Antonello Nasone
Attilio Pinna
WHICH
FEDERALISM
FOR EUROPE?
BRUSSELS
CMC PAPERS | 2015 | 1
WHICH FEDERALISM
FOR EUROPE?
Antonello Nasone
Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Sassari.
Attilio Pinna
Lawyer in the Bar Council of Sassari.
Centre Maurice Coppieters
CMC papers I 2015 I 1
CONTENTS
A FORM OF COMMUNITY FEDERALISM FOR EUROPE IN CRISIS ww 1. The new Europe is never born 5
ww 2. The missed opportunity of German Reunification 7
ww 3. Central Bankism against Democracy 9
ww 4. For a federalism of the European Communities
WHICH TYPE OF FEDERALISM FOR EUROPE? This publication is financed with the support of the European Parliament (EP).
The EP is not responsible for any use made of the content of this publication.
The editor of the publication is the sole person liable.
5
10
5
ww 1. Etymology of the word federalism 5
ww 2. The main types of federalism 7
ww 3. No man is an island. Carlo Cattaneo’s Federalism: unity and freedom 9
ww 4. Federalism, people, territories and eros
10
ww 5. The world is full. Which type of federalism in Europe?
11
Centre Maurits Coppieters
25
Bibliography
30
Colophon
31
3
A FORM OF COMMUNITY
FEDERALISM FOR
EUROPE IN CRISIS Antonello Nasone
1. THE NEW EUROPE
IS NEVER BORN
The key element that can be found in
the first Manifesto of Altiero Spinelli,
written in a historical moment that
still sees the infuriated climate of
World War II, is the word crisis. The
ruins that Spinelli could see after a
possible defeat of Nazi Germany were
the most obvious manifestation of the
crisis of modern civilization, which
had in the State its pivotal institution.
According to Spinelli, this secular
insti­­­tu­tion, although it had the merit
of deli­­­­ve­r ing a set of rules to ethnically homogeneous populations, had
evolved into a prerogative institution for the upper classes addressed
towards a policy of enslavement to
other sovereign states. The peak of
the State is, therefore, for Spinelli, the
totalitarian state: an organism that
became a divine entity where individuals and things are subordinate to
its glory and its power. The ruins of
World War II would have revealed this
State machine as the cause of the war
between the States and of the dissolution of the old Europe. Only a conversion of this structure in accomplished
democracy would have led Europe
towards a reconciliation between peoples who live there. The new structure
that would have progressively overcome the obsolete structures of the
national state, would have been a
European sovereign organism as the
basis for the meeting among all European peoples. From the first forms of
association between States, like the
CECA, up to now, we can say that the
project advocated by Spinelli has been
fulfilled, ensuring one of the longest
periods of peace and prosperity that
European civilization has known. The
adherence to democratic systems is
now an indisputable principle for the
Member States of today's European
Union and an internal war is not an
even remotely conceivable option.
However, despite this, we all feel that
many shadows stir on Europe and the
word crisis is tremendously relevant
today.
What is the general framework that
shows us Europe in this era, which we
define an era of crisis?
First of all, we must point out that the
adherence to democracy and the path
that led several states to join this political form, lasted about 40 years and it
referred only to a part of Europe, which
was opposed to another part. One part
of it, formally free that developed democratic institutions, but that has coexisted with a not too veiled protection
from a non-European power like the
United States of America, and the other
part that has suffered for decades the
5
heavy control of a Eurasian power like
the USSR. The Second World War
proclaimed the end of the centrality
of Europe, placing it as a field of contention (the so-called "Cold War")
between the two superpowers that have
monopolized the world over the last 50
years. The pricefor a lasting peace for
the European states was that of division and a marginal political role.
We can then talk of democratic European integration process only for a
part of the European continent and
only thanks to the approval of a power
like the United States, with which
Europe shares several basic values of
its civilization and that can be seen as
a mother in relation to them.
For years, therefore, Europe was associated to the West and this identi­
fication has led to exclude all that laid
beyond the Iron Curtain.
The collapse of the Berlin Wall and
the disintegration of the Iron Curtain
brought the focus on the issue of a
new idea of Europe, that included the
states that were subordinate to the
order of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON for decades. All this was conducted through a formula: enlargement. The European Union did not
reconsider its foundations, did not
think about a new shape that was projecting a new future to share with the
rest of Europe, from which it was separated for 40 years. On the contrary, it
proposed the formula of enlargement,
or acceptance of a number of new
states as long as they fulfill the conditions in force in the EU: the democratic option as a political system and
economic solutions established by the
Union itself.
The current European Union is therefore a continuation of the first experiences dating back to the fifties of the
6
twentieth century. If we would compare the Europe of those years with
the current one, we could say that
there has been no leap of logic, but
only a gradual increase in the number of Member States. The evolution
of the historical-political situation in
Europe at the end of the twentieth century has not, in fact, led to a rethinking of its nature. The new Europe
formed by the end of the Cold War
was never born. The new Europe has
never started.
the symbolic point of view, immediately showed a significant experiment
of a possible construction of a new
Europe. The reunion of the two parts
of Germany, which is the core of continental Europe, represented the closure of the political system emerged
from the Cold War and the emancipation of Europe from the game of
the two superpowers. That reunion
resulted in the union between a free
economy country ("winner" of the
Cold War), and a planned economy
socialist one ("loser").
2. THE MISSED OPPORTUNITY
OF GERMAN REUNIFICATION
The problems that arose, especially
after 50 years in which different
styles ruled the two countries, gave
way to the euphoria that this event of
historic proportions had. The crucial
test case was the monetary union.
The decision of Chancellor Helmut
Kohl to equate the mark of BRD with
that of the DDR was a risk dictated
more by ideal reasons that by reason
related with the real economy. The
same President of the Bundesbank at
the time, Otto Pohl, intended this
report as of 1: 4. The consequences
of this conversion rate, extremely
favorable to the currency of BRD,
was the disruption of economic layouts of the five eastern Länder.
When the citizens of the ex DDR
found themselves with a monetary
value higher than usual and the
availability to purchase and consume products before then unknown,
the economic system, structured in a
radically alternative way than the
BRD, collapsed. Beyond a pop phenomenon as the Ostalgie, a feeling of
criticism as regards the strategic
choices made in the early nineties of
the last century dominates the
thoughts of many of the citizens of
the ex DDR today. In fact, a recent
study made by research centers of
the eastern Länder, reported by the
newspaper "Die Welt", has calculated
In the most enthusiastic predictions,
the end of the Cold War made people
imagine the future of the new Europe
as one of a new rising power able to
excel in the global context. Indeed, the
union of countries with a high degree
of civilization and economic prosperity predisposed to think of Europe as
a political and economic giant, which
was able to compete with the US for
the world leadership and to contain
future pressures of a not yet mature
China, and of Russia still in a precarious situation for the aftermath of the
Cold War. A striking fact, which confirmed the goodness of the European
integration process, was the reunion
of the two parts of Germany after a
period of separation started at the
end of the Second World War. That
separation was firmly pursued during
the years of the Cold War, especially
by the block led by the Soviet Union.
From a symbolic point of view, and in
a geopolitical projection, this reunification of Europe gave an image that
was as close as possible to its natural
shape, as the European area returned
to normality unlike the one represented by the rift between the western and eastern part. Moreover, the
importance of this reunification, from
the net costs of reunification in about
€ 2.000.000.000.000, declaring con­
sequently, the existence after 25
years of a strong gap with the rest of
Germany. Professor Joachim Ragnitz,
Managing Director - Ifo Institute in
Dresden, about said: "Der Osten wird
auf Zeit absehbare den Anschluss an
den Westen nicht schaffen" "The
East will not make it to reach the
West in the near future " (Greive
2014). The case of German reunification counts as an example of historical anticipation of what has been,
and continues to be, the construction of a European Union. Moreover,
it provides us with a clear example as
regards the methodologies that
govern this realization. They seem
characterized by an ongoing conflict
between a "political" vision of the
community and an economic reason.
What is happening today in Europe
is a clash between the role of a policy
that should take the problems and
hopes of a community, and the power
of profit subservient to economic
reason.
In the present day, Kohl’s decision to
speed up the reunification of the two
parts of Germany, can be summarized
as a sensational choice, which hides, in
reality, a vision that was disrespectful
of the specific conditions that were in a
certain community (DDR), a vision that
aims to enslave and bring this particular community back to their needs. The
existence, after 25 years, of a strong
gap between West Germany and East
Germany, shows that adhering to democratic institutions it is not enough to
be considered as a fundamental principle of being European. Ambitions of
commercial conquest of territories,
states and communities often seem to
hide behind a democratic motivation,
as well as the reduction of their inhabitants to the role of mere consumers.
7
3. CENTRAL BANKISM
AGAINST DEMOCRACY
Despite the praiseworthy soaring
ideals of some intellectuals and poli­
ticians, a true concrete political project for a united Europe has never
been carried out. Besides some slogans full of sentimentality but often
without a political reasoning such as
"Europe of the Peoples!", the only
model considered for an institutional
structure of Europe is that of the
United States of America. But everyone knows that a similar pattern is
impossible to realize in Europe. The
US is a federation of states unified for
enlargement and conquest of territories lacking, apart from the Native
culture, of their specific cultural-historical reasons. The US is a continent
joined by one culture formed by virtue of emigrations in order to the
occupy a vast territory. But none of
the Union can claim a particular
model of life, from ancient roots, than
another. This institutional architecture, this particular patchwork of
states, culminates in a strong central
government that oversees and monitors all institutional articulations.
As Ferran Requejo «If we remain
in the orbit of the US’s federalism,
the response to the question concerning the possibilities of the political accommodation of multinational
societies by means of federal formulas
is basically negative» (Ferran Requejo
2010, p. 7). The shyness that accompanied the creation of a real political
project has made that the only possible order for Europe to affirm itself
was that of the common market. Ever
since the postwar the thought of a
European community was concentrated mainly in the construction of
an area without barriers. The same
institutions that in the decades after
the Second World War aspired to
build a European unit reflect this
8
state: CECA, MEC and EEC are some
examples of how the economic reason
prevailed as the real input that led
European states to break down secular boundaries. In this desire to overcome the borders, any prospect of
political creation rose to the occasion.
The point of arrival of this process
seems the one called in 1996 by
Edward N. Luttwak as "central bankism". In a Europe not capable of a
concrete political reflection on their
future and their own institutions and
totally addicted to the economic reasons of being together, the pressing
role of the ECB is not an extraordinary event. It was even legally regulated by the Maastricht Treaty in
1992. Article 107 is very clear: «When
exercising the powers and carrying
out the tasks and duties conferred
upon them by this Treaty and the
Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB,
nor a national central bank, nor any
member of their decision-making
bodies shall seek or take instruc­t ions
from Community institutions or
bodies, from any government of a
Member State or from any other body.
The Community institutions and
bodies and the governments of the
Member States undertake to respect
this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the decisionmaking bodies of the ECB or of the
national central banks in the performance of their tasks». The absolute
independence of the ECB, the noninterference of political organisms
in its decisions, shows us the sad passivity of political forces against it, the
total surrender of elected institutions
towards the economic power. That
means that the political class, selected
according to people’s consent through
elections, could go towards its total
replacement by a technocracy that is
not measurable by the choices of citizens. The European Union, therefore,
is a good candidate for an extraor-
dinary historical experiment: the
decline of the political class as we
knew it from the past centuries, and
also the end of what has been the
pride of Western civilization, Democracy, popular Sovereignty.
Why will all this be possible? The
original sin of Europe is to have let
the fervor turn off as well as the confidence in the future that animated
the Fathers of Europe in favor of a
commitment to the European project focused only on the economic
and financial issues. The problems
of Europe have now become only the
problems of its currency, the Euro. We
may now think that the future existence of millions of people depends
on the stability of a currency and on
the actions of technocrats, which govern, above the popular will. What has
gradually affirmed is an ideology that
has now all the characteristics of a
true religion. The "central bankism"
described by Luttwak is the sinister
name of this cult: «Like all religions,
it has both a supreme God – hard
money – and a devil, inflation...Like
many religions, central bankism has
its high priests, constantly striving to
assert their independence from secular parliaments, politicians and public opinion. Although, like any other
public officials, they receive their
salaries from the tax-payer, central
bankers claim the right to ignore the
public will by invoking their duty to a
higher authority – the sacrosanctity
of hard money. Central bankers in
office – invariably for terms of Papal
length, often prematurely renewed in
fear of the fears of financial markets
– are surrounded by an aura of sovereign power very properly denied to
government ministers or even prime
ministers and presidents, mere mortals voted in and out of office by the
ignorant masses, or reshuffled at even
shorter intervals» (Luttwak 1996).
Luttwak's article concludes with a
description of the element that characterizes all religions: the sacrifice.
The "central bankism" demands
sacrifices for its faith. And those are
human sacrifices. Those of millions
of young people, marginalized and
deprived of the opportunity to start
a career and therefore a decent life.
Those are the protagonists of the current crisis.
4. FOR A FEDERALISM OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Alan Sandry is right when he says that
crises not only represent an accumulation of problematic situations but
also a political opportunity (Sandry
2011). The weakness of the current
national states invigorates the scission forces inside them. Deprived
of monetary sovereignty and a selfcentered productive apparatus, at the
mercy of “predators” and discontinuous movements of global finance, the
old European national States are still
living the drama of their dissolution.
The referendum for the independence of Scotland in September 2014
was a great lesson. Beyond our obvious positive attitude for this test, we
cannot conceal some negative aspects
of the whole affair. The most important factor of the Scots issue was the
rediscovery of the binding will of
people after years of top-down decisions made by a technocracy without
requiring a referendum. The invocation to the people has significantly
embarrassed structures and solutions
already defined. This event has effectively shown all the weaknesses of this
strategy, advocated by the Scottish
National Party and indicated by EFA.
This strategy still thinks about the
concept of self-determination in the
narrow spaces of separatism, the cre9
ation of an independent state on the
model of nation-states emerged in the
modern age, and without a thought
of self projected in a European perspective. Defeat was caused by virtue of this wrong approach. Most of
the Scots, after an initial enthusiasm
detected by the polls, had to fall back
when the prospect of independence
began to show itself as a real shot in
the dark, despite the years of good
administration of the SNP and the
undoubted ability of its leader Alex
Salmond. The fear (What attitude will
the new state have? Which currency?
What international relations? What
economic structure?) not only prevailed on the outcome of the referendum, but pointed to all the limitations
of the current claims of Nations Without State. At the same time, there are
those who aim to achieve independence and act as a State acceding to the
EU among the old member national
founders, offering one’s self-determination to the current system of the EU.
Be there one State more or not, almost
nothing would change. The conquest
of this place in the sun would be the
acceptance of all the facilities that
now form the EU. Finally, the Euro as
a common currency would complete
this epochal moment. Even if we hope
for the future of a common currency,
the system in which the Euro was built
is something that should be refused.
The single interest rate imposed as
a contribution to the emergence of
this common currency shows just
how its economic and financial intentions prevailed on a path that was
based on the recognition of Europe
as a territory composed of different
economies based on different needs.
The Euro is the clearest demonstration of the tendency to homogenize all
the States of Europe and to eliminate
progressively all their peculiarities,
which are its real wealth. The inclusion in the democratic rules is now
10
not enough. Democracy runs, these
days, the risk of being reduced to a
set of crystallized rules, the strong
turnout and lack of people's participation in electoral competitions certify it. The idea of democracy has to
be supplemented by "the community
thought." Some believe that democracy is born along with the modern
state. The community is older than
that, it is something that precedes
the State. European history tells us
of the many facets of the community:
ethnic communities, communities of
interest, communities that is given
to a sovereign, community that was
created to escape a sovereign. When
belonging to a community, standing
together-as it flourished in Europe,
there is the awareness of the existence
of other communities. This is the true
face of Europe, something that sets
it apart from the rest of the world, as
Habermas and Derrida wrote: «[...]
Europe in its incomparably rich cultural diversity, its own face. This is
how Europe at large presents itself to
of non-Europeans. A culture which
for centuries has been beset more
than any other by conflicts between
town and country, sacred and secular authorities, by the competition
between faith and knowledge, the
struggle between states and antagonistic classes, has had to painfully
learn how differences can be communicated, contradictions instituzionalized, and tension stabilized. The
acknowledgment of differences – the
reciprocal acknowledgment of the
Other in his otherness – can also
become a feature of a common identity» (Habermas and Derrida 2003).
about the identity of Europe like a
mosaic, where different traditions
and different ways of living are summarized. Opposite to a Europe where
communities are closely examinated
by a statistic average or a pre-ordered
standard. The idea of Europe, on the
contrary, would be deeper as the differences that distinguish the community were recognized. European
civilization brings with it, in its history and in its fate, the mark of a
community that arises from popular
sovereignty (the sovereign authority
that tends to protect all its members).
Certainly, this will mean that the old
formula of the modern State must be
set aside. We should measure up to
think of a Europe where a plurality of
juridical (and then political) systems
can coexist.
The EFA, most of all, should have the
courage to propose an architecture
of Europe where all its components
have equal dignity. Peaceful Europe
can only be realized with the support
of the communities and the hope of
those who want to create a homogeneous European unity always hides a
desire for power.
A democracy that rediscovers the
sense of community is the task that
Europe should have. Not the creation of a “super-state”, which would
eliminate the various differences.
We should have the courage to think
11
WHICH TYPE OF
FEDERALISM FOR EUROPE?
ATTILIO PINNA
1. ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD
FEDERALISM
The semantic origin of the word federalism comes from the Latin word
foedus: covenant, treaty, pact, agreement.
From a politic point of view, that is
relevant here, from the term foedus is
derived the verb foedero or confedero
(cum + foedero), meaning to unite
with a pact; the result is defined Foederatio or Confoederatio - federation
or confederation, without particular distinctions- whose members are
foederati or confederati. As regards
the federal pact within the Latin culture, which then affected the Western
European one, it is based not on force,
but on the idea of a relationship, that
sees conventional politics and mutual
trust ( fides) between members. From
a free and mutual loyalty originates a
communal organization, which binds
the members to an exchange of services, aid and rights. The German
term used in the nineteenth century
to identify the post Napoleonic Germanic confederations, and now used
combined with Staat to identify the
federal state (Bundesstaat) and the
confederation of states (Staatenbund)
is Bund. This word is connected to a
number of meanings which, in political language, all revolve around the
concepts of covenant, contract (Ver12
trag) and - as a synonym of Verbindung - connection, union, group, association of cities, orders, principles,
united more or less permanently to
the achievement of a common goal
(perpetuate peace, defend itself effectively etc...). While the Latin term
highlights the demos, which defines
the political will and the public law
system, the German word relates
with language, blood, tradition: in
other words the national elements
that define the ethnos. The word federalism does not appear until the
late eighteenth century, at the time
of the French and American revolutions, and its origin derives from the
French adjective fédéral. From the
latter one originated the adjectives
federalist (such as the title of the great
work of the fathers of modern federalism Hamilton, Madison and Jay, The
Federalist, of 1788-89) or federative.
These words imprinted from those
years onward the political tradition
that wanted a federal state through
a stable union of several Member
States, opposite to the political traditions that wanted a centralized unitary state, or even pre-existing confederations regarded as less binding
and stable alliances. Discussions and
arguments between federalists and
confederalists in the U.S and between
unitary and decentralizing Jacobins
in France determine the birth of federalism as a neologism, which is rec13
ognized like a political tendency of the
modernity, related with the analysis
of the State and government structure
but also with planning a new state
structure.
The Littré’s Dictionnaire de la langue
francaise (1863), for instance, defines
the word federalism as a neologism
and connects it with the doctrine du
gouvernement fédératif and with
experience of the U.S, Switzerland
and Dutch Republic. That can be considered relevant as it reveals a further
conceptual difference: it is the definition made by Littre’s 1878 edition- after
the American Civil War - that gives
the status of Federal to the Unionist
North and gives the one of confederate to the South. As regards English
culture, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary
of the English Language (1755) uses
the words confederacy, confederation,
federal and federate to refer broadly
to a confederal pact, an alliance. Then,
after the mid-nineteenth century,
through the work of Lord Acton (18341902), there is a full recognition of the
importance of the North American
contribution to the Federal thematic
and to the new language of federalism. Finally, in the twentieth century
the Oxford English Dictionary (1933)
uses the voices federal principle or
system of political organization, precisely connecting the federalism with
the succession of events ranging from
the foundation of the United States to
the foundation of the Swiss Confederation. In Italy, apart from Cattaneo’s
work in the mid-nineteenth (which
is an occasional fact), there is a certain shortcoming until the beginning
of the twentieth century. In the 1886
edition of the Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca for instance, the
word federazione does not appear, but
it leads to the words federativo and
confederazione. In Niccolò Tommaseo’s Dizionario della lingua italiana
14
(1865), the word federalismo does not
have an independent definition but
it refers to the adjective federalista
(«chi in dottrina e in fatto sostiene
doversi i popoli o le province d’una
nazione stessa congiungere con patto
federale»). Moreover, with reference
to the federal pact there is confusion
between the words federazione and
confederazione and the latter one is
considered to be the most appropriate word to define the term federal
pact. In Tommaseo’s work there is not
any reference to the North-American
federation but there are some references to the Ancient Roman history,
to Switzerland and to the German
Bund. After the American and French
historical events of the second half of
the eighteenth century, the issue of
federalism is intertwined with that of
the sovereignty of the modern state,
just as theorized by Bodin and Hobbes. The founding moment of the federal state, whether it happens through
the union of several Member States
or, on the contrary, by recognizing as
Member States provinces or regions
of a pre-existing Unitary State, calls
into question the sovereignty of the
states involved. By founding a federal State, the sovereignty of the
Member States inevitably undergoes
transformations, reduction or limitations and loses the character of the
absoluteness, indivisibility, inviolability, indifference with respect to the
sovereignty of other states founded
as classic Modern States and, in particular, as State-Nations, whose paradigm prevails between the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Overall,
state organizations, which are the
result of men’s will, are perfectible,
not immutable and eternal like all the
human things. The historical events
have shown us that States are born,
reformed and then die. The European
experience taught us that changes of
states become inevitable when they
are born because of the desire for
greater justice, freedom, equality,
sharing opportunities and well-being
from the members of a community,
who decides to create a new organization for the satisfaction of new needs.
This path, however, is not always so
easy. The recent events in which Scottish and Catalan people have express
themselves about the independence of
their respective regions by challenging the sovereignty of the British and
Spanish States, have shown a certain
resistance of European chancelleries.
The latter have given voice to conservative élites who are suspicious and
concerned about the possibility that a
certain order of interests and balance
was undermined by new sovereignties that will have compromised the
principle of unity and indivisibility
of the nation states, with inevitable
implications all over Europe. In Italy,
there is a debate, which is still lively,
on whether to leave unchanged the
constitutional system that recognizes
to some regions a special statute of
autonomy because of particular cultural, historical, linguistic and geographical issues that belong to those
regions.
Corrado Malandrino describes modern
and contemporary federalism as a
«Founding process of a Federal State
through the creation of a relationship
of union of various sovereign states
that decide, in doing so, to spontaneously self-limit their individual sovereignty and create a new form of state,
that is the federation. It has an independent sovereignty that knows its
limit in the sovereignty of the member
States, which retain some of their sovereign rights and political autonomy»
(Malandrino 1998, p. 16). Thanks to
this definition, it is possible to distinguish the term federation from
confederation. The federation, which
is stable over time until the found-
ing federal pact is intact, marks a real
super-federal state, while the confederation - where the state characteristic
is absent - identifies a mere transient
and temporary treaty, that does not
imply any limitation or waiver of sovereignty on the part of its members. It
is also true that a confederation can
evolve over time to a federation: such
are the Swiss Confederation and the
United States of America. The European Union (which is now functional
confederal association between sovereign states) could turn, through a
greater integration, into a federation
(Malandrino 1998, p. 17). To reach
the conclusion of this etymological
excursus, it is necessary to point out
that the Grande dizionario della lingua italiana by the Italian Salvatore
Battaglia endorses the conceptual
distinctions described before, by
emphasizing the state peculiarity of
the federation, that is the federal state
(repubblica federale e unione federale), whose foundation is the fundamental purpose of federalism meant
as a doctrine and political movement.
Battaglia clarifies that the “confederation” (“confederazione”) has to be
meant as “a pact, alliance between
states” («patto, alleanza tra Stati»)
and with an “incorrect connotation”
(«in senso improprio») as a federation
or a federal state.
2. THE MAIN TYPES
OF FEDERALISM
If we consider the many federalist
and autonomist proposals that have
been declined in modern and contemporary history, it can be said that
federalism, considered as a political
movement, comes from the objection towards the modern State’s
absolute sovereignty, that is to say a
unitary, single-centered, monolithic
and, above all, national one. Feder15
alism does not deny the value of the
nation, but denies the match between
its value and the exclusive sovereignty
of a centralist state-nation on its territory and in its order. Norberto Bobbio
made it clear that the evolution of the
federal state is an opposite process to
the one, which marks the formation
of the modern state. The first is a centralizing one, the second one is decentralizing (Bobbio 1975, p. 224).
With reference to the state-nation, it is
possible to highlight two different but
complementary types of federalism:
on the one hand, the supranational
(or external) one, which refers to most
national states that decide to cede part
of their sovereignty to join a supranational federation that will take the
appearance of a higher federal state;
on the other hand, a sub-federalism
(or an internal one), which concerns
sub national regional states who join
in a federal State nation – despite their
will to be real states with their peculiar original sovereignty, which is not
the consequence of a concession by the
single-centered state-nation. In the
first case it can be said that the federalism is centripetal, that is to say a result
of the tendency to create a unit of government superimposed on the other
Member States. In the second scenario
it is centrifugal, as it is the effect of
forces that go towards the autonomy
from the center of the national state. In
both cases, federalism conveys union,
not separation, between distinct sovereign elements. Or again, it is a formula that criticizes a sovereign state
unit, which is despotically centralized
and demands the recognition of sovereignty for the people that belong to
it, in order to be able to give life to a
higher federal organization that would
replace the previous centralized state.
Corrado Malandrino defines separatism and secessionism a bit schemati16
cally as the last resort of the right of
self-determination of a part of both
a population and a territory towards
the State to which they belong, in the
framework of special circumstances
perceived as despotic tyranny of the
central government. He states that
«These phenomena do not have anything to do with federalism, considered as a proponent of higher forms
of a pluralist State. These forms come
from a kind of bland, conceptual federal system designed to exclusively
defend specificities (be they ethnic,
cultural, religious, social, economic or
otherwise), as a safeguard of absolute
freedom. This freedom is separated
and does not have the willingness to
make comparisons, it does not have
solidarity, it is unable to wish for the
pursuit of a common destiny with
other subjects, who also belong to the
same history and national tradition,
but have some different features. This
freedom, despite having a legitimate
reason in wanting to change the previous relationships with the centralist
state, is itself selfish and self-centered.
It is therefore a negative freedom,
unable to evolve towards the establishment of federal bonds» (Malandrino
1998, p. 18). Actually, this concept is
partly true. Although the programs
outlined by some European political
parties support Malandrino’s considerations - see the Northern League in
Italy or the UK Independence Party
in Britain -, there are numerous proindependence parties in the continent,
also known as separatist or secessionist - as a matter of fact, independence
and secession are synonyms and the
political and institutional separation
of two or more territories is therefore
a consequence of the first two - that
aspire to a federal union of the European peoples and have, in this sense,
the support of their electorate. An
example related to it, is the Scottish
referendum issue. The decision of the
institutional bodies of the European
Union to prevent the automatic entry
of the new Scottish State, born from
the separation with the United Kingdom - EU Member - was decisive,
among other reasons, for the victory
of the “no” for the independence of
Scotland, as it was pointed out that it
was necessary for Scotland to establish
new negotiations in order to apply the
same EU rules related to its founding
treaties. Scottish people essentially
put an end to the process that would
have led them to independence when
they realized that being independent would have prevented them from
joining the European Union, as part
of a broader organizational and institutional framework. Not to mention
the independence and autonomist parties who recognize themselves in the
European parliamentary group of the
'European Free Alliance, which pose
the need for a European Union reform
in an authentic federal sense, inspired
by the values of solidarity, democracy,
freedom, respect for cultural originality of the European peoples and their
mutual recognition. Back to the classifications of federalism, except from
the supranational (external) and the
sub-national (internal), which coincide with the notion of institutional
federalism, we also mention the total
federalism, which covers the whole
socio-political, economic and cultural
sphere of the associated life.
As regards the latter sense of it, federalism has a more complex view of
history and society, not only does it
propose models of federal states, but
it aspires to be the form and theory
of society as a whole as well as of its
organizational elements from the cultural and economical point of view.
Historically speaking, the politicalinstitutional federalism looks for the
reali­zation of perpetual peace in an
international democratic environment,
based on mutual security in the case of
a supranational federation. Assuming
a national federal State - which brings
together regional states - the values
recalled would be, on one hand, safety
and welfare coming from the existence
of an efficient federal government, on
the other hand, the enhancement of
local politic autonomy, seen as a selfgovernment of the sub national communities. As regards the division of
powers between the various state federal levels, according to the principle
of subsidiarity the top level only intervenes in what escapes the operative
chances and the competences of the
lower level in each subject.
The total federalism promotes the full
social and economic self-management
of individuals, which means being
politically in self-government through
corporate bodies, that come to light in
the upward direction, from the bottom to the top (economic federalism).
3. NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.
CARLO CATTANEO’S
FEDERALISM:
UNITY AND FREEDOM
The English poet John Donne wrote,
«No man is an island, entire of itself».
This is even truer today. There is
no nation that is self-sufficient and
chooses to live isolated from the other
nations. The combination of people
and cultures is the main feature of the
modern world.
It is true that different peoples coexisted in the past, but there was
always a certain amount of separation
between them: separate villages, different families, courts, distinct cultures and languages. Michael Walzer
explains that people are pushed
towards each other in new ways, expe17
rience the difference and increasingly
happen to overcome old barriers. They
have to cope with rapid and mass communication, even sport and music globalization, mixed marriages. Perhaps,
he writes: «All this means that one day
we will see each other as more similar;
however, the meeting with the Other
has never been so widespread until
now» (Walzer 1998). In March 1848,
in the Programme of Cisalpino, Cattaneo refers to the Austrian Empire:
«Every nation caught the consciousness of itself, understood the secret of
his being, he saw that the freedom of
the others was a necessary condition
of his own freedom». As regards this
analysis, Cattaneo sees in the despotic centralism of the Vienna empire
the main reason of its decay and
says: «either the autocrat of Europe
or the United States of Europe». And
again: «The principle of nationality,
provoked and magnified by the same
military oppression that yearns to
destroy it, will dissolve the fortuitous
empires of Eastern Europe and will
turn them into federations of free peoples. We will have peace when we have
the United States of Europe». It is true
that today we are facing a framework
that is certainly different from the one
in which Cattaneo wrote. The AustroHungarian Empire no longer exists,
monarchical absolutism is overcome,
Fascism and Nazism are beaten. Put
aside for more than one hundred fifty
years, Cattaneo’s political thought
regains strength in relation to the
two major issues that can be hereby
discussed: federalism and the building of the United States of Europe.
According to Cattaneo, federalism is
a means that promotes freedom and
multiplies the forces that inspire vital
energy for the expansion of civil society. It is a unifying element - and here
returns the reassuring image of the
poet Donne – of the diversity and of
the different local realities, that gives
18
rise to the triumph of democracy as an
instrument of civilization.
«Solo al modo della Svizzera e degli
Stati Uniti – clarified Cattaneo – può
accoppiarsi unità e libertà. Così solamente s’adempie il precetto del fiorentino, che il popolo per conservare la
libertà deve tenervi sopra le mani»
(Only way to Switzerland and the
United States - can mate unity and
freedom. Thus is fulfilled only the
precept of fiorentino that the people
to preserve freedom must keep on
hand). The reference to Machiavelli
means that citizens must rule themselves and give themselves the laws.
Democracy must be federal, or create an institutional organization that
allows citizens to exercise the legislative function by means of a multiplicity of autonomous centers in order
for them to be the manifestation of
popular sovereignty and for them to
be active at the base of the country.
According to Cattaneo’s point of view,
the issue of federalism is inevitably
connected with the theme of democracy. Federalism will allow the development and the greater importance
of local realities in the movement of
unification of the various national
communities and, consequently, will
create a democratic participation on a
wide territory without borders.
The transition from a local to a
supranational political community
is inevitable. As the latter one reinforces itself, it is necessary to give an
efficient federalist organization to the
laws of the local communities that
really express the social life of each
nation. Federalism as a way to cause
the growth of democracy, based on
the varied articulations of local communities, not a jumble of nationalist
movements - warns Cattaneo - which
denies the principle of unity of populations, but a supranational organiza-
tion that combines freedom and unity,
diversity and solidarity, diversity and
tolerance. In the perspective of a federal reform of the European Union,
his insights are now more relevant
than ever and it seems we cannot do
without the vision and thought of
this intellectual renaissance writer.
Indeed - as Aiazzi (Bobbio and Aiazzi
1998, p. 34) highlights - «The popular
cultural trends and businesses, which
are a strong element of solid connection between countries, financial markets, more and more connected with
each others, the means of transport,
communication and information, everything contribute decisively to put in
the same territorial space multitudes
of different countries». What is it then
that prevents the birth of the United
States of Europe? Certainly, for the
most part, the bureaucratic mechanisms considered by the founding
treaties of the European Community,
but above all, the trust given to the
Heads of State and Government of
the member countries as regards the
most important decisions on the fate
of the European peoples. Once given
to them the task of creating the supranational community, that has meant
nothing but a delay in its implementation. What is needed, we believe,
– independents and regionalist parties in Europe should act towards this
goal- is to create a vast movement
within the public opinion, a cultural
change, able to consolidate consensus
and encourage extended initiatives in
order to ask, from country to country,
European citizens to engage in establishing bonds of solidarity and mutual
recognition between peoples. In order
to reach a solid organization of the
Union, it is also necessary to implement a political and institutional system with a strong sub national federal
connotation, in addition to the creation of political parties according to a
supranational extension.
The new Europe that will arise, if
so, must not forget its native values
of freedom, social justice and peace
that gave birth - even through difficult
paths, marked by violent struggles
and barbarism- to the institutional
arrangements of the great Western liberal democracies. The United
States of Europe will exist in the name
of a greater civility and democracy.
4. FEDERALISM, PEOPLE,
TERRITORIES AND EROS
It is traced back in 1993 the publication of the acts of an international
conference held in Sassari in 1991,
published by Franco Angeli, which
was entitled: The Europe of diversity,
identity and culture at the turn of the
third millennium, sponsored by Istituto Camillo Bellieni.
In the book that collected the acts,
the crucial question about the need to
look beyond the models of economic
development hitherto pursued was
posed, going beyond the concepts
of democracy and freedom that the
modern states could no longer guarantee - if not from a formal point of
view that stopped at the statements
of principle. Finally, look beyond the
now old centralist and monocultural
processing on which the Europe of
States was based, from the French
Revolution onwards, indifferent to
the other Europe, a complex one, that
represents peoples, languages, diversity, linguistic and cultural minorities,
migration, the problems posed by new
citizenships, called to compete with
new responsibilities. After twenty
years, the problems posed in the past
occur today in their full extent, to be
faced by Europe that tends to overcome, albeit with difficulty, its ethnocentric and monocentric culture
based on the power and strength of
19
the States. Europe does not ignore,
although we still do not see adequate
answers for this issue, the identity of
the peoples and the identity of belonging, which require a new commitment
in political action. As Michele Pinna
wrote, defending and enhancing cultural diversity means creating new
relational contexts, in which territories and communities of belonging
transit from representative systems of
a closed and incomprehensible world,
because of its non communicability, to processes of representation of
themselves that are open and willing
to communicate: «This does not mean
losing one’s own identity and culture,
be it a material or spiritual one, but it
can allow its spread and its circulation, that is the only way for cultures
to grow and live. It is necessary for
them to be available, usable and to
get benefit from them, not as extraordinary events, tourist or anthropological observations, but as real
processes, daily living and dynamic,
able to participate in the new world
affairs» (Pinna 2011, p. 271).
This means, basically, to make it possible for territories to have instruments that enable them, both from
a communicative-relational point
of view, as well as from the productive and institutional one, to address
the increasingly pressing challenges
posed by globalization, in a way to
govern it with advantage and dialogue
with it.
This raises the urgency to limit the
process of deterritorialization of
the society - using the words of the
geographer Claude Raffestin - determined by electronic communication
and the contemporary economy and
to discover new forms of territoriality by giving territory to knowledge,
culture, economy again, by renewing
and re-formulating the productive
20
and local cultural energies. We agree
with Michele Pinna when he says that
perhaps, as regards our era - where
a dehumanized virtuality affects
powerfully our lives, increasingly
deprived of earthly tòpoi - a return
to the culture and community awareness of nations, that recognize in the
territorial and geographical depth
the location of its material and spiritual manifestations, can be useful
to weaken a world projected towards
the not being, using the words of the
philosopher Parmenides, and towards
the aporia and the evanescence (Pinna
2011). The self affirmative request of
peoples, founded on the recognition
of their culture, their language, their
religion, their system of ideas, their
behavioral and symbolic heritage, do
not rule out that the cultural identity
can act not only as a space of cultural
trust between individuals of the same
community, but also as a place of
exchange, of relationship, of mutual
recognition towards the others (Pinna
2011, 115). What we mean is that an
open and dialogical conception of
identity can be useful in providing
new cultural and organizational representations that are able to give the
European continent new awareness
and opportunities. We believe that the
European peoples that want to go to
the direction of a new federal Europe
- or, using Cattaneo’s words, to the
United States of Europe - should not
limit themselves to observe their own
world, but should strive to observe the
others’ world as well. These worlds are
intertwined with the value of love for
the neighbor, starting from the ability
to love ourselves. The many European
cultures and identities, their communities and democracies, will win the
challenge of federalism if they know
how to build a peaceful, loving society
that recalls the universal values of the
common good, mutual respect and
tolerance. It is necessary to «reestab-
lish a society based on the art of living
that feels the taste of the journey, the
knowledge, the understanding of the
world once again» (Pinna 2011, p. 78).
Moreover, in the reorganization of the
European Community, it is essential
to value what is beautiful, right, good,
in an inextricable twine with what
is loving and peaceful, in the framework of a dialogue among the multiple originality that characterize the
continental civilization, in order to go
beyond the impersonal, distant, cold
Europe, as well as beyond the bureaucracy, the technocrats, the austerity
and the budget balance. Europe does
not acknowledge and does not recognize itself, in which its form does not
reflect its substance and where, dramatically, we have lost the community
dimension because of the triumph of
selfishness sacrificed on the altar of
financial speculation and of the most
cunning economism. On which values
should the Christian Europe be based,
which chooses as a hymn Ode to joy
of Beethoven – that reflects beauty
and therefore it is fair, according to
the ancient Greek civilization idea of
beauty - if not on the ideas of love,
pietas, loyalty, tolerance and brotherhood among peoples (and then among
men), in respect and mutual recognition of symbolic, linguistic and cultural diversity and originality, that
delineate the complex and polychromatic warp of the European identity?
We believe these to be the guiding
principles of the United States of
Europe, in which have citizenship,
using the words of Michele Pinna:
«The world of men, of nations inhabited by people who love their land and
their descendants, who love Europe
and the world of linguistic pluralism,
literature and geography» (Pinna
2011, p. 6).
5. THE WORLD IS FULL.
WHICH TYPE OF
FEDERALISM FOR EUROPE?
«The world is full», writes plainly
Zygmunt Bauman in his work Society under siege (2003). He observes:
«Every conceivable sites one occupies
at the moment or may yet move into
is inside this world and bound to stay
there for whatever counts as forever.
Of this full world we are all insiders and permanent residents with
nowhere else to go» (Bauman 2003,
p. XIX). Globalization is the term
commonly used to account for that
uncanny experience of the “world filling up”. The velocity of transmissions
transforms even the largest distance
into proximity, and for all practical
intents and purposes, we are all now
in the close, indeed intimate vicinity
of each other. (Bauman 2003, p. XX).
As Paul Virilio states: «We live in a
world no longer based on geographic
expanse but on a temporal distance
constantly being decreased by our
transportation, transmission and teleaction capacities». «The new speedspace; it is no longer a space-time».
One of the most possibly consequential effects of that new situation is the
endemic porosity and frailty of all
boundaries that make them share in
the facility of disappearance: they are
effaced as they are drawn (Bauman
2003, p. XX). More than two centuries
ago, Immanuel Kant in his Idea for a
Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View: (1784) recorded a
prophetic vision of the world to come:
«a perfect unification of the human
species through common citizenship»
adding that it would be «Nature’s
supreme design». The surface of
the globe we live is limited and in
the end we must all be neighbours
simply for having nowhere else to
go. The surface of the earth is our
21
shared property, none of us has more
“right” to occupy it than any other
member of the human species. Ultimately, there will be no recourse
but to live together and to support
each other (Bauman 2003, p. XXI).
In this globalized world of ours we
all live closer to each other than ever
before. We share more aspects of our
daily life than ever before. We have
the opportunity to know about each
other’s customs and preferences than
ever before. And since our weapon
become ever more murderous and
have already reached the power to
destroy the planet, including the
houses of those who invent, produce,
market and launch them- there is
more than ever before reasons, for
all of us, to put talking to each other
above fighting each other (Bauman
2003, p. XXIII). But to engage in such
a dialogue, we all need to feel secure,
have our dignity recognized and our
ways of life respected, looked upon
seriously, with the attention they
deserve. Above all, we need to feel
that we are all given an equal chance
in life and an equal possibility to
enjoy the fruits of our shared achievements (Bauman 2003, p. XXIV). All
of us is inevitable interdependent and
the “solidarity of fate” is not a matter of choice. What does depend on
our choice is whether that shared fate
will end up in mutual destruction, or
generate solidarity of feelings purposes and action. Starting from Pope
Francis’ words and warnings about
the importance of the value of the
human dignity - often violated by the
progress of technology, by the rapacity of the deregulated economy and
by the devotion to money, consumerism and pagan idols - Europe need to
put at the centre of its political action
and of its prospects the human being
and its wish to live in dignity, not to
be humiliated, but to be free from fear
and be allowed to pursue happiness.
22
The path to follow, as Hannah Arendt
already warned more than forty years
ago, is between solidarity of common
humanity and solidarity of mutual
destruction. On this planet we are all
dependent of each other and nothing
that we do or refrain from doing is
indifferent to the fate of everyone else.
From the ethical point of view, we are
all connected by the global network of
interdependency and this makes us all
responsible for each other (Bauman
2003, p. XXV). The building of a new
Europe is, among other things (perhaps above all) an ethical challenge
where, as Bauman writes: «the desideratum of moral responsibility and
the interests of survival coincide and
blend» (Bauman 2003, p. XXV). The
European Union, on founding fathers’
intuition, turned out to be a great
project but it has gradually changed.
Today, the mistrust of institutions as
well as the supremacy of bureaucracy,
the increase of social inequalities, a
sense of loneliness and the denial of
individual rights are widespread. The
European paralysis is a result of indifference towards the importance of
individuals as men and to their wishes
of well-being and of happiness. This
resulted in the birth of impersonal
and self-regarding machineries that,
by humiliating democratic institutions, come to trample human dignity.
The recent Bergoglio’s speech in front
of the European Parliament in Strasbourg met on this point. Throughout
history, Europe has had the credit of
emphasizing the importance of individual ego. This process, however, is
bound to stop where the relational features of the person in their variety are
not recognized. So the duty of the ruling class of the old continent, will be
to give life to new institutional forms
that are able to enhance the Union's
guiding principle - united in diversity
- which is in contrast to the bureaucratic and procedural uniformity that
demeans the diversity of the European peoples. From a social point of
view, it is necessary to restore importance to families, associations, political parties and schools with the intent
of creating new spaces to let people
manifest completely their personal
freedom. As regards the environment,
sooner or later it will be necessary to
face the issue of a better exploitation
of the natural resources in order to
prevent inevitable natural disasters.
The time of the individual and state
sovereignty, unable to respond to the
challenges of the present, will have
to give space to the time of dialogue
and relational nature. Starting from
these principles, the path towards a
new European union, even a federal
one, might arouse the enthusiasm
that today seems to be running out.
The history of freedom, tolerance and
mutual recognition was not designed
to be meant as radical individualism or identity fundamentalist, but
as relationship capable of leading to
higher and higher forms of humanity
and sociality. The pronounced difference in wealth between the North and
South and between East and West of
the world has produced a migration
that moves in terms of violence and
oppression, but also a crisis of local
realities, determined by the breaking
of the levees due to the imposing force
of a multiethnic river. The national
State, in its outdated organization, is
no longer able to cope with these new
challenges but federalism, in its many
specifications, seems to provide better
answers. Europe, whose path begins
with the Treaty of Maastricht, can
choose to take part in the nationalist
competition, or to skip forward to the
federation between the communities
that form the Union, spreading even
to the east. Is there a fides between
the states and the peoples called to set
out on this path? Or have we seen up
to now only political choices based on
mutual convenience and evaluations
based on economism?
In conclusion, it is fair what Malandrino says when he states that: «Making the European federation means
to force the member states to assume
institutional consequential, democratic and federal set-ups». This also
means to unmask the national selfishness and exclusiveness and give value
to the nationalities that are in the territories of the Member States of the
future European federation (Malandrino 1998, p. 169).
23
CENTRE MAURITS
COPPIETERS
The European Parliament recognized
the Centre Maurits Coppieters (CMC)
as a Political Foundation at a European
Level in 2007. Since then the CMC has
developed political research focusing
on European issues, also in the fields
of multilevel governance, management
of cultural and linguistic diversity in
complex (multi-national) societies,
decentralization, state and constitutional reform, succession of states,
conflict resolution and protection of
human rights.
So far, every little step has been important to the steady consolidation and
growth of the Centre, that’s why I’m
especially proud of this publication.
Indeed, it undoubtedly represents a
crucial contribution to the current state
of affairs and will certainly have a notorious impact both in the Academia and
among European decision makers in a
broad sense, including European Institutions (like the European commission, European Parliament, Council
and Committee of the Regions), other
political actors, think tanks, research
centers and contributors to the European integration process.
On behalf of the Centre Maurits Coppieters and our partners I sincerely
wish to thank the author of the report
for his groundbreaking approach to
the subject and his passionate, conceptually robust and well structured
factual presentation.
Finally I also wish to thank you (the
reader) for your interest in our organization and for reviewing our modest
contribution to a much wider European political debate in this area.
Günther Dauwen
Secretary of Centre Maurits Coppieters
www.ideasforeurope.eu
24
25
GOALS OF THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL FOUNDATION
CENTRE MAURITS COPPIETERS (CMC)
MAURITS COPPIETERS
According to its general regulations, the Centre Maurits Coppieters asbl-vzw
persues the following objectives and references:
The Fleming Maurits Coppieters
studied history and later became a
Doctor of Laws and obtained a master’s degree in East European studies. During the Second World War, he
refused to work for the German occupier. After many years as a teacher, he
worked as a lawyer for a while. He was
one of the people who re-established
the Vlaamse Volksbeweging (Flemish
People’s Movement), of which he was
the President from 1957-1963.
• Observing, analysing and contributing to the debate on European
public policy issues with a special
focus on the role of nationalist and
regionalist movements and the process of European integration;
• Serving as framework for national
or regional think tanks, political
foundations and academics to work
together at European level;
• Gather and manage information for
scientific purposes on all nationalist and regionalist movements,
organisations, structures,… in all
its appearances situated in a European context;
• Making available information to the
public on the implementation of the
principle of subsidiarity in a context
of a Europe of the Regions;
• Promoting scientific research on
the functioning and the history of
all national and regional movements in the EU and making the
results public to as many people as
possible;
26
• Developing actions to open information sources and historical information sources in a structured and
controlled way with the aim to build
a common data network on issues
of Nationalism and Regionalism in
Europe;
• Maintaining contacts with all
organisations who are active in
national movements and with the
Institutions of the EU;
The Centre Maurits Coppieters asblvzw takes all the necessary actions to
promote and achieve the higher stated
goals always observing the principles on which the European Union
is founded, namely the principles of
liberty, democracy, respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms,
and the rule of law.
Coppieters’ political career began
when he became a member of the
Flemish-nationalist party Volksunie (VU) which was formed in 1954.
With the exception of two years, Coppieters was a town councillor between
1964 and 1983. He was also elected
as a member of the Belgian Chamber
(1965-1971) and Senate (1971-1979).
At the same time, Coppieters became
President of the newly formed ‘Cultuurraad voor de Nederlandstalige Cultuurgemeenschap’ (Cultural Council
for the Dutch-speaking Community,
from which later the Flemish Parliament emanated), when the VU formed
part of the government. In 1979, Coppieters was moreover elected during
the first direct elections for the European Parliament.
As a regionalist, he became a member of the Group for Technical Coordination and Defence of Independent Groupings and Members in the
European Parliament (TCDI). Among
other things, he made a name for himself when he championed the cause
of the Corsicans. In the meantime,
Coppieters also played a pioneering
role in the formation of the European
Free Alliance, of which he became
the Honorary President and in whose
expansion he continued to play a role,
even after he said farewell to active
politics in 1981. In 1996, Coppieters
joined forces with the president of
the Flemish Parliament, Norbert De
Batselier, to promote ‘Het Sienjaal’,
a project with a view to achieve political revival beyond the party boundaries. Coppieters died on November 11,
2005.
Among other things, Coppieters
was the author of: ‘Het jaar van de
Klaproos’; ‘Ik was een Europees Parlementslid’; ‘De Schone en het Beest’.
He is Honorary member of the EFA.
27
CMC MEMBERS
ASSOCIATED MEMBERS
Arritti
5, Bd de Montera, 20200 BASTIA,
Corsica
Member since 2008
www.p-n-c.eu
Fundación Alkartasuna Fundazioa
Portuetxe 23, 1º, 20018, Donostia/
San Sebastian, Euskadi
Member since 2008
www.alkartasunafundazioa.org
Le Peuple Breton
Brittany
Member since 2013
www.peuplebreton.net
Kurdish Institute of Brussels
Rue Bonneelsstraat 16, 1210 Brussels
Member since 2010
www.kurdishinstitute.be
Welsh Nationalism Foundation
Wales
Member since 2008
www.welshnationalismfoundation.eu
Transylvanian Monitor
Str. J. Calvin 1, 410210 Oradea,
Romania
Member since 2009
www.emnt.org
Fundació Emili Darder
Isidoro Antillon 9, Palma de Mallorca
Iles Baleares
Member since 2008
www.fundacioemilidarder.cat
Centre International Escarré per les
Minories Ètniques i les Nacions
C/Rocafort, 242, bis
08029 Barcelona, Catalunya
Member since 2011
www.ciemen.cat
Fundació Josep Irla
Calàbria 166, 08015 Barcelona,
Catalunya
Member since 2008
www.irla.cat
Istituto Camillo Bellieni
Via Maddalena, 35
07100 Sassari
Member since 2012
www.istituto-bellieni.it
Fundacion Aragonesista 29 de junio,
Conde de Aranda 14-16, 1°,
50003 Zaragoza, Aragon
Member since 2008
www.chunta.org/29j.php
Free State of Rijeka Association
Užarska 2/3
51000 Rijeka – Fiume
Member since 2012
Fundación Galiza Sempre
Av. Rodriguez de Viguri 16, Baixo
15702 Santiago de Compostela, Galicia
Member since 2008
www.galizasempre.org
Home of the Macedonian Culture
Stefanou Dragoumi 11, P.O. BOX 51,
53100 Florina
Member since 2008
28
29
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A FORM OF COMMUNITY FEDERALISM FOR EUROPE IN CRISIS
— Greive, Martin, 2014. “Deutsche Einheit kostet 2.000.000.000.000 Euro”,
Die Welt, May 4th.
— Habermas Jürgen and Derrida Jacques, 2003. “What binds Europeans together”
(transl. by Max Pensky), originally appeared: “Nach dem Krieg: Die Wiedergeburt
Europas”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 31st.
— Luttwak, Edward N, 1996. “Central Bankism”, London Review of Books,
November 14th.
— Requejo, Ferran, 2010, “Decentralisation and Federal and Regional Asymmetries
in Comparative Politics”, in Federalism beyond Federations. Asymmetry and
processes of Resymmetrisation in Europe (edited by Ferran Requejo and
Klaus-Jürgen Nagel), p. 1-12, Farnham: Ashgate Editor.
— Sandry, Alan, 2011. “Rethinking Europe: the revival of Nations in the context
of economic turbulence”, in From Nations to Member States: a new architecture
for Europe (coord. by Matthias Frencken), p. 19-22, Bruxelles: Centre Maurits
Coppieters.
WHICH TYPE OF FEDERALISM FOR EUROPE?
— Bauman, Zygmunt. 2003. La società sotto assedio, (it. transl.), Roma-Bari: Laterza.
— Bobbio, Norberto. 1975. “Il federalismo nel dibattito politico e culturale della
resistenza”, in L’idea di unificazione europea dalla prima alla seconda guerra
mondiale, (edited by Sergio Pistone), p. 221-236, Torino: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi.
— Bobbio Norberto and Aiazzi Antonluigi. 1996. Il federalismo. Da Carlo Cattaneo
verso gli Stati Uniti d’Europa, Firenze: Loggia Dè Lanzi.
— Malandrino, Corrado. 1998. Federalismo. Storia, idee, modelli, Roma: Carocci.
— Pinna Michele, Fois Paolo, Bodei Remo, Carrozza Paolo et alii. 1993.
L’Europa delle diversità. Identità e culture alle soglie del terzo millennio,
(edited by Michele Pinna), Milano: FrancoAngeli.
— Pinna, Michele. 2011. I luoghi dell’anima, Sassari: Edes.
— Ratti Remigio. 2008. “Promuovere nuove forme di territorialità”, in Comunicare
l’identità. Una strategia di valorizzazione delle minoranze linguistiche
(edited by Lucia Maccani and Marco Viola), p. 163-166, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
— Walzer, Michael. 1998. Sulla tolleranza (it. transl.), Bari: Laterza.
31
COLOPHON
CMC PAPERS | 2015 | 1
Editorial
Centre Maurits Coppieters (asbl-vzw), Boomkwekerijstraat 1, 1000 Brussels
www.ideasforeurope.eu
Publication date
2015
Publication series and number
CMC PAPERS | 2015 | 1
Authors
Antonello Nasone
Attilio Pinna
Coordination
Ignasi Centelles
Editorial board
Xabier Macías
Günther Dauwen
José Miguel Marinez Tomey
Alan Sandry
Josep Vall
Antonia Luciani
Scientific board
Alan Sandry Advisor on the field of Political Science. (Scientific Board member since 2008)
Luc Boeva Advisor on the field of History of Nationalism. (Scientific Board member since 2008)
Ruben Lois Advisor on the field of Geography (Advisory Scientific Council member since 2014)
Carmen Gallego Advisor in the field of Anthropology. (Scientific Board member since 2012)
Josep Huguet Advisor in the fields of Contemporary history and Public governance. (Scientific Board member since 2012)
Jaume Garau Advisor in the fields of economic development and promotion. (Scientific Board member since 2012)
Daniel Turp Advisor in the fields of international law and self-determination (Scientific Board member since 2013)
Graphics and Layout
Wils&Peeters - Lier
Translation
Elisa Mureddu
Printing
Drukkerij De Bie - Duffel
© CMC, Centre Maurits Coppieters - asbl, Brussels, March 2015
No items of this publication can in any way be copied or used without
the explicit permission of the author or editor.
33
Previous Centre Maurits Coppieters studies
CMC 2014 — Paradiplomacy by Adam Grydehøj, Linda Fabiani, Jordi Solé i
Ferrando, Lorena Lopez de Lacalle Aristi, Maria Ackrén
CMC 2013 — An alternative economic governance for the European Union
By Xavier Vence, Alberto Turnes and Alba Noguera
CMC 2012 — The Future of Europe An integrated youth approach
CMC 2012 — The Ascent of Autonomous Nations 2nd edition
The institutional advantages of being an EU member state, by Matthew
Bumford In a joint effort with the Welsh Nationalism Foundation
CMC 2012 — Variations autour du concept d’empreinte culturelle
Définition du concept et metodes de Mesure, by Elna Roig Madorran et
Jordi Baltà Potolés
CMC 2011 — Approaches to a cultural footprint Proposal for the concept
and ways to measure it, by Elna Roig Madorran and Jordi Baltà Potolés
CMC 2010 — The Internal Enlargement of the European Union 3rd edition
Analysis of the legal and political consequences in the event of secession
or dissolution of a Member State, by Jordi Matas, Alfonso Gonzalez, Jordi
Jaria and Laura Roman. In a joint effort with Fundació Josep Irla
CMC 2009 — Electoral contestability and the representation of regionalist
and nationalist parties in Europe, by Simon Toubeau
CMC 2008 — A different kind of kinetics Establishing a network of heritage
and research institutions for the (historical) study of national and
regional movements in Europe, by Luc Boeva
Previous Centre Maurits Coppieters policy papers
CMC 2014 | 1 — The Fiscal Balance of Stateless Nations with the EU
by Jaume Garau and Félix Pablo
CMC 2013 | 2 — Globalism vs Internationalism
By Josep Bargallón Isidor Marí and Santiago Castellà
CMC 2013 | 1 — Law and Legitimacy: the denial of the Catalan voice
By Huw Evans
CMC 2012 | 3 — Making ideas spread New Media, Social Networks,
Political Communication, advocacy and campaigns, by Jorge Luis Salzedo
Maldonado
CMC 2012 | 2 — The size of states and Economic Performance in the
European Union, by Albert Castellanos i Maduell, Elisenda Paluzie I
Hernàndez and Daniel Tirado i Fabregat. In a joint effort with Fundació
Josep Irla
CMC 2012 | 1 — 2014-2020 Un autre cadre financier pluriannuel pour une
nouvelle Europe: Pour une Europe des peuples, by Roccu Garoby In a joint effort with Arritti
CMC 2011 | 3 — From Nations to Member States, by Lieven Tack, Alan Sandry
and Alfonso González
CMC 2011 | 2 — Diversité linguistique un défi pour l’Europe
CMC 2011 | 1 — Tourism and identity, by Marien André
In a joint effort with Fundació Josep Irla
CMC 2010 | 1 — Language Diversity a challenge for Europe
34
35
The Centre Maurits Coppieters (CMC) is a European Political Foundation recognized by the European Parliament.
CMC is linked to the European political family of the European Free Alliance (EFA). It’s aims are: observing,
analysing data and contributing to the debate on European public policy issues with a special focus on the role of
democratic-nationalist and regionalist movements and the process of European integration.