Multi-Level-Federalism as a Principle to Solve Problems in Europe and to Increase the Acceptance of European Integration

Otto Schmuck
UEF-Vicepresident, Member of the Board of Europa-Union Deutschland

I. The advantages of federalism
Since the Second World War, people like Altiero Spinelli were strongly committed to the idea of European unification based on the principle of federalism, and the arguments are still convincing:

• First of all, peace keeping: The concept of independent nation states has failed, European integration paved the way for more than 70 years without war;
• Economic advantages: The positive effects of the internal market with open borders, the Euro and the free movement of persons, goods, money and services are obvious;
• Friendship and good neighborhood: The people in Europe want to communicate, to travel, and to learn and to use different languages.

But those advantages can only be fully obtained when Europe is organized in a federal way. The general advantages of federalism compared to a centralized political system are well known:

• decentralization of power (“checks and balances”)
• policy making close to the citizens, and at the same time the possibility to set common rules where and when necessary
• more identification with the political system, due to the fact that voters who are in opposition to the government at the upper level may support a governing party at the lower level
• possibility to try out and to test new political solutions and concepts, and as a result a competition of the best solutions
• chance for the formation and recruiting of political personnel with solid political and administrative experience at the lower levels

II: Federalism as a general rule and principle for all political levels
Federal systems, generally, are characterized by a democratic decision making with strong parliaments, majority voting, and the rule of law. Moreover, they need accepted common values and solidarity

Federalism is a general principle which can rule at all political levels – from the local and the regional up to the European level; in a long term vision, it can even be applied to the world level. The question is deciding at what level problems can be tackled best: for example, local and regional planning, culture and education could be managed at the local and regional level, social welfare at the national, and trade policy at the European level. In an ideal world, peacekeeping as a global problem would be the task of the United Nations. But as we are far from a world federation, security, in the European case, will remain for the foreseeable future the task of the member-States and of the EU.

III. Multi-level federalism - The relationship EU - member states - regions
The strengthened cooperation of all political levels has become an important feature of the European Union. The reasons of this are manifold: the EU and the nation-states alone do not have the power and the effectiveness to solve important political problems. At the same time, there is an increase in international interdependencies and direct contacts of actors at various political levels.

As a result, the European Union is often characterized as a system of multi-level governance, with a clear predominance of the nation state. But this predominance has diminished, and today we can see a colourful picture of territorially variable, functionally specific, overlapping, non-hierarchical networks. The decision-making process evolving in the EU gives a key role to national governments, with a certain influence of subnational governments in selected areas. Those features demonstrate that the European Union today is not a well-structured multi-level federation, but it shows nearly all the elements of a federation. The EU-Treaties refer primarily to the relationship between the memberstates and the Union. At the same time, they include a multitude of provisions that make clear that the European political system is not limited to that relationship. In many policy fields – like the protection of the environment – only shared competences between the EU and the member-states are suitable to the existing problems, and the regions and the municipalities have to be included in order to implement the decisions taken. Moreover, subsidiarity and the idea that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizens, are guiding principles of the EU.

Important political aims – like those of the Europe-2020 strategy (increasing the employment rate, increasing combined public and private investment in R&D, climate change and energy targets, reducing school drop-out rates, increasing the share of the population having completed tertiary education, lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and social exclusion) - can only be achieved if they are supported and implemented by all political levels – European, national, regional and local.

In the founding Treaties of the EU, the regions were only mentioned as objects of politics (see the Preamble of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union: “….anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions …”). But linked to the completion of the internal market in 1992 - with far reaching spill-over effects to many other political fields, like social and environmental policy and even education and culture –, regions successfully made demands to have a say in those fields of European politics where they are directly affected in a certain way. And they had good arguments for doing so: the regions and the local authorities are directly influenced by European decisions, and moreover they are to a large degree responsible for the implementation of those decisions. The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) was a breakthrough for regional influence: the Committee of the Regions was established, the principle of subsidiarity was introduced with a reference to the regional and local level (“…the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level ….”) and the provision “decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen…” include - from a regional perspective - all levels of policy making.

Today there are several means and instruments for the regions to influence EU policy making:

• Committee of the Regions
• regional Ministers in the Council
• subsidiarity control
• right to take action before the Court of Justice
• the regional offices in Brussels.

Due to their closeness to the citizens, the regions may act as antennas and transmission belts for the European level. This can positively contribute to the acceptance of European decisions. Moreover, regions and in some member countries local authorities are responsible for schools and universities. They can actively promote European topics in class rooms and curricula, and they can support exchange activities of citizens, especially of young people.

IV. Regionalization as a tool to decrease regional conflicts
Regionalization is one of the continuous features in all EU-member-states. From the citizen’s perspective, European integration and regionalization can be viewed as complementary processes: on the one hand, power goes further away from the lower level, on the other hand power comes closer to the citizens.

The EU, rightly, has not the competence to interfere into the internal structure of the member states. Of special importance are the provisions of Art. 4 of the Treaty on European Union: “The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties, as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government”.

The internal structure of the member states is quite different. Some of them are federations with quite powerful regions, with legislative power and state quality. In other member states, the regions have only administrative tasks. Moreover, in some member states there are autonomous regions as special cases. Normally their status was negotiated as a result of serious conflicts with the central state. As a result, there is a multitude of sizes, difference in competences and administrative capacity at the regional level. Besides strong regions with legislative powers, there are purely administrative regions and very small “regional” Member-States, like Malta, Cyprus and Luxemburg.

It is true that the EU has not the right to interfere into the internal structure of the member-states, but at the same time the structure and the politics of the EU affect directly and indirectly the regions: the EU’s regional policy strengthened the administrative and financial capacities of the regions, even in centralized member states. European integration offers regions a possibility to play an active role at the European level. Regional and local representatives are members of the Committee of the Regions, and many regions have established liaison offices in Brussels.

Moreover, the EU may prevent the coming up of regional conflicts and may contribute to their solution. History shows that the internal market, with its aim to open the borders between the Member States, contributed to resolving regional conflicts especially in cases where regions have been divided by national borders, like in the Tyrolean, the Basque or the Irish case. Moreover, the European Union guarantees fundamental rights based on shared values. This regime gives the regions a stable framework and gives protection against possible attacks of national governments.

V. Regionalism does not mean separatism
Separatism is not and cannot be the aim of regionalism in Europe. One of the predominant aims of European integration after WWII was – and still is – to frame the influence of independent nation states and to draw back the dangers of an exaggerated nationalism. The creation of new member states in the context of European integration would be a perversion of the founding ideas.

Especially in bigger member states, the existence of powerful regions can contribute to peace, conflict solving, good governance and to a better implementation of the taken decisions. Moreover, their active participation can contribute to a higher degree of acceptance of European integration as such. Therefore, regionalism is positive, especially if it is organized within the member states in a federal form, with regions with equal rights. Unbalanced regionalism with differentiated sets of competences and rules in various autonomous models may create conflicts and rivalry.

The nation states could have a strong position in a federal Europe, but their capacity to act would be limited according to the accepted rules and procedures. At the same time, the status of the regions, including their right for self-government, is accepted by the EU, and the EU procedures offer a certain influence for the regions in the European decision making, and gives opportunities to act at the European level. It is neither the aim nor a promising concept to create a multitude of small new nation states within the EU. This would be ineffective and costly and it would have serious negative consequences on the EU.