I cautiously start to hope, now that we have heared more about the reasons and the content of the court sentence, that maybe more than I initially expected may come from this ruling. In fact very much of the criticisms that I have given in recent months, have been shared by the judges, and have been turned into solid and mandatory demands law-makers cannot evade now without offering other critics to sue them over violation of the court's sentence now.
I hope that in other nations people carefull read and take note of the German sentence, and see the argumentation behind it, and make it their own, too. Also, a marching through by the EU in German parliament should be prevented now.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...633933,00.html
Quote:
In other words, the court is talking about national parliaments, the true paragons of democracy (even if they do lie about their travel expenses a bit in London). In the court's opinion, unlike the European Parliament, these bodies don't have a "structural democratic deficit." And it's right: The fact that it only takes 70,000 voters in Luxembourg to get a seat in the European Parliament, while it takes 800,000 German voters to do the same thing, is proof in itself that there is no equality when it comes to voting. Given such deficits, the court came to the conclusion that further steps toward integration may "undermine (either) the states' political power of action (or) the principle of conferral."
Or, as the court clearly stated in its press release: "European integration may not result in the system of democratic rule in Germany being undermined." It's a sentiment shared by the people of the Czech Republic, Ireland and Great Britain (and they're serious about it there, where the typical British euro-skeptic already thinks of the European Parliament as the "mother of all parliaments"). People aren't talking about a unified Europe anymore. Nowadays, you're much more likely to hear people talking about a "Europe of the fatherlands."
|
If that would not be a return to de Gaulle, as I understood and defended him repeatedly!
Note that the confession towards Europe and Germany trying to embedd itself in peaceful partnership with European partners, is a constitutional obligation, formulated in our constitution as early as in the preface. The court'S decision is no decision against Europe, but a decision that brandmarks democratic deficits in the Lisbon dictate and criticices the corrupt way Europe as an allied entitity should be formed, if Lisbon had its way.
Eurocrats have become remarkably silent today and yesterday, after on the first day they were loud and enthusiastic - probably without having read the court ruling, just heared that Lisbon treaty went through. Now that knowledge of the details of the court sentence have spread, quite some eurocrats seem to realise that their project of a superstate ursurping powers and eroding national democracy have been shot down by the German judges, and that this will affect the EU even if no other state copys the German example. - But they should, for their own sake. It's a good senetence. More would have been better, but nevertheless it is a good sentence.
I hope the crisis in Brussel lives on as long as possible, for that increases chances that the trend of the past 15 years is being recognised as a terrible mistake, and they will start to return to the original ideas and principles the european unification project once has been about
: an economic cooperation (not more, just this) of indepedant national fatherlands, in the Frenchman's words.