There are so many misconceptions circulating about the nature of federalism that there is a need to put the record straight.

A federal European government will not be an all-powerful, central government (what the anti-Europeans are calling a superstate) which takes to itself the powers and rights of the component states. The opposite is true. The central government of a European federal union will be strictly limited and will only have those powers transferred to it by the countries agreeing to form it. These powers will deal with common international problems which individual states cannot adequately solve and whose solutions are for the benefit of all states. The residual powers stay with the constituent states, whose democracies, traditions, customs and practices stay with them, just as much as their language does.

The basic idea

The basic idea behind federalism can be very simply stated. It is that relations between states should be conducted under the rule of law. Conflicts and disagreements should be resolved through peaceful means rather than through coercion or war. The bloody history of Europe demonstrates the misery which ensues in the absence of law between states. It is important to realise that the federal laws drawn up to determine the relationships between the component states and their citizens have to be agreed to by those states. No state will agree to relinquish any part of its sovereign powers unless it believes that doing so will be to its benefit.

What are the main features of a federal system?

The most important aspect of a federal system is that it recognises that there are different types of political issues which need different types of institutions to deal with them. Some affect only a local area, others are more widespread. The institutions of government should reflect this. The idea that government should be based solely on strong central institutions (as in Britain) is old-fashioned and out-of-date. The moves towards devolution to the regions and giving citizens more control over their local affairs are federalism in practice, even though politicians are reluctant to admit it. Federalism means more democracy to citizens, not less. In a federal system, the power to deal with an issue is held by institutions at a level as low as possible, and only as high as necessary. This is the principle of subsidiarity. In a federal system, power is dispersed. For this reason, federalism is a means of protecting pluralism and the rights of the individual against an over-powerful central government.

The second major feature of a federal system is that it is democratic. Each level of government, local, regional, national and federal, has its own direct relationship with the citizens. Laws apply directly to the citizens and not solely to the constituent states.

Much criticism of the present European Union is justified

The European Union as it is presently constituted is fundamentally undemocratic and heavily bureaucatized. This is because it is an association of national sovereign states led by politicians very wary of losing any of their powers. Their thinking is still in the twentieth, or even the nineteenth, century but they have realised that things can’t go on as before. Consequently, they are groping their way to new arrangements which will not erode the old too much. This approach, however, apart from denying the people of Europe more democracy and more local and regional control, is not solving modern-day problems. Only federalism can do that.

Enlargement will bring problems

As more countries join the European Union, new ways must be found for running it. With twenty-five or more members, arrangements (like six-monthly presidents and short meetings of the various Councils of Ministers) become unworkable, as does the absence of majority voting. When component national states put their interests before the common good, as France does over the Common Agricultural Policy, problems are created when they use their power of veto. It is the resolution of these sorts of problems, plus those which will come about because of enlargement which is bringing pressures to reform present arrangements, hence the need for a written constitution so that the laws which will govern the internal relationships of the Union can be thrashed out.

Running away and going backwards

Many of those taking an anti-EU stance advocate that Britain withdraws from it, saying that this is the only way it can preserve its sovereignty and retain its right to run its own affairs. This stance conveniently ignores the fact that nation states have already lost a large part of their sovereignty in the modern globalised world. Governments today cannot go against the wishes of the large multinational corporations and their instruments of coercion: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation. Any state going against these powerful forces knows that it will be subject to punitive measures to pull it back into line. (Incidentally, until states throughout the world decide that they must take common action to curb the power of these instruments of global coercion, the individual states will remain powerless. That common action needs to be along the lines suggested by the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation or even by the setting up of an International Government having the power to regulate the activities of the multinationals, as advocated by federalists. By comparison with the actual loss of sovereignty by the nation state, the sharing of sovereignty by the states of the EU for their common benefit seems innocuous and the outcries of the anti-Europeans misplaced. Britain cannot go back to the world of the thirties, adopting the policy of the balance of power between the states of Europe and returning to the economic competition and trade wars which led eventually to the 1939-1945 conflict. Is this what the anti-Europeans want? They must do, because there is no other alternative to the European Union.

The Draft Constitution of the EU

The anti-Europeans are campaigning against the Draft Constitution at present under discussion. One of their arguments is that a constitution applies to and is only needed by a state (ignoring the fact that many organisations ranging from a trade union to the United Nations have constitutions). However, even if the anti-Europeans are right and EU is slowly, painfully, building a federal structure there is nothing to be afraid of. Some of the most succussful states, from tiny Switzerland to the mighty USA, are federations. Their citizens have more democratic rights than we do and enjoy higher standards of living. Europe can do the same.

THERE IS NO NEED TO BE AFRAID OF A FEDERAL EUROPEAN UNION