The Rome Manifesto has been a valuable first attempt to outline the framework of a federal European Union. For this reason, our movement, Together for Europe – Movement for the European Federal Union, has adopted the manifesto as its foundation.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the manifesto was written seven years ago, shortly after the euro crisis and before the series of crises that have significantly impacted Europe and the world over the past four years. From today’s perspective, it falls short of embodying true federalism. Furthermore, some of its priorities are open to debate.
The Fatal Flaw
The Rome Manifesto’s most significant shortcoming as a federalist proposal is its explicit rejection of a fiscal union. No major federal state in the world allows its constituent republics to go bankrupt. Yet the Rome Manifesto explicitly permits this scenario:
“Budgetary powers shall be divided between the Federal Union and its member states. The Federal Union will have a reasonable budget financed through taxation and not through transfers from member states’ budgets. The member states will be independently responsible for their budgetary processes and for the service of their debt according to the no-bailout rule.”
The “no-bailout” rule is emblematic of the very intergovernmentalism the manifesto claims to reject:
“The current system of governance based on intergovernmentalism is unable to address the challenges facing Europe in an effective and transparent manner.”
This contradiction undermines the Rome Manifesto as a genuinely federalist proposal.
Points for Further Discussion
Other issues, while less fundamental, also warrant debate. As a movement committed to endorsing a constitutional project that accommodates diverse political perspectives, we should treat the Rome Manifesto as a starting point for discussion.
- Federal Competences: The manifesto proposes that the Federal Union’s competences include foreign affairs, immigration, counter-terrorism, defense, the internal market, competition, and trade, alongside a common currency and fiscal policy to ensure the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union.However, why stop here? Why prioritize these areas over others? For example, should we not include guarantees for a minimum living standard, public funding for robust European healthcare, or even a truly pan-European health system?
- Structure and Election of the Senate: The manifesto envisions a European Senate, created by merging the European Council and the Council, composed of members of national governments and acting as the “house of the states.”Yet this conflation of federal state governments with the European Upper House (possibly after the German model) is not the only possible model. For instance, in the U.S., senators are directly elected, while in India, state parliaments elect senators. One could argue that simply repackaging existing EU structures perpetuates intergovernmentalism rather than breaking free from it.
These are just two areas where the manifesto’s foundational ideas could benefit from further debate and refinement.
Towards a Rome Manifesto 2.0
Together for Europe should encourage its members to engage in discussions about the roadmap toward a new federal European state and its functions. The time is ripe for a Rome Manifesto 2.0, and our movement should lead the effort to open this critical conversation.