29 December 2010

Equality among people and the most basic personal freedoms

The first article dedicated directly to the constitution's text about the human rights must logically concern what has to be fulfilled in the first place – namely life and personal freedom of every individual human.

Every charter of human rights has to begin with a statement that all right that itself enumerates are valid for all people without any exception. If it was not, if all human rights were not valid for all, it would mean that only some people could enjoy them; but it would be needless to draw up whatever charters of rights in that case because rights would be employed only by them who would be enough strong to be able to fight them out for themselves. And Roman poet Ovid already (and certainly somebody before him) asserted that “Laws were made lest the stronger might become all-powerful.” The text of the Chapter two of the European federation's constitution (Chapter one – Preamble, Chapter two – Basic rights, Chapter three – Competencies) must therefore begin with corroboration of equality of all humans. In conformity with my previous assertion that I will follow in particular the Universal Declaration's text, I consider as the best to completely take over its first statement which grants, except of equity of all humans, also innate freedom to everybody and asks that all humans act to each other as brothers (“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (further sometimes denoted by me as the Charter of (Fundamental) Rights) which would come into consideration as a main pattern in case of creating the European federation's constitution contains a similar statement but more brief and weaker in particular, namely that all are equal before the law – but it is not wholly the same, just because the Universal Declaration mentions the equality before the law too; for equality before the law relates to political rights, people however should be equal to one another not only by political rights but in all condition (except of individual skills and qualities, naturally). The Charter of Rights considers not equality of all humans as its most significant provision because it begins with another one (which puts stress on human dignity and which however is mentioned in the Universal Declaration too).

I consider entirely appropriate also to take over the first paragraph of the article two of the Declaration which specifies how the mentioned equality among humans is meant, namely what circumstances have not to impede its applying. I added sexual orientation to the text of the Universal Declaration (that reads in the original wording “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”) among inadmissible obstacles for human's equality because it was perceived just as a matter of morality in the year 1945 and therefore it could not appear in the Declaration; similarly I added physical handicap and nationality for these two conditions are used as a reason to violate human rights also today and they were neglected after the World War II (the nationality is however indicated in the article two of the Declaration).

The article two was entitled by me “Right to life, personal freedom and security” and it is actually just slight paraphrase of the article three of the Universal Declaration which grants to the man just these three attributes and which I take over in the text of proposal of the European federal constitution: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” The Charter of Rights expresses the same right but it splits it in two provisions – the article two of the first chapter and the article six of the second chapter.

The next my provision of the article two concerns inadmissibility of the death penalty that proceeds from the European view on this matter; it concurs with the article two of the first head of the Charter of Rights.

The following provision is taken over by me again from the Universal Declaration where it reads: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” I replaced only the slave trade with trade in people that is a more general idea and I incorporated thus the provision of the article five of the Charter of Rights (“Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.”) in the text of my proposal. A add also the provision prohibiting compulsory labour of the same article of the Charter to the same letter of the article two of the European constitution's proposal.

I placed two provisions that are present neither in the Universal Declaration nor in the Charter of Rights under the letter (d). These provisions speak that obligations can be inflicted on anybody only by the law and (which is similar) that nobody may be compelled to do anything which is not imposed upon him by the law. These are very important rights protecting against wanton intrusion on acting of persons and I took them over from the constitutions of the Czech republic and Poland.

The basis of the other constitutional provision was for me the following provision of the Universal Declaration: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (This is a classical provision that as a rule has been cited in state constitutions and various international conventions.) I made it only more concrete by the words saying that the torture is allowed to be neither psychical nor physical (the text of the Italian constitution speaking about prohibition of psychical and physical violence against persons (article 13)).

The last provision of the article two of my proposal corresponds to the article three of the Charter of Rights where psychical and physical integrity of a human is discussed and it is manifest from the text of the article that prohibition of medical operations made without approval of the respective person has been meant with it. It without any doubt refers above all to medical crimes committed by the Nazi dictatorship as well as communist dictatorships and therefore also some other documents (among European constitutions for example the Polish constitution or the constitution of Portugal) mention prohibition of interfering in human integrity and I have used them for formulation of the constitutional proposition. The article three of the Charter of Rights has served to me only in its first paragraph that I used, its remaining parts (those about eugenic practices and cloning) will be used by me in another text later (treating freedom of scientific research).

In the next post, I will discuss rights to judicial protection, the whole wording of this part of the proposed federal constitution will not be presented until a last article dealing with human rights will be published by me here.

18 November 2010

Equality among people and the most basic personal freedoms

Selection of the rights – Sources

Whereas there are not any previous federalist documents that could be directly taken over in the chapters of a European federal constitution dealing with competencies of the federation (and actually, it applies also in the case of the preamble and the opening provisions), the contrary seems to be valid in the case of the section dealing with basic human rights. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union exists and is even in force already. It would be therefore sufficient seemingly to take it simply over in a proposal of a European federal constitution (omitting its non-federalist opening and final solemn sections or solemn statements at all). But I do not believe that it is possible. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contains not some important rights which can be found in the constitutions of the European states, some provisions seem peculiar to me, wording of some of them rather ensures not than ensures and some provisions belong not to the section dedicated to the basic rights (it is before all due to the fact that the EU is an international organization and has therefore not a state constitution). For this reason, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has to be (much) modified and completed to a usual part of a (federal) constitution. (Strictly speaking, I will not base the federal constitution's section about basic rights upon the EU basic rights charter which I am to explain below.)

It is a time now when I can ask a question what other sources of rights enumerated in the European federal constitution should be taken into consideration. One of the sources of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is without any doubt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in the year 1945 which can be distinguished not only by contents correspondences but also by some literal quotations. In fact, I believe that just this declaration should be a base of the chapter of the European constitution dealing with the basic right, not only from the viewpoint of its content but also from the viewpoint of its internal structure (I must admit that I have not comprehended fully the structure of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). But the declaration has to be completed with other provisions because it is only general and not in every case enough specific. Then, I will use a third source of basic rights in the European federal constitution beside the two mentioned ones already – constitutions of the European states, naturally. For they contain many additional useful provisions and more concrete ones than in the Charter of Human Rights of the EU and ind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights too. Then, there is also another document that I will take into account – it is the the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms adopted in the year 1953 by the Council of Europe. And last but not least, I have to point out that I will add also my own provisions because it seems to me that challenges of the present epoch in which Europe is require in my opinion some additional provisions that are absent in above mentioned documents (or more precise wording of the existing ones).

I have divided all rights for the European federal constitution in thirteen articles and I will discuss them gradually. The thirteen articles will be:

Equality among people,
Right to life, personal freedom and security,
Right to judicial protection,
Right to privacy,
Freedom of expression and opinion,
Right of assembly,
Political rights,
Right of free movement and residence,
Social rights,
Family rights,
Rights of property,
Cultural rights,
Exercise of rights.

(I followed generally the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with some modifications trying to well convey importance and urgency of individual groups of rights though the order that I have chosen may be discussed as subjective. I omitted the theory of “three generations of human rights” that is allegedly reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is not important in my opinion but somebody may see something from it in my order too.)

30 October 2010

Basic rights - Introduction

I dedicated previous fourteen posts to the topic of relations between a European federation and its member states. But another section dedicated to basic rights labeled as chapter two should precede this section of the constitution (the section dedicated to the federation's competencies should be denoted as chapter three). I discussed the federation's competencies after the post about the preamble because I considered it as more important as the Europeans are certainly more interested in this if a European federation has been considered but the basic rights laid down in the constitution are as well as important for the future federation's functioning and for lives of its people. I should maybe analyze in this post on the basis of what the basic rights should be assembled but I will start with another thing. I was surprised myself when I finished writing about the federation’s competencies that only few provisions from the social sphere was present. But the reason was that I assumed that the chapter of the constitution about the basic rights would concentrate on the social sphere.
Today, I bring two text which emphasize significance of the social sphere for united Europe; for social issues stand not at center of present unification process. The texts are translated two chapters from the book “Soumrak sociálního státu” [The Decline of the Welfare State] written by the Moravian sociologist Jan Keller (in the year 2005). I stressed the last sentence of the second part by a bold-faced text for the sake of its great importance.

Are we tending towards sympathetic Europe?

The voices about establishing united, socially responsible Europe sound surprisingly in the situation when various forms of loss of solidarity destruct social insurance systems in the level of individual states. This demand unfortunately left not yet the only absolutely superficial level of phrase declarations somehow more significantly. Europe is establishing a united welfare state non yet in minimal measure. It only recommends minimal social standards to individual states from time to time which cost nobody anything and which are restricted only to cover some few social hazards of selected social groups (e. g. the foreign workers).

Nobody of them who use the slogan of socially sympathetic Europe in their political campaigns, occupies unfortunately itself seriously not with a question how to achieve sympathetic Europe if solidarity in scope of individual states of Europe has been endangered and its decay has been intensified.
Who actually should be a bearer of sympathetic Europe? Great businessmen and industrialists should be who will make an effort to establish strong and vigorous Europe-wide regulation after they got rid of much more weaker regulation in nation states' level? Should they be young people who are ever less willing to contribute to the old-growing population in their own countries but instead they will like more to raise money for pensioners Europe-widely? People who still have full-time jobs will contribute to social insurance of great number of people in countries like Great Britain, Spain or the Netherlands who staked on partial and time-limited work contracts?
If the politicians who speak about socially responsible Europe meant it really, they would have to start occupying themselves with two absolutely fundamental questions:
In what level the social securing systems can be harmonized on an all Europe scale? It would not definitely be able founded on the base of Scandinavian pattern because it would require heavy increase of taxes in most European countries. If the relatively rich Scandinavian states themselves have ever greater problems to finance their social securing systems, one can hardly imagine that the considerably poorer states which prevail in Europe could join this system.
The Europe-wide social system however could be established not even according to the “continental” pattern. That has been deeply undermined by crisis of employment society. If rich Germany is not capable of paying its social system after unemployment went to some point, how the countries where unemployment is ever higher and productivity of their economy is considerably lower than in Germany could be capable of paying it? (To extend the German social securing system only to the European 15 (EU before 2004) would cost 500 000 000 000 000 euros yearly in addition (Schmid, J,: Wohlfaartsstaaten im Vergleich, Opladen 2002, p. 65)).
Nor the pattern of southern Europe comes into consideration because it assumes that much services of social securing have been accomplished by the relatively cohesive and stable family. Increasing fragility of the family in the southern Europe countries can be expected rather than growing its cohesion in the countries of the northern Europe. The most likely is therefore takeover the liberal pattern which however would mean decline of social securing in a level of the lowest common factor. Also it could be preserved in the present level only in the case that also the following question will be answered satisfactorily.
How united Europe without taxes unification, without tax system harmonization could be established? Competition for taxes reduction that should serve to individual states to attract foreign investors does non admit the idea of social sympathetic Europe, it brings it into disrepute on the contrary. Such a country which reduces taxes below the level of other ones acts similarly to a family that chooses childlessness and makes use of pension system. This country has two advantages in comparison with other countries. On the one hand it can detract some investors from the countries that joined not the tax reduction competition by promising lower taxes. Such country reduces expenditures on its own unemployed ones but these expenditures will increase in the countries which the investors were detracted from.
A country with lower taxes will have lower amount of financial resources at its disposal for public purposes as a rule. Although it saves maybe expenditures on unemployment, it will ask for subsidies at other public spheres from the European Union. These subsidies will be covered especially from the means of that countries which have not reduced their taxes. Such countries will therefore be afflicted twice: they will have to subsidize their poorer neighbours which detract foreign investors from them by tax dumping, which extend in addition unemployment and so they lessen extent of resources that the richer countries could distribute for purposes of subsidies.
The attractive talks about building up sympathetic Europe have a form of utopia the in present arrangement. This utopia serves however also as a specific ideology. Especially the social democratic politicians use the promise of socially responsible Europe so that they sweeten a retreat from social responsibility in their own countries to their voters. A system of social securing has been better streamlined, cut off, reduced, simply “modernized” if the voters can be calmed by an idea of social Europe which will supposedly be much more generous, magnanimous and socially secure (and paradoxically also certainly more modern at the same time) than the present nation states are.
There is a relevant danger that only or predominant form of solidarity that opportunity comes for is solidarity inside all-European power elite. “A danger grows and becomes more intensive in Europe-wide level that economic and political elite will prefer solidarity in the scope of its class to solidarity with them who they should represent” (Döring, D.: Sozialstaat in der Globalisierung, Frankfurt am Main 1999, p. 83).

Horst Afheldt – The strong state Europe

The German analyst Horst Afheldt (Wirtschaft, die arm macht. Vom Sozialstaat zur gespaltenen Gesellschaft, München 2003) presents the hitherto most radical project for saving a welfare state. He is aiming at correction of relation between the state power and the market where former balance has been deflected to state institutions' disadvantage as a consequence of globalization.

Savage violation of this former balance has been manifested itself in weakening of labour because pays are at a standstill whereas employees have been more and more burdened by taxes and charges. On the contrary, businessmen and firms which have growing proportion in incomes of the GDP have descending proportion in taxpaying. So, redistribution proceeds from below to upwards.
Nothing of that what neoliberals have been promising for already thirty years has come true. According to them, the economic growth was to create enough jobs. But growth has been achieved saving jobs and just the firms that export most and that are the most successful in the global economy are the ones that dismiss most. Next promise of neoliberals was that people which will work will have enough money. But in particular non full-time jobs increase and loss of incomes from labour makes to maintain the welfare state not possible. The result is still richer and still less numerous upper class, stagnating middle class at which all expenses has been transferred though they profit still less from the growth and finally rapidly increasing numbers of socially needy ones in lower classes. To continue further according to neoliberal directions then is only to move on a way forward more rapidly towards splitting society.
According to Afheldt, the only solution of deepening crisis is rehabilitation of state's control over economy. But it cannot be realized in the nation states' level because the states became too weak opponents of supranational powers of economic globalization. It is necessary to unite Europe as closely as possible and to create a political unit from it which will able to regulate effectively its economic and social politics.
Whatever effort to remedy things putting correction into effect from initiative of individual states is condemned to failure. If an individual state refused to provide firms with tax allowances, had reluctant to attract them through still more generous investment incentives and permitted not pressures in favour of reduction of employees pays, the firms would leave in another, more “competitive” country. A defence can only be collective and who must proceed to it is Europe as a whole.
Afheldt suggests to levy uniform customs duties on import in Europe, namely to the extent of 20 to 30% for example; then to double taxes for firms and for the highest income groups and to reduce the taxation of employees by half. Particularly in German conditions, the proportion between taxation of firms and employees would thus come back to the level of beginning of the seventies of the 20th century. The for thirty years lasting transfer of tax burden from the strong ones to the weak ones would be so upset. The firms would have also considerable possibility of tax rebates in favour of non-profit organizations.
Afheldt discusses the most likely consequences of these arrangement. The firms that would leave Europe protesting against heavier tax burden would have to overcome the import tax of 30%. They would transfer it in the prices of their products. It would make possible to raise prices of their products to the approximately same level also for the firms which would remain in Europe. The prices increase of products and services would lead in some extent to increase of profit of the firms that would remain in Europe and would make it possible to pay requested higher taxes from their side and to pay higher pays. It would come to higher incomes of the state from taxes and thus a possibility to reduce state debts and tax burden of their citizens. Employees would be able to buy goods raised in prices either by the income tax (in case of the firms that would leave) or by higher income tax (in case of the firms that would remain in Europe) due to reduction of their tax burden.
Afheldt adds that one thing can be expected at the same time: to introduce high import duties would cause similar reaction also outside Europe where duties against our import would be introduced. It would not however be an obstacle because the European export has to be reduced in every case. Purchasing power is a scarce commodity in the world of today and the Europeans should leave a place also to less developed ones in foreign markets. To restrict our export would actually be a kind of development aid because we would not occupy markets to developing countries' disadvantage and would leave something from their demand. Beside that, drop of transportation over whole continents would have significant contribution to the environment's protection.
It is obvious that Afheldt's project has not even a minimal chance to be realized in present neoliberal atmosphere which rules over economics and politics. It is obvious however at the same time that two fundamental priorities of the project remain substantially decisive. These priorities are at one hand to secure incomes from labour in the developed countries against fall of labour price in the world markets, on the other hands to prevent financially starving states and their public sector.
If pressure on cutting subsidiary wages expenses grows stronger, if stagnation or fall of employees' incomes and competition among states for taxes reduction for firms and investors continues, “united Europe” becomes only an empty idea if not just an instrument for surrender of politics to economy. If uniting Europe leads not to reestablishing balance between the democratic institutions and the powers of the market, it is actually needless to build Europe so laboriously.

03 October 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states 12 – Constitution's text

In this post, I bring the constitutional text of the section Competencies of the European federation according to the articles of the section that I wrote in previous months. The text hereafter corresponds basically to the posts which I have written about it, I only added some words or sentences that had crossed my mind. In the article 1, I added the paragraph (b) considering that all the powers of the federation have not to be exercised by the federation itself but its member states can do it in some cases (it is common in “normal” federations) – and in that cases the federation must have a competence to exercise supervision over the member states because the states do it for the federation, not for themselves. In the article 2, I added the paragraph (f) emulating the German constitution's example in order that the matter is more clear though the basic provision about foreign relations may be sufficient. In the article 3, I anticipate a name of a European federation's parliament and its composition as well as about a name of a supreme judicial institution of the federation; I will express my opinion of it in the respective post in the future. Further, I changed my opinion about social condition of working people in the single market to a certain extent in favour of regulation from the federation's side (article 7 about economy) in comparison with it what I had written in the respective post earlier; because I assume that it is necessary for protection of working people in the single market. But it concerns only social conditions of working people, not other social activities of states – I have connected no mention about health and old-age pension systems with the European federation's constitutional text yet. I consider it likely nonetheless that I will add an article about social matters. In the article 3 about associated states I refer to a chapter two of the constitutional text by which I mean a chapter about basic rights (that I am to write).

Chapter 3 – Relations between the Union and the states

Article 1. General relations

(a) All competencies that are not explicitly delegated to the Union by this constitution belong to the member states.
(b) The Union keeps a watch on activity of the member states if they execute decisions of the Union.
(c) The laws of the Union are in force equally in all member states and other territories of the Union.
(d) The Union protects democratic arrangement and the rule of law in the member states.
(e) The Union and the member states provide assistance to each other in their activity.
(f) The member states reciprocally recognize judgments and other decisions of administrative authorities of each other. They can request cooperation of the Union in case of necessity.

Article 2. Foreign relations

(a) Foreign relations are a matter of the Union.
(b) Exploration and exploitation of the international waters and the cosmos is a matter of the Union.
(c) The member states can act independently outside the Union in matters of culture, science and sport; they observe interests of the Union and act in conformity with the laws of the Union. They must inform the Union about their acting outside the Union. The Union has a right to temporarily restrict the independent acting of the member state in cases of necessity.
(d) Protection of the borders of the Union is a matter of the Union.
(e) The Union determines rules about entrance in the territory of the Union and leaving it.
(f) Extradition of persons out of the territory of the Union is a matter of the Union.

Article 3. Associated states

(a) The European Union establishes close relations with other states in the form of association. The rules of association are determined by the European Union; they can be different for each state. The European Union can terminate the association in case of its violation.
(b) The associated state cannot act in contradiction with interests of the European Union and against the provisions of the Chapter Two of the constitution of the European Union. It does not permit to deploy foreign forces in its territory.
(c) The associated state cannot prevent free movement of goods and services between itself and the European Union.
(d) Disputes between the associated state and the European Union and persons subjected to their authority are resolved by the Supreme Court of the European Union.
(e) The citizens of the associated states are not citizens of the European Union.
(f) Every associated state has one representative in the House of States of the Assembly of the Union without the right to vote.

Article 4. Military affairs

(a) Military affairs are a matter of the Union. No member state is allowed to arm and maintain its forces.
(b) To join military alliances and to leave them requires approval of the citizens of the Union.
(c) The Union respects opinion of the member states when deploying forces in their territory.

Article 5. Free movement, internal security

(a) No member state is allowed to restrict a right of inhabitants of other member states to enter freely its territory and leave it freely.
(b) To issue laws about free movement of persons in the territory of the Union and to execute them is a matter of the Union.
(c) The Union is competent to establish investigative bodies for investigation of organized and cross-border crime with sphere of authority over the whole territory of the Union.

Article 6. Citizenship of the Union

(a) Naturalization in the Union is a matter of the Union.
(b) No member state is allowed to naturalize anybody who is not the citizen of the Union.

Article 7. Economy, currency

(a) The territory of the Union is a united economic space.
(b) No member state is allowed to prevent free movement of goods, services and capital over the territory of the Union. Customs borders inside the Union are inadmissible.
(c) Regulation of economic competition is a matter of the Union.
(d) Commercial law is a matter of the Union.
(e) The Union issues rules about consumer protection.
(f) The Union issues laws about relationships between employers and employees, about health and security conditions at work, about association of employees, about reward for work, about unemployment protection and about working time.
(g) The Union is an exclusive issuer of the currency valid in all territory of the Union. No member state is allowed to introduce its currency.
(h) The Union determines conditions for creation and operation of banks, stock exchanges, insurance companies, investment corporations and other financial institutions and supervises their operation.
(i) The Union issues security, ecological and technical regulations for goods and services provided in the territory of the Union.
(j) Unified measures and weights determined by the Union are valid in all territory of the Union.
(k) Copyright law and intellectual property law is a matter of the Union.

Article 8. Finances

(a) The Union is authorized to impose and collect direct and indirect taxes for its needs. The right of the member states to impose and collect own taxes is not aggrieved by it.
(b) A federal tax can be imposed only under the rule of a federal law.
(c) The Union can determine that revenue of some taxes imposed by itself belongs partially to the member states.
(d) The Union has regard for tax systems of the member states, that taxpayers are not overburdened and that the member states have sufficient income resources for their activities.
(e) The Union levies import and export duties; the revenue of them belongs to the Union.
(f) The Union impose capital gains taxes; the revenue of them belongs to the Union.
(g) The size of the taxes imposed by the Union has to be equal in all member states and other territories of the Union.
(h) The tax system of the Union conforms to the principle of progressivity.

Article 9. Culture, science, education

(a) The Union supports the European culture and its propagation outside the borders of the Union.
(b) The Union can establish and run mass media with sphere of activity in all territory of the Union.
(c) The Union can establish and run colleges. The educational systems of the member states are not aggrieved by it.
(d) The Union supports scientific research. It can establish and run its scientific institutes.
(e) The Union issues laws regulating modifications of the genetic code of humans and other living creatures, treating genetically modified beings and research in this sphere.
(f) The Union issues laws about development, testing and distribution of medicines and medicinal preparations.

Article 10. Internal matters of the Union

(a) Engaging employees of the Union, their working conditions and social security is a matter of the Union.
(b) The Union sees to it that citizens of all member states and other territories of the Union are employed in the bodies of the Union evenly. The bodies of the Union located in the member states shall be preferentially staffed with the citizens of respective states.
(c) The Union pursues statistics for its needs in all member states.

Article 11. Transport, telecommunications

(a) The Union issues and executes laws about ground, river and pipeline transport among the member states.
(b) The Union issues and executes laws about aerial transport in the territory of the Union and about maritime transport in the territorial waters of the Union.
(c) The Union issues and executes laws about electronic communication in the territory of the Union.

Article 12. Environment, agriculture

(a) The Union issues laws about air protection in the territory of the Union.
(b) The Union issues laws about protection of surface water and groundwater in the territory of the Union and about protection of seas.
(c) The Union issues laws concerning free movement of animals in the landscape.
(d) The Union cooperates with the member states in protection of endangered animal and plant species and in preserving natural landscape.
(e) The Union issues laws about treating farm animals, their transport and slaughter. It respects the principle of avoiding cruelty.
(f) The Union issues laws about treating free-living animals, conditions of breeding them in captivity and about trading in them and products from them. It respects the principle of avoiding cruelty.
(g) The Union issues laws about animal testing having respect for the principle of avoiding cruelty and exercises supervision over it.
(h) To issue regulations about protection of animals and plants against contagious diseases and to execute them is a matter of the Union.
(i) The Union issues laws about utilization of nuclear energy and treating radioactive waste.

31 August 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states 11 - Taxes

I have dedicated this (probably) last post about the European federation's competencies to a topic which cannot be held to be last (especially in the capitalist world of today); or as a phrase says, money not until in the first place. It is necessary to determine all the needful competencies of the federation but one asks after reading them: who will pay all of that? (Well, the citizens of the federation will do, naturally, the question asks actually how.)

There are two possibilities in principle how to provide paying for operation of the European federation: the federation will accept money from the member states in the form of some contributions reckoned according to certain rules or the federation will get its incomes itself. What is the basis that a selection should be made of? From economic or other standpoints? I see one main reason: independence of the federation. If some competencies are entrusted to the federation, it has to have free possibility to put them into effect, in other words, it has to be independent on the member states; the federal constitution determines division of competencies between the federation and the member states, nevertheless if the federation is dependent financially on its member states, its independence on the member states cannot be talked about and division of competencies between the federation and the member states cannot be fulfilled. In addition to it, two reasons at least in favour of the federation's financing by its own powers can be mentioned. The first reason is the United States of America in the period when their first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was in effect (1781-1788). The central power, represented by the Congress, could not impose taxes and was so left back on contributions of the member states, that however was not able to compel to pay. The contributions system led to it that the central power had no solid income and ran with debts. Alexander Hamilton, the author of the essay 30 from the cycle The Federalist, a series of essays that were published in a New York newspaper in defence of the USA constitution in 1787/8, mentioned one more reason why the federal power cannot rely on contributions from the states – the federal power cannot be ever liable for its debts because it cannot be positive that it will succeed in getting enough means for its needs. In the following essay 31, he remarks that the competence of procuring incomes is inefficient if asserted towards states in their whole. However, these arguments against financing the federation by contributions from its member states are maybe wholly superfluous because can be probably found no federation that would finance its operation in this way. (For the sake of interest, let us see what the incomes of the European Union of today are: because it is an international organization, there is no surprise that the main source of its incomes (76% in the budget for the year 2010) comes from direct contributions from the member states; but the organization has also its own incomes – 12% are customs duties and agriculture payments, 11% then a share in the value added tax collected in the member states – so it has at least some feature typical for a federation rather than an international organization.)

If it is obvious that it is necessary that the federation secures its incomes directly, not of the member states' will, it follows that the federation has to be competent itself to impose and to collect taxes because it is the main source of state incomes (state can also possess its own property that incomes can go to it from but their amount is usually marginal). Because an idea of any whole-Europe tax rouses horror in many people today and because taxation has been considered generally as a saint garden of nation states, the idea of federal taxes is certainly one of the weighty obstacles of formation of a European federation. (Which can be seen already today when (recently) such an idea about a whole-European tax – in favour of the organization's bodies – arose.)

If we accept the idea of the federal taxes for self-evident (and we cannot otherwise), another question will emerge: which proportion will be between the taxes imposed by the federation and the taxes imposed by the member states? Nobody can think naturally that if the federation starts collecting its taxes, all taxation will move to the federal level. The member states' right to collect their taxes is not annulledd by the right of the federation to collect its federal taxes – in spite of that, it is obvious that no side can collect own taxes totally independently on the other taxating side because overburdening of taxpayers would threaten (though not of big business taxpayers if present tendency of fall of their taxes continues also in the future); therefore it is necessary that the federation on one side and the member states on the other side “share” the taxpayers according to a certain rule. That means, it is necessary to determine either that some taxes will collect the federation and some the member states or that the federation and the states will share the yield of the common taxes (also combination of both approaches is possible).

The federation's power to collect own taxes in relation to the same power of the member states can be written in various ways in the federal constitution. The mention that the federation has the right to collect taxes at all and that taxes can be imposed only by a law, cannot be omitted. That is the absolute minimum of tax provisions in a federal constitution and it is possible to end here in the same way that for example the constitutions of the United States of America („the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes“) or Belgium („taxes to the benefit of the State may be imposed only by virtue of a law“) do. But it is also possible to proceed in the way that the constitutions of Germany or Switzerland know: they enumerate the taxes belonging to the federation and the ones belonging to the member states. The question then is what taxes should be granted to the federation in the federal constitution. A right of the federation to custom duties and other incomes connected with import and export in/from the federation's area is unquestionable, I cannot however exactly judge what other particular taxes should be left to the federation. In spite of that I believe that present tendencies of Europe's and the world's evolution forces to shift at least some taxes to the European level. Giant supranational firms (including financial institutions) rule today world's economy, they are able to freely move capital over the whole planet. It holds true no more in the present time that these firms must adapt to economic and social politics of a state that they can run their business in. On the contrary – states bend over backwards to present advantageous offers for these firms in order to attract them in their territory. In order to attract them and keep them, the governments reduce their taxes or give them tax holidays, provide them with inexpensive or free infrastructure, they restrict conditions of the workers because of them and similarly. This fight has been called “increasing of competitiveness” and it is evident from its progress up to now that states are the weaker side in this fight (as constantly descending tax burden of business corporations shows – see for example at http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2229/Corporate_tax_warning.html). The governments make more and more policy favourable rather for investors than for their citizens. Therefore it is very desirable that the power to subject firms to taxation is in the hands of the federation because the federation will be a stronger player towards them than individual member states (if it wants naturally); also a fight among the member states for attraction investments of great companies will be limited; Europe cannot become a winner of such a tug of war. Very similar reasons make me to add also taxes on capital transactions to federal incomes for they have similar nature in relation to a nation state.

Without regard to taxes which will be assigned to the federation in the federal constitution a mention about progressivity of the tax system should not be absent in the constitution's text, similarly as we can read it in the constitution of Italy or partially in the Portuguese constitution. A progressive tax involves riches in financing the life of society in the way more corresponding to the magnitude of their wealth than any other form of equal degree of a tax for all income/property brackets; in addition to that, this is necessity in present time when extraordinary transfer of wealth upwards occurs. Just because wealth concentrates to bigger and bigger degree in the highest level of the society, a progressive tax is even necessity because sufficient means for financing the European society's running cannot be acquired by subjecting only other classes of the society to taxation.

The last provision in the section about taxes should say that the taxes should be assessed in that way so as either the federation and the member states are able to adequately satisfy their financial demands because there is always a danger that most taxation comes to the federation which will then subsidize the needs of the member states – that is not impossible to see in the existing federations.

29 June 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states 10 – Federation and states

I started my posts about power of the European federation with the article about the international policy. But the section about powers of the federation should start with an article about common relationship between the federation and the member states or among the member states themselves.

First principle that has to be determined is the principle saying whether the federation or its member states should be preferred in the topic of state powers. The matter can be seen simple: the federation will be preferred because it is a formation superior to the member states. But such way of thought is mistaken because it would mean that the member states are formations whose power is determined by the federation (the member states would be then similar to mere administrative units). But the relation between the federation and the member states and their powers should not be seen on contrary in that way that the power of the member states will determine extent of the federation's power. The federal arrangement's idea should not be seen on contrary in that way that the power of the member states will determine the extent of the federation's power. The federal arrangement's idea should be what I have written in the post about the constitution's preamble: the people of Europe has decided to divide all state powers in two piles, one of them to entrust to the federation, the second to the member states (the European people will be who decides about state powers distribution). But all state powers cannot be enumerated in any way in whatever constitution. The world is changing constantly and new competencies get to states. For example, nobody anticipated in the beginning of the 19th century that a state will issue driving licences or in the beginning of the 20th century that it will issue laws about genetic research and cloning. Then, there are two possibilities: either all competencies of the states will be enumerated, the rest will belong to the federation, or all competencies of the federation will be enumerated and the rest will belong to the member states. It follows by logical consideration that the whole of non-enumerated competencies is open and potentially unlimited – new competencies can join them without change of the constitution; the side whose competencies will be enumerated in the federal constitution will not be able to obtain new competencies without change of the constitution. If it is valid that a federation will arise in Europe for that reason that some competencies will be managed better by it than by the states on their own, the federation will be the one whose competencies will be less numerous and consequently enumerated in the constitution. Besides, balanced relationship between the federation and the member states has to be thought of – if competencies of the federation were not exactly enumerated, its power would grow uncontrolled at the expense of the member states which would be an opposite extreme than present intergovernmental European Union. A federation should be in Europe to complement the states and to guarantee to Europeans what the states alone cannot cope satisfactorily with, not to replace them. That is the reason why a provision must be in the European federal constitution preventing uncontrolled growth of the federation's power saying that all competencies which the constitution does not entrust explicitly to the federation belong to the member states. Any transfer of power from the member states to the federation will be possible then only by changing the federal constitution. The justifiability of this provision is proven in other federal constitutions (e. g. Swiss, German, Austrian, Belgian, Bosnian, of the USA and so on) where such provision is also present. I cannot not mention also another way here how to arrange the relationship between a federation and its member states – so called concurrent legislation. Its principle is that there are competencies which are common (shared) for both the federation and the member states and the states execute them until the federation uses its right to adopt legislation in this field. The concurrent legislation (known best from the German federal system) is not suitable for a European federation in my view because the competencies subjected to the concurrent legislation are in fact additional competencies for the federation that get hold of them sooner or later as the German example demonstrates. It is naturally possible that the federation will not use its rights to take over the concurrent competencies, it is however not probable. Also such arrangement can be considered in that the federation will issue laws about the concurrent competencies and the states will execute them. But it is less advantageous arrangement than managing the mentioned matters by the member states according to their own ideas. An interest in unity of the nation/people (Germ. “Volk”) living in the federation prevails safeguarding variety and independence of the member states in those federations which has such provision in their constitution. And Europe is not in the situation today (and in the near future too) that prefers a unified indivisible cultural people (“Volk”) to independence of individual states.

The states joined in the European federation will be different, in spite of that they must have equal position in the federation. It is necessary to ensure that the federation acts rather in favour of the whole federation and all states in the same way than of some states rather than others. It will not be certainly simple in the beginning to ensure that the federation’s bodies think of welfare of the union as a whole. However, it is necessary to ensure the unity of the federation. A federation is not an international association of states, an individual state cannot have special relationship to every other state. It is usual in present intergovernmental European Union that its states agree on some rule, but some states are found to not follow it every time because they exact an exception. I presume I won't be remote from truth if I write that winnings in a lottery are more likely than to find a rule in present EU that is valid for all associated states without an exception. But such chaos cannot rule in a European federation. The rule that is to ensure equality of the member state of the federation will serve also as the rule ensuring the federation’s unity. The wording of the rule will be simple – it should say that the constitution of the federation as well as its laws will be valid equally in the whole federation, in all member states.

The next provision which I can write about is very important in my opinion, I am convinced that it cannot be absent in the European federal constitution; on the other hand, it is a provision which can seem hard to many people. The federation should have a right to stand up against everything that could endanger unity of the federation or could ruin democratic arrangement in its member states. The first part proceeds from that what I have written in the post about the constitution's preamble – the union will be permanent, that means if a state enter the federation, it cannot leave it. But it is not sufficient to write it in the constitution's preamble, somebody has to be charged with supervision over this provision; and it can be hardly someone else than the federation itself. The USA civil war in 1861-65 can cross various people's minds. This war was waged for preserving the federation, the same is the case of the Swiss civil war of 1847. I do not want a war in Europe naturally, the federation has to strive to maintain federation's unity otherwise; any war would be an indication of a deep crisis in Europe, the power of the federation to maintain its unity should not be realized in such drastic way. Apart from that the federation should watch over democratic arrangement of its states. The constitution of the United States of America knows a similar provision saying that the union will guarantee a republican form of government to its state; similarly also the Swiss constitution has a provision that the federation “protects the constitutional order” of its states, it guarantees also the states' constitutions; according to the German federal constitution the state order in the member states must conform to the republican, democratic and social principles and the rule of law. Also the Treaty of Lisbon, the treaty regulating existence of the EU, knows a seed of this rule (article 7 about breach of common values by a member state); this principle was used in practice against Austria in 2000 already (though for doubtful reason and with doubtful outcome). The defence of federation's unity will be novelty of federal arrangement of Europe but defence of democracy is not anything what already present EU does not know.

Federation on one side and member states on other side are two separate levels of managing public matters; each of them will have its own spheres of activity done by the federal constitution which the other side will not interfere in. However competence of the federation and of the member states will not be able to be divided strictly, they will be dependent on each other in some situations (the federation want from the states apprehension of a man that has offended against a federal law, a state want subsidy in its culture from the federation; and so on). It follows from it that the federation and the member states should help to each other, also in spheres belonging to only one side of them. It will be advantageous for both sides as existence of such provisions in existing federal constitutions (e. g. German or Swiss) shows.

Another provision which I want write about concerns not directly federation's competencies, it is however useful for coexistence of states in federation. It is about validity of official (public) acts made in a member state outside its borders. Citizens of individual states meet each other in a federation more then in mutually internationally independent states and so also validity of various administrative decisions of individual states gets in contact. What do I have in mind? If somebody obtains a driving licence in one state, but drives a vehicle in another state, he/she can be acknowledged as a valid holder of the driving licence in the other state, but also he/she can be taken for a driver without valid licence because it was not issued to him/her in the other state according to its laws. Or, if somebody was convinced in one state and flied to another, he/she can be extradited in the first state again or can be regarded as innocent in the other state because he/she was not sentenced by the other state's bodies and according to its laws. These and similar cases (degree certificates and certificates of work qualification are important and painful case today) have been arranged by international treaties today. In case of relations among federation members is solution of these matters not suitable which also the constitutions of the USA demonstrate (I did not find a similar provision in any European constitution unless provisions about mutual assistance of states and states and federation have the same sense but in spite of that I regard it as suitable). The mutual recognition of public acts of each other will be complicated matter without a doubt, so I admit a part of the federation in this affair but only in function of mediation, without prescriptive power.

There is also a provision in many federal constitutions saying that acts of the federation take precedence over acts of the states or in other words that federal law has superiority above state law. But I do not regard it necessary for the European federal constitution because it is automatic that no competence can be executed by states and arranged by their law if the federal constitution gave power over the respective matter solely to the federation.

22 May 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states 9 – Internal affairs of the federation

This post will be short as, I presume, also this section in the European federal constitution will be short. It will deal with some internal matters of the federation. In the present intergovernmental European Union, everything concerning its internal structure is arranged by the international treaties concluded among its member states – the Union itself has no power to establish its own bodies independently on its member states and to determine the rules of their working. No wonder, it is an international organization and the states associated in it are who decides about it. But it cannot be applied to a European federation, it has to have freedom to establish its bodies freely in case of need and this also has to be written in the federal constitution.

As well as international treaties of the present intergovernmental EU determine bodies of the organization, the agreement among the mentioned states determines also the work conditions of the employees of the organization (at random, let us remember the agreement about wages of the European parliament members). Again, it will not be possible in the future, the federation itself has to determinate work condition of its employees, also the question of their social security (including even e. g. their pensions).

I will stay at the federation's employees yet. It is typical for the international EU at present that its bodies are not concentrated in one place, they are dispersed in various towns and states, including the supreme bodies – one of them, the Parliament, even changes its residence which has been criticized justly as a “travelling circus“ and is one of the best documents of impropriety of intergovernmental approach to European “unity“ (“intergovernmental unity” is nonsense in fact). It will be naturally necessary in the European federation that its supreme bodies (the parliament, the executive, the supreme court) are concentrated in its capital (i. e. likely Brussels) but other offices of the federation could be placed also in other parts of the federation; it will be valid automatically in case of branch offices of the central institutions situated in the member states. Employees of the branch offices of the central institutions situated in the member states should be chosen from inhabitants of respective states but it should be valid also in case of the central institutions themselves located in the capital. For that reason the European federal constitution should contain a provision saying that the member states ought to be represented in the federal bodies equally; the Swiss constitution can be an example for such provision.

The last matter that I insert in the chapter “internal affairs of the union” is the right of the federation to pursue statistics for its own purposes as it is so in other federations including corresponding articles of their constitutions (see for example the German constitution).

07 May 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states – Science, culture (supplement)

In this short post, I will mention only several competencies of the European federation which I have omitted in the penultimate post about education and science and could to do so because they go with the sphere of science.

The first of these omitted competencies concerns interventions in genetic information of living creatures and especially human. This topic is usually not in state constitutions, above all in them that change not often. But the scientific progress requires law arrangement of this topic; the example of German or Swiss constitution shows that to put this power to the hands of the federation, not to those of the member states themselves is the most convenient. Especially the changes in the human genetic code are very weighty and it can be only heavily imagined that this matter can be left to the individual member states and consequences of it can be restricted into the borders of only some member state – mutual interconnection of states in a federation will make none other solution than in the federal level possible. All the more so that already today, matters of genetically modified agricultural products have been treated together.

The second competence that I have omitted in the post about federation's power in the sphere of education and science is the power over medicines. It is a topic that seems to belong rather in the sphere of health system. But I am not aiming at interference of the federation in health systems of the member states and at their subordination to control of the federation; I have in mind only medicines' development, distribution and control of their circulation in the territory of the federation – and it is really a topic rather of science or close to it than of a health care system of any state. For one thing puzzles me: the same medicine can be approved to be used in a European state but at the same time, it is not allowed to be used in another state (though e. g. neighbouring one) because it has not been approved there yet. This is incomprehensible because inhabitants of individual European states have not so different body constitution that to approve newly the same medicine is necessary. One thing more joins it: I do not know what a great role testing medicines in laboratory animals plays but if restriction multiple national medicine approving will reduce the number of (ab)used animals, it will be only another reason in favour of pan-European solution. A progress has been made in this field in the present intergovernmental EU but only in some kinds of medicines (against cancer, diabetes and AIDS) and it is not enough.

23 March 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states 8 – Environment

The next topic that should be in the competence of the European federation to a certain extent is protection of the environment and wildlife species. I hope that “communitarity” of this topic is evident: on the present, the man is capable of interfering in the environment with such intensity that effects are far-reaching and not limited into state borders, especially because the states of Europe are relatively small. The necessity of resolving problems with the environment in supranational level is evident already today, a typical example is quality of water in rivers flowing through more states (e. g. Rhine or Danube). On the other hand, there are matters concerning environmental protection which are of local importance undoubtedly – for example, every greater construction must have done a study of its influence on the environment, it would be however superfluous that e. g. construction of a bridge over a river would be dealt with at the federal level. It is therefore necessary to determine what environmental protection should be a matter of the federation (and what of the member states).

Generally, the power of the federation will be legislative, it cannot be expected that the federation itself will construct sewage disposal plants or will make gas desulphurization of power plants. Environmental protection from the federation's side will therefore be in principle passing laws and regulations having obligatory force in all the union. What all should these regulations decide about?

The greatest reach over the borders of individual states has undoubtedly air pollution because air streams can bring it long way from the place where it originated. Also surface water pollution has equally wide reach – the reason of cross-border reach is obvious. Groundwater pollution joins it in actual fact, too, because it is in relation to surface water – no part of water is isolated from water circulation on Earth.

Unlike the example of the USA, I do not think that it is appropriate that the federation proclaim directly and protect with powers of its own national parks or other protected areas in territories of its member states (other situation can be in possible territories of the union being part of no member state). In spite of this, the federation has to be engaged in landscape protection because there are living creatures that move in long distances through the landscape and disregard the state borders. If some state provides protection to these creatures in its territory whereas the other (neighbour) states not, their living can be all the same heavily dangered and they can vanish from the European landscape. We can see already now that cross-border cooperation is necessary now, e. g. Europe-wide project of protected areas network called Natura 2000 and similar ones.

It appears very advisable to me to take over the provision of the Swiss constitution that speaks about the protection of animal and plant species dangered by dying out. The reason is that the species dying out (if they are not endemic) are dangered especially by insufficient number of individuals necessary to reproduction that is to preserving of the species and by occurrence of them in areas isolated from each other which can be in territory of more states. For this reason it is not sufficient that the above mentioned protection is in the hands of lonely individual states, on the other hand I take for better the arrangement that the federation will co-operate with the member states in protection of the dangered species than that it will be the federation's exclusive power.

Also protection of living creatures themselves from cruel, inacceptable treatment belongs to the topic of environmnetal protection. That is not a topic which is normally present in state constitutions, an example of the opposite is the federal constitution of Switzerland that deal with this topic. I have written about protection of farm animals (by words of corresponding veterinary regulations) in my aerlier post about the single market (Relations of the Union and the member states 5 - Single market), here, I have in mind protection of other living creatures – free-living animals or that ones not being used usually for the economic purposes. To determine rules how to treat them, how to kill them, whether it is possible to kill them at all, rules of holding them in captivity and similarly and along with these competencies also a power to enforce them should be in competence of the federation. Also supervision over protected species' import from other parts of the world in the union's territory and issuing rules of trading in these species including determining which species ought not to be exported out of the union's territory belongs to the competence of free-living species protection. The federation's right to regulate the trade in animals and plant species cannot be restricted to the trade over the union's borders but has to concern also the trade inside the borders of the federation and has to include regulation of the trade in parts of animal bodies and products of them because animal products get in the European market with trading on account of them surviving of some species is either dangered by hunting (for example the elephant tasks or rhinoceros horns) or the animals are treated cruelly, even tortured (e. g. skinning fur animals alive in China).

It is also necessary that animal testing is regulated by a law in the federal level, similarly as the Swiss constitution speaks about it because this use of animals would move in states with weaker legislation in case of different legal arrangement in every member state. Co-ordination in the federal level is desirable also for the reason that many of the same animal tests have been done needlesly more times in various places (countries) than it is necessary and the number of the tests is therefore too high.

I will return seemingly to energetics that I have written previously about in the following lines. It is about nuclear energetics which causes questions as regards its relation to the environment. It is the nuclear waste what causes the loudest controversies. Yet production of power in the nuclear power plants itself produces anxiety though the fear of repeating the accident happened in the Ucrainian power plant Chernobyl is groundless. Nowadays, there are states in Europe that make use of the nuclear energy and there are states that reject it. It is not necessary that the new European federation changes it and that the one group of states adapts itself to the other group. But the states using not the nuclear energy facilities should be sure that the nuclear power plants working in the other states follow the severe regulations their creation also the non-nuclear states can participate in by means of federal bodies. It is therefore desirable that all questions joint to nuclear energy production are subjected to the federation, not to the individual member states.

12 February 2010

Relations of the Union and the member states 7 - Culture, education

The first topic of this post will be culture. This topic may be seen inappropriate in a federal constitution of Europe. I have written something of this kind in the post about the constitution's preamble: the federation should preserve cultural diversity, it is one of main features of federal arrangement. An opinion about an inappropriateness of federal care of culture seems to be verified by looking into the federal constitution of the USA where no mention about culture is present. But if we open the federal constitution of Switzerland, the second great pattern for European federalism, we will find some provisions about culture there. So it is not absurd to deal with culture also in a European federal constitution.

It is obvious that the duty of a state – either federal or unitary – is not to create culture. The duty of the state is to support culture – to establish schools of arts, cultural institutions, to support artists financially or otherwise. This is however a work of individual member states and so it seems that no duty in sphere of culture remains for a European federation. Despite that, there are some. The first of them is to support mutual cultural rapprochement and exchange of European states. In a federation, its member states cannot take each other for foreign; consequently it is not possible that their citizens regard culture of other member states as foreign. It is therefore necessary that the federation supports cultural rapprochement among its member states – this is a duty that the federation can manage better than the member states alone. It will depend on the future federation which way it will do this cultural rapprochement, I suppose however that the federal European constitution should give a competence to the union for accomplishing the duty – to establish and to run federation-wide media. This is also essential not only for cultural exchange but in order to the European federation becomes one society, one community and society which is necessary for preserving unity of the union. Lack of existence of Europe-wide media is evident and reminded (see for example http://speakup-europe.blogactiv.eu/2008/03/12/pan-european-mass-media/). The federation-wide media are very good means for cultural exchange among the member states; in spite of that, it is not all duty for the federation in cultural sphere, there is also other way how the federation can support culture. To support cultural communication of the European states (the federation members) is important, equally important however is also to support spreading European culture in the world. And it will be done again better by the European federation than by its individual member states, though we cannot forget that they should have the power to act in this sphereee outside the union (see the previous post Foreign policy) - so culture will be then a shared competence between the federation and its member states when promoted outside the union. In any case, the European federation will not interfere in cultural independence of its member states.

Also the second topic of this post is a bit related to culture – science. In principle, the scientific research should be a matter of the member states because communities of scientists are important part of their cultural and social environments. But there are branches, especially in natural sciences, that require means (financial resources) of more than one or a couple of the member states (an existing example is CERN). In these cases, when powers of individual member states will not be sufficient, the federation will assert its competence; it should not however be based only on supporting scientific projects and institutions established in cooperation of the member states but also on establishing its own scientific institutions and running them. In connection with it, another competence of the union should be included in the federal constitution which can be seen as interference in sphere of competencies of the member states – a competence concerning system of education. Education will be wholly in power of the member states and will not be mentioned therefore in the federal constitution; but with an exemption. Many scientists work in universities (tertiary schools) so universities (tertiary schools) are often important scientific institutes. Nowadays (and it will be valid also in the future), economy is strongly connected with scientific results and therefore the federation, in interest of own economy development, has to support development of science which is impossible without education of new scientists. But because educational system in general will be out of reach of the European federation, it must have at least the power to establish its own tertiary schools (colleges). There is written in the constitution of Switzerland that the federation has a right to establish technical colleges and it can be expected that the European federation will found especially schools of this kind. Also a right to run established colleges and to define contents of teaching in them belongs to the right to establish them. But there are also educational branches that cannot be realized in schools of the member states – above all the military and diplomatic education because either foreign policy and military will be business of the federation; and just the federation has to run also corresponding schools. If tertiary schools founded by the federation will become prestigious institutes, they will become examples for tertiary schools in the member states and an indirect way how the federation can affect standards of tertiary education in the union. It is also not unsuitable for the European federation what is written in Swiss constitution, namely that the (Swiss) union and its member state coordinate their effort to guarantee quality of tertiary education.

In connection with pan-European mass media, it is necessary that one more competence is given to the federation – a competence that results partially from the provision about the mass media: if there should be electronic media with pan-European extent established and run by the European federation, the federation has to have a competence over broadcasting space in the territory of the union. If a right to decide about broadcasting frequencies in broadcasting space would be in power of the member states, the electronic media established and run by the federation would be dependent on responsibility and arbitrariness of the member states. But the right of the federation to allocate broadcasting frequencies follows also that what I did not mention before, the right of the federation to establish and manage a federal army because forces of a uniform federal army need uniform understanding all over the union's territory. Not only existence of pan-federal media is therefore a reason why the broadcasting space of the federation ought to be transferred to the power of the European federation.

The concrete wording of this part of the constitution's proposition will be stated later after I had discussed all competencies of the union.