Rights and duties of the deputies

This post will again deal with both chambers of the federal parliament, it determines rights and duties of deputies of the parliament which will the same in both chambers. This post brings no peculiarities, it determines in principle rules usual in many or most states' constitutions.

The first paragraph of my suggestion states  precisely incompatibility of the functions, that is to say it enumerates the functions which the deputy of the European federal parliament cannot hold. Separation of individual kinds of state power in the frame of one state system has to be safeguarded in the first place and so the first paragraph forbids a deputy of the federal parliament to be a representative of the executive or judicial power of the federation. But beside that, it forbids him to hold any other with pay remunerated position in the federation because the deputies should devote themselves only to the work for which they were elected. Except for separation of individual kinds of power, also separation of constitutional functions of the federation and the member states must be maintained, nobody should be both a holder of state power of any member state and the federation or the federation and an autonomous region of any member state in the same time. For if the federal constitution determines separation of the state power of the member states and of the federation, also their exercise should be personally separated. A provision is then joined to this paragraph and says that nobody is allowed to be member of both chambers which is common and obvious provision of constitutions of all states whose parliament has two chambers.

The second paragraph establishes a principle of independence of the deputy. According to it, the deputy of the federal parliament may not vote in compliance with instructions of someone else. He must vote in person as well, not by proxy. For a specific deputy was elected (or appointed) and only he has his responsibility for the voting process, not someone else. Apart from this instruction of personal voting my suggestion stipulates three guidelines which the deputy shall follow in voting. These are own conscience, conformity with the constitution of the Union and interest of the people which he represents. Only the first is relatively common in constitutions, namely emphasis on voting according to conscience of the deputy though simple prohibition of giving instructions to the deputy mostly occurs. Much less widespread is a demand that voting of the deputy is in conformity with the constitution – it is probably regarded self-evident and it has been relied on possible correction in the form of constitutional judiciary. But I hold it important because the constitution (according to my suggestion) determines in the section of the basic rights but also in other its parts ground delimitation how the society of the European Union should be organized and what values should follow. And the deputies of the parliament should embody these values in individual concrete laws. The last of guidelines for voting, interests of the represented people, is the most unusual and is not commonly present in constitutions. But it is utterly logical provision – for there are only few other ways how to ensure that elected deputies keep what they promised when they were candidates. The deputies were above all elected just for that purpose that they represent the people and its interests. If the deputies voted without regard to the people that voted them, we could directly manage entirely without elected deputies. Finally, the last sentence of this paragraph says that every member of the Assembly of the Union has one vote which expresses equality of all deputies.

The following two paragraphs protect – as is usual in constitutions – elected deputies from unjustified persecution that would be a pretext for exercise the function of a deputy impossible. The first paragraph says that no deputy may be persecuted for speeches or voting made by exercise of his mandate. The opposite naturally would make to represent certain opinion of the people inconvenient to certain powerful group impossible, on the other hand this provision makes not possible to enforce that a deputy really represents the people that elected him – those are two conflicting demands, but the first one is more important; besides, the people can secure its interests otherwise than through the deputies as I will write about it later.

The second paragraph then speaks about prosecution of a deputy for other acts than attitudes in the precinct of the parliament. It says that a deputy can be taken into custody only if he is committing a criminal offence or immediately after, otherwise he can be prosecuted only with consent of the chamber of which he is a member; the respective chamber also can postpone prosecution of the representative to the time of expiring of his mandate. All of these are provisions by whose constitutions commonly protect deputies of parliaments from unjustified prosecution.

The next my provision refers to pays of deputies of the parliament that they should obtain from the means of the Union. It is necessary from several reasons. It has been known already from the antiquity that if political activity shall be paid from own resources, only who can afford it will participate in it which goes against the principle of equity of access to elective functions as it is written in the suggestion of the second chapter of this constitution. The second reason is just the words “from the means of the Union”, because it is necessary that no deputy accepts any means (except for his regular pay) from somebody and is therefore not dependent on him. And in order that it is prevented my suggestion contains one more sentence saying that accepting other rewards is unacceptable.

Two paragraphs delimit the time of the deputy's mandate. The first is very brief, contains only one sentence saying that the mandate of the deputy is effective upon his election. The second paragraph enumerates circumstances of the end of the deputy's mandate; but I inserted before it a paragraph concerning the oath of a newly elected deputy. According to it, the new deputy must in the first sitting of his chamber in which he will take part swear an oath whose reading I directly wrote in my proposal and which is: “I, … (name of the person), hereby pledge to work for welfare of the people of the European Union, to represent it in accordance with my best conscience and to fulfill the spirit of the constitution of the Union.” I tried that all what I described above as guidelines for decision-making of the deputy is expressed in it.

So now is turn of the paragraph describing the end of the deputy's mandate. Some mentioned circumstances are obvious such as expiration of the term of mandate or death. Also an obstacle in the form of exercising an incompatible function as the first paragraph (of the proposal) mentioned above speaks about is logical. I added also words about refusing to take the oath or taking it with reservations so that the oath is not mere formality without significance; it is common practice by the way. Finally, I add one more way of ending the deputy's mandate that on the contrary is not a common practice (at least in Europe), namely recall election. For the people has to have the right to remove its representatives, I wrote about it in the post about political rights.

The last but one, the ninth paragraph of my proposal determines the right of the deputies to the so called interpellation, parliamentary question of representatives of the executive power of the federation. It is one (though not mighty one) possibility of control of the executive power by the legislative power. According to my suggestion every member of the Assembly of the Union shall have this right towards the representatives of the executive power (members of the Council of Chancellors – I will speak about this terminology later in a respective post) shall have obligation by words or in writing answer within 30 days (longer period of time would be in my opinion too excessive).

Because it is impossible to include entirely all duties and rights of the member of parliament, the last paragraph of this article says that details are stipulated by a separate law.

Parliament's chambers

In the previous post, I wrote about some separate matters that refer to the legislative body of the European federation. I will now more systematically continue in matters that concern the federal parliament as the whole or are common to both chambers of it.

I wrote in the previous post, that the federal parliament should consist of two chambers (The House of the People and The House of States). But I expressed about their mutual relation in no way. This relation can in general be whatever – for example one chamber can have superiority and the other only be supplement to it (as in Germany) or either chamber can have approximately or completely equal position (as it is in Switzerland). If however two chambers of the federal parliament should counterbalance different size of the member states, wholly equal position of both chambers is desirable, neither should be superior to the other one. This equality should be expressly determined just in the paragraph determining division of the federal parliament in two chambers. Other rule also logically follows it and should be written in the next paragraph: to adopt a law or a resolution of the whole parliament requires consent of both its chambers.

A paragraph following previous two provisions should say that both chambers sit separately though it can appear unnecessary because obvious.

I reserved the next paragraph for a provision about the seat of the European federal parliament. It may (also) appear as an unnecessary provision for I wrote already in the general provisions that the capital of the federation is the Federal region of Brussels but it has its justification, even two. We all know that the parliament of the present EU (because of selfishness of France) every half a year moves hundreds kilometers so such move will be prevented by an explicit provision that the seat of the federal parliament is the Federal region of Brussels. The second justification is a provision that I attach just in the following sentence – if circumstances urgently demand it, whatever chamber of the federal parliament can meet in other place of the federation. It is a measure that allows to the parliament to meet in the case of a critical situation, if someone or something prevented the parliament from meeting in its usual seat. Besides, some constitutions know this provision too.

The following two paragraphs of my proposal deal with necessary majorities. The first of them determines a number of present deputies necessary for the respective chamber to be quorate (to be able to adopt a decision). In states' constitutions, presence of absolute majority (at least one half) of all representatives is stipulated. I personally consider it as a quite low number and though I admit that individual deputies can be charged by the parliament with a task which make their presence impossible or they can be indisposed in health but I do not understand why just one half of a respective chamber's members should “roam” elsewhere outside the seat of the legislative body. The deputies of the body were elected to do the work for the European Union and its people, not to avoid it. The constitution of Portugal even determines that members of the parliament have a duty to be present at plenary sittings and committees to which they belong. Also the deputies of the European federal parliament should have the same duty and a minimal number of present representatives necessary for a valid sitting will indirectly secure it. I therefore determine this quorum higher, at two thirds of all members of the respective chamber.

Also minimal number of votes necessary  for adopting a decision (a law) in the respective chamber is closely connected with the previous question. A condition of absolute majority of present representatives is stipulated almost always in parliaments in Europe. But I believe that absolute majority of all deputies (of the respective chamber) should be a condition in the European federal constitution which will cause pressure against low presence of deputies in sittings because the lesser number of deputies will consider a thing the greater agreement will have to be among them so that they pass a law or other decision. That is therefore a measure against absence of deputies in sittings but also a measure that ensures that every proposal obtains sufficiently great, not only close majority. I add a sentence to this provision that each chamber can adopt its own resolutions. Consent of both chambers should be necessary for passing laws and other decisions of the whole Assembly of the Union but besides, every chamber should have a possibility to adopt its own declarations and resolutions.

The following paragraph of my suggestion determines rules of sitting of both chambers of the Assembly of the Union. It has a few sentences and the first of them says that either chamber sit permanently, that is to say for the whole election term of four years. They will naturally not sit for the four years continuously, the next sentence therefore determines a maximal period for which the chamber's setting can be adjourned. Various periods are determined as to this in constitutions, if they are determined at all. I believe (which I have already written) that representatives was elected firstly to work for those who elected them, therefore I determined 150 days in the year as a maximal period for which the sitting of one chamber can be adjourned – it is a sufficiently long period for me.

The next paragraph of my proposal is brief, it says that the Assembly of the Union cannot be dissolved. For I consider permanence of sitting of the federal parliament as a significant component of stability of whole democratic political system. Various people will certainly be surprised that I refuse present practice common in whole Europe and they will want to know how I would like to resolve usual governmental crises. But I see the relation between the legislative and the executive power differently from the view common in Europe and I do not believe that a crisis of the executive power's institutions should be resolved by intervention in the legislative power (why to dissolve the parliament when a problem is in the government? - it is silly).

The ninth paragraph determines the time when both chambers should meet for the first time and a manner of it. It is possible that either the parliament meets on a given day after elections on its own accord or somebody convokes it in a given term. Both possibilities come into consideration, I prefer the second one because it is a bit more formal. According to my suggestion, the Council of Chancellors of the Union convokes the first sitting of either chamber of the parliament in the 30th day after the respective election at the latest. Whom I call “Council of Chancellors of the Union” I will explain later discussing the executive power of the federation. It has to be also determined what should occur if a representative of the executive power (that Council of Chancellors) convokes not the first session of the respective chamber within thirty days – then my suggestion says that the chamber meet on its own the 31st day. And I add also that in the chair of the first session is the oldest member of the respective chamber.

The following paragraph ensures that sitting of the chambers will be open to public and that public can be expelled only in weighty cases determined by the law. It is a common provision of constitutions and its purpose is obvious.

Also following two paragraphs of my proposal correspond with common constitutional provisions. The first of them says that every chamber elects a president and two vice-presidents, the second one then that each chamber establishes committees and decide on distributing deputies in them.

All rules about the parliament's and its chambers' working cannot be present directly in the text of the constitution, therefore I refer to a special law about rules of procedure of the respective chamber in the next paragraph.

The next provision of this article gives to each chamber of the European federal parliament the right to conduct an investigation in the public interest and to summon persons discharging public functions.

In the next post, I will write about rights and duties of the European federal parliament's members.

The form of the parliamentary body

In this post, I proceed to state institutions of the European federation. For if the European federation shall be a common state, it has to have common state institutions as every other state. I will suggest no mere reform of any institution of the present intergovernmental European Union in any my future suggestion of this part of the European federation's constitution because a functional federal state must have other and otherwise working institutions than an international organization even if it were hundred times “sui generis”. First I will deal with the form of the legislative body of the European federation.
There are many questions that the federal constitution must respond in reference to its legislative body, I will deal with three of them for the present: how great it should be, how many chambers it shall have and what its name shall be.
The most important of these is the second one. In principle, it is a choice between a unicameral and bicameral parliament. The current European parliament is unicameral but it cannot be taken as a pattern because it is not a typical parliament, it is still more a consultative assembly, in spite of its (somewhat misleading) denomination. It is more profitable to look at the form of parliaments of real federations. The facts are that most parliaments of world's federations are bicameral, only a few federations have a unicameral parliament – they are Venezuela, Comoros, The Federated States of Micronesia and The United Arab Emirates (if it is possible to speak about a true parliament in this case). So practice shows that federal arrangement prefers the bicameral parliament. For two principles are expressed by two chambers: 1) people are citizens both of their member states and of the federation, 2) the difference between size of the member states and their equal position in the federation. The same reasons suggest that also the parliament of the European federation has two chambers, the first in which the states are represented according to the number of their inhabitants, the second in which every state has the same number of representatives. Naturalness of this view at the matter is confirmed also by various proposals for adding the second chamber to the present EU Parliament.
The second question is size of both of these chambers. I have total number of representatives of every chamber, namely of the “lower” one (where states are represented according to the number of their inhabitants) in mind. It is mathematically challenging task to balance representation of every state with appropriate number of representatives and also to maintain such total number of representatives so that the chamber is able to work. Excessive number of representatives is a problem of the present European parliament – it has 754 representatives and is so the greatest democratically elected parliamentary body of the world but unlike many other much lesser parliamentary bodies in the world, it has only very restricted competencies (the less competencies the greater body – one of many absurd paradoxes of the present intergovernmental European Union). The present parliament of the EU is in my opinion too great body to be a unicameral parliament which in addition should be enlarged by the second chamber. I believe that the “lower” chamber of the parliament of the European federation should be lesser than size of the present European parliament; nobody surely is so foolish to believe the equation “greater parliament = more democracy”. I suggest 567 representatives as an upper limit of size of the “lower” chamber of the European federal parliament – it was size of the European parliament in the year 1995. I cannot somehow mathematically or politologically ground this number, it is only my subjective choice. But every other number will be a subjective choice as well, it is however better to choice lesser than greater numbers so that the chamber can meaningfully work (let us compare the suggested number 567 with the number 552 of representatives of the lower chamber of the parliament of India that represents a milliard citizens, much more that more numerous (754 today) representatives of the present EU parliament represent).
As for the “higher” chamber of the European federation's parliament I cannot determine any upper limit of the number of the representatives (it would be useless), the question is how many parliament members should represent every individual state. We do not know how many states will be part of the European federation but one representative for every state would be an insufficient number because in that case the upper chamber would be inadequately small with respect to the lower chamber although their position should be (in my opinion) completely equal (I will discuss it in another post). If the European federation should comprise all or almost all Europe in the end, I would consider as the best the number of three (in the case of very big federation two) representatives for one state.
The European federation will certainly comprise only a few states in its beginning and in the case would be insane to allot so many representatives to every state that the upper limit 567 or around 300 would be exhausted in either respective chamber. The numbers should then be determined otherwise and the specific numbers should be located in transitional provisions; so I will deal with them when I will write about the transitional provisions.
The last, least important question is what shall be the name of the parliament of the European federation and its two chambers. Of course, a simple descriptive name “The Parliament of the European Union” or something similar can be used. But I prefer some more “elegant” name, so I decided to suggest the name “The Assembly of the Union” (or “... of the European Union”, but I like more the first option). By the way, very alike is the name of the parliament of Comoros (“The Assembly of the Union of the Comoros”) but it is only a coincidence, in fact I was inspired not by this but by the name of the Swiss parliament („The Federal Assembly“). As for denomination of both chambers of the European federal parliament: I want stay away from words “upper” and “lower” because I have already mentioned that both chambers shall be equal in my concept, not one superior to the other. I was inspired again by the Swiss parliament and I suggest according to its function the name “The House of States” for the “upper” chamber, “The House of the People” then analogically for the “lower” chamber.

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.

Basic rights - constitutional text

In previous posts with the tag "basic rights", I discussed the rights that are to be present in the text of the European federal constitution, now I bring their reading in the form of the constitutional text. So, all the discussed rights read in my proposal as follows:

Chapter two - Fundamental rights and freedoms

 

1. Equity among people
(a) All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
(b) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms determined in this chapter, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, physical disability, language, religion, personal opinion, national or social origin and nationality.

2. Right to life, personal liberty and security
(a) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
(b) The death penalty is inadmissible.
(c) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the human trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Nobody shall be compelled to forced labour.
(d) Duties may be imposed only by the law and within its limits. Nobody may be forced to do what the law does not command.
(e) No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(f) No one may be without his consent subjected to interventions in his physical and mental integrity.

3. Rights of judicial protection
(a) All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination.
(b) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary personal search, detention, arrest or deportation from residence. Whoever was arrested or detained in conformity with the law has the right to be treated with respect for human dignity.
(c) Any detained person shall without delay and in the way comprehensible for him be informed of the reasons for the detention, questioned, and not later than within fourty-eight hours released or turned over to a court. Within twenty four hours of having taken over the detained person, a judge shall question such person and decide whether to place in custody or to release the person.
(d) Only the law determines which acts constitute a crime and what penalty may be imposed for them. The severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence.
(e) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. committed. If, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that penalty shall be applicable. Sentences are not transferable and replaceable.
(f) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(g) No one may be tried and penalized twice for the same action or omission.
(h) Everyone has the right to refuse a statement against himself or a close person.
(i) Any evidence against the accused obtained by torture or in any other illegal way are of no effect.
(j) Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.
(k) Everyone has the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
(l) Nobody shall be against his will denied his statutory judge. Exceptional tribunals are prohibited.
 

4. Right to privacy
(a) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(b) Secrecy of messages kept in privacy or sent by post, telephone, through computer networks or in any other way is inviolable. It can be restricted only in the cases of necessity by justified decision of court on the basis of the law. Everyone has the right to secure privacy of information that he stores or sends.
(c) Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him. Gathering personal data must be justified and for specified purposes; personal data may be stored only with consent of the person concerned. Everyone has the right to access to data which has been collected concerning him and the right to have incorrect data rectified and to deletion of data gathered without justification. Genetic information can be obtained only in the cases of significant necessity and to store it deserves extraordinary attention.
(d) The habitation is inviolable. No house search can take place except in the cases provided for by law and in the form prescribed by it.
 

5. Freedom of speech and opinion
(a) Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The freedom of the mass media must not be restricted by political power, economic power or any other power.
(b) Freedom of expression can be restricted only with regard to protection of human rights and democratic regime.
(c) Everyone has the right to freedom of religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or to be without religion, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs can be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(d) The public authority may not promote any religion.
 

6. Right of assembly
(a) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(b) Everyone has the right to constitute associations without prior authorization, to join them and to participate in their activity. Para-military associations and associations expressing hostility against the democratic regime are unacceptable.
(c) Open-air assemblies can be limited by just principles of preserving health, security, public order and property in the way determined by the law.
(d)  No one may be compelled to belong to an association or to participate in public assemblies.
 

7. Political rights
(a) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, both directly and through freely chosen representatives. The right to vote of everyone is equal and may not be conditional on else than age. No one is allowed to restrict the right of the people to directly decide about public affairs.
(b) Administration of public affairs emanates from the people and is based on the will of the people. No one is above the law. All persons shall exercise public authority properly and conscientiously in favour of the people and are criminal liable for their activities.
(c) Public authority bodies are responsible to the people. The people has the right to express disagreement with actions of them who exercise the public authority and to take away entrusted competence from them.
(d) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
(e) Citizens of every state have the right to join together in territorial units endowed with autonomy, particularly municipalities. All public affairs that can satisfactorily be carried out by the autonomous territorial units of all levels shall in reasonable extent belong to their competence.
(f) Everyone has the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of conscience.
(g) Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
(h) Everyone unjustly persecuted in his country has the right to asylum in the European Union.
(i) No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a state where there is a serious risk that he would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(j) Political parties and political movements as well as other associations are separated from the state.
(k) Everyone alone or together with others has the right to address petitions to the public authorities; no disadvantages may arise from it. Petitions may not be used for the purpose of appeals to violate the fundamental rights and to interfere with the independence of the courts. The authorities have to take cognizance of petitions.
(l) Tasks resulting from administration of public affairs are fulfilled by bodies of the public authority subordinated to democratic control.
(m) Public authorities of the states and the autonomous units protect rights of ethnic, national and language minorities; they support free development of their culture, customs and language. The national or ethnic identity of any individual shall not be used to his detriment.
(n) Everyone has the right that bodies of the public authority handle his affair impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. Decisions of bodies of the public authority must be provided with reasons. Everyone has the right to compensation for injustices caused by public authorities.
(o) Everyone has the right to obtain information on the activities of bodies of the public authority as well as persons discharging public functions.
 

8. Right of free movement and residence
(a) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence in the whole territory of the European Union.
(b) Everyone has the right to leave the territory of the European Union and to return to it again. A foreign citizen may be expelled only in cases specified by the law.
 

9. Social rights
(a) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment in any place of the European Union, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(b) Everyone, without any discrimination, particularly by sex or nationality, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(c) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. The amount of pay may not go down under the minimal limit determined by the law.
(d) Everyone who cannot without own fault find a work for which he has qualification has the right to decent support of his fundamental needs from the the society. Conditions under which this support is given or removed may not be degrading and independent on the individual's will.
(e) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Trade union associations are separated from employers, the state and political parties.
(f) Trade unions or other employees associations have the right to supervise the management of enterprises and to be informed about all measures of enterprises by which they can be affected. They have the right to defend their interests by collective action and the strike. The right of workers indispensable to maintain order in the society to the strike can adequately be limited.
(g) The right of workers to job security is safeguarded.  Dismissals without just cause or for political reasons or reasons based on belief are forbidden.
(h) The public authority shall make such conditions that working people can join decisions on disposal of outcomes of their work.
(i) Fruits of labour shall be used to satisfy material, social and cultural needs of all members of the society and to strengthen solidarity of the society.
(j) Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
(k) Women, particularly during pregnancy and after childbirth, as well as minors, physically disabled persons and those engaged in activities requiring particular effort or working in health endangering conditions are entitled to special protection at work.
(l) Everyone has the right to protection from dismissal for a reason connected with maternity and child care. Paid parental leave is guaranteed. Support in parental leave must not be smaller than the minimum wage.
(m) Persons with disabilities have the right to measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.
(n) Mentally disabled persons enjoy all the rights and are subjected to all the duties embodied in this Constitution, except for the exercise or performance of those for which their disablement renders them unfit.
(o) The employment of children is prohibited. The minimum age of admission to employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age.
(p) Everyone has the right to leave off his working activity in age when his powers fail him and to live the rest of his life with material support from the society. Elder persons have the right to  lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.
(q) Everyone has the right for himself and his family to a dwelling of adequate size satisfying standards of hygiene and comfort and preserving personal and family privacy.
(r) Everyone has the equal right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from necessary medical treatment paid from the public health insurance regardless of his material circumstances. The society shall struggle for full health of every individual.
(s) The public authority shall guarantee access to the enumerated social rights to everyone and their fulfilling. No one can be a full citizen of the democratic society if his social rights are not fulfilled.
 

10. Family rights
(a) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.
(b) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(c)  Marriage may be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(d) All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
(e) Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
(f) Children may not be separated from their parents unless the latter fail to perform their fundamental duties towards the former, and then only by judicial decision.
(g) Every child shall have the right to maintain  direct contact with both his parents, unless that is contrary to his interests.
 

11. Property and economical rights
(a) Everyone has the right to own and to use property alone as well as in association with others and to freely bequeath it. All kinds of property are of equal value and deserve equal protection by the society.
(b) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Expropriation or forcible limitation of the ownership right is possible only in public interest and on the basis of the law, and for just compensation.
(c) Obligation of everybody, whether a natural person or legal entity, to appropriately contribute from own property and incomes to public expenditure in proportion to own tax capacity is not considered restriction of proprietary rights.
(d) To use property must not be at variance with public interest and particularly in variance with the rights and freedoms contained in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union; for the reason, it shall in necessary measure be regulated by the law.
(e) Mineral wealth, forests, rivers, lakes, sea water and sea bed, natural underground cavities and underground water, atmosphere, water and power supply, public roads and railways, archaeological and cultural facilities and other property and enterprises that have or that may acquire the character of a public service or de facto monopoly shall be in public domain.
(f) Economic power has to be subordinated to democratic political power and shall be regulated so that it serves the general welfare of all citizens of the European Union.
 

12. Cultural rights
(a) Everyone has the right to education. Elementary education is compulsory and free of charge. Higher education shall be equally free of charge and equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(b) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, it shall contribute to overcome economic, social, and cultural imbalances, to enable citizens to participate on a democratic basis in a free society and to promote mutual understanding, tolerance, and a spirit of solidarity. Education of individuals shall be contribution to the society.
(c) Everyone has the right to choose his occupation and to prepare for it how and where he wishes.
(d) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
(e) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(f) Freedom of cultural expression may not be restrained. Universities and other schools of tertiary education are entitled to autonomy of research and administration.
(g) Freedom of scientific research is guaranteed if the research is not performed by violating human rights or by cruelty to animals and if its objective is not at variance with the rights and freedoms contained in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union.
(h) Research activities aiming at the selection of persons or their cloning are prohibited.
(i) Everyone has the right to live in the satisfying environment and the duty to protect the environment. Protection of the environment is public interest.
(j) Everyone has the right to obtain true and full information on state of the environment from bodies of the public authority and to obtain true and full information on influence of their activity on the environment from economic entities.
 

13. Enforcement of rights
(a) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(b) Nothing in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union may be interpreted as implying for any group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms determined herein.
(c) The rights and freedoms contained in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union can be restricted in the case of urgent and inevitable need, particularly a military attack or a grave natural disaster. Restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms must be only temporary, limited by place, appropriate to the need, justified with public interest and grounded by the law.
(d) All citizens of the European Union have the right to resist anyone seeking to abolish or to empty the rights of the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union, should no other remedy be possible.
(e) It is the duty of all natural persons and legal entities without an exception as well as all bodies of the public authority, both state ones and sub-state ones to follow all provisions of the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union. Endeavour of all shall be aimed at that all rights and freedoms contained in this chapter are fulfilled.
(f) All rights and freedoms contained in this chapter are, without an exception, in force in all member states of the European Union, in all other territories of the Union and in all territories that are temporarily subordinated to its jurisdiction as well as in all associated states and the territories that are permanently or temporarily subordinated to their jurisdiction.
(g) The European Union and the associated states shall perform such activity that just international order is established and that the rights and freedoms determined in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union are recognized and applied everywhere.

Enforcement of rights

A modern constitution of the European federation cannot only determine rights that citizens have claim to but also must determine obligatory character of the rights. One question is to draw up some rights, another question is what place should the rights take in the society. This is what deals this post with.

It is primarily necessary to make sure that human rights become paradoxically not a pretext to oppressing them because many of the discussed rights do not allow anything but put some limitation on human acting. Already the Universal Declaration take it into account in its article 29 whose paragraph 2 is without a change taken over by me as a first provision of my proposal. The letter (a) therefore says that enforcement of the rights given in the constitution can be restricted only for the purpose of preserving the rights of others.

My suggestion of the next letter (b) is in some measure an extension of the previous provision and is taken over again from the Universal Declaration, from its article 30. The mentioned article says that no established right gives anybody a pretext to an action whose purpose should be restriction of another right or freedom enumerated in the constitution.

Some constitutions of the European states admit restriction of basic rights in urgent cases of public jeopardy. I also took it over in the text of the European constitution, in the proposal of the letter (c), but with a number of limitations. The limitations are: the basic rights and freedoms can be restricted only in case of urgent and inevitable need (I explicitly mention hostile invasion and weighty natural disaster as main reasons), they can be restricted only temporarily and in the place of necessity, the limitations must be in the public interest, adequate to the necessity and founded with the law. The previous paragraph (b) ensures that this provision will not be abused for other purposes.

The poet of antique Greece Alcaeus pronounced a thought that man are true walls of a town. And really, we know many examples of towns in the history which had very good walls but yet they fell because their inhabitants had no will to defend them. Also the democratic order will not automatically flourish forever only thanks to rights written in the paper of the constitution if the citizens will not defend the rights. However defence of rights and freedoms of citizens meets sometimes (or often?) not with recognition of politicians or other (latent) ruling strata (as we can see in present Europe, especially as far as the social rights are concerned), therefore the right of the citizens to defend their rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution must be also guaranteed by the constitution, for the very reason that the citizens shall be aware of this their right. The article 20, paragraph 4 of the constitution of Germany was a pattern for me and I formulated following it a provision saying that the citizens of the European Union have the right of resistance against everybody who should try to remove or to empty (that is to say to leave only formally) the rights and freedoms written in the constitution of the European Union.

The provisions of the following two paragraphs/letters are solely my thoughts and speak about obligatory character of the rights and freedoms established by the European federal constitution. The first letter (e) enumerates parts of the society of the European Union whose duty is to follow the constitutional rights and freedoms, those are namely all natural persons and legal entities as well as all bodies of the public authority. The paragraph contains also a demand that all shall make an effort towards fulfilling all the rights and freedoms.

The following letter (f) then determines territorial extent of force of the rights and freedoms included in the European federal constitution. The letter says that the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution are in force in all member states of the Union, without any exception which assuming rampant practice of all thinkable exceptions in the present intergovernmental European Union is necessary to emphasize. It determines then force of the rights also for all other territories of the Union because it is impossible to know now whether the (eventual) European federation will have some federal territories without status of a state and for all territories that will temporarily be subordinate to the authority of the European federation. The last regulation is a reaction to doing of the United States of America in their (formally) rented military basis in Cuba where they refuse to grant to the persons there detained the rights that they would (probably) have to grant if they detained them in their own territory. Then the same letter demands observing the rights and freedoms determined by the European federal constitution in all associated states (I wrote about them in this article) as well as in the territories that are under their authority. For if some European states want to be associated to the European federation, they will thus have an opportunity to show that common European values that will without a doubt be heard from them in that situation are not a mere cloak for only economic interests.

The proposal of the last provision of this article, the letter (g), is inspired by a provision of the Swiss constitution and another similar provision of the constitution of Portugal. According to this provision, both the European Union and the states associated to it shall strive that the rights determined by the constitution of the European federation are recognized all over the world. For if citizens of the European federation and its associated states want to take them seriously, they cannot forget about them just behind their frontiers.

Cultural rights

The last group of rights that cannot be missing in the text of the European federal constitution deals with cultural rights. My suggestion determines principles for altogether four domains that maybe match not entirely with the title: education, participation in cultural action, science research and protection of the natural environment.

The first four paragraphs/letters are dedicated to education. The first of them is partially taken over from the Universal Declaration (its article 26) – it says above all that everybody has the right to education. It says also that education shall be free (of cost), especially in its elementary stages and compulsory. But if it is written that it shall be, it follows from it that it also need not to be such. But it is absolutely unacceptable; to admit a possibility that every person should not have at least primary education would turn us back at the least in the 19th century, if not deeper in the past. The constitutional text therefore must read that primary education is compulsory and free of cost. I totally do not understand the regulation of the article 14 of the Charter of Basic Rights that speaks about possibility of compulsory and free education. What is the purpose of it? This wording cannot be interpreted otherwise than that somebody wants education not to be compulsory and free of cost for all because such regulation gives only a recommendation that guarantees nothing. Such provision doubting about necessity of compulsory and free primary education is a shame of Charter of Basic Rights and cannot naturally be taken over in the European federal constitution. The article 26 of the Universal Declaration further says that also higher education shall be accessible to all according to their abilities. I took it over and only added the word “free”, otherwise it is unnecessary to discuss necessity and legitimacy of this provision.

The following letter (b) expands on what should be the purpose of education; it is again partially taken over from the article 26 of the Universal Declaration. This provision is very important because today there is great pressure that education should be considered only as specialized means of making material profit. But such view devalues education, the purpose of education is and always was (much) broader – it is why the Universal Declaration says that it should be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Portuguese constitution is also a document that contains a good formulation of the purposes of education standing in opposition to present commercialization of education. It says (in the article 74) that education contributes to overcome economic, social, and cultural imbalances, to enable citizens to participate on a democratic basis in a free society and to promote mutual understanding, tolerance, and a spirit of solidarity. I added only one more sentence to it which emphasizes that education is not a commodity assigned to making the greatest possible individual profit on the basis of it: education of individuals shall be a contribution for the society.

The provision of the letter (c) is taken over by me almost literally from the old Austrian constitution from 1867 (the article 18) and says that everybody has the right to choose his occupation and to prepare himself for it in such places and in such manner as he may wish. This provision should prevent an authoritarian power – whether governmental or another one – from attempting by force to press its deformed kind of education as an only possibility to the citizens.

The following letter (d) taken over by me from the article 26 of the Universal Declaration has the same meaning and it grants parents a priority right to select the kind of education for their children.

The letter (e) follows and it repeats the first paragraph of the article 27 of the Universal Declaration. According to it, everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the society, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. It is not necessary further to explain it, the occurrences of the European history to which this provision responds are sufficiently known.

The following two paragraphs of my suggestion are an extension of the article 13 of the Charter of Basic Rights. The letter (f) suggested by me almost tallies with the mentioned article 13, it guarantees freedom of cultural expression and says that academic freedom shall be respected; my suggestion makes it more accurate by the words “freedom of research and administration”.

The suggested letter (g) then deals with freedom of scientific research. It guarantees it but not so unconditionally as the Universal Declaration does because some restrictions there must be if science should not be immoral or even felonious. First of all, such scientific research cannot be admitted whose making violates human rights – it is quite self-evident. But the fact that scientific research cannot be made by making suffering to other creatures must be self-evident as well which is not taken into consideration today. For the reason of various researches, mostly of researches on effects of various chemical substances, animals are abused in various painful experiments whose character cannot be often described otherwise than as sadist torture; research laboratories using animals could as well bear a name torture chambers. The fact that vocal chords of some animals subjected to experiments are removed from them before experiments testifies very well about character of the experiments. Unfortunately, majority of the society considers animal tests as necessary, as necessary evil that is needful in the name of progress. It is very selfish attitude – if the pain that suffer the experimental animals were made in the name of progress to the supporters of this attitude, they certainly would not defend the cruel experiments so naturally. I do not understand that any man who approves of intentional cruelty to other creatures so that he himself (her herself – cosmetic products!) can live in comfort can lay claims to be moral. And I have one more comparison to present which shows how two-faced we Europeans are (and others with us) though we consider ourselves to be the most moral worldwide and destined for spreading our values. During the World War II (or the second phase of the European civil war) prisoners of German Nazi concentration camps were abused to many tormenting medical experiments, mostly for the purpose of discovering limiting resistance of human body for military purposes. After the war, the Nazis stood trial for their crimes and their medical experiments using humans were described as crimes too. But contemporary experiments on animals are described as science, not as a crime though they can compare in cruelty to the Nazi ones or even outdo them. So why we condemn the Nazi medical experiments as a crime against humanity today when we make completely the same suffering at the same time? Why we moralistic highlight Nazi crimes and pardon the same action to us, if number of tortured to death in Nazi experiments reached hundreds or thousands but number of animals tortured to death in our laboratories reach (at least) tens of millions? We use an excuse that experiments on animals are necessary in order that we achieve deeper cognition. But the Nazi doctors had the same reason in their defence! Everybody who makes suffering has an excuse for it! Why tormenting experiments on humans were described as a crime against humanity but not also tormenting experiments on animals that moreover occur in much wider extent? A question aimed at conscience of present Europeans (and not only them) reads: Are we better and more moral than the Nazis? As for our acting towards other creatures in our laboratories the answer is that we are not a bit better, we are utterly like them. It is also absurd that severe laws against cruelty to domestic animals that occurs relatively seldom are in force in most European states whereas mass and systematic (and more cruel) mistreatment of laboratory animals is allowed and non-punishable. To continue in the present brutal merciless practice is not more possible if Europeans want claim in the future that they have a (good) conscience. Cruel mistreatment of animals in the name of progress and knowledge must be banned by the constitution and I added therefore this condition to the previously mentioned restriction of freedom of scientific research. The last restriction of freedom of scientific research that I added in the proposed letter (g) prohibits such kind of scientific research whose aim is restriction of basic rights laid down in the constitution.

The letter (h) of my suggestion is taken over from the article 3 of the Charter of Basic Rights and only slightly restated. It is a provision that prohibits a eugenic research activity striving for cultivating improved human beings and that prohibits cloning of them as well.

The last two letters of my proposal are dedicated to the natural environment. The first of them, the letter (i), at first says that everybody has a right to live in the satisfactory environment which is a provision taken over from the constitution of the Czech republic. I added then an obligation of everybody to protect the environment to it (without it a right to satisfactory environment has no reason). These days, the greatest problem with environment protection is its plunder for the purpose of private enrichment (from the side of economic subjects, especially great firms). I do not know how to guarantee for certain the interest of environment protection against private interests in another way than by a provision saying that protection of the environment is the public interest.

Also the last letter (j) of my suggestion is inspired by a provision of the constitution of the Czech republic and of Poland too. It says in my formulation that everybody has a right to receive true and complete information about condition of the environment. This provision however corresponds to the time when entire economic activity in these states was managed by the state and the state was so in fact the greatest polluter of the environment and therefore condition of the environment was as much as possible concealed. But today, the greatest polluters of the environment are (great) private firms that however tend to concealing their impact as well. I added therefore also a right to achieve information about their influence on the environment from all economic subjects. And it is also the last provision of this article concerning cultural rights as well as of all rights incorporated in the proposal of the European federal constitution. However, the following post will in addition deal with applying all the discussed rights.