Resources for a better world: ecology, happiness, life, art, spirit and mind, books, musics, movies... 3D
Books and Novels: The marvelous world of the Eolis 3D -- Nowadays science-fiction 3D -- Tolkien: Elvish Dream ( forum1 ) -- The Elves of the Dauriath -- A large 3D project 3D -- Manifesto of the virtual worlds
Take action: Daylight Saving Time ( forum1 ) -- Children Rights violated in France -- Tobacco and alcohol are drugs -- Internet and Freedom -- Bugged softwares -- New epidemics and basic hygiena -- Inverted racisme and sexism -- A good constitution for Europe? -- A duty of memory -- Leaded generation?
This page is a project of European constitution, that I did in 2007 when there was a «debate» about this. I invite you to read it, and, as we were not allowed to vote for the l'«other» project, at least you should vote for this one.
And after, was it so complicated, to make a correct constitution, that our «elites» were unable to do so??? See my comments in the bottom of this page.
Important update (October 2012): Why the ridiculous Euro Crisis.
The European Union is a community of independent states, which voluntarily bring in common a part of their resources and prerogatives, in order to ensure the happiness, peace and wealth of their citizens.
Happiness is a state of satisfaction of the human person which depends on many conditions, material and economic, but also social, psychological or spiritual, such as: -enjoying fundamental rights, -encounter freely chosen persons, -have life time to undertake various activities without production purposes, -have access to nature or a pleasant living place, -having access to all the knowledge, -having access to pleasant places and objects, -enjoy a good physical condition and an harmonious psychological functioning. Happiness is threatened by advert conditions such as disputes, or by illusory searches. The first objective of the Union is to ensure the conditions of happiness of its citizens: 1) by an adequate economy allowing the creation of wealth and its equitable sharing, 2) with being warrant of fundamental rights, peace and an harmonious functioning of society, 3) with preserving nature and ecology, 4) with protecting and developing cultures, education, arts, the variety of philosophies and spiritual approaches, sciences, 5) with facilitating any other conditions within the psychological or spiritual domains, while however not trying to enclose them into a unique or imposed frame.
Peace among peoples. The Union was created into the aftermath of World War II, one of the darkest episodes of European history, after centuries of dictatures and fratricide wars. Thus the second objective of the Union is reconciliation and friendship between peoples of Europe, so that they could live in peace and enjoy freedom and wealth. This reconciliation implies the pardon toward peoples, and the unconditional renunciation to manage disagreements by way of conflict. But this pardon is also non-dual with the absolute and definitive condemnation of all the groups, dictatures and ideologies, political or religious, justifying evil, violence, discrimination, deprivation of freedom or happiness for human beings whoever they are. The Union will actively take any necessary measures to forbid the propagation of such ideologies and forbid the come back of hate, dictatures or war.
Wealth. To ensure its third objective, the wealth of its member states, the Union was designed from the beginning as a zone of free trade economy. The failure of marxist systems conforted the choice of market economy. It is however notorious that this system, despites obvious realizations, also produces its own disorders and injustices. So the Union and member states take the commitment, if such things happen, to engage any necessary mean to bring a remedy such problem, especially in the domains of ecology and of social wellfare.
This constitution of the Union is a treaty agreed between independent states members of the Union. The Union is defined and organized by a set of treaties and foundation texts, which define the common institutions, and the prerogatives that the states put in common in order to edict common laws and regulations. Those texts also define resource placed in common.
The Union is not a federation, and not a super-state. Each state remains free to quit the Union, or to engage only in a part of the treaties which constitute the Union. This choice was explicitly made, and the common institutions expressly designed in this way, to avoid the appearance of a central government on which member states will not have any control. So the management bodies of the Union remain the emanation of the member states, and under their control.
The Union is a democracy. This means that every decisions must be based on the acceptation or demand of the largest number of citizens. Usually democracy is enacted by the right of vote and to elect representatives entitled with the task to create laws. However the spirit of democracy cannot be reduced to a peculiar procedure, and all the more less to be content with mere compromises which only hide fundamentally irreducible oppositions (which is necessarily a source of discontent or conflict). Thus an authentic democracy implies to respect fundamental rights of the person, and especially: 1) Free access for everybody to an objective and relevant information, directly from its source, or relayed by objective and independent media, not allowing into any interpretation, filtering or adaptation. 2) The freedom for everybody to make his opinion known by everybody, and to gather in groups for this purpose. 3) That, in case of a disagreement, it is not enough to invoke the balance of forces to ignore a minority point of view. Concrete solutions must be found to satisfy the most people as possible, or to compensate the losses. 4) Adequate theoretical researches must be undertaken in order to try to solve the great problems about morals or life in general, in order to stop these to be the source of irreducible disagreements. 5) Efficient measures must be taken to avoid the democratic process to be perverted by careerism, psychological influence plays, ponerological phenomena, or mass manipulations. 6) It is allowed to criticize democracy in order to better it or find better, but we cannot a criticism aiming at reducing it. An attempt to reduce or suppress democracy would be a major crisis of the Union.
The Union is lay, in the honest and legitimate meaning of the word, as indicated: by lack of a valid enough demonstration mean to build a general consensus, one cannot impose any position, neither affirmative nor negative, or essential concerns such as the existence or inexistence of God, a meaning of life, survival after death, certain moral principles, etc. This state of facts justify the fundamental right for everybody to adopt or refuse any philosophy, religion, belief or thought system in these matters, including any resulting personal or social practice, as well as in public or private life. In a general way, the Union will not interfere into such matters. However, in virtue of its fundamental objectives, the Union can choose to support, encourage, discourage or forbid any philosophy, religion, belief, thought system or group, and the resulting practices, depending on if they help for happiness, a more harmonious social life, respect of others, or if they go against these objectives. However, this being about non-resolved questions, sources of disagreements, the Union will base its decisions on the best available scientific, psychological or spiritual knowledge. It will encourage fundamental researches on these essential concerns, and results in this way could require to modify this constitution accordingly.
The Union approves and apply without exceptions:
-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
-The Universal Declaration of Children Rights
-The European Declaration of Human Rights
No citizen of the Union, no person present on the Union territories, can be left with a lack of rights.
Every persons have the right to be happy any activity they would find useful for their survival or their happiness, those of their relatives and those of the society.
Every person have the right to the integrity of his body, and to the maximum protection against diseases, accidents, pollution, pain, ageing and noxious or addicting practices, sexual abuses, serious or benign mutilations, marking the body, technological intrusions in the body, and any new threat not listed here.
Every person has the right to the integrity of his psyche, and to the maximum protection against psychological aggressions such as intimidation, threats, psychological manipulations, manipulations of memories or personality, stalking, abusive monitoring, humiliating, defamation, exploitation of the image, mocking, vexations, psychological or intent imputations, and any new threat not listed here.
Every person has the right to the respect of his dignity and to do his own choices in any circumstances.
Every person has the right to have his own opinions, his own purposes in life, and to concretely live according to the way of life of his choice.
Every person has the right to a basic education and a fair access to the whole set of knowledge.
Are forbidden any kind of violence or attack, physical or immaterial, by blackmail or threat, sexual, administrative or judiciary abuse, computer abuse, medical abuse, monitoring or tracking, false information, mind control methods, marking of the body, implants in the body, and any material or immaterial method to detect, control or modify thought, emotions, intentions, the brain or elements of the psyche.
Laws and regulations have for purpose to be warrant of these rights and to ensure a peaceful and efficient functioning of the society.
Every person has the right to engage into non-physical place of her choice, such as electronic virtual worlds, forums, or any other type of ludic, social or utilitarian space of exchange or discussion, where they can possess identities, a reputation, non-physical representations and properties. The immaterial, ludic or extraterritorial nature of these non-physical places, makes numerous laws inapplicable or pointless. However laws intended to protect the fundamental rights of the person still apply into such non-physical places (except explicit agreement between players). Then they apply to the protection of names and virtual representation, of their repute and properties, as for the physical or moral person who animate them or possess them. Also, when non-physical places interfere with physical reality, from financial activities, work, force feedback techniques involving the whole body, emotional and psychological involvement, their moral or ideological influence, then society can legitimately intervene into non-physical places, in order to avoid attacks against persons, social or economical troubles, exploitation of work, psychological pressure or exploitation of the person, sexual exploitation or enticing to dangerous attitudes. A specific legislation must give a frame for this kind of intervention, so that they take place for the right purpose, with the warranty of respecting the persons and the correct functioning of those non-physical places, of their public or private quality. Physical persons taking part into non-physical worlds must always be identified, to warrant them against usurpation, or to be respondent of their acts toward other participants. However this must be done into the common conditions about respecting privacy, freedom of expression and fundamental rights.
Animals, as sentient beings, able of suffering, have the right to see their lives and habitat respected, and not to be mistreated and killed. Some animals may have a juridical statute granting them a protection similar to that of children. Then the Union will concretely commit toward protection and ethical treatment of animals, especially with forbidding cruel games implying suffering and deaths of animals.
Any machine copying or imitating human thought (robot) being void of consciousness or sensation, is not a person, but an object, to which apply the laws on objects and machines, and the persons responsible of them. However a clever enough machine may have to apply itself notions of laws or right, which could them be called a robot's right. Robots have no right to harm persons in no way. They have a duty to assist endangered persons when this is in their abilities. A robot designed to act spontaneously in public must be able to identify with enough reliability stakes such as respect or safety of persons, when they risk to endanger then from awkwardness or when doing a task.
A machine or a biological creation experiencing consciousness would enjoy, depending on the degree of consciousness, a statute equivalent to that of an animal, a child or an adult person, with he corresponding rights or duties.
It is a crime to create any conscious creature, electronic or biological, whom thought or feelings would be conditioned or limited. Such creature must enjoy free will and control over the content of their consciousness.
Wealth is the third fundamental objective of the Union. Thus economy is to produce enough wealth.
From the choices made when the Union was created, the European Economic Space is basically a market where economic competition can exert freely, without any kind of protectionism. Thus the main measures shall be warrant of free competition in the commercial meaning of this word, the absence of protectionist obstacles to the circulation of merchandises, and the functioning of enterprises in conditions allowing them to freely exert their activity and to be healthy.
However this choice calls for some counterpoints, in order not to harm the other fundamental objectives of the Union. So market and free competition must clearly admit some exceptions:
-Ecology constrains, which can request to authoritarily modify industrial choices, energy orientations, transportation means, land management, etc. The Union will proactively take its responsibility in its territory, and it will act proactively at an international level.
-Social constrains such as minimum income, social protection, health protection, etc.
-Avoid monopolies and similar power locks, that concurrence has explicitly for function to avoid.
-Culture, which is not by itself a consumer good, even when it is sold. Its preservation can request special protectionist measures.
-Elements of the human body, human psyche, identity, image, private life, etc.
-Certain specific regional situations or difficulties, which can justify punctual protectionist measures or help.
-Elements of common patrimony such as artistic, patrimonial, archaeological, geological, scientific, spatial, which must be protected an remain available for scientific studies or for the admiration of all.
-Maintaining a sufficient public service, when enterprises are unable to do so, or into primordial domains such as health or security.
-Peace, with restraining weapons to the only police or defence forces.
-Health, with especially the protection against toxic or addicting processes or substances.
-The fundamental right of persons and groups to practice benevolent, ethical or citizen action, and even other kinds of economy than capitalism. As a matter of fact, it is possible to conceive other forms of economy, more fair and more efficient, but which require a moral commitment which cannot be imposed. The Union will act to ease such attempts, or at a minimum will not bring any obstacle to them, neither directly nor with measures which would make their practice more difficult or less efficient. It is possible to conceive a partition of the society between several economy systems, following different principles and laws: each citizen can join the partition he wants, while management of economy monitor the harmonious relations between the different partitions. A democratic choice toward a better economy could be an occasion to modify this constitution accordingly.
-Depending on gravity, the Union and member states will unadvise or forbid any sexual commerce or exploitation. They will always abstain of taking profit of it.
Wealth is the third fundamental objective of the Union. Then social welfare is about sharing this wealth in an equitable way, accounting with the inherent difficulties of human life.
Thus citizens will enjoy the largest possible resources, shared in the best way, and warranties of not losing this situation after some trivial event.
No citizen of the union can be left with a lack of resources or care.
The Union and the member states commit to manage economy in such a way to maintain social basis such as employment, social minima, the right to housing, Social Security, retirement, and also to protect weak persons or persons facing difficulties, small producers (especially farmers and artisans), disabled persons, victims, refugees, etc.
The decisions in the field of economy or land management will also have to be warrant of personal life of workers, especially their right to live into an environment they like, and to remain there.
However, beyond the preservation of unquestionable minima, social welfare is a domain which often requires concerted and gradated responses. So the Union will act in a way to better social warranties, or in the minimum to stop any lowering of these warranties.
In more, with the globalization of economy, the today real scene of social struggle is no longer the country, but the entire world. So the Union will defend important social matters when dealing with world management bodies, such as world wide warranted social minima. It will help oppressed or economically weak countries, in a way to offer to their citizens more rights and social warranties.
Ecology is the only basis on which to establish economy and all the remainder. Thus to protect this basis is a priority objective of any government. Concretely the Union:
-Will not pass beyond the physical limits allowed by ecology and the available resources.
-Will take any measure to protect ecology of any attack or problem.
-Will base its decisions on the best scientific knowledge available.
-Will observe the principle of caution, and watch the appearance of new hazards, or of hazards which were underestimated.
-Will organize great economy and industrial choices in order not to spoil today ecology, and not to engage the patrimony of future generations.
-Will make bear to the polluters the responsibility of their actions.
-Will encourage good practices
-Will seek for solutions at the source, not palliatives.
-Will take any education initiative about ecology, at school, toward citizens or toward enterprises.
-Will firmly forbid any propaganda or pressure in the ecology negationist style.
-Will actively participate to any world initiative.
-Will protect biodiversity, natural or about agriculture.
-Will protect landscapes, quiet places and living places.
To be part of a freely chosen culture, thought system, religion or philosophy, and live a way of life accordingly, are fundamental rights of any citizen, warranted by he laicity principle of the Union.
The Union recognizes as an enrichment the variety of cultures, religions and philosophies which exist and may appear on its territory, and which may produce much varied ways of life.
The cultures of European peoples still owe much to the ancient Celtic, Norse or Slavic lores, and others. Greek and Roman antiquity brought us the institutions of a great organized society, and the foundations of morals and philosophy. To Christianism we owe the notion of the value of the human person. Certain lucky periods of Middle Age witnessed the unfolding of tolerance and arts, while Arab incursions brought us basis of science and mathematics, and Judaism the capacity to have gradated opinions, still the basis of important institutions today. Renaissance and the century of Enlightenment saw the development of logical thinking, science, humanism, and ideals of freedom. Modern world developed the respect of human rights and freedom, together with ideals of science, justice, social equity and democracy. Today, with the opening to the world, more oriental philosophies are reviving some ethics and meaning to a life which may have become too materialistic, when exploration of space suggest infinite possibilities.
The freedom of culture, religion, belief, philosophy or spiritual step implies concrete freedoms such as freedom of expression, of way of life, clothing, gathering, rituals, practices in society, in privacy, into our inner self, or when educating our children.
The only limits are respecting the other persons, which can lead to discourage or forbid cultures, religions, philosophies fostering violence, or other harm to the person or the society.
To know one's surrounding and understand universe is a fundamental right of every person, and a legitimate motive to undertake researches, even costly.
Thus the Union will strongly support scientific research, and quality in science.
It will peculiarly support very costly researches such as physics, biology and space, and contribute to international projects in these domains. Especially the Union will create and maintain large scale bodies that the member states cannot afford.
It will also support more practical researches such as protecting ecology, organic and sustainable farming, technologies which don't destroy nature or living places, appropriable by persons without technical culture, not hazardous to persons or to workers.
The Union can also encourage any serious search on rare or unexplained phenomena, which meaning could be very important.
Science and its results are independent of any political, economic or ideological power.
In a general way, to have access to art and any form of knowledge is a fundamental right of the person and of societies. The Union and the member states will protect intellectual or artistic creations of a special interest, or archaeological, geological, scientific, spatial objects, together with data sets and knowledge sources.
The right to know can however be limited when a research implies suffering, advert social effects or destruction.
Every child has the right to live in a stable and loving family, where he feels at ease, composed of a father, a mother, relatives, other children, into a welcoming neighbourhood open on the world and offering numerous opportunities. This family, its surrounding, school, information means, are each in their way responsible of his education, this meaning the building of a happy and unfolded personality, which will allow him to take profit of life in the way he will choose, and to have pleasant and constructive relations with others and with society. This is the interest of the child.
If these conditions are not fulfilled, then society will be entitled to intervene in such a way to better them. First family troubles will receive an appropriate psychological help, in order to eliminate their causes. If this is not enough, then complementary, palliative or replacement solutions will be proposed or imposed, in order to fulfil at best the interest of the child.
Basic education includes:
-capacities required to live in society and to communicate, such as reading and calculation.
-A vocational training allowing for an useful participation in society.
-Basic knowledge on life, body and health, especially dietetics and contraception.
-Nature, universe, history and other peoples, so that everybody understands his situation in the world.
-Commonly recognized morals rules.
-Allowing everybody to acquire an original personality and psychological mastery allowing an harmonious social life, useful and pleasant, including an happy family life.
-In order to freely develop a personality of their choice, children must be protected against violence, stalking, intimidation, domination-soumission plays, whatever they come from adults or from other children.
Basic education is a fundamental right, and access to it must be warranted for everybody. It cannot be submitted to condition, discrimination, selection, competition, opportunism, elitism, income or work constrains, or any other constrain limiting the access to it. For this reason basic education must be free, mandatory, and available everywhere.
Education can be given during mandatory times such as school, but it must also be available all the life long. Education cannot be restricted by utilitarian purposes, and actions must be taken in order to make available for everybody the whole set of scientific or cultural knowledge, or at least compensate the economic discrimination due tot heir cost.
Education must be presented to children in a pleasant and motivating way, so that they find themselves its utility. The most modern pedagogy will be used, involving the whole personality.
Learning should be done with various paces adapted to different persons. Whose who are able should be allowed to go further, into affordable conditions. Those who feel peculiar difficulties must enjoy an adapted help. Those who, despite those helps, are unable to receive the whole basic education must enjoy an adapted assistance for their social insertion.
Basic knowledge of the main religions, philosophies or spiritualities must be included into the basic education. It is perfectly legitimate that parents or a group educate their children according to their own culture, religion, philosophy spirituality or way of life. However, following the principle of laicity, this must preserve the freedom of the children to choose their own orientation once reached the adult age. This implies the absence of irreversible choices, contacts, a positive and substantial information of the mainstream social life and on other philosophies, and the absence of discrimination between the group and the mainstream society.
The boundaries inherited from European history not always match with peoples and cultures.
Boundaries can be corrected by merging or partition of states, or shifting the lines. Such actions are negotiated between the concerned states, democratically approved, and include compensations for minorities which may suffer of this.
However peoples often merged. For this reason, the idea of regions is preferred, enjoying a certain autonomy from the state in which they belong, in domains such as economy, culture, languages, etc. Those regions are defined by the state to which they belong. A good example was set by Spain in the end of the 20th century.
Cross-border regions could be conceived on the same model, for cultures or peoples partitioned between several states. They would enjoy prerogatives similar to the previous, but each part would remain dependant of its state in other domains. A cross-border region is defined by an agreement or treaty between the concerned states, which also allow for the creation of international institutions..
Eventually a state shared in regions could share its representatives into the European Parliament, according to the proportion of each region. So those deputies can represent these regions, even cross-border, for matters concerning them.
Regions may enjoy important powers in cultural domains, especially with preserving special places, landscapes, architectural styles, languages. They are also the first implied into matters such as land management or implementation of large projects.
Any citizen of a member state of the Union is citizen of the Union.
Each state of the Union has its own rules defining citizenship. But the Union can enact rules warrant of the absence of some injustices or discriminations. Especially citizenship cannot depend on race, religion, way of life, intelligence or any other discriminatory criteria.
Immigration and emigration are legitimate human phenomena, to which we cannot oppose any principle, purpose or selection. However each state will retain the possibility to restrain a too large immigration, or which arises problems when integrating the new comers. Then the most urgent humanitarian cases have priority. Every state also retains the right to refuse some especially undesired persons (confirmed delinquents, terrorists...). When immigration is badly received, necessary measures will be taken for the social and economic integration of the new comers, especially to avoid the formation of ghettos or the appearance of forms of racism and discrimination.
The preservation of a regional culture will also be a legitimate motive to locally restrain immigration, or to request a more peculiar integration in this culture.
The criteria defining the admission of a state into the Union were defined in the Maastricht treaty.
Any European state satisfying the criteria defined by the Maastricht treaty can request to become a member of the Union. The acceptation must then proceed immediately. The Union can choose to help states which would request to enter into the Union, but which would not meet the Maastricht criteria.
The questions to know until where Europe goes, or to accept frankly non-European states, can be submitted to the vote of the citizens of the Union. The Union will entertain privileged help relations with states which would be refused in this way. It will also entertain privileged help relations with neighbouring states or unions.
The question of a further integration of the European Union into a federation or into a unique state can be discussed if it appears a good democratic demand or acceptance from the peoples of the Union. Then this constitution could be transposed into this new frame, only vocabulary and some institutions being adapted accordingly.
Laws and regulation have for purpose to ensure, in the order of priority:
1) The happiness of the human person, first objective of the Union.
2) The fundamental rights of the person and of groups.The only possible exceptions to these rights are when their exercise is detrimental for the rights or happiness of other persons. When actual abuses take place, they will receive preventive, educative, judiciary or psychiatric response, depending on what is appropriate.
3) An harmonious working of society, civilisation and economy, which are neutral and cannot be used against a peculiar opinion, culture or category of persons.
Any ambiguity, peculiar case, new situation, unpredicted situation or humanitarian situation will be dealt with in the order of priority above, by new laws or by the decisions of courts.
The laws of the Union and of each memeber state are neutral and aply in the same way for everybody. If the application of a law creates inequalities in fact, thus it must be compensated.
Any victim or accused person has the right to obtain in a short time a decision based on established facts and objective expertises, included in abstract domains such as psychology. Nobody can be condamned, and even not charged or remanded into custody, on the basis of suppositions, imputations or uncheckable or unchecked assertions.
Any victim or accused person has the right to an assistance, and to a correct traitment, physically and psychologically, at every step of the procedure, from the first suspicions to the reinsertion.
The persons in charge of taking justice decisions (judges), or contributing to found these decisions (inquireers, social workers, experts, psychologists) must inspire confidence, and for this, they must give checkable warranties of honnesty, objectivity and independance of ideological, political or religious powers, of abscence of psychopatic or caracteropatic troubles, if needed by psychotechnic tests, expertises, statistics, etc. They are responsible in front of the law of any abuse or fault, which can lead to appropriated pinishment or banishment of their function. The persons thinking to be victims of judiciary abuses should be able to submit their case to an appropriated institution, which may have the power, if appliable, to cancel or modify a faulty decision, and to take real sanctions against faulters. The fact to have acted badly with a court authority will be considered as aggravating circumstance.
Decisions of justice exclude any humilianting, physically or moraly degrading punishment, or implying physical or moral suffering. At need, they ensure that other persons, such as the familly of a condemned person, don't suffer of the decision.
Decisions of justice will have to activaly contribute to help the condemned persons to understand their faults and get the motivation to bring a remedy to them. Sentences cannot be definitive; their permanence can be justified only by the permanence of a situation (such as isolating a dangerous person). A sincere, credible and checked repentance, must be the cause of a diminution or annulation of the sentences.
In the case where decisions of justice, social or medical, are taken for purpose of assistance (children, disabled persons, adults in trouble, psychiatric cases, victims, refugees...) or of monitoring dangerous persons (multirecidivists, sexual predators, bad parents, psychopaths, characteropaths, manipulators, fanatics, extremists...), see the serious risk of abuse of such decisions (arbtrarian decisions against a person, instrumentalisation of the justice, social services or of psychology) then the following cautions are taken: 1) Such measures are not in themselves punishment or humiliations, right on the countrary they will have to pro-actively be warant of the remain of freedom and dignity of the person, together with the possibility for him to live an interesting activity. 2) Those categories must be clearly recognized and defined by the experts (psychology, psychiatry...) representative of the best advance in science at a worldwise level, as requiring assistance, or dangerous for others, with the exclusion of any ideological or opportunistic interpretation. 3) The belonging of a person to one of these categorie bust be assessed by complete expertise and evidences, and not from supposition, imputation or mere statement.
The European defence has for purpose:
The two previous points include the protection against groups or governments which would be violent, or trying to establish a dictature, or trying to reduce fundamental rights.
3) To protect the interests of the member states of the Union, in the extend where those interests would be directly and really threatened by a malevolent action. The idea of malevolent action clearly not includes the legitimate defence of interests of other countries or human groups, especially of countries or groups which were unfairly brought into subjection.
The member states of the Union take the commitment to live together in peace and full loyalty with all the other member states or non-member states, and especially to never attack any country, and to never create any situation which would justify an armed response.
The Union does not recognize war or dictature as legitimate means to manage the world's affairs. Any person responsible at any level of acts of war or governmental abuses will be liable of common right penalties. The fact to have acted badly with a governmental authority will be considered as aggravating circumstance. The only exceptions are self-defence and defence of innocent attacked people
Every situation of disagreement must be immediately answered by diplomatic actions, and especially by any concrete action necessary to eliminate the causes of the conflict, such as an economic, humanitarian of politic help. The military option will always be the last one, if all the others fail. But this however does not exclude that the military option may be used in emergency, to put an end to unacceptable destruction or suffering.
European defence works like an alliance. This alliance is independent of other alliances, but without forbidding a member state to engage into another alliance compatible with the objectives of the Union.
Each member state of the Union remains basically free to organize its own defence as it likes.
The Union can organize a common defence. The member states voluntarily contribute to this common defence. This contribution can be made mandatory by the European parliament of the European Council, for a definite duration, in case of a major crisis threatening the Union or peace into the World.
The elements of the European defence are interoperable units able of an unified command. Operations can be decided 1) by the European Parliament, 2) By the European council, or 3) at the initiative of one or several member state, in any cases and as much as possible under a mandate of international peace keeping bodies. A disagreement between member states of the Union does not forbid one or several member states to engage an operation, under their own responsibility, without other states being allowed to make obstacle, as long as the purpose remains compatible with the objectives of the Union.
A conflict between member states of the Union would be a major crisis calling for an emergency action of the Council and all the other states, in order to stop any military action and to stop any unfair behaviour at the origin of the conflict.
The operations of the Union or of member states are led exclusively against a government or an armed organization, but never against a people or an human group whatever it is. The Union and all the member states will use as much as possible non-lethal weapons, to neutralize at attacker without harming him physically or morally. Every caution will be taken to avoid collateral damages or humanitarian problems. The armed forces of the Union will behave in a respectful and helpful way toward populations, organizing or allowing humanitarian help. The Union and all its member states take the commitment not to design, manufacture, hold, sale, recommend, caution or use: 1) mass destruction weapons, such as nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, of ecology destruction or food resources destruction 2) weapons designed to have long run effects, or which may expose the population when going back to normal life, such as traps, mines, hidden, toxic or radioactive ammunitions, tactical nuclear weapons 3) robotic weapons acting without discernment 4) weapons especially designed to mutilate or create suffering 5) weapons likely to arrive into the hands of armed groups or bandits 6) any barbarian or villainous act such as torture, arbitrary or secret detention, hostages, disappearances, human shields, blackmail, retaliation, cultural destruction, humiliation, mass manipulation, defamation, misinformation, false propaganda, etc.
This important part is not written yet for now. I should describe the institutions of the Union and the main treaties. The project submitted to votes in 2006 is an useful basis for this work, so far as it describes all the institutions and pratices already in place, while defining correctly the words used. However tehre are imperative modification to bring, in order to fill the serious lack of democracy:
-The European parliament is the the only legislative body. For this reasons the deputies propose the laws to vote.
-The candidates will have to pass psychotechnical tests, in order to avoid extremists, psychopaths or caracteropaths to be candidates. However non-dangerous disabilities are not exclusion criteria.
-A popular initiative referendum must be implemented.
-The great choices of the Union, or questionned choices, must be submitted to referendum, with the universal suffrage of the citizens of the Union.
-The various executive commissions must not play an arbitrarian or hidden legislative role, as this was seen for instance with GMOs. So that the commissions work to implement laws. At need, the Parliament can directly seize their work or their directives, and submit them to democratic discussion or vote Those commissions are only in charge to study all the economic, technical, scientifical, human or spiritual aspects of law projects or executive measures, and to motive decision witht the best knowledge and expertise available in every domain.
-It must not be established a federal government in the US way, as, sooer or later, it will become a power out of the control of the Union states. The today system of revolving presidency is precisely the limit to never go beyond. At best, the Council could temporarily name responsibles, either persons or states, representative or temporary ministers, in charge of coordinating actions on a given issue, or to speak in the name of the Union in front of other countries of the world, on a given tpic, or at the occasion of a crisis.
-This constitution is in fact a treaty between member states. Signing this treaty implies the acceptation of this constitution and the adaptation of national laws.
-Modifications to this constitution, its replacement or its suppression, could be adopted by the Parliament under conditions of large majority, two thirds or three quarters, or after a referendum.
-A member state can still withdraw of the Union, if however this is the expressed wish of a large majority of its population. The eviction of a member state is also possible, in case of serious breaches into the objectives of the Union. However such events would be crisis of the Union, which would entail actions of the Union or other memeber states, but without going so far as retorsions or armed actions
Thus it is not so difficult to write a correct constitution. This project is probably not ideal, and specialists will be able to better it easily. It is a balanced text, which accounts with the different points of view and the advance of ideas in this 21st century. I am sure it is infinitely less dangerous than the first and much more likely to be adopted by vote, without any mean to insult or manipulate European citizens.
This text is written in a way to be understandable by any person enjoying normal general education.. Some heavy phrasing in a legislative style may be a problem, but we cannot too much simplify without weakening the text.
Each important point is the subject of one part and only one. Hypertext links allow to send to definitions, for instance social when we speak of economy, or fundamental rights when we speak of justice. This allow to avoid repetitions while clearly indicating the logical structure of the text.
This text is a balanced text. For instance, we notice that, contrarily to my personal opinions on economy, I kept the «free circulation of merchandises» so dear to the authors of the first text. Butt his point is here only one time, in the part on economy, it is not rehearsed hundred times at any occasion. One sentence is enough to be warrant of this point, even if just after logically comes a long list of exceptions.
No doubt that, after a time of «concertation» and «communication», they will ask us again to vote for the same barmy text, or another «simplified» brew of the same juice, unless some filthy trick makes it pass without a vote.
And my project simply has no chance facing this dreadful politico-mediatic machine. I have no illusion of any kind, my purpose was just to entice the readers into some reflection... about what was done, and what could have been done.
But if by extraordinary this project comes in front of the stage, no doubt that some nutters will say that this project is not serious because I don't wear a suit and tie. Others, more crooked, will say that they agree, but they will ask me to suppress some fundamental warranty, under pretext of «realism» or «balance». (This text is already balanced, and if we remove a weight of a balance at equilibrium, everything falls!). Others will say that my text is not the product of a democratic process... no more than the first. But in any case, manipulators will only have to admit their defeat: they will no longer be able to speak of «the constitution» as if it was already enacted.
For this reasons, I expressly invite all whose who want to give a sane constitution to Europe to build on this second project. I cannot pretend to be imbued with science in this domain, we can discuss, but at least, this project seems a good basis, that I propose without partisan a-priori, without putting forward my personal ideas. A Christian, an atheist, a scientist, a worker, an enterprise owner, will all be interested in this project, as long as they don't think first to only their cast interest.
Maybe another project will be better than mine. So good, then. I will vote for it with pleasure.
There are however limits to possible modifications to this text, beyond which I will consider it tampered or taken over. If you really want a different project, do it from scrap, without exploiting my work.
In order to protect this text, I take the copyright 2007 Richard Trigaux. Everybody is free to quote it, reproduce it and publish it, to the conditions of indicating my name and this copyright, to give the Internet link toward this page, not to modify it, and not do a commercial use without asking the permission. If you want to do modifications, indicate them as such, while keeping the mention of the original text. If this text was adopted, of course it would become property of the Union, and me and every right owner should renounce to any property.
The ideas included in this text are all mine, or known from long ago in the general public, with some rare exceptions.
This project of constitution features hypertext links, which are an integral part of it. This is not just a technology hype to look fashioned, but to use these links for their intended purpose: to better present complex ideas with several interdependent aspects. Then the relations appear as what they are, and not as repetitions or digressions. Of course in spoken or printed versions, these links must mandatorily be replaced by explicit references.
Some may think that certain articles just come out of a sci-fi book. This is because a constitution is not intended to last only the time of an election campaign, or of a politician's career. It must last for centuries. For this reason this project accounts for technology, social or spiritual developments, predictable into some tens of years. Other unpredictable developments could change things and justify some modifications.
Why did the castes of politicians and media people were unable to create an European constitution which would be in the same time clear, of the 21st century, and easily accepted by most european citizens?
I shall not try to reply here to such a question. But I think it is a citizen duty to denounce all the manipulations which led to this major failure of Europe.
To start with, in place of entrusting the writing of such a project to competent persons, it was entrusted to an Atlantist, that is to a declared ennemi of Europe. Then, in place of building an ideal, took place petty endless hagglings, which led in 2005 to the first gaily-coloured patchwork known under the name of «European constitutional treaty», submitted to the vote only in some states of the Union. This scatty project was logically rejected by the citizens.
The true reason, perfectly known, of this refusal, is that this project was null and dangerous:
-Serious breaches in democracy (Laws are proposed by the Council, normally executive, and the «directives» of the commissions are in fact arbitrarily enacted laws)
-Massive unbalance in favour of the capitalist system and of the ideologies of competition, so far as obliterating essential purposes such as social wellfare or ecology, reducing the Union to just an anarchic and freewheeling market, where victims and honest peoples are discarded like old socks.
-Devoid of any powerfull view, gutless in spiritual or morals domains.
-Labyrinthic, too long, much too complex, self-contradictory on tens of points, with undefined concepts such as «going forward».
-With legislative statements.
-Impossible to modify once adopted.
Knowing this, it is with hearts filled with rage that even the hottest supporters of Europe voted against this project which stabbed the Union in the back. This refusal was clearly the feat of those who read the text, and who saw the dangers it contained, as shown by studies of the IPSOS (well known French polling company) that our politicians and journalists cannot pretend to have ignored (Paper: L'ascension par capillarité du non, (the underground ascension of the no) by Philippe Hubert and Samuel Jequier, published on May 27, 2005).
In place of acknowledging this, politicians and medias all together screamed the same lie: that French electors would have opposed the first project of European constitution from xenophobia!!! This unanimity of all the medias to rehearse the same fabrication is very disturbing, recalling us of some pseudo-democratic version of the former USSR.
Once the first project rejected, we were told that it was this rejection, not the project, which was the problem. In short, it was our fault if the Union was «blocked»!!
The means used to enforce this text anyway are a true confession:
-To say that Europe was blocked, and that the only way to unlock the situation was to enforce the text against the citizens.
-Use the parliament in place of a referendum
-In France, they even went so far as gathering this parliament at Versailles, symbol of absolutism, to clearly state that we did not had our word to say!!!
-At last the text was «hashed» to make it unreadable! (Like for Windows registers, made ununderstandable in order to avoid the user to control himself the working of his machine). You are not mistaking: the text, visible here, is split into numerous documents with notes sending from the one to the other, and which names don't tell the content! (Also see this independent analysis )
With such conditions, it is clear that the European Union was stolen from the hands of the Europeans, that it is in the hands of an oligarchy of nostalgics of the 19th century, living in their own world, and fundamentaly unable to understand the stakes of reality. Then, we escaped inquisition, wars and lettres de cachet, only to find ourselves tied in front of the fantasies of opaque bureaucraties, each time we shall be victim of a cult, of a technocratic project, or an allergy caused by a chemical or GMO authorized by Bruxelles. Without accounting with the submission to the NATO, which brings back the spectrum of war on our European land. And this is only the beginning of the party, awaiting the monitoring of our dreams by the directives to come on virtual worlds, or on thought detection. And during this time, nothing is done against greenhouse effect, poverty or ignorance...
Then, the European Union, I now allow myself not to feel myself responsible of it, and I shall consecrate my remaining lifetime and freedom to fight against ignorance and help people to evolve.
Added in 2009
It is done, it was adopted! You did not knew? You were not told in the boobtube?... However yes it is adopted, as I predicted, with a so simplistic scam: just to change its name! Oh yes, the «Lisbon treaty», it is the «European constitution» with vaseline. Ah, you did not knew? I hope that, now, you understand that medias are still more Orwellian whet they keep silent, than when they insult us.
Oh, and more, I see that this page has only two votes... to compare with my page on daylight saving time, which gathers hundreds votes every year. Two positive votes, yes (who could vote against this page?) but two votes only, this tells us in which extent people don't care of Europe. And I don't criticize them, as the Europe of trucks is not really a mean to awake people to a better life...
Added October 9, 2012
If the Europe of peace is an envied success around the world, its inunderstandable financial psychodrama is a good laugh in all the other economies, especially in the dictatorships with insolent growth rates. However few people seem to understand the reasons for this astronomical «debt» coming from who known where, of which it is however said that it is our fault!
To understand something in there requires to remind us of some fundamentals laws of economy, and to torture the rare available sources of information (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/masse_monetaire and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply). One of the basic principles is that, when an economy grows, the monetary mass (the total number of euros in circulation) needs to grow in proportion, exactly as the blood in the veins of a child who is growing up. Otherwise it is anemia, and growth can no longer occur. The role of the «central bank» of each State (or the «European Central Bank») is precisely to create money in this case. (This public role thus makes them fundamentally different of private banks, which do only lending already existing money which was entrusted to them). This creation must of course be in strict proportion of the growth: too much, it is inflation, not enough it is anemia, as today in Europe. But it seems that our dualistic and simplistic politicians retained only one of the two terms of the equilibrium: «to create money produces inflation», so that they have established, in the 1970s, a taboo on the creation of money in Europe. So this is how it was condemned to anemia, to a slow financial strangulation.
However, this madness should have produced the today crisis in the 1980s, while it appeared only in the late 2000s. The reason is that, while our politicians are unable of understanding simple things, they are however very at ease into complicated things. And the solution they found to run the economy despite the handicap is worthy of the Shadocks: the eurozone uses loans as an extra virtual monetary mass! Thus the monetary masses of the eurozone are split between 4000 billion real money (M1, which includes the banknotes and the bank accounts) and 4000 billion of loans, or virtual money (M3 minus M1). So the system works as if the same money was circulating twice at the same time in the economic circuits! Worthy of the Shadocks, indeed.
It also seems that our politicians have confused «central bank» with a private bank. Hence the unbelievable scheme of the central banks «lending» money to... the private banks! So we understand where comes from the incredible power of these banks and of great capitalism over our lives, and how they can waste hundred of billions of dollars in total impunity (like offering 2 billions to facebook for ruining Internet) This is a very serious forfeit, as in good management, the newly created money should go to vital domain: social and environment.
Another scam was to allow for unbelievable overdrafts to accumulate on the accounts of solidarity agencies (social security, retirements), judged «useless», which is also a way to «create» money. But these overdrafts are very convenient «arguments» to «justify» sadomasochistic ideologies against solidarity or against the poor.
In all this,the states (our economy) are treated like ordinary households, which also have to loan money for their current functioning, and even render accounts as an unemployed person to his unemployment agency!!! And 4000 billions Euros makes hundreds of billions Euros of interests, misappropriated every year from the current budgets of the states, into real money (our taxes). And I have no idea of where all this money goes!
These ersatz and subterfuges therefore allowed the economy of the Eurozone to run apparently normally, until the payment of interests by the governments reaches today an intolerable level, causing the «crisis» in the Eurozone. Of course, some states are hit before others, but the problem will reach all of us.
This crisis, presented to the citizens without explaining the misdeeds which caused it, is then used to «justify» the «restriction policies», which are actually serious destructions, similar to a war, of key economic areas (social, education, industry, police, etc.), on behalf of retrograde petainist ideologies: cult of work (increasing the weekly working rate, thus increasing unemployment accordingly), make feel guilty the unemployed and recipients of solidarity (sick, retired), stupid remarks by rich morons, explaining that «everybody can do like them» (yes, I could do the same, if your banker buddies also offered me some billions Euros!).
But the final blow is the new «European Treaty» in 2012: the «golden rule» which imposes to the states objectives which are impossible to reach, with spanking if they cannot reach them. Just as in a sadomasochistic story, we have a poor plot, which is just a pretext for the «scene» itself.
And all this goes right against the advices of the professional economists! Indeed, university specialists with diploma are angry against this treatment of the Eurozone, especially the «restriction policies» which create the destructions while pretending to avoid them. But in front of the infantile obstination of the politicians, they are preaching in the desert, or are reduced, just like us, to do petitions or sell T-shirts...
It seems that European citizens are starting to understand that they were scammed, even if they do not yet see how. However what happens is also their fault: when only candidates authorized by the television are receiving votes, smart and learned people renounced for long to be candidates!!!! And come complaining after that!! Thus, in the 2012 crisis elections, in France or in Greece, we only had a caricature choice between the unique left-right party, guilty of the crisis, and more realistic protesters, but waving ill remembered red rags. It was therefore impossible or dangerous to renew the politicians.
Well, Europe will not die, but it is opening a new category of countries: immersing countries (opposite of emerging). This situation is extremely dangerous, because it gives more power to the dictatorships around the world, by granting then a greater economic influence, or even by the direct purchase of our economy asset.