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.

Federal territories and related

I was going to start writing about the executive power of the federation but writing previous two posts about representation of individual parts of the European federation in the federal parliament I realized that I have not satisfactorily solved a question of territories that are dependent on some European states but are not a direct part of them. Those are mostly territories which are situated outside of Europe and mostly they are not supposed to be a part of future united Europe in contrast to their metropolises. Their inhabitants themselves want not in many cases to be a part of united Europe although they want not to break links to their European metropolitan states. In the present international organization of the European Union, the thing is solved the way that the metropolis is a part of the EU but its dependent territory is not. However such solution would be impossible in the case of creation of the European federation. I have written in the post Associated states that administration of territories not being a part of the federation would have to be considered as independent foreign policy from the part of the respective member state, and it is naturally inaccessible. Inhabitants of the respective dependent territories would have to decide after creation of the European federation whether they want to be outside the federation or inside it. In the first case the territories could be associated states of the federation, but the respective territories would be independent states from the point of view of international law. But if the would not want to be independent states – and they probably would not want to, if they have not wanted it up to this day – they would have to be a part of the European federation. I suppose however that these territories would want to retain links to thier metropolitan states if they become member states of the European federation; therefore I added a category of federal territories in the proposal of the European federal constitution. Citizens of these territories would have to be citizens of the federation (and therefore to have their representatives in the federal parliament as I have written in previous two posts) but a status of a federal territory should make to have special relationship to the federation, distinct from relationship of the member states to the federation, possible for them.

However, before I get to details I return in the very beginning, to the article 2 where I enumerated the member states of the federation. So that the list is complete I have to add all dependent territories of already enumerated member states (namely of France, the United Kingdom, the Nederlands and Denmark), just in the form of federal territories. I added also the Federal Region of Brussels to the list as a separate unit, I will return to it later. I must make a remark in advance: when I started writing about a proposal of a European federal constitution I had the states associated now in the international organization called the European Union in mind but in the course of writing, to propose such constitution with that a union comprising whole Europe could work became my intention. I adjusted therefore reading of the article two to it and involved all European states (including the microstates) except of Russia, Turkey and Caucasian states in it. The people in all enumerated states and territories should get a possibility to make a decision whether it wants to participate in creation of the European federation or not. I do not believe in contrast to my aearlier idea that respective plebiscites should be held only in the states of the present EU. There may be an objection that the states of the present European community are more prepared to political unification than those which stay outside but it can be hardly believed because there is almost no popular and especially political discussion about its tending towards a federation inside the European “Union”, if national politicians governing it have still such goal at all. The modified articte two is presented lower. I point out that I am aware that the European federation may never exist in that form, however I suppose that the suggested article two will be revised after creation of the federation or admission of a new member in a form corresponding with reality.

As I have written, status of a federal territory should make possible that territories dependent on any European state now could retain their close relationship with the respective metropolitan states but not at the same time to have to participate in the European federation in equal extent as the metropolitan states themselves. Therefore I drew up the first paragraph of the article about federal territories this way: the European federal constitution (I have primarily its third chapter dealing with competencies of the federation in mind) should be valid also for relations between the federation and the federal territories unless the respective law about status of the federal territory determines otherwise. That is to say, every federal territory should have the right to determine by a special law what parts of the third chapter of the federal constitution should be valid for it. The right of a federal territory to such law is guaranteed by the suggested article two.

The right to special status inside the European federation can however not give a right to arbitrarily reject obligation of whatever provision of the constitution to the territory. Some competencies of the federation must be retained in relation to the federal territories if the federation should work as a whole and if malfunctions should not occur in its operation. Therefore I enumerate the articles of the chapter three or parts of them in a suggested text bellow which cannot be a subject of special regulation of relations between the federation and the respective federal territory. Overview of them with commentary follows. (Numbering of articles corresponds not with what I published earlier because I added two other articles concerning just the federal territories and the Federal Region of Brussels.)

- The entire article 18 (foreign relations): As the member states cannot have their own foreign policy, the federal territories cannot have it too; it is obvious.
- The entire article 20 (military affairs): The same is valid as in the case of the article 18.
- The entire article 21 (free movement, internal security): I do not see any argument why federal territories should restrict free movement of other citizens of the federation in their territory. And if movement of persons is free, also freedom of activities of federal investigative bodies in federal territories must be, otherwise they could become bases of organized crime which would be secure from institutions of the Union there.
- The entire article 22 (citizenship of the Union): No federal territory like the member states can be allowed to give its citizenship to somebody who did not became the one of the federation first.
- From the article 23 (economy, curency) the paragraphs (d) (business law is a matter of the federation), (f) (social conditions of labour), (g) (uniform currency in all federation), (h) (federal supervision over banks and other financial organizations): Objective of these restrictions for the federal territories is that these territories become not, in the framework of the European Union, areas where companies could misuse eventual milder local conditions. Federal territories cannot – in my proposal – permit for example lower protection of working people or less severe conditions for financial institutions because citizens in the rest of the Union would be threatened by that. (Who critically observes present capitalism sees what unfair advantages supranational firms utilize in states with low legal regulation and protection of working people understands what I have in mind.)
- From the article 24 paragraphs (e) (the Union levies import and export duties), (f) (the Union  imposes capital gains taxes), (g) (size of taxes imposed by the Union has to be equal in all federation): The first condition is natural, because it is related to foreign policy, the other two ones then have the same justification as restrictive provisions of the article 23 – their purpose is to prevent that federal territories become not tax havens, offshore finacial centres or something similar inside the federation.
- The paragraph (e) (genetic engineering): Genetic manipulation of living creatures is so weighty matter that the federal territories cannot be allowed to permit less strict rules in this field than rules valid in the rest of the federation.
- From the article 30 (environment, agriculture) the paragraphs (e) (treating farm animals), (f) (treating free living animals), (g) (animal tests): All these provisions should prevent that the federal territories become not an asylum of supranational or other firms that would want to get around severe regulations of the federation about protection of animals against maltreatement.

The last paragraph of my proposal distinguishes the federal territories from the member states in one more thing. A reason of political unification of Europe and of creation of European federal state is to prevent damages which arose from division of Europe. The damages could be various and can vary or complement each other in the course of time. Unification of Europe therefore makes sense only when it will last forever. If the European federation was threatened by disintegration at any time, unification would lack purpose; unification “on trial” would be virtually no unification. Therefore unity of the European federation must be everlasting and the member states cannot have the right to secede from the federation (therefore a plebiscite has to confirm accession of any new state to the federation in both sides as well as creation of the federation itself in its beginning). It is actually common that federal constitutions do not regulate and not mention the right of the member states to secede from the federation (the only exceptions known to me are the constitution of the former Soviet Union (the article 72 of the constitution from 1977) and the present constitution of Ethiopia (the article 39)). Some federal constitution mention, on the other hand, impossibility of partition of the federation (the constitution of Brazil in its preamble), most of them however are silent about this matter, perhaps because they consider indissolubility of the (respective) federatin an obvious thing. I was aware the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case Texas versus Write (1869) in that the court rejected the right of a member state to secede from the United States although the constitution said nothing about it referring to the Articles of Confederation which repeatedly mention creation of perpetual union; therefore I inserted earlier the same words in preamble of my suggestion of the European federal constitution. But writing about it now I hold for appropriate to emphasize it more so that there is no misgiving in the matter – therefore I changed the earlier published article 1 in the General Provisions by adding a word “indivisible”. The amended article is below.

But I return back to the federal territories. What I have writen above about the member states should not be valid for them. As the list of them obove shows they are predominantly territories distant frome Europe and so from its affairs. They are remnants of former colonial empires of some European states and their existing bond to their metropolitan states is not utterly a result of their free choice. There is an independence movement in some of them and if there is not now, it can there be sometimes in the future. From the mentioned reasons I believe that the federal territories – unlike the member states – should have the right to decide to leave the European federation. Their right to etirely merge with their metropolitan state (as French overseas territory Mayotte did in the year 2011) is naturally not disputed.

To mention status of the Federal Region of Brussels is what remains to be discussed. The matter of fact is that this territory should serve as a federal district in the European federation similar to federal districts in other federations, for example in the United States of America, Australia, Brazil or Mexico. The main reason of creating such federal districts is to ensure that main constitutional bodies of the federation are not located in the territory of any mameber state and cannot thus be influenced by the respective state in which territory the bodies are located. Another assumption arises then from this main assumption, namely that administration over the federal district is exercised by federal institutions. I hardly can make another remark that the one that James Madison wrote in 1788 (the Federalist No. 42) about the future federal district of the USA: “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of Government, carries its own evidence with it.” (And: “It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the General Government on the State comprehending the seat of the Government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the National Councils animputation of awe or influence...”)

But it would not be just if the Federal Region of Brusells had no autonomy and the entire state power was exercised by federal authorities. Federal districts in various federations have (or acquired in evolution) their own administration similar to a state one and federal authorities serve only as a supervisor who confirms or can change decisions of autonomous bodies of the federal district in the case of necessity. I chose the same for the Federal Region of Brussels and following two paragraphs describe this solution: the state power exercise local autonomous authorities in the Federal Region of Brussels, their decisions can be changed or revoked by the federal authorities. It is actually a manifestation of something like concurrent legislation (and concurrent administration too) known for example from Germany.

Reading of the respective suggested articles of the constitution including the amended article 1 and the amended article 2 follows (changes in these two are underlined in comparison with the previously published text):

Article 1
The European Union is an indivisible democratic federal state based on the will of the people. The people is the only source of the state power.

Article 2
The European Union is composed of the states Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, the Nederlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, of the Federal Region of Brussels and of the federal territories Andorra, Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Curaçao, the Falkland Islands, the Faroe Islands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein, qqMonaco, Montserrat, New Caledonia, the Pitcairn Islands, Saba, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, San Marino, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Wallis and Futuna as well as all territories belonging to them.

Article 16 - Federal Region of Brussels
(a) The Federal Region of Brussels is endowed with all competencies that belong to the member states.
(b) The state power in the Federal Region of Brussels is exercised by the people of the Federal Region of Brussels and by authorities elected by it.
(c) The Assembly of the Union and the Council of Chancellors can revoke or change whatever legislative or executive decision of the authorities of the state power of the Federal Region of Brussels if protection of federal authorities located in the Federal Region of Brussels requires it.

Article 17 – Federal territories
(a) All provisions of the chapter three of the constitution apply to the relations between the Union and the federal territories unless the respective law of status of the federal territory stipulates otherwise.
(b) Each federal territory may regulate its relation to the Union by the law about status of the federal territory.
(c) The law about status of the federal territory may not change the provisions of the articles 18, 20, 21, 22, of the paragraphs (d), (f), (g), (h) of the article 23, of the paragraphs (e), (f), (g) of the article 24, of the paragraph (e) of the article 27 and of the paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (l) of the article 30 of this constitution.
(d) The federal territories have the right to leave the community of the European Union.

Two supplements

In the previous post, I have finished the chapter dealing with basic rights and now, I am to write about institutions of the federation. But I will begin with it only from the next post; now, I have to return again to what I have already written.
I decided (I hope last time) to modify the preamble and to complete the competencies of the federation. All that under the impression of observing present crisis of Europe and the European Union. Present European Union is not only in an economic crisis but also in a crisis of values which the EU is constructed on. Robert Schuman declared in 1950 that economic unification by small steps will bring Europe nearer to the main and final goal, to creation of a political federation. But nowadays, after more that half of the century, when we have a club of states with a noble name “Union” we are not the nearer to creation of a federation than in the year 1950. There are two main reasons of it: The first reason is that action of politicians of European states with regard to unification of Europe is separated from will and wishes of the people - “leaders of the European Union”, as the common phrase of mass media reads, come together somewhere in a summit and they adopt a decision … and the people of Europe can only observe it from afar. I only remark to them who read this from western Europe that exactly so communist rulers acted in eastern Europe before 1990 (the only difference was that there was not said “summit” but “congress” (of the Party) and it ran in the domestic framework of a state). The second reason of the present condition is lack of solidarity among Europeans. Inhabitants of individual European states consider each other as foreigners and they do not see any reason why to be sympathetic among each other. For example, attitude of Europeans towards Greeks is typical for present Europe – they are according to them lazy and they want not to give them anything from their own. But such action is not possible in a federation, it is impossible to hold a federation together without sense of mutual solidarity, passionately said without sense of brotherhood. A simple question is: do anything the present European political elites so that Europeans from different parts of Europe feel brothers to each other and members of the same community?
I know that no sense of brotherly solidarity will be established in practice by a mere declaration in a constitution's preamble but all the same, the preamble of the European federal constitution should at least constantly remind what is to be strived for. Therefore I changed my previous words “mutual solidarity” in my suggestion of the preamble for “brotherly solidarity”. The text reads now as follows (the change is underlined):

We, the people of Europe,

conscious of prior division and dissensions sequent on it;
conscious of prior tyrannies which brought about the worst suffering and destruction in history;
striving therefore for a permanent union
that will ensure peace, democracy, brotherly solidarity,
that will ensure liberty for its people,
that will promote the common welfare through social justice,
that will preserve its diversity,
that will preserve natural environment,

adopt this Constitution of the European Union.

The second completion – as I have written – concerns competencies of the federation. Observing the present European Union, I realized that a true federation must (unlike the present intergovernmental club of states) struggle that there is similar living standard in all parts of the federation. It requires necessarily that a support goes in the long run from more affluent parts of the federation in less fortunate parts of it. On the one hand, the brotherly solidarity mentioned in the preamble looks like this, on the other hand, it is an absolutely practical measure which prevents that the federations disintegrates on the grounds of economic tension (as we see in so called Eurozone now (thought it is not a federation)). This power has to be given to the federation and it is an additional reason why the federation must have its own resources. But because apportioning money to the member states can be a strong “weapon” for the federation with which it could too interfere with action of the member states, beyond its constitutional competencies (as it occur in the United States of America where the federation makes apportioning budget funds dependent on fulfilling demands towards the member states which it according to the federal constitution has not right  to), it is necessary as well to formulate limitation of this federal power. I put these pre-requisites in the following provision:

9. Strengthening of unity of the Union

The Union, for the sake of strengthening and preserving social and economic unity of the Union, issues laws striving for achieving equal living conditions in all territory of the Union and equalization economic differences among its particular parts and it takes measures for this purpose. It is doing it not allowed to interfere with competencies of the member states which are not expressly transferred by this constitution to the Union.

But not only an economic, also a social solidarity must exist if all citizens of the federation shall consider themselves as members of the same brotherly society. It is therefore necessary to give competencies to the federation also in the social field, I want however not remove the right to manage this field from the member states, so I formulated on the ground of it cooperation of both parties in the social field, namely as follows:

10. Social protection

(a) The Union cooperates with the member states in order that every citizen of the Union is provided with proper and in all territory of the Union equal healthcare.
(b)  The Union cooperates with the member states in order that  every citizen of the Union receives the worthy old age security.

Supplement to the preamble

I am preparing the section about social rights now and doing it I have arrived at an opinion that the social thinking and activity must be one of the most important part of the project of unification of Europe; and I think the same also about an ecological endeavour. And I realized at the same time that I emphasized these two themes less than they need. Their importance is so great that they have to be emphasized among basic objectives fo the European unification. The palce where the main objectives are expressed is the preamble of the constitution. So I changed its wording which I had written earlier by adding some words concerning the social and ecological field of the European unity. First two words read mutual solidarity and both solidarity among individual states or regions of Europe and solidarity inside the individual members or groups of society can be understand by it. Other added words are through social justice and I added them to the proclamation about promoting common welfare; for otherwise than by social justice it is impossible to provide the common welfare. The last added words speak about preserving natural environment through the permanent union. Thus, the modified preamble reads now as follows (the added words are marked by underline):

We, the people of Europe,

conscious of prior division and dissensions sequent on it;
conscious of prior tyrannies which brought about the worst suffering and destruction in history;
striving therefore for a permanent union
that will ensure peace, democracy, mutual solidarity,
that will ensure liberty for its people,
that will promote the common welfare through social justice,
that will preserve its diversity,
that will preserve natural environment,

adopt this Constitution of the European Union.

P. S. I changed analogously also the respective post published earlier.

General provisions

-->Section General provisions is a section that usually stands near the beginning of constitution texts and is different from a preamble. The section contains such general informations like a name of the state, its capital, its state symbols, statements about the state's territory, a general character of the state and similarly. These things I consider to be appropriate to mention in this section of the European constitution.

First thing will be a name of the European federal state. What do we want to be the name? There may probably be several possibilities, the most frequented suggestion - I suppose – is the name “The United States of Europe”. As I was able to find, the first one who used this name was French writer and politician Victor Hugo at the International Peace Congress in 1849, so the term has already its history. The present name (The European Union) can also be used and besides other names can be invented; The European Federal Union, The Federal Republic of Europe, The European Federation, The European Commonwealth or The Commonwealth of Europe come into consideration from a pattern of world's federations official names (Switzerland has an unusual name in German language – The “Oathfellowship” what is inapplicable for a European federation). Which of these names is mostly suited for a European federal state? The United States of Europe? The text For a federal pact among Europe's founder member states requires explicitly the newly founded federal state to be called so, also many other authors join this name with a European state. I will write it directly: I consider the present name “The European Union” as fully suitable for future federal state in Europe. Some objections can be raised the name is the name of the present union – but that is more an alliance than a union in fact and the word “union” not corresponds to the present condition, it is rather an optimistic belief in future unity. The main reason why I prefer present name before the United States of Europe is that Europe needs not to “ape” the United States of America. The American federation choose some name in its beginning but there is no reason the European federation must adopt the same name. Must every federation in the world be called “The United States of ...”? It suffices that Mexico has already imitated the USA (“Estados Unidos Mexicanos”, literally “The United Mexican States”), Europe let go along its own way. From the other potential names – The Commonwealth is unusual for Europe, one federation of the world (Australia) holds this name already; besides there is also a problem to translate accurately this term to other languages. Then, we can take into consideration other names, the federal republic and the federal union. I do not like the term “federal republic”, it sounds few as a name for a union, though there is the attribute federal near it. The last question is whether the attribute “federal” should be by the name “union”. If the present alliance should transform in real union, an addition of the word “federal” would seem appropriate. All the same I do not favour it; if some true union of the European states (not only international alliance like the present “union”) arises, its substance will be automatically federal and no extra accentutation will be necessary.

Besides the name of union's form itself, I deliberated how to cite the name in the constitution. It should be mentioned right in the first place of the General provisions. But I did not invent any suitable formulation (“The name of the union is The European Union” sounds not comfortable for me). At last, I found most proper to state the union name already in the Preamble. So I adjusted the text of the previous article about the Preamble and its end reads now:

… adopt this Constitution of the European Union.

If the name of the union is not the first statement of the section General provisions then a statement about democratic substance of the European Union should stand in first place. Also a statement that the European Union is a federation can be placed here. The first article should thus run:
The European Union is a federal democratic state based on the will of the people. The people is the only source of state power.

Next issue that is suitable to be included in the General provisions is the territory of the union. In the Swiss constitution which is one of patterns for the European constitution, the member states of the federation are enumerated. Our second pattern, the USA constitution, contain nothing similar, it is however contained in a constitution of other European federations, first of all in the German and Austrian constitution. I consider it suitable also for the European constitution and I will explain why. I will deal with it only in other place but I write now that the constitution will be able to be changed only by the people's consent, that is by a people vote (a referendum). If member states are enumerated in the constitution it means it is impossible to admit any new state to the union without consent of the people of the union. It will result in two consequences: on one hand, it will not be possible to admit to the union a state what would the people believe about that it would be heterogeneous in the union and would damage the union. The second consequence will be that every enumerated member state will have its existence guaranteed by the constitution of the union. Any attempt to divide any member state or to join it to another would be anti-constitutional if not approved by the people of the union and the federal bodies would be able to intervene. The enumeration of the member states means not that new member states cannot be established by secession of the current ones but it must however occur in democratic way so that people of other member states may be able to agree to it. This is the way that in 1979, the state Jura came away from the state Bern and was admitted to the Swiss federation as a new member state with approval of all Swiss citizens.

The member states should be enumerated in alphabetical order and not by their official names because it would prevent the states from changing it independently. But another problem arises here, that is to say that it can be not known in the process of constitution adoption what states will join to the federation in its beginning and accordingly what of them should be enumerated in the section General provisions. Here, it is difficult to follow any example because the states that have such provision in their constitutions knew in the moment of the constitution's ratification which states they consisted of. How to solve this problem cannot be easily said. Generally, I believe the best way is to draw up the constitution of the European federal state in that way as if the European federation would involve entire Europe just from the beginning, so that the constitution may not to have to be continually changed in accession of new states. The general principle should be that provisions of the constitution will be such ones, so that they may be satisfactory for great all-European federation; necessary amendments for initial smaller federation will be placed in Final and transitional provisions. I consider such method suitable in other cases (such as of the parliament's size) but not in this case. In my opinion, the best solution is that all current member states of the European union will be enumerated in the opening part of the constitution before the ratification and a provision will be added in Final and transitional provisions that after ratification, the legislative body of the union will be authorized to amend the provision on the member states in that way so that it may correspond to reality. Other future changes of this article will be tied only with admission of new member states and they will demand approval by a referendum.

State constitution contain also a provision about a state capital. Such provision is appropriate also for the European constitution, so that it may not happen (as today) that principal state bodies (a parliament, a government, a supreme court) and even their parts are situated in various, from each other distant towns (present condition in the EU). The question what should be the capital of the European federal state can hardly be answered otherwise then Brussels. There is a building of the European parliament there already and looking for another capital would raise only quarrels.

Let us shift to state symbols now. The decision about the European flag is clear in advance – like in the case of the name also in the case of the flag, it is absolutely suitable what the EU has now; it is unnecessary to invent anything else. UPDATE NOTE: I invented a new flag later - see this.

The question about the coat of arms of the federation is more difficult. As far as I know, nobody dealt with this issue so far. Therefore the question is now what to adopt as a coat of arms of the European federation. It can be a new coat of arms, an old no more used today, it is also possible to transfer the motive from the flag in the coat of arms. If a wholy new coat of arms would be created I do not know what sign should be in it. But I believe the best thing is to adopt a coat of arms already used in the past. The coat of arms I have in mind is the one of extincted Holy Roman Empire – the empire itself ceased to exist and nobody took over its coat of arms, it is therefore free to use. In following picture, there is its shape (small coat of arms, that is to say a mere shield):

Why just this coat of arms? The Holy Roman Empire was an indirect ideological heir of ancient Roman Empire and its effort was to unite whole (western) Christian Europe under its name. It succeeded not but theoretically the supreme rule of Roman kings and emperors over the whole (catholic) Europe was been acknowledged by other European monarchs. The Holy Roman Empire can therefore be seen as an attempt of its kind to unite Europe in the middle and early new ages and the objection is not sufficient that it was an imperial project whereas the European federation project is base on voluntary cooperation.

A question on a third usual state symbol, an anthem, is not too difficult. Here, it is the best to take over the present musical symbol of the EU, part of Beethoven's Ode to Joy, but with a modification. The modification consist in adding a text and in labeling the anthemn by a name, following examples of present states anthems. In the federal constitution would be only the name of the anthemn (probably "Joy of brothers") and its exact reading (melody, text) would by determined by a separate constitutional law. My opinion is the text should come out of the original Schiller's poem (Ode to Joy, Ode an die Freude), should not depart of it too much and should be written in a neutral language which is probably only Latin in Europe now. My provisional, temporaly idea (to be adapted) is as follows:

1. Laetitia, tu scintilla,

unitatis filia,

a te gaudemus accensi,

caelestia gaudia.

|: Tua venustas jungit nos

qui fuimus divisi,

Europaei fiunt fratres,

laetitia affecti. :|

2. Cui contigit facere

amico se amicum,

desine solus restare,

delecteris nobiscum!

|: Nunc una anima sumus,

communis Europae grex,

et qui non vult congaudere,

flens maneat devius. :|

Also the “Day of Europe”, May 9^th, in memory to Robert Schuman's speech in Paris in 1951, is considered to be a symbol of Europe. There are not many memorable days in constitutions, maybe it is very exceptional because I found only one example (in Swiss constitution in article 110, there is a provision about August, the 1st as a federal national holiday). Despite of it the Europe Day can be in the European constitution, no problem with it can raise. The best reading of this will be “The national holiday is the Day of Europe, May 9^th, and other days determined by the law.”

Because there are also other state symbols except the mentioned (for example state colours, state seal, presidential flag and so on), it is appropriate to leave their enumeration and form to the legislators.

There is another thing mentioned in some constitutions in their opening parts – a state or official language. But there are many different national languages in Europe and none of them is common for all Europeans and intelligible for all of them; maybe except of English but it is not a neutral language – today, English is a working language, but it is something different. Too many fights would be over this issue, so it is better to omit it in the constitution; moreover, such by a language homogeneous federation like the USA has no provision about the state/official language, Europe also needs not any – it excludes not a chance Europe will agree on a suitable language someday.

In the end, how the section General provisions in my opinion should run (apology for the imperfect heraldic and vexillological terminology in English which I do not know):

1. The European Union is a democratic federal state based on the will of the people. The people is the only source of state power.

2. The European Union is composed of states Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Nederlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom.
3. The capital of the European Union is the Federal Region of Brussels.
4. (a) The state symbols of the European Union are state coat of arms, state flag, state anthem and other state symbols determined by a law;
(b) the state coat of arms of the European Union is the shield or, on it double-headed eagle displayed sable with nimbuses or over its heads;
(c) the state flag of the European Union is a yellow banner with a red cross in it and a circle of twelve yellow five-pointed stars round the cross' center on a blue circle put under the cross' limbs;
(d) the state anthem of the European Union is the Joy of brothers;
(e) the national holiday of the European Union is the Day of Europe, May 9^th, and other days determined by a law;

(f) the law will provide details of the form and use of the symbols of the Union.

Preamble

Not every state's constitution has a preamble in the beginning. Nothing urges Europe to have any preamble in its federal constitution, but the two greatest patterns for the European federal constitution, the constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of Switzerland, begin with a preamble. A preamble is a solemn introductory statement bringing general ideas of the following text and circumstances of its origin. The preamble of the constitution can be useful in that it clarifies the sense and the objective of the provisions done in the constitution. In other words, the concrete provisions should be seen as an implementation of the preamble and the preamble can thus convey the spirit of the constitution.

So what should the preamble of the European federal constitution involve? Three things in my opinion: why the constitution is given (reasons for the federal arrangement of Europe), who gives the constitution and what its provisions should provide.

Why the constitution is given – these should be reasons why a federation in Europe. In fact, it should be something like a history lesson. So: suggestions for a unification of Europe have been presented for centuries already and they have had many in common – they called for peace in Europe, for the securing of human rights, for the creation of uniform economic area as a means of welfare, against fall of Europe's importance in the world, against supremacy of a foreign power in Europe. These issues should be reflected in the preamble of the federal constitution because all of them had their not small importance in Europe's history. The entire history of Europe is filled by smaller or (in the course of time) grater wars and these armed conflicts were largely the main cause of suggestions how to prevent them by unification of European states. But Europeans did not want hear out the suggestions until they came to two-staged civil war (usually entitled as world wars) which extensively devastated Europe. And also another prediction took place then – Europe was divided and subjected to alien powers (the Soviet union and the United states of America). The power of Europe and its influence in the world was past (in fact, has been, few has changed to now). The division of Europe into separate hostile states led also to the rise of totalitarian and undemocratic, mostly aggressive state regimes, especially in armistice time of the European civil war. Those regimes not only unleashed wars with other states but also demolished lives of their own citizens, committed crimes reminded up to this day that could not be prevented by divided Europe and quarrelled with each other. Next, the hostile division of Europe led not only to a two-phase great war but due to it also to a great demolition of material goods, to a damage of many artistic works and historical relics, to a demolition of industrial capabilities and a fall of the people living standard. Europe even needed an external economic aid to survive (the Marshall plan). So a declaration should be present in the Preamble that Europeans are aware of prior division and of its adverse consequences together with a manifestation of a will to disallow a repetition of history – political and economic.

Who will give the constitution – it will be written by only few, three or four, words in it, in spite of that it can cause a controversy. Should the first words of the constitution sound “we, the people of Europe” or “we, the peoples of Europe” or “we, the states or Europe” or “we, the people and the states of Europe”? Though it can be seen as irrelevant, in fact, it has its importance. The question who brought the European federal constitution and who built up the federal authorities is not unimportant for future legal disputes about the power of the federal bodies (indeed, supreme courts of some states adjudged in some cases according to the constitution preambles). In the case it will be a controversy about an extent of the federal bodies competencies towards the states' competencies, the provision that the people of Europe was who has given itself the federal constitution will have a crucial importance for the federal constitutional institutions – the competencies of the federal bodies are derived from the federal constitution given by the people, not from the power of the member states, so the member states will not be able to restrict or to change the power of the federation. The rise of the federation is due to the will of the European people, not due to the states – it can be claimed if the constitution contain the words “we, the people of Europe”. “We, the states of Europe” is a declaration quite contrary to an intent to establish a strong federation. It suffices to observe how the power of states causes a weak position of the present EU. What about “we, the peoples of Europe”? Thus similar it is written in the preamble of in a comment to my first article in this blog mentioned draft of the European federal constitution (“We, the peoples of the European Union”). But this declaration is in an ideological conflict with a concept of a federal union. If one European federal state should be established, all European peoples act in that case as one people, for the federal state all are its one people. The peoples – that sounds as if the peoples (die Nazionen) only gathered together but not united itself, like in the present EU. Nobody says the diversity of European peoples has to be erased, but an union of Europe cannot be based on the peoples but the people. “We, the peoples establish the Union” is something insane like “we, the citizens of villages and towns establish the state of …” If we look in the constitution of the United states of America, we find there bright “we the people of the United states of America”. On the other hand, after opening the federal constitution of Switzerland, you can read “Das Schweizervolk und die Kantone” (“the Swiss people and the states”). Somebody can hold it suitable to imitate in the whole Europe (“we the European people and (our) states”) but despite of that it is already written in some constitution (of Switzerland) I do not consider it suitable. The words about the states can be seen as a useful measure for a guarantee the (present) states will not be destroyed by the federation. But such fears are quite needless, the federation cannot destroy the existence of its member states, it depends only on their peoples and it is even contradictory to the principles of federalism. The states may be (beside the people) mentioned in the Swiss constitution but Switzerland is something else than the whole Europe; because in Europe the states were the main cause of wars and inhuman crimes, it is not proper to name the states in European federal constitution. - although the federation should not destroy the states, it should struggle to overcome division of Europe in states.

What the constitution should provide result from the first: why constitution is given. So the things are providing peace and democracy, safeguarding the independence of Europe, setting Europe again an example for the world, promoting the common welfare, preserving cultural and national diversity. These are the general objectives, the other ones which can be conceived are involved in the previous ones such as a struggle for intact environment (common welfare). In my opinion, the one more thing should be mentioned in the preamble – perpetuity of the union. The union will provide neither peace nor democracy nor the common welfare nor the other named matters if it could disintegrate any time. But I will comment more this thing in other place later in an article dedicated to general provisions.

Yet another thing I can refer to – a religion. Almost everyone knows the European Convention disputed about that the Christianity heritage should be mentioned in the preamble of a (so called) European constitution. But what for? Today, the Christianity is a private thing of every person and none and nothing will take it out from it, the European federal constitution being no exception. It may be admitted that the God appears in the Swiss constitution in the words “im Namen Gottes des Allmächtigen!” (“in the name of Almighty God!”). So, the Swiss people is strongly religious. But so do (and always did) the people of the United states of America and look at the preamble of their constitution – the religion is absolutely absent. While the Americans was already at that time religious we must suppose that the absenting religion in the constitution's preamble is an expression of a fact the religion cannot be commingled with politics. And we in Europe should do the same.

I should summarize in the end, so I express my notion about a shape of the preamble. Here it is:

We, the people of Europe,

conscious of prior division and dissensions sequent on it;
conscious of prior tyrannies which brought about the worst suffering and destruction in history;
striving therefore for a permanent union
that will ensure peace, democracy, mutual solidarity,
that will ensure liberty for its people,
that will promote the common welfare through social justice,
that will preserve its diversity,
that will preserve natural environment,

adopt this Constitution of the European Union.