euro in Sweden – even though we did ratify the Maastricht Treaty without negotiating any exceptions from the EMU

– in 2003, 56 per cent were against and 42 for.

Swedes Reward EU-Positiveness

Regarding whether the EU has mainly a positive or negative effect, there are of course also half-and-half opinions. Generally, it depends on which region you look at, and on which issue. The rural areas of mid-Sweden are usually a bit more anti-EU than the city regions, but

Half-and-half: Swedes and the EUTim Nilsson

40 41

are also quite fond of the financial support for rural development that the EU offers. The more continental-minded regions of Stockholm and Skåne (southernmost Sweden) are generally more in favour of the work of the EU and see its benefits more clearly.

Most often, it feels like the majority of the country is deep down quite anti-EU. For example, when campaigning for federalism, there are almost always many more negative comments and remarks than positive. The Swedish media rarely reports the positive side of the EU. But, now and then, things happen that makes one re-evaluate. When looking at the results from the latest elections of the European Parlia-ment (spring of 2009), quite a few lights shone:

• The Swedish Greens abandoned their “Sweden Out of the EU” party line – and went from about 6 per cent to 11 (when comparing the results of 2004 with 2009), achieving about 230 per cent more votes

• The most EU-positive party in Sweden, the Liberals, went from 10 to 13.5 per cent

• The only parties to experience a substantial regression were the EU critics from the Junilistan (from three EP seats to none) and the anti-EU Left, which went from 13 to 5.5 per cent and lost one seat

• The other big parties (Social Democrats, the Right, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats), which are all a bit half-and-half toward the EU, all kept about the same number of votes as last time

I believe it is fair to conclude that the Swedes rewarded EU-posi-tiveness and punished anti-EU lines in the latest election.

Leave Our Strawberries Alone!

Since being reared in a stable, social-liberal and ecologically progres-sive nation-building project for at least the last 60 years, the general Swedish opinion on what “the EU should do” is to take care of its citizens; protect us from the worst storms when banks collapse, as well as fighting crimes like drug trafficking across the continent – and last but not least, work for environmental improvement.

The most common complaints about the EU in Sweden do not, ac-tually, have much to do with supranationalism, immigration or corrup-tion as is the case of other countries. The most common complaints regard the EU “sticking its nose” in small and local questions, like

deciding the size of a strawberry or the shape of a cucumber. That is, in my personal opinion, utterly stupid and I get the feeling that most Swedes feel the same way. Please, EU – seek to improve our common environment and finances – but stay out of our strawberry bowls.

Maybe We Do Not Despise Federalism After All?

Despite the preceding paragraph, in Sweden federalism is not really an is-sue and it is even less generally considered an ideology. A lot of Swedes could probably agree on federalist principles and ideas – but they would never call themselves federalists. It is truly an F-word up here, probably associated with power-seeking and corrupt supranationalists, or associated with US politics. Swedes are generally not big fans of US politics either. Unfortunately, the common man does not realise that federalism and the subsidiarity principles are exactly the ideology for those who wish to have an international or supranational organization that deals with big ques-tions like the environment, macro finances and international crime, but does not try to dictate to us at our dinner table.

From my own point of view, as well as what I know of the general Swedish perspective, the EU should work more and more – not less, re-gardless of what it is called – towards becoming a true federal collabo-ration. I personally believe that the Euro is the key. Something as basic as the currency we pay our groceries with, if harmonized, reduces the exoticism of “other countries”, and makes it easier to harmonize the EU in other desired areas. If we take this reasoning further, everything in day-by-day life would be easier for everyone. For common people like you and me, purchasing train or flight tickets from any operator throughout Europe would be easier. For the small-scale entrepreneur, there would be no risk of the price of a big order from Spain increas-ing 10% in a few weeks because the Swedish stock market dips. For the large, international corporation, employees could be stationed any-where on the entire continent, and one would still know exactly what their salary will buy them.

Of course, all countries have to merge politically too. Northern and Western Europe first and foremost need to accept that if we want a united continent, we might have to financially over-support the coun-tries once enslaved by communism. We should probably not have

“Swedes looked forward to borderless travel, studying and working – and the feeling of belonging, to be a part of the continent”

“A lot of Swedes could probably agree on federalist principles and ideas –

but they would never call themselves federalists .”

42 43

heads of governments singling out people (especially people who are already being disregarded in many countries) as has been the case in Italy. But I do not think that any political matter, positive or negative, can bring us as close together as the unilateral use of the Euro can.

Cooperation Beyond Borders Is, If Not Good, At Least Sometimes Necessary

Most of us agree that if carbon dioxide discharge does not have any bor-ders – then why should our work to stop, or at least decrease it, have? Most of us agree that if crime does not have any borders – then why should the law? Most of us agree that when money and financial systems can cross any border with a simple click, so should our possibility to control it. We must act internationally when international action has to be taken.

At the same time, most of us agree that a father in Gothenburg rather than a politician in Brussels is probably better off deciding what his children should watch out for when playing outside. Most of us agree that a farmer in rural UK is probably better off deciding whether his strawberries are edible or not, rather than a politician in Brussels. And I suppose, most of us agree that a street planner in Copenhagen knows his city better than a politician in Brussels. Act locally when there is no need for action on a higher level.

And I really hope that some time, in a future not too far away, most of us will agree that a young man from Stockholm is better off using the same money at home as when he goes to England or Spain to watch some good football.

Tim Nilsson

JEF Sweden

“The Euro is the key”

Finding one single definition of federalism that would do justice to the complexity of everything this particular word – in political jargon also known as the f-word – implies is virtually impossible. The saying that asking federalists about federalism will give you as many answers as the number of people you have asked only accentuates this assumption.

The Young European Federalists (JEF-Europe) have come up with a mathematical formula that seeks to define federalism, taking into ac-count some basic preconditions that need to be met, such as democracy and rule of law as parameters, combined with respect for human rights and subsidiarity:

Democracy + rule of law + subsidiarity + human rights = federalism. With this we stay true to our federalist forefathers and thinkers and

stress the fact that federalism is more than simply a theory to explain a political system or order. It is linked to what we understand as the federalist approach, which strives to give people control over their own lives and to give the word democracy a meaning. For that to happen we need to abide to the federalist principle that all decisions in society shall not be made on a higher level than necessary; that each individual has the right to exercise maximum influence over all matters which concern him/her, limited necessarily by the rights of other individuals; and that principles of democracy must be introduced at all levels.

Thus federalism for JEFers means the opposite of centralisation, and JEFers see it as a dynamic concept and a means of addressing politics that is not tied to traditional left-right party divisions. Think of federal-ism as a direction rather than a destination!

Peter Matjašic

Secretary-General of JEF-Europe

JEF’s View on Federalism

Fina

l Wor

ds

Lack of democracy and lack of political debate about the EU, one-sided media that leads to a society of misinformation, increasing na-tionalism and the EU “sticking its nose” in small and local questions are among the reasons behind EU-scepticism. Could these issues be considered rather as reasons for deeper integration than reasons for negativity towards the EU?

In this pamphlet we have five active JEF members’ analysis on fed¬eralism, their country’s relationship to the European integration and their personal attachment to federalism. In the past there have been eager proponents of integration in the many countries discussed, and it might just be the reason for enthusiastic federalists of today in these same countries. However, past tendencies do not seem to apply to eve¬ryone – nowadays it seems like federalism is shunned in European poli¬tics. Belgium seems to be the only exception here. In the other countries discussed in this publication, federalism as a word is usually avoided in politics.

A lot of people could probably agree on federal principles and ideas, but they would never call themselves federalists, since they find it a dirty word. The F-word seems to be avoided in politics because of its image, not because of its meanings and aims.

“[F]ederalism is not really an issue and it is even less generally considered an ideology. […] It is truly an F-word up here […] Un-fortunately, the common man does not realise that federalism and the subsidiarity principles are exactly the ideology for those who wish to have an international or supranational organiza-tion that deals with big questions like the environment, macro finances and international crime, but does not try to dictate to us at our dinner table.”

– Tim Nilsson