by Harold S. BIDMEAD
The foundation of UnitéE Association to promote European unity is to be welcomed by all federalists, particularly as one of its specific aims is to encourage discussion of a federal constitution for EU.
Another declared aim is to debate the introduction of a common language for Europe. As an Englishman (but primarily a world citizen) my view is that it should be agreed that all secondary schools in a federation would teach the same second language. What language it should be would be decided democratically, perhaps recommended by the constituent assembly. As a linguist I am not in favour of an artificial language.
What I would like to see as UnitéE's main object is education in the nature of a federal union. Opposition to the federal idea is due mainly to ignorance, not only among the general public and (apparently) among politicians and self-styled statesmen, but particularly among those who themselves claim to be federalists. For instance, in his speech accepting the Presidentship of the World Federalist Movement, Sir Peter Ustinov equated Great Britain to a federation. His entire Movement now seems to be permeated with the fallacious impression that a federation is any conglomeration that can be claimed to be an improvement on the United Nations.
The bogus Federal names given to the USSR, to Tito's Yugoslavia, now to Russia and the present remnant of Yugoslavia do not help. It is seldom realized that Communist, Serbian and Russian hegemony made these conglomerations just as unworthy of the term "federal" as the designations "peoples' democratic republic" did of democracy.
As Professor WHEARE pointed out:
“Federal government means a division of functions
between authorities which in no way are subordinate to each other,
either in the extent or in the exercise of their allotted functions”
Conversely, two of the world's true federations, Canada and Switzerland, call themselves confederations, a term now reserved for leagues, which are almost the exact opposite of a federation, such as the UN.
What we federalists must always emphasize, as I hope UnitéE will do, is that e.g.:
(a) A federation is not a supra-national organization, since the federal government is not over the national governments. It is a colleague, sharing the powers of government among equals.
(b) Strictly speaking it is not an international organization, since it is a compact among the peoples, not among the national governments as is the case of a league like the UN. It might best be called an interpopular organization, a term which already exists in e.g. Nordic languages.
I have seen many illustrations of a federal system drawn up by professed "federalists", erroneously depicting it as a pyramid with the federal government dominant at the apex.
The only way in which the federal government might be said to take priority over the member states is if the constitution were to stipulate that in questions of doubt regarding the division of powers, the federal government shall take preference. But the constitution could just as well stipulate that the States would have priority. It would be preferable to lay down that the Supreme Court will decide.
(c) We should also stress that a federal constitution guarantees non-interference by the federal government in affairs that are agreed to be of legitimate national concern. Member states would retain their constitutional monarchs and presidents, though there might be am oath of allegiance to the federation, sworn after attaining confirmation age, voluntary for all but parliamentarians and civil servants.
A federation is thus the antithesis of a super-state, which is rightly and understandably feared not only by democrats. Federation is a decentralized system, not centralized as many demagogues wrongly assert. Unity with diversity is a more appropriate description than subsidiarity (claimed to be of Roman Catholic origin), which suggests that sections of a federation might be subservient to others.
(d) It is also as well to emphasize that we are promoting a paying proposition, which will bring prosperity to all, enormous total benefits to all taxpayers, and ample means to fight poverty and crime. Although federalism might result in more politicians (e.g. for the federal parliament) it involves less total government. Politicians would be less over-worked and, being specialists, more efficient. The savings in armaments could be in the region of 1.5 million dollars every minute.
We all regret that the American founding fathers failed to give a completely new name to their invention. What if one of us could coin a suitable name for the federalist Cause? Something like "All People's Diversity and Unity Movement" might do, except that APDUM could suggest apes and stupidity.