Monday, 25 July 2022
The EU’s appetite for power
Andrew Tettenborn has an interesting piece in The Critic. He compares the constitutionally dubious nature of Roe v. Wade with attempts by the EU to impose social policies on member states, citing two lawsuits against Hungary and Poland.
The EU’s appetite for power
What has Europe learned from Roe v Wade?
…the real beneficiary of the new Supreme Court decision was American democracy. The kritarchy, or rule of judges, under which matters of vital social policy had been steadily removed from elected governments to nine wise men and women in DC on the basis of inference piled on tendentious inference about the meaning of the Constitution, had been overthrown.
What is interesting is that while the US is increasing the role of democracy and cutting back on one-size-fits all centrism, Europe, or rather the EU, is discreetly seeking to move the other way. Not on abortion (at least yet, on which see more below) but on social policy more generally.
There is little doubt that Brussels wants to constitutionalise many issues and take control away from state governments, imposing a more uniform approach decided at the centre by a combination of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. A couple of lawsuits announced last week by the European Commission against two of its own member states provide a good indication of the way things are moving.
The whole piece is worth reading as yet another indication that the EU is in an internal expansionist phase which show no sign whatever of reaching some kind of plateau. We may take it that subsidiarity was never a rule of the Brussels game.
There is little doubt that Brussels wants to constitutionalise many issues and take control away from state governments, imposing a more uniform approach decided at the centre by a combination of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. A couple of lawsuits announced last week by the European Commission against two of its own member states provide a good indication of the way things are moving.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Using the law to beat individual member states into line is necessarily done in public. I suspect that there is far more subtle and underhand control going on through manipulating economies and fixing regional bribes. Most of the intellectuals who set up the project were influenced by Kant and Marx, and see world government as natural, desirable, and necessary. Their main concern is the most efficient and painless route to get there.
I don't think they are even too bothered about the content of what they are trying to impose. Abortion, judicial appointments, whatever, the power seems to be what's important.
Point out the trajectory towards 'ever closer union' and giving up more local control and die hard Remainers either will not see it or will welcome it.
And yet the EU is a new Hanseatic League (from Wikipedia):
Hanseatic Cities gradually developed a common legal system governing their merchants and goods, even operating their own armies for mutual defense and aid. Reduced barriers to trade resulted in mutual prosperity, which fostered economic interdependence, kinship ties between merchant families, and deeper political integration; these factors solidified the League into a cohesive political organization by the end of the 13th century.
I chose not to live by the grace of big companies and their technocratic minions - but the increasing grasp of the EU Empire shows how effective a drip, drip, approach can be. It seems disproportionate to object to each 'drip' but they add up over time.
Sam - I agree, the power seems to be what's important rather than whatever it is they are trying to impose. Almost a version of "because I say so".
DJ - "It seems disproportionate to object to each 'drip' but they add up over time." Yes this is a major problem for anyone trying to take a measured view of these things. The perception of what is reasonable shifts towards the unreasonable.
Post a Comment