[Skybird]

respenus, I have adressed the questions you raise repeatedly, in this thread, and in past ones, so I really must not repeat them again. you said yiourself that you have not read it all. I leave it to saying that I am not just some stubborn concrete-headed conservative who is agaisnt the new and the chnage for principal reaso0ns. I see the Eu having chnaged for the very very bad in the recent 10-15 years, and dangerously eroding dmeocratic legitimiation of power in europe, and europe's nations, also seriously and systematically reducing cultural diversity and sovereignity of national parliaments who more and mor eoften violate their own constitutions when uncritically taking over new demands by the Eu bureucracy that acts without any democratic legitimation itself and stays even while politicans and governemnts come and go.

And as I also said, I am in great comopany with my criticism of the chnages the EU made since sometime during the early nineties. I enjoy the compan of people like Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing, who describe the present EU as a derailing project that not only has a chnace to see the EU failing anymore, but making failure the most likely outcome (Schmidt).

I support an EU idea in the understanding of meaning of the 80s, and early 90s. but what the EU sees itself as since then, is not compatible with that.

The benefit of 60 years of freedom, in the main is not th EEC's (EU's), but NATOs, and I have given tribute to that acchievement several times in this forum. but it also had something to do with the bad experiences from WWII, as well as the existence of an external thread by an enemy who was of concern for all. See that this loyalty of NATO has broken apart since then, as is very obviously to be seen in the exmaple of Afghanistan. There, NATO alowed itself to be trapped in a place where it had no business, and members are not united (ignoring for a moment how valuable or iditoic the mission'S cause is being seen) but speak with a chorus of voices, if you listen closely - and many then even not matching their words with their deeds.

Too many cooks spoil the brew.the expoansion of the EU was far too hasty, unprepared, a general sense of megalomania I see, and an uncritical attitide of not knwoing limits and limitations anymore, just wanting to become bigger, and greater, and becoming a self-purpose. the EU last but not least is an office-creator for political pensioneers and commitees with responsibilities that before their creation nobody ever missed, and who all too often take themselves very serious while they have not any imprtant job to take care of at all. 27 members, and desire to even pick up states that are not in Europe anymore at all. Gimme a break.

What we need is a complete new reorientation, and a massive breaking up of the "Filz" between politics and economic lobbyism. I see the dangers and challenges of the future as well as anyone else, but if the porice for a strtagey to counter these by just boosting oneself up is the corruption of democracy and the endless relativisation of differences in traditoosn and identities in europe, I fail to see a chance that this could ever get an enduring emotionaol support by the europeans.

An alliance of cooperating soveriegn nations, the EU has been described as in the 80s. andnthat is what I support. not more. what it is heading for is far beyond that, and making the EU a purprose for itself, an actor with his own agenda, minimizing national responsibility of parliamnts, and imposing it's own ideology and interests onto them. I quoted it often, and I quote it again: 4 out of 5 laws in Germany are no longer created and considered in Germany and brought up by the parliamnet, but are demands from the various offices of the EU that by binding treaties and rules the german parliament just is alloowed to weave thporugh, but has no (EU-) right to reject - while eventually rejecting those EU laws violating the german constitution is a constitutional obligation of the German parliamnt -w hich thereby must violate the constitutoon when not doujng so. that is absurd a constellation, but true in comparable forms in other nations, too!

and then the haughty talking about the high representive of european foreign policy, and the hundreds of offices being attached just this - as if anybody in the world takes that serious. america is not of much rtespect for that, and the Arabs are simply laughing. Also, that representative is a tiger without any teeth. so whom is he going to impress? It is all showing off, it is all show of an EU that gloriously overestimates itself and it's atractiveness for other nations, and other people, and even the europeans themselves.

Let's stop. Have a break. Come to our senses. Cut it back in size, to reaosmnbale size that makes sense, can be handled, and bears a realistic chance to keep realoistic degrees of freedom of action without putting more and more lightyears between the administration and the european citizens. what is going on now, and what the Lisbon treaty/constitution intended, is not what the EU originally was meant to become. Come to your senses, remember the originaol idea behind the EEC/EU, and you have my support. Go on in the new (las but not least: ideological) direction that was choosen after the political left-shift in Europe throughout the early nineties, and I will fight against it, always. Becasue such a union is not defender of European tradition of diversity and freedom and democracy, but exactly the opposite.