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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Relations of the Union and the member states 6 – Transport

A federation connects states, transport connects people. But it is valid also on the contrary – a federation connects people and transport connects states.

Not even sovereign European states could live beside one another without effective transport, much less a European federation. Good working transport is a condition for existence of a single market in the federation but it is not its only importance.

Transport transfers not only freights but also connects people and it is equal important in a federation – for the project of a European federation even eminently important. The present European Union is an international organization in its essence and the member states governments take care of not changing it and that nobody other than themselves get to power ever. The European Union is a project of elites and its inhabitants are only few identified with it. If the Union was threatened with disintegration, only few inhabitants of its member states would fight for its existence. In order that the European Union's inhabitants identify themselves with it and that they perceive it as something which they cannot be without, they have to become its citizens and to obtain a share of decision-making in it (which is naturally impossible in an international organization based on cooperation of governments), but transport can and must play very important part too because it enables people from various member states to overcome a feeling of isolation of their member states and easily to get contacts with people from other states. Only that way Europeans will get a feeling that they are at home not only in their home (birth) state but in all Europe (the Union).

Nowadays, transport among individual European states is very difficult sometimes and it rather puts obstacles to free movement of persons often than makes it easy. It is especially a case of rail transport. In every state the railway has been run in other technical conditions and so new vehicles (especially locomotives) has to obtain a licence separately in every state, somewhere locomotives has to be changed in state boundaries because of difference of technical conditions in every state. Isolation of railway networks in different states makes railway transport in Europe heavier and slower. But it is not sole obstacle.

Also charges for international transport play their part, the cause that a short journey across a state boundary is more expensive than a comparable journey in a state inland. In international transport, railway makes an impression of luxurious option of bus transport. Financing rail transport is peculiar at all, a journey between two places is usually more advantageous taken by bus and too often also faster. A passenger has an impression sometimes that he uses services of a museum, not of a modern carrier (it concerns speeds, for example) and face to face with this feeling, a resolution of the European Union sounds almost absurdly that railway should be a backbone of terrestrial transport through Europe in medium range routes and should replace airplanes in them in future. It looks amazing in paper, but it will be scarcely realized in environment of tens of national railways (as well as other ambitious decisions of the European Union dependent on good will of its member states). On example of railway – when (almost) every state protects monopolist position of its principal railway transporter – it can be seen that a rise of a European federation will be painful in some spheres and railway is one of reasons why it is so difficult to establish it (the main reason is however self-centeredness and appetite for might of national politicians which we could see also observing the selection of first two lasting representatives of the Council of the European Union). There is really no other choice for a European federation than that transit railways pass to federation's competence because only that way, it is possible to ensure speeding up the railway transport among the member states and making it easier. A provision on railway is not unusual in federal constitutions in Europe, the constitution of Germany can serve as an example.

A necessity to connect a future European federation through concerns also air transport. In this case too, obstacles caused by existence of national sovereignty have been working. It is the most visible in existence of independent air traffic control in every individual state. It follows that if a plane crosses a state boundary, its fly over the territory of given state is managed just from this state. This changes with crossing every other boundary. For example, a fly from Rome to Brussels has to change its air traffic control nine times. It is similar in all Europe, because European states are small from the point of view of air transport and so planes weave in and out inside the boundaries instead of they fly directly. Frequent handover of control over fly's course slows down the fly, lengthen its route (and so cause needless fuel consumption), reduces security and makes not possible to use efficiently capacity of air space. But amount of air traffic controls is not an only obstacle, also different national methods of air control stand against air transport in a future federation. To establish a uniform air space in a future European federation is necessity which also a project of so called united European heaven certifies in present international environment of sovereign European states (at the same time however unwilling approach of the member states to this project certifies how little has been achieved since 1952, in spite of many solemn statements and optimistic advertising booklets).

In road transport, obstacles caused by European states' boundaries are not as visible as in air and rail transport. In spite of that, there are matters which are not being solved best by isolated member states. It concerns either vehicles themselves and the road network. Every state can have its own requirements (especially technical) on operation of the vehicles by which it can jeopardize free movement of persons and goods among member states at any rate. This actually touchs parameters of products in the single market which I wrote in previous post about. Also a power over the roads network is important for the federation because route location of the network exceeds boundaries of every individual member state, if a working all-European network should be established. The power of the federation over the road network along with the power over the road vehicles' parameters in interstate transport will make possible to regulate road transport so that it is used adequately and not displace other kinds of transport whose support after all the present EU has in its program.

I will not mention water transport more detailed, its importance is only marginal and so much coordination in a lever higher than of member states is not highly necessary here, however also this kind of transport cannot be out of federation's attention. On the contrary – pipeline transport has very great importance because it serves to transferring raw materials at great distances and over boundaries of individual states. Considering all-European importance of networks of this kind of transport, it cannot be in doubt that pipeline transport has to be in power of a European federation.

Because this post too is a commentary on the constitution's reading, I have to express to that how what I have described above will be formulated in the constitution's text. The question is what concerning transport should be in power of the European federation. The present European Union concerns itself for example also with city transport in its common transport policy, however it is a matter not exceeding borders of whatever member state with its importance and therefore it needs not to be solved at the all-European level. There must be a division of competences between the federation and the member states in the European federation and the federation has to have only it in its power what is essentially necessary for the federation as a whole. In this issue of transport, only transport across Europe, that is interstate transport, can be a matter of the federation. In what way individual member states will organize their internal transport, it will not be a matter of the federation. So it should be written in the European federation's constitution that transport among the member states will be in power of the federation without to be specificated how the federation will realize its power to regulate the interstate transport – it will be dependent on concrete circumstances. Kinds of interstate transport being in power of the federation should be enumerated, namely river, overground and pipeline transport. I do not name air transport because it should be in federation's competence wholly (not only in interstate traffic). As I have written above, European states are small from the point of view of air transport and difference between domestic and interstate traffic is not so distinct here is in other kinds of transport. Besides of that, it is not unusually also in other federations that air transport is in exclusive power of a federation – in Europe, it is for example a case of German, Austrian or Swiss federation.

Relations of the Union and the member states 5 – Single market

The European civil war (usually called the World War) is far in the past now and so economical reason of unification is more important for the Europeans than maintaining peace in Europe. It is actually the most important reason nowadays, but important in every time and the European constitution has to pay attention to it. So far, I wrote only about free movement of persons all over the federation but importance of free movement is not only economic and therefore it is necessary to write about the economy more.

The main feature of federation is that member states' borders are not borders of economic entities (as independent states are), economic activity is run regardless of these borders and federation makes up so single economic area. But this single economic area grows up not by itself, it can be established and retained only if the federation has corresponding competencies enabling to create the single market and to defend it against activities of the member states.

As I have stated already, I wrote only about free movement of persons. This matter by itself however will not be able to create a single economic area. Inhabitants of particular states could travel freely to other states but various regulations for exercise of professions could be in force in every state and inhabitants of foreign states would have complicated access to them in comparison with the residents of the given state. It can be prevented only that way that the federation itself determines (minimal) requirements for exercise of certain professions valid all over the union so that every person of every member state can exercise them in every state of the federation. When manpower came up for discussion, a question arises naturally of its social security. For example, every economically active one, in the end of his (or her naturally) productive life, has to obtain an old-age pension corresponding to it what he has worked during his economically productive life, disregarding in what and in how many member states of the federation has worked. But I do not believe that the federation should be the only who will make a social system and pay off e. g. the old-age pensions of it – it should be a matter of the member states – although it can be seen handy in the case of persons working in more member states. But it is possible to retain the social system in the hands of the member states and to use organizational possibilities of the federation having a provision in the federal constitution saying that the member states cooperate in social security of working people with each other and with the federation. I prefer however to add the words “if maintaining the single market requires it” because every power of the federation will have a tendency to spread in powers of the member states, therefore it is advisable to limit every federation's power with an accurate wording, especially in that spheres where competencies should be divided between the federation and the member states – and the social system is the case. What I have written about the social system, will be valid also about a health system naturally which is in fact its part.

However, ensuring free movement of manpower all over the federation is not sufficient for creating a single market in the federation. In the same way, it is necessary to remove any obstacles for goods and services movement and to unite rules of working of economic subjects in all member states. The first important principle is that no member state is allowed to impose a customs duty or any other fee on goods and services coming from another member state. It can be seen obvious for already in present non-state (international) European Union, there are not any duties among the member states. But if the provision is not in the federal constitution, it could happen that any member state could impose a duty on goods or services coming from any other member state in an extraordinary situation (see present economic crisis and attempts of some EU members to boost own narrow national solutions, though not in duties field).

Another provision must concern a common currency. A single common market cannot be created if every member state has its own currency. There must be therefore a provision in the federal constitution saying that only the federation can issue money and that the member states cannot do it and have their own currency. The federation will naturally issue regulations on the common currency of the federation. Also the bank system is closely connected to circulation of the currency and because (commercial) banks have great (even decisive) influence upon circulation of money and hence upon all economy, it is necessary that the federation has a power to issue regulations concerning the bank system and every financial institution at all and a power to execute a supervision over them. The provision on the currency will require also provisions about an institution which will supervise the currency, that is about a central bank. But more about it in that part of the constitution where institutions of the federation will be described.

An obstacle for creating the single market in the federation is also that different states can have different requirements on technological parameters of products, on their composition, on their influence on environment, on their labeling and so on. Products coming from one member state could be so rejected in another member state by reason of not satisfying these conditions. It is necessary accordingly that the federation has a power to issue regulations about parameters of products and what concerns them being valid all over the union. It is not said that any state is not allowed to adopt more rigid standards but it cannot demand them of goods (and services) coming from another member state. Uniting regulations obviously cannot concern only the goods themselves but also their production and transportation because all these economic activities noticeably influence the market. It is however necessary to determine concrete competencies of the federation in the field of requirements on goods and services because these matters are related to many other matters and if the federation decided about all of them, its power would be too great. In determining of the federation's powers over the economy it is therefore necessary to take into consideration how much every provision will serve the single market. In fact, it is necessary to secure that economic subjects have the same conditions in all federation. No member state will be allowed either directly either indirectly to advantage its producers (and carriers etc.) and to disadvantage the ones from other states. It can happen, for example, that some member state requires not so strict standards concerning handling materials damaging environment of its producers as other states do and so products having origin in this state will be cheaper and easier to be sold than products coming from the member states whose producers have to invest money into environmental provision of their production (and transportation) and therefore their products will be more costly and less competitive. The same concerns also security standards of products because their lower rate in some state can unfairly advantage products coming from this state. It is quite understandably.

Other thing is less understandable, namely that it is necessary to regulate working conditions of economically active people all over the federation; because here, the federation interfere with powers typical for member states and reserved to them. But I will introduce an example from an extra-European federation displaying that it is necessary. In the United States of America, a federal law prohibiting to transport goods made by children among the member states got to the Supreme Court of the federation in 1918. Though the law came formally under the power of the federation to regulate interstate commerce, the court reached a conclusion that the true reason of the law was to determine minimal age of employment which was not an explicit power of the federation. A pressure to regulate conditions of workers was however persisting in the USA, so a similar law was passed in 1938; it came to the Supreme Court again and the court designated the law complying with the competence of the federation to regulate commerce among the member states now. If barriers among the member states are abolished and the states then cannot hinder the import of goods from other member states, conditions valid for all states without exception must be determined by the federation. A demand on power of the federation over this domain is therefore undoubtedly, it is however necessary to avoid that power of the federation grows too much and intervenes in social systems of the member states. This can be avoided in my opinion in that way that that the provision giving to the federation a power to regulate production and transportation of goods and to regulate services (including the money services) is granted only to the extent that is necessary for establishing and preserving the single market of the whole federation.

In order that all member states (possibly other territories of the federation) are united in single economic area, the federation has to have a power to determine measures and weights. On the contrary, I do not believe that it is necessary that the federation deal with matters of time (including consequently the summer time (daylight saving time) like in north-American federations and unlike in the present EU or, e. g., Germany) because it is not essential for the single market.

Other important matter concerns law on companies and other economic subjects acting in the federation. A single market requires that companies can be established, act and be dissolved under the same condition in the whole federation. The current European Union has its single market not yet established and this natural requirement is provided clumsily through a so called “European Company” in it – but creation of this institute even in intergovernmental environment of present international European community shows in itself that this matter belongs naturally to powers of the federation, not singular member states. What is also important in commercial law is economic competition and relations among companies at all. This is an area in that already the present EU is active, fair competition and control of it is its competence – therefore I hope it is unnecessary to add more words about it in relation to future European federation's power.

A question is what to do with agriculture. In present time, it is a common policy of the European Union members, which everyone knows, and various people could presume that this economy domain will continuously pass over in power of newly established European federation. But if we look into constitutions of other federations, we do not found much about agriculture in them, if something at all. The question is why agriculture cannot be handled as whatever else part of economy. The common agricultural policy raised in quite different circumstances than which are today and will be after an European federation comes into existence. After the World War II, Europe was divided and had to import certain portion of foodstuffs because it was not capable to produce them in sufficient quantity – it caused a security hazard. With introducing the common agricultural policy the objective was fulfilled – Europe (the European Economic Community) became self-sufficient in food products but because essential part of the policy have been made up with subsidies for agricultural production, sufficiency became soon abundance. This has necessitated introducing production quotas which has been complexly divided among the states. The common agricultural policy is very costly in addition, costs on it constituted 45% of expenditures of the Community in 2004. Another objective of the policy is to support the countryside, to avoid its depopulation and to grant high living standard to farmers. Four percents of EU inhabitants feed on agriculture which is in great disproportion to expenditures on agriculture, besides it is not evident to me how the common agricultural policy of the EU can still avoid depopulation of countryside today if only so small amount of its inhabitants feed on agriculture.

The greatest advocate of the policy is France such that – if I pass over today not more needful demand on food self-sufficiency – maintaining (and creation too) the policy can be put on account of egoistic interests of this state (see also the articles French farmers survive but multinationals cash in on EU subsidies or Fraud Plagues Sugar Subsidy System in Europe). It is not usual in other federations that agriculture comes from power of the member states to power of the federation, care of agricultural production and of own landscape is matter of the member states as well as of maintaining acceptable living standard of countryside inhabitants. Many of present common agricultural policy mechanisms will anyway pass in competence of the federation after its creating for they are competencies that belong generally to the federation. There are for example import duties on agricultural products from outside countries because import duties are a matter of federation at all. Similarly, regulations of breeding agricultural animals and their transportation as well as regulations about protecting animals and plants from epidemic diseases, about storing and transporting foodstuffs and similar hygienic, security and veterinary regulations and regulations applying to environmental protection in agricultural production. Words speaking about a power of the federation to make these regulations ought to be the only provision concerning agriculture (including fishery and forestry) in the federal constitution, because they are necessary for the single market (of agricultural products). I do not believe that a return to insufficient coverage of food consumption in Europe threatens so there is no reason to give a power of extra-market regulation of agriculture to the federation as it is in present EU. If the European federation wants to support agriculture some day, it will be able to do it the same way as whatever else.

Important part of present economy are patents, registered trademarks, production procedures, trade secrets and similarly, with other words intellectual property; it is also part of commercial law that was already mentioned above. In such interconnected complex as a federation, it is not possible that another law on intellectual property is valid in every member state. It could be got around in the close connection of states but above all an obstacle in the single market of the federation would arise if every state would have its own intellectual property law. That is the reason why legislation about intellectual property has to be an exclusive competence of the federation.

This is now all what I wanted to write about a power of the European federation in economical field. If I have forgotten something, I will write it in some other post where other matters concerning relations of the federation and the member states will be discussed.