30 April 2013

Flag of the European federation

In one my previous post dealing with basic data about the European federation I described also state symbols of the European federal state. I took over symbols of the present intergovernmental European Union  without change or only with small changes because the symbols seemed well chosen to me and appropriate also for a future European federation. But I realized later that it will not be so simple. The symbols described by me in the relevant part of the suggested constitution of the European federal state should be connected with a future European federation but they are at the same time already today used as the symbols of the intergovernmental organization called the European Union. And it is just the problem. International organizations work primarily on the basis of governmental diplomacy, a federal state should be grounded on as directly as possible expressed will of its citizens themselves. The symbols of the present intergovernmental European Union so could be used only if the present international organization as its first stage would continuously pass to a federal state. It was indeed so planned in the beginning. Robert Schuman presented in his memorable speech in 1950 among other: The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe. In the first decades, all steps of the unification process certainly followed this final goal but I do not know whether it still stands. Politicians speak about “deepening of integration” but only expanding spheres of the topics that the governments of the member states deal in their “European” meetings with is a case in practice; progress towards true federal arrangement is not visible, not to speak about committing especially essential matters of all-European significance to the hands of the people. Decision making of the European Commission and the Council of the EU is a bit similar to the method of governance in east-European totalitarian states before 1990 – the ruling party organized a congress, a plan for following years adopted at it, the mass media obligatorily exalted it and the rest of the society got the task to apply the plan in its doings; there was a zero scope for activity and decisions of the people. Apart that the people can almost only watch decisions of the present EU, the EU authorities promote more and more such policy that injures citizens of the member states and alienates them from the whole organization. Trust in the present European Union rapidly falls, also in countries traditionally inclined towards unification of Europe.


For we have a crisis and it is necessary to placate the financial markets. Prosperity of banks is more important then lives of citizens and the European Union became an instrument of help for banks and great firms at the expense of citizens of the member states. Also common solidarity rapidly decays, a common objective in followed no more, every state acts almost only at its own; the mark of the European Union is left almost only for Germany that however by means of it also is in pursuit of its own aim, namely preserving of prosperity of the German economy, even at the cost of devastation of lives of other Europeans. I do not wonder at all that hate against the EU grows in Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Portugal and somewhere else where Germany shielded by the name of the EU comes to “cut”.


Especially the euro (currency) crisis shows considerable lack of democracy in the European organization because important economic (and social following them) questions were taken from the power of the member states where their citizens so so could influence them in the European level where they are outside reach of the citizens, especially those from the states that are mostly afflicted by the crisis. Organizations preceding the present European Union were established after the war as first degrees of Europe's unification but the current quasi union demonstrates rather an image of disintegration than unity. Generally, it can be said that the current intergovernmental organization of 27 European states discredit the idea of Europe's unification in minds of many Europeans and the same can be said about its symbols. Therefore I decided that a flag of the European federation that should already now represent the future federation should be different form the flag of the current European Union which ceases to be a symbol of a hope for the future; and just the flag is the most used of all symbols of the current EU, the most known and the most frequent target of dissent to the organization. Simply: let use of the present blue flag with yellow stars indicates only the current international organization (whose heading towards a democratic federation is extremely uncertain) and let use of the flag of the European federation symbolizes solely the European federation and unambiguous heading towards it.

So how should look the flag of the European federation? My first precondition is that the present flag symbolism of the international European Union should not be entirely rejected because some progress on the course towards Europe's unification on the federal basis was achieved also in the intergovernmental field. My second precondition nevertheless proceeds from the fact that explicit heading of the current European Union towards the federal state is unclear, its “leaders” (that is the national politicians) do not speak about it and some of them do everything so that it stays unchanged. Therefore I want to supplement the flag symbol of the present EU with a symbol unequivocally expressing heading to federal arrangement. The only symbol whose interpretation is undoubtedly such as this is according to my knowledge the symbol of Pan-Europa.

A symbol of the Pan-European movement constituted by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was slightly transforming during decades. It had only two colours initially, yellow and red arranged in the form of a red cross on a yellow circle. “A sign in which Europeans of all states connect together is a sun cross: a red cross on a golden sun, a symbol of humanity and sense.” (Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi: Pan-Europa).


After having specified these two preconditions I was faced with a question how to combine the named two symbols in one. A first and most natural possibility is to maintain composition of both source symbols, that is the flag of the present EU and the original circular symbol of pan-European movement. Then it is natural to insert the yellow circle with the cross inside the ring of yellow stars in (dark) blue flag.


This symbol is however already in use, it is a current symbol of the pan-European movement.


But that is not only reason why this form not suits me; because it visually too resembles the flag of the current EU with all its mentioned above. I decided therefore to swap the colours in order that yellow prevails in the flag. In that case blue remains represented only in the form of a blue background under the circle of yellow stars (otherwise yellow stars would blend in with the yellow background of the flag). By simple swap of the blue colour for the yellow according to that told above with preservation of composition of the current pan-European movement's flag arises a flag as follows. I selected greater width so that the area of yellow comes to the fore.


This flag can however be further modified in the way that the limbs of the red cross are lengthened from outside the stars circle up to borders of the flag. The modified form actually adjusts the original circle-shaped symbol of Pan-Europa to rectangular shape of a flag whose all area it fills and the blue circle with yellow stars is added like in the previous variant.


In the just presented flag, the blue circle with yellow stars is optically on top and the red cross under it. This optical foreground and background (besides the yellow background of the whole flag itself) can be swapped so that the red cross is optically on top and the blue circle with stars is under it. Four stars however would so end up hidden under the cross, in that case they have to be depicted just in the cross, outside the blue circle.


No other composition crossed my mind, so it remains to select one of these variants now. I prefer from the three presented flags with prevailing yellow flag the two ones in which the red cross along with the yellow background fills the whole area of the flag; and that ground is then completed with yellow stars on a blue circle in two ways. I chose from these two variants only on the basis of an aesthetic impression which is, I admit, subjective. I like more the flag with the blue circle under the red cross; that four stars are outside the blue circle I hold not objectionable.

So the conclusion of my reflection is a flag of the European federal state in the form of a yellow field with a red cross in it and a circle of twelve yellow five-angled stars round the cross' center on a blue circle put under the cross' limbs.


21 April 2013

Council of Chancellors - constitutional text

Chapter 2 – Council of Chancellors
Article 36 – Executive power of the Union
1. The executive power of the Union, unless the federal plebiscite determines otherwise, is vested in the Council of Chancellors.
2. The Council of Chancellors comprises of the First Chancellor of the Union and two Chancellors of the Union. Their position is equal except in cases established by the constitution.

Article 37 – Election
1. The members of the Council of Chancellors are elected by the people of the European Union in  general, direct and secret elections.
2. The term of mandate of the Chancellor of the Union is five years. Nobody can be elected the Chancellor of the Union more than twice.
3. Every citizen of the European Union who reached the age of 18 years has the right to elect the Chancellor of the Union.
4. Every citizen of the European Union who completed the age of forty can be elected a Chancellor of the Union.
5. Candidates submit an announcement of their candidature in groups of three persons. Nobody in the respective group can be a citizen of the same member state or other territory of the Union as other members of the same group of candidates.
6. Each group of candidates has to prove itself with approval with its candidature of at least one hundred thousand citizens from at least one sixth of the member states or other territories of the Union legitimate to vote to the House of People of the Assembly of the Union.
7. Candidates of that group which obtains the majority of  votes of citizens and at the same time the majority of votes of states become Chancellors of the Union. Result of voting in the member state, the federal territory of the Union or the Federal Region of Brussels counts as the vote of state.
8. If no group of candidates is elected, the second round is held to which advance two groups of candidates with the highest total of votes of citizens and of portion of votes of states. The second round is held 15 days after the first round is finished.
9. Candidates of the group which obtains the majority of votes of citizens and at the same time the majority of votes of states are elected Chancellors of the Union. If no group of candidates obtains the majorities determined above, the group of candidates is elected which obtains the highest total of portion of votes of citizens and of portion of votes of states.
10. Details of the election is stipulated by the law.

Article 38 – Rights and duties of Chancellors of the Union
1. Nobody is allowed to be a member of the Assembly of the Union and to hold any constitutional or other salaried office of the European Union, of any member state or its autonomous entity or of any other territory of the Union.
2. A member of the Council of Chancellors may not be prosecuted, restricted in his free movement or arrested unless caught while committing a criminal act.
3. A member of the Council of Chancellors may be prosecuted in suspicion of committing a criminal act. At least 25 000 citizens of the Union from at least three member states or at least forty deputies of the House of People or at least twenty deputies of the House of States initiate criminal proceedings.
4. The members of the Council of Chancellors receive a salary paid from means of the Union. To receive other remunerations is inadmissible.
5. The mandate of a member of the Council of Chancellors becomes effective by his election.
6. Every member of the Council of Chancellors takes the oath at the first session of the Council of Chancellors. The oath of the member of the Assembly of the Union reads: “I, … (name of a person), solemnly pledge now to work for welfare of the people of the European Union, to represent it in compliance with my conscience and to fulfill the spirit of the constitution of the Union.”
8. The mandate of a member of the Assembly of the Union expires by
(a) expiration of the term of mandate,
(b) refusing to take the oath or taking the oath with reservations,
(c) resignation,
(d) death,
(e) exercise of an incompatible function,
(f) recall,
(g) imprisonment.
8. The law stipulates details of rights and duties of the members of the Council of Chancellors.

Article 39 – Vacant office of a Chancellor
1. If the office of the Chancellor of the Union becomes vacant, election of the Council of Chancellors is held according to the article 37 within 80 days.
2. Until the Council of Chancellors is elected, duties of an absent Chancellor of the Union exercise the President of the House of People of the Assembly of the Union, the President of the House of States of the Assembly of the Union and the President of the Supreme Court of the Union, in this order.
3. The law stipulates details.

Article 40 – First Chancellor
1. The period for which the Council of Chancellors was elected is divided in three equal parts. Every Chancellor is the First Chancellor in one term determined this way.
2. Order is decided by lot held in the joint session of both chambers of the Assembly of the Union chaired by the President of the House of People.

Article 41 – Sessions of the Council of Chancellors
1. The Council of Chancellors exercises laws of the Union, judgments of the Supreme Court of the Union or other courts of the Union and adopt measures necessary for common good of the Union in the frame of the laws of the Union.
2. Sessions of the Council of Chancellors take place in the Federal Region of Brussels, in the case of extraordinary circumstances in other place of the Union.
3. Sessions of the Council of Chancellors are closed unless the Council determines otherwise.
4. The First Chancellor of the Union, in urgent case other Chancellor of the Union calls and chairs sessions of the Council of Chancellors. Details are stipulated by the law.
5. Approval of at least two Chancellors of the Union is required to adopt a decision of the Council of Chancellors.
6. The Council of Chancellors charges the definite Chancellor of the Union with execution of its decision. The authorized Chancellor of the Union is entitled to issue necessary instructions exercising the decision of the Council of Chancellors.
7. The decision of the Council of Chancellors is inscribed  in the Official Journal of the European Union. It takes effect when it is inscribed in the Official Journal unless urgent necessity requires otherwise. Details are stipulated by the law.
8. Written minutes from each session of the Council of Chancellors must be taken. Their requisites are stipulated by the law.

Article 42 – External relations
1. The First Chancellor of the Union is the highest representative of the Union. He represents the Union internationally unless the Council of Chancellors decides otherwise.
2. The First Chancellor of the Union appoints and recalls diplomatic representatives of the Union on the authority of the Council of Chancellors and receives foreign ambassadors.
3. The Council of Chancellors negotiates and ratifies international treaties. It continuously reports to the Assembly of the Union on progress of negotiation.

Article 43 – Armed forces of the Union
1. The First Chancellor of the Union is Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the Union.
2. The First Chancellor of the Union appoints, promotes, degrades and recalls high officers of the armed forces of the Union and decides upon committing armed forces of the Union.
3. Armed forces of the Union can be dispatched outside the territory of the Union and the associated states of the Union only with consent of the Assembly of the Union.
4. Military operations against an enemy can be done only after formal proclamation of war.
5. The Council of Chancellors can dispatch the armed forces of the Union outside the territory of the Union and the associated states without consent of the Assembly of the Union only for the purpose of averting an imminent military attack or effects of a great natural disaster and only for the time of fifty hours.

01 April 2013

Work of Council of Chancellors

The last post devoted to the executive power of the European federation will deal with realization of the executive power by the Council of Chancellors.

The first article of my proposal first deals with a question who will be in the chair of the Council of Chancellors. All Chancellors should have wholly equal position according to my suggestion but a function of a chairman is necessary for practical reason. A question of presidency is unnecessary at the moment of election, nobody of the respective group of candidates should act as a candidate for a president. Because no hierarchy among individual candidates there should be, it is necessary to choice a chairman after the election. It corresponds however not to equality of all chancellors that one of them is appointed a chairman for the whole term of service of the Council of Chancellors whereas the others would be in position of “ordinary” chancellors. The best solution is therefore alternation of presidency similarly as in the case of the Swiss Federal Council. It is elected by the Swiss federal parliament and it also elects a President of the Council from among its members  every year. But it is impossible at the Council of Chancellors for its origin is not derived from the parliament. The only acceptable manner that enters my mind is by drawing lots. The term of service of the Council of Chancellors is divided in three equal periods and each chancellor will be a chairman of the Council (so he (she) will be a First Chancellor in official terminology) in this way determined period of time by which equality of all three chancellors will be preserved. Taking its importance into account, drawing lots should be realized in a public and solemn manner, in the best case along with the obligatory oath. Such suitable public and solemn manner is a joint session of both chambers of the Assembly of the Union. There is only one question there, namely who will be in the chair in such joint session. In most bicameral parliaments is the lower chamber preferred and its president usually chairs the session. In my proposal, both chambers of the European federal parliament are equal but the same is in the case of the Swiss federal parliament whose chambers are constitutionally equal as well and in spite of it their joint session are chaired by the president of the “lower” chamber (the National Council). So I choose the same solution for the European constitution.

Next my suggested article deals already with work of the Council of Chancellors. First, however, it defines purpose of existence of the Council. The purposes are two: to perform decisions of the legislative and judiciary power and, independently on them, to execute measures for the good of citizens of the federation. In the case of the second, it is necessary to emphasize that it must go on in the frame of laws of the federation, otherwise power of the Council of Chancellors would be limitless.

Further, sessions of the Council of Chancellors themselves are described. As in the case of the Assembly of the Union, I determined the Federal Region of Brussels as a place where sessions of the Council should take place; and with a supplement that it can be also another place in the federation in the case of exceptional circumstances.

The next two letters of the text determine that sessions of the Council are non-public, unless the Council determines otherwise and that the First Chancellor calls and chairs sessions of the Council, in urgent cases other Chancellor of the Union.

I wrote about the next item already in the previous post – a decision of the Council of Chancellors is adopted by absolute majority, that is by two of three votes.

As well as in usual governments where a certain minister is charged with performing the decision of the government, also in the Council of Chancellors, a certain chancellor must be charged with the performing a Council's decision. I added a provision that such chancellor has the right to issue necessary decrees performing the decision though it may seem obvious.

Not only laws adopted by the parliament, also decisions of the Council of Chancellors have to meet certain formal requirements to come into force. The main condition is inscription in the Official Journal, although I added a possibility that it is not necessary to wait for inscription in the case of urgent necessity. Details however have to be regulated by a separate law in order that it is not abused.

A compensation for that sessions of the Council of Chancellors can be non-public has to be necessity to make out a written record (minutes) of every session which is after all usual in work of governments.

I devoted the following two suggested articles to two spheres of competencies of the executive power whose relation to Chancellors of the Union should be generally determined in the constitution. The first of them concerns foreign relations, in concrete terms who should represent the European federation externally. A head of state usually represents the state externally in most European states, it is mostly a president or a monarch but my proposal of the constitution of the European federation includes no such function of a president or similar representative person (the function of a president is a republican “remake” of a monarch and I consider it superfluous). In the case of absence of such function, it is possible to consider a collective head of state like (for example) in Switzerland; there is however a practice in Switzerland that the President of (Con)federation, a chairman of the federal government and of the collective head of state at the same time, acts as a head of state abroad. Therefore I included a provision to my constitutional proposal that the First Chancellor is the highest representative of the Union who represents it externally. I reserved however also a possibility that the Council of Chancellors put representation of the Union externally to the hands of other chancellor.

I detached, from acts of representation of the federation externally, matters of diplomatic mission in a separate provision. It is again mainly a task of the First Chancellor and he in my proposal independently can receive credentials of foreign diplomatic representatives. Also formal appointment and recall of ambassadors should be put in his hands but not on the basis of solely his decision, rather on the authority of the Council.

The following provision corresponds to present practice in most present states and should be present also in the constitution of the European federation. The matter is negotiation of international treaties and their ratification. Usually, it has to do with a head of state or with a government and because both of these functions are incorporated in the Council of Chancellors, negotiation and ratification of international treaties must therefore be its responsibility. But the Council cannot be allowed to secretly negotiate whatever, so it has to have an obligation to inform the parliament about progress of negotiation. The last step, by the way, must be according to me acknowledgment by people's vote but the turn of this matter comes later in the respective part of the constitution.

And the second article regulating performing executive power of the federation deals with relation of the Council of Chancellors to military affairs. First: who will be a commander in chief of armed forces of the European federation? The Council as a whole or the First Chancellor are the choices. In Switzerland that has a collective head of state identical with a government, a general (e. g. a soldier) is appointed by the parliament in the post of the commander in chief but under supreme authority of the government. I on the contrary believe that supreme authority over the armed forces of the European federation should hold one person and not (professional) soldier. So I put the authority of a commander in chief in the hands of the First chancellor along with competencies of appointing and recalling high officers of the armed forces and, before all, with the power to decide about use of the armed forces in both peace and war.

The next three provisions put limits on decision of the armed forces of the European federation by the chancellors. The first limit is that the armed forces of the federation can be dispatched outside the territory of the federation and the associated states only with approval of the Assembly of the Union.

But there has to be an exception for cases of urgent need. It however must have strict limitations as a protection against misuse. So the first limitation stipulated by me is an immediately imminent military attack or heavy natural disaster. The second limitation is a period of 50 hours – it is, I hope, a sufficiently long period so that the Assembly of the Union can manage to approve or reject further activities of federal armed forces outside the Union.

And other provision determines one more limitation, very important in my view – military activities against an enemy can be done only after a formal declaration of war (enacted by the parliament). It is my reaction to present abuse of military powers of European states (and before all of the USA). Their constitutions mostly make military actions dependent on a declaration of war, but present governments simply use such Orwellian terms like “preemptive strike”, “protection of civilians”, “searching for terrorists” that allow to pretend that no war is waged and so assent of the parliament is not asked though the same military actions are done as if a regular war was waged. Laws about waging war are evaded now, war is labeled in various other ways in order that own legal rules must not be followed. In the beginning of the 20th century, European states had ministries of war, today their cynical name is “ministry of defence” but wars are waged nothing less than at that time (the only difference is that today, European wars are waged predominantly outside of Europe). I do not want that any future European federation acts like European states today so I added to my proposal of this constitutional article a severe provision saying that any military actions against an enemy can be done only after formal declaration of war (and it by a special law). This provision should at least reduce if not remove excessive military campaigns (above that in good of only few chosen ones like great mining companies) which we can see today.

And that is all relating to the executive power of the European federation that has crossed my mind. The legal wording will follow and then I will come to the judiciary.