Who's afraid of the 'F' word?
Discussion on the nature of the EU sometimes gives rise to discussions on
federalism. But federalism is a term that has different definitions and meanings. In much of the British press and political discourse, it is equated with centralisation and the creation of a "superstate". Something we clearly don't want and we should resist to the hilt.
But, for most of our continental colleagues, federalism does not mean centralism. It simply means different levels of governance, each with its own responsibilities and democratic accountability, as decentralised as possible, but centralised where necessary.
Under this definition, the EU is (and has always been) a federal type system. It is a level of governance with a significant but limited area of responsibility in which European law prevails over national law. It has an institutional system in which States may be bound by majority decisions; an executive (the Commission) that, once appointed, is independent of national governments and is accountable to a commonly elected Parliament; a common Court to ensure convergent interpretation of European law; and its own (albeit limited) budgetary resources. Each and every IGC (treaty revision) has strengthened at least some of those "federal" characteristics.
But the fact that it is composed of strong Member States with different cultures, and which will both retain large areas of their own competence as well as play a major role in the EU's own decision-taking, make it an unusually decentralised "federation", and one which many people will prefer not to think of as such.
Rather than divide on the vocabulary of European integration, should we not just focus on the substance of what subjects we want the Union to deal with and how to ensure that it is efficient, democratic, transparent and accountable?
Unfortunately, it's not so easy. We have fallen into the habit of triangulation: "We want neither disengagement from Europe nor a federal state". Fine - until a continental politician makes a speech supporting federalism, our press has hysterics and he government's European strategy is pilloried in the press as failing.
What the continental politician means by federalism may be much the same as what the UK government wants - but the perception in the UK public is that we have lost. And our vehement objections to the continental politician reinforces the perception of our continental partners that we remain a nation of incorrigible eurosceptics.
Shouldn't we, therefore, try to rehabilitate the term "federalism" and reclaim it from the Eurosceptics? Or, at the very least, say that it is a term with so many definitions that, like "democracy" or "socialism", it should not be used without at the same time spelling out exactly what is meant.
One thing is certain: continuing to simplisticly and vehemently oppose a term which many of our
partners use as a broad description for what we are trying to achieve with them will continue to
generate, at best, misunderstandings and, at worst, a perception of a radical divergence between
what Britain wants and what many others seek for our continent.