The reform of the European Federation — more democracy and less bureaucracy

I.  Current state

Currently, the European Union is quite often perceived as a bureaucratic and undemocratic monster seeking to consume the free nations of Europe. This is not entirely true because the European Union is a body that has an impressive level of democracy for the non-state actor.

There are two sources of democratic legitimacy in European Union: the European Parliament, chosen by the citizens of the individual Member States; and the Council of the European Union, together with the European Council (of heads of national governments), that represent the peoples of the individual states. The European Commission (the executive branch) is appointed by the two bodies acting together. Democratic legitimacy within the European Union can be compared with the dual legitimacy provided for in a federal state.

European Commission

The Commission European is reestablished every five years. Individual members of the incoming Commission are nominated by Member State governments and the proposed Commission is (or is not) approved jointly and severally by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. If European Parliament passes a vote of censure, the Commission must resign.

The nomination of the President of the European Commission should „take account” of the result of the European parliamentary elections, interpreted by the larger parliamentary groups to mean that the European Council should nominate the candidate proposed by the dominant parliamentary group in European Parliament.

From the point of view of democratic legitimacy fears arise the fear is that a „semi-elected”  President of the European Commission might be „too partisan to retain the trust of Member State leaders; too weak to win the loyalty of citizens of the European Union”.

The European Commission, while a vital institution within the European Union, also faces certain disadvantages:

1. Lack of Democratic Accountability: The Commission is not directly elected by the citizens of the EU, leading to concerns about democratic legitimacy and accountability. While the European Parliament has some oversight powers, it is argued that they are not sufficient to ensure full democratic control.
2. Bureaucracy and Inefficiency: The Commission is a large and complex organization, which can lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and slow decision-making processes. Critics argue that this can hinder the EU’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to emerging challenges.
3. Lack of Transparency: The Commission’s decision-making processes can sometimes lack transparency, making it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions are made and who is responsible. This can lead to concerns about accountability and public trust.
4. Potential for Conflicts of Interest: Commissioners are appointed by their respective member states, which can potentially lead to conflicts of interest between national interests and the interests of the EU as a whole. Ensuring the impartiality and independence of Commissioners is an ongoing challenge.
5. Limited Enforcement Powers: While the Commission has the power to enforce EU law, its enforcement mechanisms can be limited. It relies heavily on member states to implement and enforce EU legislation, which can sometimes lead to inconsistencies and delays.
6. Accountability Gaps: The complex institutional structure of the EU can sometimes create accountability gaps, making it difficult to pinpoint responsibility for specific decisions or actions. This can undermine public trust and make it challenging to hold the EU institutions accountable.
7. Perception of Elitism: The Commission is sometimes perceived as an elite and technocratic institution, detached from the concerns and needs of ordinary citizens. This can fuel Euroscepticism and undermine public support for the EU project.
8. Dependence on Member States: The Commission’s powers and influence ultimately depend on the support and cooperation of member states. This can limit its ability to act independently and pursue policies that are not aligned with the interests of powerful member states.
9. Challenges of Consensus-Building: The Commission operates in a complex political environment, where it needs to build consensus among diverse member states with often conflicting interests. This can make it difficult to reach agreement on important issues and slow down the decision-making process.
10. Risk of Regulatory Overreach: The Commission’s power to propose and implement EU legislation can sometimes lead to concerns about regulatory overreach and excessive bureaucracy. Critics argue that this can stifle innovation and economic growth.

It is important to note that these disadvantages are not universally agreed upon, and many argue that the European Commission plays a vital role in promoting European integration and addressing common challenges. However, these criticisms highlight some of the potential drawbacks and challenges associated with the Commission’s structure and functioning.

European Parliament

In according the Lisbon Treaty, European Parliament lacking the power to determine the direction of European Union Law, with the European Commission being „the only institution empowered to initiate legislation” and having a „near monopoly on legislative initiative” according to Union sources. This system diminishes European Parliament to a vetoing body, with an inability to enact any legislation not already approved and submitted by the European Commission. De facto this makes the European Commission the de facto primary legislative body, which is not democratically elected despite having sole control over the proposition of new laws, a power usually associated with parliaments. According to Article 225 of the Lisbon Treaty, giving to European Parliament a means to request proposals to the European Commission, but this is creates no obligation on the Commission and is legally non-binding, with the European Commission only needing to „inform the European Parliament of the reasons” for rejecting a legislative proposal.

So we are dealing with governments of technocrats, totally dependent on the Council of the European Union. Legislative initiative in the European Union rests almost entirely with the European Commission, while in member states it is shared between parliament and government. The European Parliament, on the other hand, can only propose amendments, but these proposals are successful in more than 80% of cases, and even in controversial proposals, the success rate is almost 30%.

While the European Parliament has gained significant power and influence over time, it still faces some shortcomings:

1. Limited Legislative Initiative: Unlike national parliaments, the European Parliament does not have the power to initiate legislation. It primarily works on proposals put forward by the European Commission. This limits its ability to set the political agenda and address issues it deems important.
2. Lack of Full Control over the Budget: Although the Parliament has gained more budgetary powers, it does not have the final say on all aspects of the EU budget. Certain areas, particularly agriculture, remain subject to decisions by the Council of the European Union.
3. Weak Enforcement Powers: The Parliament’s powers to enforce its decisions are limited. It relies on the European Commission and member states to implement legislation, and it has few direct mechanisms to ensure compliance.
4. Low Voter Turnout: Elections to the European Parliament often suffer from low voter turnout, which raises questions about its democratic legitimacy and representativeness. Many citizens see European elections as less important than national elections.
5. Complex Decision-Making Processes: The Parliament operates within a complex institutional framework, which can make decision-making processes slow and cumbersome. Reaching agreement among different political groups and member states can be challenging.
6. Lack of Public Awareness: Many citizens remain unaware of the Parliament’s powers and functions, which can hinder its ability to engage with the public and build support for its policies.
7. Unequal Representation: The allocation of seats in the Parliament is not strictly proportional to the population of member states. Smaller countries are overrepresented, which can lead to concerns about fairness and representation.
8. Influence of National Politics: MEPs are often influenced by national political agendas and party loyalties, which can sometimes overshadow their role as representatives of European citizens.
9. Language Barrier: The Parliament operates in multiple languages, which can create communication challenges and hinder effective debate and decision-making.
10. Limited Scrutiny of the Council: While the Parliament has powers to scrutinize the European Commission, its oversight of the Council of the European Union, which represents member states, is more limited.

It is important to acknowledge that the European Parliament has made significant strides in increasing its powers and influence within the EU. However, these shortcomings highlight some of the challenges it still faces in fulfilling its role as a representative and legislative body.

Council of the European Union

The Council of the European Union is one of three legislative bodies and together with the European Parliament serves to amend and approve the proposals of the European Commission. The Council represents the executive governments of the EU’s Member States. 

The Council of the European Union and the European Council are the only EU institutions that are explicitly intergovernmental, that is forums whose attendees express and represent the position of their member state’s executive, be they ambassadors, ministers or heads of state/government. Voting in the Council is usually by qualified majority voting, and sometimes unanimity is required. 

The Council of the European Union, while a key player in the EU’s decision-making process, also has its share of shortcomings:¹

1. Lack of Transparency: The Council’s deliberations and voting records are often not fully public, making it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions are made and hold their representatives accountable.² This lack of transparency can fuel concerns about democratic legitimacy.
2. Intergovernmental Focus: The Council represents the interests of member states, which can sometimes lead to decisions that prioritize national concerns over the common good of the EU as a whole.³ This intergovernmental focus can hinder the EU’s ability to act decisively on issues that require a unified approach.
3. Slow Decision-Making: Reaching agreement among 27 member states with diverse interests can be a slow and cumbersome process. Unanimity is required for certain key decisions, which can lead to gridlock and hinder the EU’s ability to respond effectively to urgent challenges.⁴
4. Unequal Influence of Member States: Larger and more powerful member states tend to have greater influence in the Council, which can lead to concerns about fairness and representation for smaller countries.
5. Lack of Direct Democratic Accountability: While Council members are democratically elected in their home countries, they are not directly accountable to EU citizens as a whole.⁵ This can create a disconnect between the Council’s decisions and the preferences of European voters.
6. Complexity and Technical Nature of Discussions: Council meetings often involve complex and technical issues, which can make it difficult for citizens to follow and understand the debates. This can further contribute to a sense of disconnect between the EU and its citizens.
7. Limited Public Engagement: The Council is not always effective at communicating its work to the public and engaging citizens in its decision-making processes. This can lead to a lack of awareness and understanding about the Council’s role and its impact on people’s lives.
8. Potential for National Vetoes: Individual member states can sometimes use their veto power to block decisions that are supported by a majority, even if those decisions are in the best interests of the EU as a whole.⁶ This can hinder progress and undermine the EU’s ability to act effectively.
9. Lack of Long-Term Vision: The Council’s focus on national interests and short-term priorities can sometimes make it difficult to develop a coherent long-term vision for the EU. This can hinder the EU’s ability to address long-term challenges such as climate change or demographic shifts.
10. Coordination Challenges: Coordinating the positions of 27 member states with different political systems and priorities can be a significant challenge.⁷ This can lead to compromises that are not always the most effective or ambitious solutions to the problems at hand.

It is important to acknowledge that the Council plays a crucial role in representing the interests of member states and ensuring that their voices are heard in the EU decision-making process. However, these shortcomings highlight some of the challenges the Council faces in fulfilling its role and contributing to a more democratic, efficient, and unified European Union.

European Council

The European Council is a collective body that defines the European Union’s overall political direction and priorities. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also takes part in its meetings. 

While the European Council plays a crucial role in setting the EU’s political agenda and resolving complex issues, it also faces certain shortcomings:

1. Lack of Direct Democratic Legitimacy: The European Council is composed of national leaders who are elected in their respective countries, but they are not directly accountable to EU citizens as a whole. This can lead to a perceived democratic deficit and a lack of connection between the Council’s decisions and the preferences of European voters.
2. Intergovernmental Nature: The Council primarily represents the interests of member states, which can sometimes lead to decisions that prioritize national concerns over the common good of the EU. This intergovernmental focus can hinder the EU’s ability to act decisively on issues that require a unified approach.
3. Potential for National Vetoes: Individual member states can sometimes use their veto power to block decisions that are supported by a majority, even if those decisions are in the best interests of the EU as a whole. This can hinder progress and undermine the EU’s ability to act effectively.
4. Lack of Transparency: The Council’s deliberations and decision-making processes are often not fully transparent, making it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions are made and hold their representatives accountable. This lack of transparency can fuel concerns about democratic legitimacy.
5. Focus on Crisis Management: The European Council often focuses on responding to immediate crises and short-term challenges, which can sometimes come at the expense of developing a coherent long-term vision for the EU.
6. Influence of National Politics: The Council’s work can be heavily influenced by national political agendas and domestic considerations, which can sometimes overshadow the broader interests of the EU.
7. Limited Public Engagement: The Council is not always effective at communicating its work to the public and engaging citizens in its decision-making processes. This can lead to a lack of awareness and understanding about the Council’s role and its impact on people’s lives.
8. Challenges of Consensus-Building: Reaching agreement among 27 member states with diverse interests and priorities can be a significant challenge. This can lead to compromises that are not always the most effective or ambitious solutions to the problems at hand.
9. Potential for Conflicts of Interest: The close involvement of national leaders in the European Council can sometimes lead to conflicts of interest between national priorities and the interests of the EU as a whole.
10. Lack of Clear Division of Labor: The division of responsibilities between the European Council and other EU institutions, particularly the Council of the European Union, can sometimes be unclear, leading to potential overlaps and inefficiencies.

It is important to acknowledge that the European Council plays a vital role in providing strategic direction and resolving complex issues facing the EU. However, these shortcomings highlight some of the challenges the Council faces in fulfilling its role and contributing to a more democratic, efficient, and unified European Union.

You can not accuse the European Union of being non-democratic. At most, the European Union is an imperfect democracy. The European Union needs more transparent governance. Meanwhile, important decisions are made behind closed doors, often by officials who nobody chose. 

II. How it should be

Chamber of Deputies

The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of 645 Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies shall be chosen each for a 5-year term of office. Each Member State constitutes an electoral constituency. The number of representatives per each Member State is set out in the European supplementary law, in proportion to population. Necessary adjustments are made in the year before the election, so that no Member State had no less than 3 and not more than 96 seats. The Chamber of Deputies may shorten its term of office by a resolution passed by a majority of at least 11/20 of the votes of the statutory number of Deputies.

Currently, deputies run between Brussels and Strasbourg, which is a waste of time and a waste of public money. In addition, there is the General Secretariat which is located in Luxembourg. It’s time to end this European 'parliamentary circus’ and the seat of the Chamber of Deputies will be only City of Brussels.

Here are some common advantages of a Chamber of Deputies (or the lower house in a bicameral system):

1. Direct Representation: Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected directly by the people, making them more directly accountable to the electorate than members of an upper house (a Senate). This can lead to a stronger sense of connection between citizens and their representatives.
2. Greater Responsiveness to Public Opinion: Due to their closer connection to the electorate and shorter terms in office, members of the Chamber of Deputies may be more responsive to changes in public opinion and more likely to reflect the current mood of the nation.
3. Increased Democratic Legitimacy: Because they are directly elected, the Chamber of Deputies holds greater democratic legitimacy than an upper house (Senat). This can give their decisions more weight and authority.
4. Forum for Debate and Deliberation: The Chamber of Deputies serves as a crucial forum for debating important issues, scrutinizing government actions, and proposing alternative policies. This can lead to better-informed decision-making and more robust public discourse.
5. Oversight of the Executive Branch: The Chamber of Deputies has significant powers to hold the executive branch accountable, including the ability to question ministers, investigate government actions, and even initiate impeachment proceedings.
6. Representation of Diverse Interests: Ideally, the Chamber of Deputies should represent a broad range of interests and perspectives within society, ensuring that the voices of different groups are heard in the political proces.

Senat 

The Member States shall participate through the Senat in the legislation and administration of the Union. The Senat shall consist of members of the Member State governments, which appoint and recall them. Other members of those governments may serve as alternates. At the head of delegation of a Member State, the Prime Minister of that Member State. At the end of the legislature of a Member State or on its dissolution, sent members of the government of a Member State now hold office until such time as a new Member State parliament will elect a new government of a Member State. The Senat shall act by a qualified majority. A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 11/20 of the Member States of the European Union, which together hold at least 3/5 of votes in the Senat.

This proposed Senate formula, with its unique composition and voting system, presents some potential advantages:

1. Direct Member State Involvement: The Senate’s composition, consisting of government members, ensures direct and high-level involvement of member states in EU legislation and administration. This could foster a stronger sense of ownership and commitment to EU decisions among national governments.
2. Enhanced Intergovernmental Cooperation: By bringing government representatives together in a dedicated forum, the Senate could facilitate closer intergovernmental cooperation and coordination on EU policies. This could lead to more cohesive and effective policymaking.
3. Streamlined Decision-Making (Potentially): While the qualified majority threshold is high, it aims to balance the need for consensus with the ability to make decisions efficiently. It could potentially avoid the gridlock that can sometimes arise from unanimity requirements.
4. Stability and Continuity: The provision for continued representation during transitions of national governments provides a degree of stability and continuity in the Senate’s work. This prevents disruptions caused by changes in national political landscapes.
5. Accountability (Potentially): Because government ministers are directly involved, there’s a degree of accountability back to the national level. Citizens can, theoretically, hold their national governments responsible for decisions made in the Senate.
6. Expertise and Practical Experience: Government ministers bring practical experience and expertise from their respective portfolios to the EU level. This could enhance the quality of EU legislation and policymaking.
7. Clearer Link Between National and EU Agendas: The Senate’s composition could create a clearer link between national priorities and the EU agenda, potentially leading to policies that are more sensitive to the needs and concerns of member states.
8. Reduced Democratic Deficit (Potentially): While not directly elected by EU citizens, the involvement of nationally elected government members could be seen as a way to indirectly enhance the democratic legitimacy of EU decision-making, as these ministers are accountable to their national parliaments.

It’s crucial to note that these are potential advantages. The actual effectiveness of this Senate formula would depend on how it functions in practice and how member states interact within it. There are also potential disadvantages (discussed separately) that need to be considered.

This proposed Senate formula, while offering some advantages, also presents several potential disadvantages:

1. Democratic Deficit: The most significant concern is the potential for a democratic deficit. Senators are appointed by national governments, not directly elected by EU citizens. This weakens the link between EU decision-making and the will of the European people, potentially exacerbating feelings of alienation and lack of accountability.
2. National Interest vs. EU Interest: Since Senators are members of national governments, they are likely to prioritize national interests over the broader interests of the EU. This could lead to gridlock, compromises that benefit individual states at the expense of the Union, and a lack of coherent EU-wide policies.
3. Lack of Transparency: Government deliberations are often not fully transparent. This lack of transparency in the Senate’s workings could make it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions are made and hold their representatives accountable.
4. Potential for Instability: While the provision for continuity during government transitions aims for stability, it could also create a situation where outgoing governments, possibly with a different political mandate than the incoming one, continue to represent the member state in the Senate. This could lead to inconsistencies and a lack of democratic legitimacy.
5. Complexity and Potential Inefficiency: The qualified majority formula (11/20 of member states and 3/5 of the votes) is complex and could still lead to lengthy negotiations and difficulty in reaching decisions, especially on contentious issues.
6. Overrepresentation of Smaller States (Potentially): Depending on how votes are allocated, smaller member states might be overrepresented, giving them disproportionate influence compared to their population size. This could lead to resentment from larger member states.
7. Weakening of the Chamber of Deputies: Creating a powerful Senate composed of government representatives could further diminish the role and influence of the directly elected Chamber of Deputies, potentially undermining its democratic legitimacy.
8. Accountability Challenges: While ministers are accountable to their national parliaments, it can be difficult to hold them accountable for decisions made in the Senate, as these decisions are often the result of complex negotiations and compromises. This diffusion of responsibility could weaken accountability overall.
9. Potential for Conflicts of Interest: Senators, as members of national governments, may face conflicts of interest between their national responsibilities and their role in the Senate. This could lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the EU as a whole.

The legislative procedure

The Senat is the upper chamber, which along with Chamber of Deputies — the lower chamber — comprises the legislature of the European Union. I suggest that the two houses together form a perfect bicameral system, meaning they perform identical functions, but do so separately. I suggest that the two houses will be form a perfect bicameral system, meaning they perform identical functions, but do so separately. So no law can enter into force without the consent of the second chamber. The exception is to be only the budget act, which is to be finally established by the Chamber of Deputies. 

The right to introduce legislation shall belong to Deputies of the Chamber of Deputies, to the Senat, to the President of the European Union and to the European Executive Council. 

The right to introduce legislation shall also belong to a group of at least 500,000 citizens having the right to vote in elections to the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies proceeds to consider the project within 60 days of its submission. The procedure in such matter shall be specified by European law. 

This proposed system, with its „perfect bicameralism” and citizen initiative, presents some potential advantages:

1. Enhanced Scrutiny and Deliberation: Having two chambers perform identical functions separately means that proposed legislation undergoes thorough scrutiny and deliberation twice. This can lead to better-quality laws, as potential flaws and unintended consequences are more likely to be identified.
2. Balanced Representation: Bicameralism can offer a way to balance different interests or perspectives. While the proposal doesn’t specify how the Senate would be composed, it could be designed to represent member states, regions, or other constituencies, providing a check on the potentially more nationally focused Chamber of Deputies.
3. Checks and Balances: The requirement for both chambers to consent to legislation provides a strong system of checks and balances within the legislature. This prevents hasty or ill-considered laws from being enacted.
4. Increased Legitimacy: Laws passed by a bicameral system, having been scrutinized and approved by two separate bodies, may enjoy greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
5. Protection of Minority Interests: The Senate, if designed to represent specific groups, can potentially protect the interests of minorities that might be overlooked or outvoted in the Chamber of Deputies.
6. Citizen Engagement: The right of 500,000 citizens to initiate legislation is a significant step towards direct democracy and increased citizen engagement in the legislative process. It allows citizens to put issues they care about directly on the political agenda.
7. Potential for Compromise and Consensus: The need for agreement between two chambers can foster compromise and consensus-building, leading to legislation that is more broadly acceptable.
8. Clear Division of Powers: The clear distinction between the legislative and executive branches, with the right of legislative initiative shared among several actors, helps to define the powers and responsibilities of each branch, promoting a more balanced system of governance.
9. Flexibility: While the „perfect bicameralism” is the general rule, the exception for the budget act allows for flexibility in dealing with time-sensitive financial matters.
10. Enhanced Democratic Input: The combination of directly elected representatives in the Chamber of Deputies, potentially a different form of representation in the Senate, and citizen initiative mechanisms provides multiple channels for democratic input into the legislative process.

While the proposed system offers some advantages, it also presents several potential disadvantages:

1. Inefficiency and Gridlock: „Perfect bicameralism,” where both chambers have identical functions and must agree on every piece of legislation (except the budget), can lead to significant delays and gridlock. Even minor disagreements between the chambers could stall the legislative process indefinitely. This could paralyze the EU’s ability to respond to urgent challenges.
2. Redundancy and Duplication: Having two chambers perform the same functions separately is inherently redundant. It doubles the workload and costs associated with the legislative process without necessarily adding significant value. It might be more efficient to have a division of labor between the chambers.
3. Increased Complexity: The need for agreement between two chambers adds complexity to the legislative process. This can make it more difficult for citizens to understand how laws are made and hold their representatives accountable.
4. Potential for Conflict: If the two chambers have different compositions or political majorities, the potential for conflict between them is high. This could lead to political instability and make it difficult to govern effectively.
5. Weakening of Democratic Accountability: If the Senate is not directly elected (the proposal doesn’t specify its composition), it could further weaken the democratic accountability of the EU legislative process. Citizens might feel that their voices are not being heard if one of the chambers is not directly accountable to them.
6. Undue Influence of Special Interests: The complexity of the system could create opportunities for special interest groups to exert undue influence on the legislative process, either by lobbying members of both chambers or by exploiting procedural loopholes.
7. Lack of Flexibility: „Perfect bicameralism” offers little flexibility. There may be situations where a faster legislative process is needed (e.g., in response to a crisis), but this system would make it difficult to expedite legislation. The single exception for the budget act suggests an awareness of this, but more flexibility might be necessary.
8. Citizen Initiative Challenges: While the citizen initiative is a positive aspect, managing and processing potentially large numbers of citizen proposals could be administratively burdensome and costly. Clear rules and procedures would be essential to prevent the system from being overwhelmed. There’s also the risk that well-funded special interest groups could manipulate the system to advance their agendas.
9. Potential for Abuse of Power: The right of the President and the European Executive Council to introduce legislation could be abused if these actors are not subject to sufficient checks and balances.
10. Unclear Senate Composition: The proposal’s silence on the composition of the Senate is a major weakness. Without knowing how Senators are selected, it’s impossible to fully assess the potential impact of this system. The Senate’s legitimacy and effectiveness will depend heavily on its composition and how it represents the interests of the EU and its citizens.

European Executive Council

The  European Executive Council  shall be composed of the President of the  European Executive Council  (Prime Minister) and ministers a total of 15 members at most. In one Member State can not be selected more than one members of the  European Executive Council. In relation to the Constitution of the European Executive Council shall be deemed to consist of Five Divisions:

1. Western Europe – Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland and Austria,

2. Central Europe – Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina,

3. Northern Europe – Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway and Iceland,

4. Southern Europe – Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Cyprus and Malta, Albania and Montenegro,

5. Eastern Europe – Romania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia,

which Five Divisions shall be equally represented in the  European Executive Council.

The process of forming the  European Executive Council begins with the nomination of the President of the  European Executive Council by the President of European Union. The President of the  European Executive Council will then propose the composition of the cabinet, which must then be approved by the President of the Union. Despite the president’s nominating role in choosing a  President of the  European Executive Council and approving the composition of the cabinet, however, the presidency’s role is strictly limited, as the President of Union must respect the majority wishes of the Chamber of Deputies. Furthermore, the President of Union is forbidden to select a different cabinet composition than the one already selected by the  President of the  European Executive Council. Following their nomination, all members of the cabinet take the oath of office within the Presidential Palace, in a ceremony officiated by the President of Union. Within fourteen days of its appointment, the cabinet, headed by the President of the  European Executive Council, is obligated to submit an agenda to the Chamber of Deputies together with a vote of confidence. Should the vote of confidence fail, the process of government formation passes to the Chamber of Deputies, which will then nominate a President of the  European Executive Council within fourteen days, who will then again propose the composition of the cabinet. An absolute majority of votes in the presence of at least half of all Chamber of Deputies deputies is required to approve of the cabinet, which the president will then accept and administer their oaths of office. Should a vote of confidence fail again, the process of nomination is handed back to the presidency, who must again appoint a President of the  European Executive Council, who will then nominate other members of the cabinet. If the vote of confidence fails a third time, the president is obliged to shorten the Chamber of Deputies’s term of office and order new elections. 

I proposal the  European Executive Council are collectively and individually responsible only to the Chamber of Deputies for the operations of the government. The cabinet must respond to questions from  Chamber of Deputies deputies during each sitting session of the chamber. The cabinet must also respond to interpellations within 21 days of their submission. Despite being responsible to the  Chamber of Deputies, the cabinet is not responsible to the Senat, and does not rely on the upper house’s confidence to continue its term of office. During sessions of the Chamber of Deputies, members of the  European Executive Council, including the President and Vice-president, are seated in the government box within the chamber’s plenary hall. 

The Chamber of Deputies can pass a vote of no confidence on an individual ministers if the motion receives the support of at least 65 deputies. If the motion is successful, passed by a majority vote, the President of the European Union will recall the ministers from office. Similarly, if the  European Executive Council loses its majority support within the Chamber of Deputies, the cabinet can be forced to resign in a constructive vote of no confidence. The motion must be approved by at least 65 deputies, and then passed by a majority vote. In such an event, a new President of the  European Executive Council must be simultaneously appointed. The President of the  European Executive Council is also empowered to call a vote of confidence in the cabinet, requiring a majority vote from at least half of all present deputies. In the event of the President of the  European Executive Council’s resignation or death, the President of the European Union can either accept or refuse the cabinet’s resignation of office. Following a parliamentary election, the President of the  European Executive Council must submit the cabinet’s resignation in the first sitting of the newly elected Chamber of Deputies. After its resignation, the cabinet is entrusted to continue administering state functions until the appointment and oaths of office of the new government. 

Legally, the  European Executive Council will be also held accountable to the Court of Justice of the European Union for infringements upon the constitution or other legal statues. Upon a motion by either the President of the European Union or by 162 deputies, a member of the cabinet can be charged to be brought forth to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and then require the approval of at least three-fifths of all Chamber of Deputies deputies to begin the proceedings. 

This proposed system for the European Executive Council, with its regional representation, specific appointment process, and accountability mechanisms, presents some potential advantages:

1. Regional Balance: The division of member states into five regions with equal representation in the Council aims to ensure regional balance and prevent any one region from dominating the executive branch. This could lead to policies that are more sensitive to the diverse needs and interests of different parts of Europe.
2. Stronger Executive Accountability: The Council’s collective and individual responsibility to the Chamber of Deputies, coupled with the mechanisms for votes of no confidence and interpellations, creates a strong system of accountability. This ensures that the executive branch is answerable to the elected representatives of the people.
3. Checks and Balances: The involvement of the President of the Union in the appointment process, while limited, provides some checks and balances on the power of the Council. The Chamber of Deputies’ ultimate power to approve the cabinet and initiate no-confidence votes further reinforces this balance.
4. Clear Lines of Responsibility: The system clearly defines the relationship between the Council and the Chamber of Deputies, clarifying lines of responsibility and making it easier to hold the executive branch accountable for its actions.
5. Stability (Potentially): The process for appointing the President of the Council and forming the cabinet, while complex, aims to ensure that the executive branch enjoys the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies. This could lead to greater political stability than systems where the executive is more independent of the legislature.
6. Transparency (Potentially): The requirement for the cabinet to respond to questions and interpellations in the Chamber of Deputies can enhance transparency and allow for greater public scrutiny of the Council’s actions.
7. Judicial Oversight: The Council’s accountability to the Court of Justice of the European Union for legal infringements provides an additional layer of oversight and ensures that the executive branch operates within the bounds of the law.
8. Representation of Diverse Perspectives: The regional representation within the Council could lead to a wider range of perspectives being considered in the policymaking process.
9. Defined Process for Government Formation: The detailed process for forming the government, including the roles of the President of the Union and the Chamber of Deputies, aims to ensure a smooth and orderly transition of power.
10. Constructive Vote of No Confidence: The provision for a constructive vote of no confidence, where a new President of the Council must be appointed simultaneously with the removal of the current one, can prevent political vacuums and ensure a more stable transition.

This proposed system for the European Executive Council, while offering some advantages, also presents several potential disadvantages:

1. Potential for Regional Gridlock: While regional representation aims for balance, it could also lead to regional gridlock. Council members might prioritize regional interests over EU-wide interests, making it difficult to reach consensus and implement effective policies. Each region effectively has a veto.
2. Complex and Potentially Unstable Government Formation: The process of forming the Council, with the involvement of the President of the Union and the Chamber of Deputies, is complex and could be prone to instability. The multiple votes of confidence and the potential for the President to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies could create uncertainty and make it difficult to form a stable government.
3. Limited Role for the Senate: The Council’s lack of responsibility to the Senate could weaken the upper chamber’s role in the EU legislative process and create an imbalance of power. This could lead to concerns about democratic legitimacy, especially if the Senate is designed to represent different interests than the Chamber of Deputies.
4. Potential for Political Patronage: The regional representation could lead to political patronage, with Council members being appointed based on their loyalty to regional political leaders rather than their competence and qualifications.
5. Inefficiency: The complex government formation process and the potential for regional gridlock could make the Council less efficient and less able to respond quickly to urgent challenges.
6. Overly Powerful Chamber of Deputies: The Council’s sole responsibility to the Chamber of Deputies could make the lower house overly powerful, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances.
7. Lack of Direct Democratic Accountability (Potentially): While Council members are indirectly accountable through their regional affiliations, they are not directly elected by EU citizens. This could contribute to a sense of democratic deficit.
8. Difficulties in Representation: Ensuring truly equal representation for five broad regions with vastly different populations and interests could be challenging. Smaller or less populous nations within a region might feel their voices are not adequately heard.
9. Potential for Conflict Between President and Council: Although the President’s role is limited, the potential for conflict between the President of the Union and the President of the Executive Council exists, especially during government formation.
10. Bureaucratic Challenges: Managing the complex interactions between the President, the Chamber of Deputies, the Council, and the Court of Justice could create bureaucratic challenges and inefficiencies. The division of powers, while defined, could still lead to friction and overlapping responsibilities.

President of the European Federation

The President of the European Federation is elected for a term of three years by secret ballot, without debate, by a specially convened European Parliamentary Assembly which mirrors the aggregated majority position in the Chamber of Deputies and in the parliaments of the Member States of the European Federation. The convention consists of all Chamber of Deputies members, as well as an equal number of electors elected by the Member State legislatures in proportion to their respective populations. 

The President is elected by terms; as head of state, supreme commander of the Armed Forces, and supreme representative of the European Federation. The President, as representative of the Union in foreign affairs, shall ratify and renounce international agreements, appoint and recall the plenipotentiary representatives of the European Federation and shall cooperate with the President of the European Executive Council and the appropriate minister in respect of foreign policy. As Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, the President shall appoint the Chief of the General Staff and commanders of branches of the Armed Forces. 

The system described has several potential advantages:

1. Reflects Democratic Will: The election process aims to mirror the aggregated majority position in both the Chamber of Deputies and member state parliaments. This suggests an attempt to ensure the President’s legitimacy by tying their election to the democratic will of the member states and their populations. The involvement of both directly elected deputies and representatives from national legislatures reinforces this democratic connection.
2. Clear Head of State: The system establishes a clear and defined head of state (the President) with specific powers. This provides clarity and stability in leadership, particularly in areas like foreign affairs and military command.
3. Defined Powers: The description outlines specific presidential powers, including ratifying treaties, appointing ambassadors, and commanding the armed forces. This separation of powers, while needing more detail to be fully assessed, can contribute to a more structured and potentially less arbitrary governance system.
4. Term Limits: The three-year term limit can be seen as a positive, preventing any one individual from holding excessive power for an extended period and ensuring regular opportunities for leadership change.
5. Streamlined Election: The secret ballot and absence of debate in the European Parliamentary Assembly could be intended to make the election process more efficient and less prone to political maneuvering or gridlock. This could be particularly advantageous in a large federation.

It’s important to note that without more information about the broader political structure and checks and balances within the European Federation, it’s difficult to fully assess the long-term impact and potential drawbacks of this system. For example, the lack of debate might stifle important discussions about the future direction of the Federation. Also, the concentration of power in the President’s hands, while providing clarity, could potentially lead to abuse of power if not properly balanced by other institutions.

This system, while having some potential advantages, also presents several disadvantages:

1. Lack of Deliberation: The absence of debate in the election process is a significant concern. Important policy issues, candidate qualifications, and the future direction of the European Federation are not discussed publicly. This could lead to a less informed electorate and a President less accountable to public opinion. It also might lead to the election of a candidate who is popular but has not been properly scrutinized.
2. Potential for Democratic Deficit: While the system aims to reflect the aggregated majority, it’s unclear how this aggregation works in practice. It’s possible that minority viewpoints within member states are effectively silenced. The complex electoral college-like system could also lead to a situation where the elected President doesn’t actually represent the popular vote of the entire Federation. This could lead to feelings of disenfranchisement and a lack of legitimacy for the President.
3. Concentration of Power: The President holds significant power, including command of the armed forces and control over foreign policy. While cooperation with the European Executive Council President and relevant ministers is mentioned, the text doesn’t specify the exact checks and balances on the President’s authority. This concentration of power could lead to potential abuses and a lack of accountability. The description of the President as „supreme representative” further reinforces this concern.
4. Unclear Relationship with Executive Council: The relationship between the President and the European Executive Council (and its President) is not clearly defined. While cooperation is mentioned, the specific division of powers and responsibilities is unclear. This could lead to potential conflicts and inefficiencies in governance.
5. Electoral College Complexity: The electoral system, with its mix of Chamber of Deputies members and electors from national legislatures, is complex. This complexity could make it difficult for citizens to understand the electoral process and hold their representatives accountable. It could also open the door to political maneuvering and manipulation.
6. Limited Transparency: The secret ballot, while potentially efficient, reduces transparency. Voters don’t know how their representatives voted, making it harder to hold them accountable. This lack of transparency can erode public trust in the system.
7. Potential for Instability: If the „aggregated majority” calculation is flawed or perceived as unfair, it could lead to political instability and resentment within the Federation. Regions or groups that feel their voices are not being heard might become disaffected.

Without more detail about the broader political structure, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment. However, these potential disadvantages highlight the importance of carefully considering the design of any system of government, particularly one for a large and diverse federation.

European Council – liquidation

European Economic and Social Committee – liquidation

European Committee of the Regions – liquidation

One language as an official language of the European Federation

Esperanto is, without prejudice to the linguistic and cultural diversity of the Member States, the official language of the European Federation. Member States shall determine their official languages .To ensure harmonious coexistence between linguistic communities, they point out the traditional linguistic structure of the region and take into account the indigenous linguistic minorities. It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Esperanto language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of European Federation. 

The Member States succeed each other in alphabetical order Esperanto every six months in the chairmanship of the Senat. In command and military training in the European Armed Forces can be, in accordance with the European law, use the Esperanto language, and of his units can be used languages of the Member States. 

Choosing a neutral, artificial and international language like Esperanto will help European Federation and Member States maintain a separate identity and lessen the claim that it only serves one culture or national interest. No ethic group or nation gains from the promotion of Esperanto, neither does anyone lose from its advance. 

The proposed system, centered around Esperanto as the official language of the European Federation, presents several potential advantages:

1. Neutrality and Impartiality: Esperanto, as a constructed language, is not associated with any particular nation or ethnic group. This neutrality can foster a sense of equality and avoid the perception that the EU favors one culture or language over others. This could improve inclusivity and reduce linguistic tensions within the Union.
2. Reduced Linguistic Dominance: Using Esperanto can prevent one existing national language from dominating the EU’s institutions and discourse. This can level the playing field for citizens from all member states, ensuring that no one is inherently disadvantaged due to their native language.
3. Potential for Easier Communication: Esperanto is designed to be relatively easy to learn, with a simple grammar and regular vocabulary. This could potentially make communication within the EU easier for citizens and officials alike, reducing the need for extensive translation and interpretation services.
4. Symbolic Value: Choosing Esperanto could symbolize a commitment to European unity and a shared future, transcending national linguistic and cultural divisions. It could be seen as a forward-looking choice that emphasizes commonality over historical divisions.
5. Cost Savings (Potentially): While there would be initial costs associated with transitioning to Esperanto, in the long run, it could potentially lead to significant savings by reducing the need for translation and interpretation across the many languages of the EU.
6. Preservation of Linguistic Diversity: The system explicitly states that it does not prejudice the linguistic and cultural diversity of member states, who can still determine their own official languages. This allows for the preservation of local languages and cultures alongside the unifying role of Esperanto.
7. Equal Access to Power: The rotating presidency and the allowance of national languages within military units could be seen as attempts to balance the unifying force of Esperanto with the recognition of existing national identities and power structures.

While the idea of using Esperanto as the official language of the European Federation has some potential benefits, it also presents several significant disadvantages:

1. Massive Transition Costs: Implementing Esperanto as the official language would involve enormous costs. Everything from official documents and legal texts to educational materials and signage would need to be translated. Training a sufficient number of translators, interpreters, and language teachers would be a huge undertaking.
2. Resistance and Lack of Popular Support: It’s likely that there would be significant resistance from many citizens who are comfortable with their existing languages and see no need to learn a new one. Forcing a language change could create resentment and undermine public support for the Federation. There is no evidence of widespread popular demand for Esperanto within the EU.
3. Practical Challenges: Even though Esperanto is designed to be easy to learn, it’s still a new language. Requiring everyone in the EU institutions, businesses, and public services to learn it would be a major disruption. The learning curve could be steep for many, especially older citizens.
4. Loss of Linguistic and Cultural Nuance: Language is deeply intertwined with culture. Switching to Esperanto would mean losing the rich cultural nuances and historical context embedded in existing European languages. While Esperanto can certainly develop its own cultural expressions, it would be starting from a blank slate compared to established languages.
5. Limited Existing Resources: Compared to major world languages, the amount of existing literature, media, and other resources available in Esperanto is relatively small. Developing a robust body of work in Esperanto would take considerable time and effort.
6. Potential for Elitism: Even if Esperanto is relatively easy to learn, some people will inevitably learn it more quickly and fluently than others. This could create a new form of linguistic elitism, where those proficient in Esperanto have an advantage in accessing jobs, education, and political power.
7. Unproven Effectiveness: While Esperanto has been around for over a century, it has never been used as the official language of a large political entity. It’s unclear how well it would function in practice in the complex multilingual environment of the EU.
8. Focus on Language over Substance: Debating the language issue could distract from more pressing political, economic, and social challenges facing the European Federation. It could become a symbolic issue that overshadows more substantive policy discussions.
9. Six-Month Rotating Chairmanship Complication: While the rotating chairmanship is meant to ensure equality, combining it with Esperanto could create additional communication challenges. Each new chair would have to adapt quickly to working in a language that might be relatively new to them.

In short, while the idea of a neutral language is appealing in theory, the practical challenges and potential negative consequences of implementing Esperanto as the official language of the European Federation are substantial.

If you know any interesting facts about this topic, share them in the comments.
We would appreciate any information!