Specifying the list of Common European Interests (Article III, Section 2)

[Mauro Casarotto]

Dear members of the Citizens’ Convention,

One of the key elements of Article III is specifying the list of European Common Interests, as stated in Progress Report n. 13 ( https://www.faef.eu/it/citizens-convention-progress-report-13/ ).
We ask you to focus your attention on this important element of the federal constitution for which we would be very pleased to receive your considerations and proposals.

This topic can be used to discuss the matter.

Mauro Casarotto
FAEF Secretary General

[Lars Næsbye Christensen]

OK, here is a quick list of what I see as topics to potentially put under the federal umbrella. Forgive me if it is not explicit enough.

Armed forces / defence
Communication services, postal and electronic
Consumer protection and health regulation
Economy, including currency, money supply and fiscal and competition regulation
Employment and pensions
Environmental protection
Federal taxation and revenue
Foreign relations regarding federal matters
Permanent settlement of foreign nationals / immigrants
Research, higher education and technology
Security of territory and population
Transport with regards to inter-state traffic networks

[Lars Næsbye Christensen]

May I propose that this thread results in an enumeration of powers which we can then later indicate Yes or No to?

For example, ‘public health and safety’ could either be a federal or state power. I can think of arguments pro and con for it.

I hope others will suggest additions to and removals from the list.

[Giuseppe Martinico]

Thank you. Indeed, one of the important points is precisely that of competences. All contemporary federal systems have moved towards a type of cooperative federalism, which not only provides for federal and state competences, but also for shared competences. The model is the German one, with the principle of loyal cooperation being crucial in the coordination between levels of government. Co-operative federalism remedies a problem related to the fact that rigid lists of competences often become outdated after only a few years of existence of federal systems. We can also talk about this with reference to other articles of the constitution, but in my opinion we have to ask ourselves this question. Thank you for your attention. Giuseppe

[Herbert Tombeur]

Reg.: Article III, Section 2. Considering now the continuance of the Member States and of the so called European Union, the competences of the European Federation (EF) should have their specific added value. Thus, competences on its (sub-)continental level. Consequently, I put the following policy domains forward, in which the EF would regulate, implement and enforce its rules throughout the Federation:

1. Economy
a/ industrial product standards,
b/ technology and telecommunication standards, fighting cyber crimes included,
c/ nuclear energy,
d/ transport of goods and its infrastructure,
e/ banking activities and bankruptcy.
2. Environment protection and
a/ air quality
b/ sea water.
3. Health
a/ professional disease and labour accidents,
b/ new virus epidemics.
4. Research and development
a/ studies & projects in business and in high schools, regarding industrial production, environment and health (see above),
b/ such study & project implementation, until market production starts.
5. Justice
a/ an office of federal investigation and custody,
b/ an intelligence service for federal matters.
6. Foreign Affairs
a/ immigration from abroad, in cooperation with the Member States,
b/ approval of international agreements according the law of nations (treaties),
c/ a European defence force.
7. Finances and expenses in balance (equilibrium) – no deficit spending
a/ coining the federal currency, its value and its protection against counterfeiting,
b/ imposing and collecting taxes and excises on business, equally and in accordance with the stipulations of this Section, par. 1, 2 & 3.
c/ lending money to banks, institutions or business according to the same stipulations.

This simple post, hoping to restart the consultations and our deliberation at the FAEF-level, next weeks.

[Fabrice Luijten]

I would like to add to the list as proposed by Herbert a broadening of his point 1. d/ : the transport of goods and its infrastructure.

I would suggest that both from an economical perspective as from the practical perspective of a citizen within the EF the infrastructure (roads, highways, airlines, ships, future modes of transport) is relevant not only to goods but also to people. Of course, we could leave this a national affair, but a brief glance at our European railway infrastructure will tell the shortcomings of such an approach. A practical example being the width of railroad tracks differing per country as a serious impediment to facilitate travel by train through Europe. Also considering the fact that domain of environmental protection is considered a federal power, and that different modes of transport seriously can affect or spare the environment. I think a federal mandate regarding this topic is relevant looking at some policy domains: trains vs. short distance planes, the necessary infrastructure to enable the transition to electric cars, the free movement of goods and people within the federation, etc..

So the addition would be something like:

1. d/ the transport of goods and people and its infrastructure

[Giuseppe Martinico]

I agree it makes sense, but would you distinguish between local transport and national transport in terms of competence?

[Giuseppe Martinico]

I would add a line reading “determination of the basic level of benefits relating to civil and social entitlements to be guaranteed throughout the European territory”. This would avoid asymmetries in the protection of rights

[Author]

Posts