Recently I read a discussion about Europe in which a central banking system like that of the US was taken as example. The idea was to support the Euro not only with a monetary policy but also with a fiscal policy, which is not done at the moment in Europe. So I thought, this federalist viewpoint is taken as model for the future Constitution (still in the same discussion). In fact for any new situation you tend to find something that already exists and federalist government do exists, which makes them useful benchmarks for the European Union, which is in process of continuous evolution. The question is where should it stop (or end)? Rules or principles make things simplerBut how do you develop such a rule? Discussion about the future of the European Union are accompanied with comparison to other systems and other rules. The subsidiarity principle for example is key in these kinds of discussions. Alright, but then there are two federalist flavors (according to the same source): In Canada and Europe (read: European countries), "federalist" is often used to describe those who favor a stronger federal government (or European Union government) and weaker provincial governments... The same is historically true in the United States, with those who generally favor a confederation, or weaker federal government and stronger state governments, being called "anti-federalists". From politics to economics "its the economy stupid" and observing another principle (the solidarity principle) the choice for a federation wouldn't fit. The recent vetos from the Netherlands and France where all about the problems with budget solidarity; we are paying more than we receive. So, steps into the direction of a further integration would first require clear benefits before any discussion about possible (Con) federation. And these benefits are not clear... 2006 Hans Bool |
