To ensure structured, productive discussions during crowdsourcing a new document based on the Rome Manifesto (but see Questions 0), these questions should guide participants in evaluating the text’s alignment with federalism. They are also key topics of contention in any conversation regarding a European federal future. Organized by theme, they target contradictions, ambiguities, and key decision points.
0. Is the Rome Manifesto a good starting point for a new federalist manifesto?
Core tension: The RM was written at a time when priorities and constraints were different and urgency was not high
- Q1.1: Is the perspective of the Rome Manifesto too dated for today’s agenda and emergencies?
- Q1.2: Can a document produced through the oversight and efforts of major EU actors, be the cornerstone of a totally alternative institutional proposal?
- Q1.3: Is there any other document that could be used as a starting template for this effort? Can we practically start from scratch?
1. Federalism vs. Intergovernmentalism
Core tension: Does the text truly commit to federalism, or does it retain intergovernmental loopholes?
- Q1.1: Should the “European Senate” (8.2) be composed of national governments (intergovernmental) or directly elected representatives (federal)?
- Q1.2: Is the phrase “not a super-state” (7.3) helpful or harmful to the federal vision? Should it be replaced with explicit federal principles (e.g., “shared sovereignty”)?
- Q1.3: Should the Federal Union have enforcement powers over member states (9.2), or rely on voluntary compliance?
2. Fiscal Federalism & Economic Governance
Core tension: Can a federal EU exist without fiscal risk-sharing?
- Q2.1: Is the “no-bailout rule” (7.4) compatible with federalism? If not, what should replace it?
- Options:
- Federal budget for crises (e.g., “Eurobonds”).
- Conditional bailouts (e.g., via a European Monetary Fund).
- Keep strict no-bailout but add debt restructuring mechanisms.
- Something else (please suggest)
- Options:
- Q2.2: Should the Federal Union have taxation powers (7.4), or rely solely on member-state contributions?
- Q2.3: How should economic disparities between states be addressed? (e.g., Federal redistribution? Cohesion funds?)
3. Democratic Legitimacy
Core tension: Who holds ultimate power—citizens or states?
- Q3.1: Should the European President (8.3) be directly elected by citizens, or appointed by Parliament/States?
- Q3.2: Should ratification of the federal constitution (9.1) require:
- A majority of states?
- A majority of citizens (via EU-wide referendum)?
- A supermajority (e.g., 2/3 of both)?
- Q3.3: Should smaller states have equal weight in the Senate (8.2), or proportional representation?
4. Identity & Inclusion
Core tension: Who belongs to the Federal Union, and on what terms?
- Q4.1: Is the manifesto’s definition of European identity (3.1–3.7) inclusive enough? Should it explicitly reject ethnic/cultural criteria?
- Q4.2: Should non-EU countries (e.g., Ukraine, UK) be allowed to join the Federal Union? If so, under what conditions?
- Q4.3: How should the Union handle member states that violate democratic values (9.2)? (e.g., Suspension? Expulsion?)
5. Subsidiarity & Centralization
Core tension: Which powers must be federal, and which should remain national?
- Q5.1: Are the proposed federal competences (7.2—defense, currency, etc.) sufficient? Should others be added (e.g., health, education)?
- Q5.2: Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights (8.4) override national constitutions?
- Q5.3: Should the Federal Union have a standing army (7.2), or rely on state militaries?
6. Process & Transition
Core tension: How to achieve federalism pragmatically?
- Q6.1: Should the Federal Union begin with a “core group” of willing states (9.1), or require unanimity?
- Q6.2: Should existing EU treaties be abolished, or adapted incrementally?
- Q6.3: What transitional measures are needed (e.g., temporary fiscal rules, phased integration)?
In answering these questions we can develop a roadmap to a new manifesto, and rekindle the discussion on federalism