Amendments to Art. III (proposed by Giuseppe Martinico and Cristina Fasone)

[Lars Næsbye Christensen]

I agree with Giuseppe. I think that by ‘civil death’ is meant the removal of all of a person’s rights, which some states have done with ethnic minorities.

Enumeration of rights is an interesting discussion in Denmark (where I live). The constitution of Denmark itself provides a very outdated set of rights, as most of them are based on the state of political science in 1849, 1915 and 1953. But through accession to conventions and treaties the de facto protection is quite good. If we directly write the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and the “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” into the constitution I think we are good too.

[Herbert Tombeur]

A president’s veto or binding observation in legislative affairs seems too ambitious when constituting a European Federation. This Federation will count at least 300 million people. Moreover, old nation States in Europe will not disappear through it, on the contrary, they will survive in this world of global players as Members of the EF. Hence, I share Martinico’s opinion that the President of such a large and diverse unit should only have executive power, reporting the use of it to the European Congress (although he or she would be elected directly by the citizens in the EF, I presume).

However, the President could be a mediator between the two Houses when having a legislative conflict, i.e. a persistent disagreement. In such cases, he or she could be the chairman/-woman of the Mediation Committee, mentioned above by Martinico, without having a vote in it. the Committee members would be a number of delegated members of each House, looking for a compromise.

[Avtor]

Prispevki