Because it’s a Cartel and not a State

If the EU isn’t a federalist entity with a partition of powers, then what the hell Is it? A German court strikes down as unconstitutional the establishment of an EU military, one of the sort of essential institutions of a state along with a plausible and respected justice system.

First, Germany’s constitutional court takes a clear stance on sovereignty. Ultimate authority always has to rest in a single place – and that is the member state for now. If you wanted to transfer sovereignty to the EU, you would have to dump your national constitution and adopt a European version in its place. As this is not going to happen, the court, in effect, ruled that all sovereignty in the EU is national. Power may be shared, but sovereignty may not.

“Power may be shared, but sovereignty may not.” Think about that. With no visible line between the superstate (the Federation) and the member state that anyone will trust, it really isn’t that hard to see how a court cannot see where exactly it’s national body of law fits into the odd beast.

Second, the court does not recognise the European parliament as a genuine legislature, representing the will of a single European people, but as a representative body of member states. A particular criticism made by the court is that the European parliament does not behave like a true parliament. There is no formal opposition. There is no grouping that supports a government. While the Lisbon treaty increases the powers of the European parliament, it does not, in the court’s view, fix its ultimate short-coming: that the parliament does not constitute an effective control of EU executive power.

Which reflects rather badly on those who criticized the criticism of the Lisbon treaty as lawful, but not a solid basis of a nation state. Which is entirely correct – the distinction between a treaty between states and state formation is becoming even fuzzier.

It’s clear what the German court needs to recognize a higher power – a state framework conferred on them by a constitution to earnestly accept the legality of a power over them. This is not PR. It’s not a feel-good or even feel-bad moment; it’s a ruling. They want what’s actually right by law now so that the future isn’t fungible.

Anyone who you hear considering this ‘nitpicking’ or fussing with legalisms is telling you just how little they really think of law as the foundation of individuals’ rights and of the social contract between an individual and government. Perhaps they’re the type that think mob rule is law enough – I don’t know. However it is rather clear just what it is that they DON’T know.

- Danke Sehr to Mizz Pam