Again: massive criticism of the EU

[Skybird]

I have repeatedly referred to Roman Herzog's criticism on various dangeorus aspects of the Lisbon dicate, and the deformation of the EU in general.

Roman Herzog is a high-profile expert on the matter, and due to his competence he is much hated by Brussel, and Eurocrats. Before he became federal President of Germany, he was president of Germany's highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court. As an jurist, his special topics were German and european constitutional laws.

He and two others - a former EU market commissioner, and a scientific economy expert - now have released an open letter in a German newspaper, which currently only is available in German therefore, butI assume it will be reprinted in international sources sooner or later. In it he again warns against the regulation madness of the EU, it's arrogance and centralism that both damages democracy and the acceptance by the European people, and the insanity that has formed up around even mores supranational reuglation being oushed through under the umbrella of so-called anti-discrimination laws. He recommends german givenrment to establish a culture of systamtic Nay-saying i Brussel, to block each and every attempt to regulate issues of only national proprotaitons and interest, that have no aspects affecting other nations as well.

I have read Herzog'S superb and deeply insightful attacks and dissecting analysis of the EU-laws and regulation madness since years now. I have learned to listen when he speaks out. Two of the founding fathers of the original - not the perverted current - EU, Helmut Schmidt and Valery Giscard d'Estaing, said they also hold him in high respect.

The German version is available here:
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub0E9EEF84AC1E4A389A8DC6C23161FE44/Doc~EC34E29B107D74E889CDBF2E9E184CED0~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html

Once there is an English version, I come back to it and link it as well.


Der Akzeptanzverlust rührt vor allem von einem fast schon allgegenwärtigen Eindruck: Brüssel erlässt über die Köpfe der Menschen, über gewachsene Traditionen und Kulturen hinweg unentwegt Vorschriften und reguliert Dinge, die - wenn überhaupt - mindestens ebenso gut lokal oder regional geregelt werden können.

Genau um dieser Entwicklung vorzubeugen, war das Subsidiaritätsprinzip in die Europäischen Verträge aufgenommen worden. Es weist für alle Bereiche der konkurrierenden Gesetzgebung (“geteilte Zuständigkeiten“) den Mitgliedstaaten einen Vorrang gegenüber der EU zu: Die EU darf nur dann aktiv werden, wenn ein Problem sachgerecht nicht auf nationaler, sondern nur auf europäischer Ebene gelöst werden kann. Wesentlicher Anhaltspunkt dafür hatte nach der bisherigen Rechtslage die Frage zu sein, ob es um ein grenzüberschreitendes Problem geht. Eigentlich sollte dies eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein.

Um die Beachtung des so verstandenen Subsidiaritätsprinzips steht es jedoch schlecht. Schon heute spielt es im Bewusstsein der Brüsseler Politiker, Beamten und Verbandsvertreter kaum eine Rolle. Wer es in Brüssel als tragende Säule einer nachhaltigen europäischen Integration verteidigt, wird meist nur mitleidig belächelt. Diametral zur ursprünglichen Intention versteht man in Brüssel unter Subsidiarität heute meist: Wenn Brüssel Geld gibt, kann das fragliche Problem besser auf EU-Ebene gelöst werden. Und nur allzu gern gibt Brüssel deshalb Geld. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es umso besorgniserregender, dass das Prüfkriterium, ob ein grenzüberschreitendes Problem vorliegt, im Lissabon-Vertrag gestrichen wurde.

Was lässt sich tun? Auf den Europäischen Gerichtshof wird man hier nicht setzen dürfen. Er hat ein Eigeninteresse an einer stetigen Ausweitung der Kompetenzen der EU. Gleiches gilt für das Europäische Parlament. Daher ist vor allem eine deutlich größere Aufmerksamkeit der Mitgliedstaaten - in der Politik sowie in der Öffentlichkeit und in den Medien - unverzichtbar. Aus den Mitgliedstaaten muss die klare Botschaft kommen, dass nur Dinge mit substantiell grenzüberschreitender Relevanz auf der EU-Ebene geregelt werden dürfen.

[Snestorm]

Roman Herzog is a very wise man.
And, no, I am not an EU fan.

[Skybird]

http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-europe-europe-former-german.html

[Snestorm]

It's shaping "up" to be The United States of Europe more and more.

If it goes any further, without being turned back, the states of Europe will become provinces, just like the "states" of USA. (At least Canada calls them what they are).

[Skybird]

It's a decade-old conflict between two camps, one wanting cooperation of sovereign nations - not more, and one wanting to destroy sovereignity of nations for the sake of centralising power in one neo-feudal government in Brussel that must not really seek legitimation by European citizens anymore (the commission already is not elected by the citizens but gets negotiated by heads of states behind closed doors, nor are the EU Court's judges - both institutions have, like the EU parliament which is a collections of personal curious, a strong self interest to widen their powers and to destroy the sovereignity of indeed elected governments in the national states).

The camp choosing this neo-feudal structure of a European superstate, since 10-15 years, sometime after the fall of the iron curtain, has been on a decisive offensive. I think they cannot be stopped anymore without violence. Therefore, i accept the option of violence since quite some time now. These people have done an incredible, most dangerous ammount of damage already, and they must be stopped, at all cost. Even if that means burning streets in european metropoles and cities, and storming of parliaments and revolutionary court martials. Stopping them is the priority objective, and shattering the economical lobby that has formed and amassed and infests policy-makers like a bone cancer and ridicule national elections even more by rendering the choice of the people meaningless by waving with a handful of dollar- and euro- notes. Using as little violence as possible in getting rid of the EU is only of secondary interest. If it can be done without it - nice. If not, then go the hard way. But stopping them we must. The EU already is the greatest danger to the European idea.

We have had already two centralised tyrannies too much in Germany. I do not need a third one, now covering all of Europe and supressing the European people once again - this time not with bajonets, but with a totalitarian bureaucracy and overboarding laws and a caste of office workers who execute governmental powers without ever having been democratically legitimised by the european citizens, and are free to act woth9ut ever needing to fear to be held personally responsible.

That I would one day sound like this, just years ago I would not have imagined possible. But it is the failure of political establishments on national levels and their ongoing display of utmost disrespect for the opinion of the people, both regarding the EU tyranny and the islamisation of Europe, that drives more and more once moderate people like me towards desperate positions where they accept even radical and even extremeist positions - in a case of self defence, since neither reasonable argument nor moderate convictions do achieve anything anymore. In the past two years or so I dound out to my great surprise that most of the friends of my parents, all of them being anothe rgeneration than I am obviously, also have shifted away from the established political common grpunds, and have become radicalised. I see it also happening among my own freinds, though at a slower pace, but it happens.

And wise men like Roman Herzog are aware of it, and feel the changing mood. what I say above is exactly what Herzog warns of, and warns of not for the first time. evben Giscard-d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt both gave assessements of that EU being on so wrong a path that both man said they think the chances for the EU collapsing are greater now than the chnaces that the EU could survive. and the gave the same reasons again: lacking acceptance, overregulation, absolutistic arrogance, illusory migration policies, failed integration.

Nobody in europe should know it better than us Germans - we have been there, twice, within just the past 3 generations. It seems the young do not learn from it, and the old do no remember anymore, or are gone. And so the same mistakes get made again.

Once could become depressed from thinking about the hopeless message this holds for man's future intellectual evolution.

[Snestorm]

They already think themselves dictators.
The central power issues orders to the states, and the states are expected to pass those orders on to there people.
Exactly the opposite of the way the democratic process is supposed to work!

Unfortunately, too many political leaders (worldwide) are controlled by the leaders of industry, and the leaders of banking (Who are often, the very same people!).

They act more and more openly in defying the people, because they think themselves unstoppable now. They must be proven wrong, and brought to justice.

There must be a return to nationalism, in order to stop internationalism.
The smaller the government, the more easily controled it is BY THE PEOPLE.
Big governments get big power, and the will of the people becomes irrelivent.

People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.

[Respenus]

While I too have become disenchanted by the EU in the last year or two, and think that the lobbying of interest groups must be stopped at any cost, that we must ensure representation and ensure that the EU doesn't only look at economic interests yet at the whole picture, the requirements of society, the both of you are forgetting one single thing. Firstly, when there was time for change, it was not used. Not necessarily because of the European Commission, as it has little control over the European Council, but because the heads of state in the profound "wisdom", haven't done so. Once again, it is the national level, that should had forced the politicians to do the rights things has failed. Of course, the fact that the EEC and now the EU with the EC, the EP and particularly the ECJ has been gaining powers in more policy fields, without having the instruments or most importantly, the mindset to regulate such areas. Additionally, don't tell me that national politics truly represent the opinion of the public? They just as much seek power as you claim EU bureaucrats do.

Secondly, the large number of regulations, keeping you safe every moment of your waking lives is staggering. I recently did a short essay on the CAP and the amount of information and regulations are so vast, that I only touched the tip of the iceberg, and the problem itself was very limited in scope in the first place. The common market, the 4 liberties, consumer regulation, health and safety regulation which would otherwise had never been accepted by national governments is the only thing still ensuring my on-going support for the EU. Once again, it is the failure of the process, not of the inherent nature of the system (although it is flawed as national systems are flawed and yet we only openly demand action concerning the EU!).

The world has changed and we need the EU if we wish to survive. Taking into account all its problems and the flaws that have been, are and will be exposed, it is better to keep the system yet ensure that it functions properly. Otherwise, I wish to join Sky in the act of cleaning up, yet on the national level first, not the European one. One wrong does not make the whole system bad, nor do two wrongs a right make.

[Snestorm]

That the problem has to be attacked at the national level first, is something I wholeheartedly agree with you on. The people must first deal with their own national governments. It is then the responsibility of those governments to deal with the EU, as dictated by the consensus of their individual populations.

[Skybird]

You cannot ensure the system functioning properly, Respenus. As you said, the commission is decided on by the national governments' heads, and they have an own interest to design it such that it serves their interest. But this interest is not the interest of their national voters at home, but party interests, lobby interests, power interests.

Thinking your way, RTespenusk, it would be needed to demand that national poltical leaders, the EU commission, I say: the Eu parliamnet, and the Harzog says: the EU courts' judges to act against their own selfish interests. how much they are willing to do that we have seen with the Eu constitution and the dictate of Lisbon.

We need a cooperating europe. Indeed. But not the kind of Europe the EU is shaping since 10 or 15 years. This is no benefit for the european idea, as Herzog writes and I have said often myself. It is a worst case scenartio for preventing the Eurpopean idea. It alienates the european people, establishes a centralised tyranny, and renders terms like "meaningful elections" and "freedom" totally meaningless.

Herzig is spot on then attacking the EU for being over-regulatory, and reuglating things for all nations becasue of an event or issue of interest in one regional location of one state only. The EU also abuses it's power to bypass the sovereignity of national parliaments, which means: national elections MEAN NOTHING anymore. It uses it'S centralised and never legitmised power to enforce policies that are againstt eh will of the majority of EU citizens, but are reflecting the desire of lobbyists and social experimentators trying to enforce their views that are not rsults of perceiving realities, but are ideological constructions that are engaged in trench warfare against common sense and healthy reason.

I see no chance for reapirs to the EU. the damage is too great, the will is not there, and interest groups are too powerful as if they must accept the limitation of their power. We have seen it with the Lisbon dictate, but we see it happening every day in EU legislation and the influence economic lobbies have to tailor major, vital laws by their own ideas. The EU is not about health yreason, and needs, but is about politcal correctness and getting 27 commissioners under one hat, each of them wanting to reinvent the whell to leave a historic mark by his country.

The EU - is a bureaucratic obscenity that exists for one purpose only: to invent a plethora of bureaucratic rules by which it wants to justify it's own existence.

It deserves our full-hearted disgust. All what the European idea that emerged after WWII once has been about - the EU is not, and never can be again.

[Snestorm]

@Skybird
Well stated.

People must be wising up, as we have not come under attack, and your original post has stood for over 24 hours. (This is a big change. And a positive one.)

[Skybird]

That is true, I often oversee that in my demands again it is the people that need to enforce changes - the same people I criticise for not having enforcing changes in a different context before.

In other words: these people, a majority of them, in the end just get the type of society and government that they deserve. And if it is a messy one, than that is well-deserved, too. However, there is a minority, that suffers it undeserved.

Sometimes I feel like the John Smith protagonist in a Philip K. Dick novel. I need an alternative reality to jump to. This one is driving me desperate and insane. :doh: