Racism, xenophobia, in Brexit Britain

[jeba]

Well, that a government can´t simply rewrite the law to do what they want to do without being subject to judicial oversight is actually a good thing, isn´t it? Since Hitler that should be obvious. However, if indeed the CJEU should apply different yardsticks to different countries this would be a severe issue. You´d have to substantiate that though. Apart from that national courts can still preserve jurisdiction - at least the German constitutional court reserved that right (e. g. when it came to the bailout of Greece - even though they waived that right in that specific case) so I assume it will be the same for other countries.

Well I think we can agree to disagree on this one, personally I like to have my laws made by people I can remove from office if I don't like what they are doing. If you'd rather have some guy making policy decisions on important issues based on the quality of the Chablis that arrived with lunch, that's fine. Incidentally even constitutional law [in those countries that have a written constitution] can be altered by Parliament, it's just slightly more difficult. The German assertion of jurisdiction over the bailout was handled in the same way the British did, they just said "well, we claim sovereignty, but fortunately we were going to do what the EU want, even though we don't have to' It's the political equivalent of saying 'yeah, I know he's a big guy, but I could take him if I have to. The EU position on the execution of the Dublin agreement is an excellent example of that. What is legal behaviour for Germany is illegal in Poland, and Hungary for example, and not only do the EU allow Germany [and Sweden] to break EU law with impunity because they happen to like the result, they also actively direct Greece and Italy not to obey the very rules [even though they want to, because the EU rules do actually work in their best interests] that the EU themselves set up. Same applies to differential application on EU banking and currency transfer laws. Poor little Cyprus is forced by the EU to stop taking foreign money under conditions which the Germans accept money on a daily basis and are forced [directly contrary to their own laws] to literally steal money from their own people to give to the ECB. The areas where this sort of thing happens name is Legion, for they are many. And its getting worse. Post Lisbon the EU have their own Human Rights legislation which overrules ECtHR decisions [even though they require everyone to sign up to it. Their intervention in the Ukraine was illegal even by their own rules. National plebiscites are routinely either ignored or people told to vote again until they get the right result, all with absolutely no consequence. The Greeks and the Italians have both been told that their Premiers are not allowed to actually be head of state, and the Italian Government has effectively been replaced by a Brussels committee [all of these measures illegal under both the Member states national law and EU treaty] You really don't have to look very hard for examples [unless you are deliberately trying not to find them]

You are shifting the goalposts when you respond by discussing whether or not a government can be voted out while I was talking about courts. In what way is your statement that you´d like to be able to vote out a government you don´t like related to what I was talking about - namely that governments should be subject to judicial oversight? But by the way the European parliament can recall the president of the European commission by resolving a no-confidence vote so he can be kicked out just as a UK PM. As far as your remark on the execution of the Dublin agreement is concerned: Germany would have had the right to return refugees to the EU country they came from. Merkel just chose to not exercise that right. Why would that be a problem in terms of EU law? There is no obligation to exercise a right - you are allowed to waive it, aren´t you? And there seem to be no legal means to force other EU member states to do the same - otherwise I´m sure Merkel would have done so. You are simply claiming that the EU is acting against it´s own laws and that Germany is doing the same (by stealing money from it´s citizens and giving it to the ECB). However, as far as the latter is concerned the German Constitutional Court ruled that this was not the case and as far as the former is concerned I´m at least not aware (granted that doesn´t mean much as I´m not a lawyer) of that the CJEU ruled that any EU law was broken with regard to your examples. So it seems to be just your opionion, not a fact. And by the way: Your statement that constitutions can be changed by parliament needs some limitation: parts of the German constitution (the first 20 articles) cannot be changed. Not even unanimously.

When and by who have "Greeks and the Italians ... both been told that their Premiers are not allowed to actually be head of state" (which they are indeed not, but I know what you mean)? That´s news to me. And in what way was the Italian government effectively replaced by an EU committee? That this is nonsense becomes clear when you look at their decision (as recent as last week) to bail out 3 more banks (which was heavily critizised by Schäuble and others).

And no, I don't want politicians to tell judges how to rule. What I want is for judges to rule cases based on statutes designed by democratic parliaments according to their own constitutions and not a set of unelected and wholly unaccountable set of political has-beens like Junker, currently riding the EU gravy train having failed to be re-elected by their national [and obviously quite perceptive] electorates

Has Juncker not been elected by the European Parliament? Couldn´t the European Parliament dethrone him? You make it sound as if the answer to both would be "no". And if you don´t want politicians to tell judges how to rule you can´t complain that governments cannot rewrite laws in order to do what they want to do. You can´t have your cake and eat it.

Don´t get me wrong: I´m not an ardent supporter of the EU. In my view it would have been good enough to have the EEA and in hindsight the Euro seems to have been a terrible idea (initially I was all for it). The cultural differences are too big for a common European identity to be developed. However, your heaping reproaches on the EU seems unfair to me.

[Pete G]

You are shifting the goalposts when you respond by discussing whether or not a government can be voted out while I was talking about courts. In what way is your statement that you´d like to be able to vote out a government you don´t like related to what I was talking about - namely that governments should be subject to judicial oversight? But by the way the European parliament can recall the president of the European commission by resolving a no-confidence vote so he can be kicked out just as a UK PM. As far as your remark on the execution of the Dublin agreement is concerned: Germany would have had the right to return refugees to the EU country they came from. Merkel just chose to not exercise that right. Why would that be a problem in terms of EU law? There is no obligation to exercise a right - you are allowed to waive it, aren´t you? And there seem to be no legal means to force other EU member states to do the same - otherwise I´m sure Merkel would have done so. You are simply claiming that the EU is acting against it´s own laws and that Germany is doing the same (by stealing money from it´s citizens and giving it to the ECB). However, as far as the latter is concerned the German Constitutional Court ruled that this was not the case and as far as the former is concerned I´m at least not aware (granted that doesn´t mean much as I´m not a lawyer) of that the CJEU ruled that any EU law was broken with regard to your examples. So it seems to be just your opionion, not a fact. And by the way: Your statement that constitutions can be changed by parliament needs some limitation: parts of the German constitution (the first 20 articles) cannot be changed. Not even unanimously.

When and by who have "Greeks and the Italians ... both been told that their Premiers are not allowed to actually be head of state" (which they are indeed not, but I know what you mean)? That´s news to me. And in what way was the Italian government effectively replaced by an EU committee? That this is nonsense becomes clear when you look at their decision (as recent as last week) to bail out 3 more banks (which was heavily critizised by Schäuble and others).

Not at all. I said that if a national government has one of its laws overridden by a 'local' supreme court it simply rewrites the law to make it clear what they want, because the SC court cannot make new law, merely interpret the law as it stands. The CJEU can override, or even make wholly new law for a member state by fiat, and there is nothing a member state can do about it [short of leaving the EU]. This is because a member states laws are subordinate to EU treaty, and thus parliamentary sovereignty is broken. The fact that the Germans can't override the first 20 items of the constitution, doesn't mean the CJEU can't.

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear on the immigration thing. I was specifically referring to when Merkel made the offer to refugees of sanctuary for any who could cross the German border. This is not only in direct contravention of Dublin [where asylum seekers are required to register at their point of entry] but caused major problems for the countries in between, which neither Merkel or the EU gave a damn about [because it allowed the EU to 'solve' the situation more cheaply than actually obeying their own rules]. This caused a massive problem in the interim states, generating a refugee crisis they could not possibly cope with, all generated by Merkel with EU connivance. Until they decided that they could not cope anymore and closed their borders when they were told, of course, that only Germany [apparently] were allowed to unilaterally break rules with impunity and they must restore the open borders which they [sensibly] refused to do.

In November 2011 the Greek PM was forced to resign, and his Government replaced by a government of national unity. This was because the EU and ECB issued a joint statement saying they could no longer do business with Papandreou, and unless he was gone a deal could not be struck over Greek refinancing.

Renzi, the ex-Italian PM often referred to his Government being run by remote control from Brussels, and was in fact obliged to run a constitutional referendum to transfer more power to the Senate [who understood the nature of the EU relationship] from the local legislatures [who didn't, or at least did and didn't like it] so that instructions from Brussels could be carried out more effectively with less local interference. The Italian people sensibly rejected this, as they [like me] would rather have laws made by people they actually get to vote for. Renzi of course had to go, and it looks like his replacement will be required [in the best traditions of the EU] to run a further referendum in 2017, so the Italian people can vote the correct way this time.

If you are interested in the way the Eurogroup and the ECB have now taken over the finance ministries of most minor Eurozone countries, I'd really recommend Yanis Varoufakis' book Adults in the Room, it explains it with much more clarity than I ever could how things actually work now

[jeba]

Not at all. I said that if a national government has one of its laws overridden by a 'local' supreme court it simply rewrites the law to make it clear what they want, because the SC court cannot make new law, merely interpret the law as it stands. The CJEU can override, or even make wholly new law for a member state by fiat, and there is nothing a member state can do about it [short of leaving the EU]. This is because a member states laws are subordinate to EU treaty, and thus parliamentary sovereignty is broken. The fact that the Germans can't override the first 20 items of the constitution, doesn't mean the CJEU can't.

Firstly, a government cannot simply rewrite a law which was overridden by a "local" supreme court to achieve what it wanted to achive. Or maybe it could but the court would scrap the new law as well if it´s contents were not in line with the court´s ruling/interpretation of the constitution. Secondly, the German constitutional court will have the last word should there be a conflict between it´s interpretation of the German constitution and the CJEU as any transfer of sovereignity to the Eu would have to be subject to being in accordance with the German constitution in the first place. I doubt that would be different for other countries.

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear on the immigration thing. I was specifically referring to when Merkel made the offer to refugees of sanctuary for any who could cross the German border. This is not only in direct contravention of Dublin [where asylum seekers are required to register at their point of entry] but caused major problems for the countries in between, which neither Merkel or the EU gave a damn about [because it allowed the EU to 'solve' the situation more cheaply than actually obeying their own rules]. This caused a massive problem in the interim states, generating a refugee crisis they could not possibly cope with, all generated by Merkel with EU connivance. Until they decided that they could not cope anymore and closed their borders when they were told, of course, that only Germany [apparently] were allowed to unilaterally break rules with impunity and they must restore the open borders which they [sensibly] refused to do.

Merkel never made an offer for any refugees who could make it across the German border. She had only allowed those 3000+ refugees who at the time were at the railway station in Hungary without food, water or toilets to enter Germany for humanitarian reasons. I doubt she had thought this through and was aware of what it triggered. But be that as it may be - she wasn´t breaking any EU law by waiving Germany´s right to send them back. I repeat: having a right doesn´t mean you must make use of it. Your repetetion of a false claim doesn´t make it correct.

In November 2011 the Greek PM was forced to resign, and his Government replaced by a government of national unity. This was because the EU and ECB issued a joint statement saying they could no longer do business with Papandreou, and unless he was gone a deal could not be struck over Greek refinancing.

That may have been so but it doesn´t mean that he was legally bound to resign. It was a political decision which had more to do with creditors who refused to negotiate on relief measures with someone who had threatened to simply ignore his debt. It´s not as if the EU could have forced him to resign. The same might have happened to a non-EU debtor country.

Renzi, the ex-Italian PM often referred to his Government being run by remote control from Brussels, and was in fact obliged to run a constitutional referendum to transfer more power to the Senate [who understood the nature of the EU relationship] from the local legislatures [who didn't, or at least did and didn't like it] so that instructions from Brussels could be carried out more effectively with less local interference. The Italian people sensibly rejected this, as they [like me] would rather have laws made by people they actually get to vote for. Renzi of course had to go, and it looks like his replacement will be required [in the best traditions of the EU] to run a further referendum in 2017, so the Italian people can vote the correct way this time.

That´s your interpretation. There are others as well according to which the current legislative structures are unfit and this was the reason why Renzi tried to change it (and if you look at the political instability in Italy which had seen more than 60 governments since the war they may well have a point). Renzi wasn´t obliged to set up a referendum and neither was he obliged to resign. It was his choice.

[geoffreys]

Reading this thread thru from the start I get the impression that what really is at the root of this is so called Multi Culturism (sri if spelt wrong!).
i.e. you either love it or hate it
Nothing to do with the other things mentioned racism, etc).
Geoff.

[Pete G]

Firstly, a government cannot simply rewrite a law which was overridden by a "local" supreme court to achieve what it wanted to achive. Or maybe it could but the court would scrap the new law as well if it´s contents were not in line with the court´s ruling/interpretation of the constitution. Secondly, the German constitutional court will have the last word should there be a conflict between it´s interpretation of the German constitution and the CJEU as any transfer of sovereignity to the Eu would have to be subject to being in accordance with the German constitution in the first place. I doubt that would be different for other countries.

It is indeed very different for other countries. Germany is a relatively young country, a republic, who even in its relatively short history has a set of unparalleled abuses of the political system, keeping its focus [not without good reason] on the supremacy of its constitution. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, where the supremacy lies with Parliament [we've fought a couple of civil wars to ensure just that] and Parliament can do as it pleases, subject only to the legitimacy granted to it by the popular vote, and the approval of the monarch to form a government [which is why, on official UK government documentation, parliament is referred to as 'the Queen in Parliament' Unless the Queen decides to pull the plug on the whole shooting match, the only effect of the UK Parliament breaking constitutional protocols is that constitutional protocols have been broken. That's it. The fact that the common law system in the UK and the civil law system in the EU fit together so poorly is probably one of the main reasons the UK is uncomfortable in the EU, and why the policies are particularly onerous for us

Merkel never made an offer for any refugees who could make it across the German border. She had only allowed those 3000+ refugees who at the time were at the railway station in Hungary without food, water or toilets to enter Germany for humanitarian reasons. I doubt she had thought this through and was aware of what it triggered. But be that as it may be - she wasn´t breaking any EU law by waiving Germany´s right to send them back. I repeat: having a right doesn´t mean you must make use of it. Your repetetion of a false claim doesn´t make it correct.

She may have thought that is what she said, but me and a couple of million migrants heard different and [they, not me] were prepared to trample half of Eastern Europe underfoot, causing massive damage along the way all of which the intermediate countries will be paying for without further EU or German assistance. That made it either psychotically stupid and criminally irresponsible, or deliberately mendacious you can take your pick, I guess. Illegal it certainly was not because Germany chose to waive its rights [though God forbid that should happen], but that it deliberately overrode the rights of Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, and Hungary, to have migrants processed as per the Dublin Agreement, and not simply carve a swathe through their countries on the way to the promised German milk and honey. At best it was a cynical ploy by Merkel and the EU to disintermediate other member states sovereign powers, and they should be ashamed of themselves, if either party thought that despotism of the 'minor states' was indeed a cause for shame.

By the way, I hear de Maiziere has finally admitted that under 40% of the tide you encouraged can actually successfully apply for asylum, and therefore you'll need to repatriate around 660,000 of them [despite not actually being able to establish their actual country of origin in most cases], so you'll have to let us know how Merkel's offer is working out for you guys.

That may have been so but it doesn´t mean that he was legally bound to resign. It was a political decision which had more to do with creditors who refused to negotiate on relief measures with someone who had threatened to simply ignore his debt. It´s not as if the EU could have forced him to resign. The same might have happened to a non-EU debtor country.

Said the playground bully to his victim, assuring him he didn't have to 'lend' him his lunch money, but it would probably be a better day for him if he did. Papandreou was offered a choice - resign or we'll bankrupt your country - and he did what any honourable man would do under the circumstances, which is more than can be said for the EU, the ECB, and the BMFs performance

That´s your interpretation. There are others as well according to which the current legislative structures are unfit and this was the reason why Renzi tried to change it (and if you look at the political instability in Italy which had seen more than 60 governments since the war they may well have a point). Renzi wasn´t obliged to set up a referendum and neither was he obliged to resign. It was his choice.

Just because Italian political standards don't meet EU or German standards doesn't mean you have a right to force them to change it. As the Italian people have just told the rest of the EU. It's just the bullies choice again, not that we expect any better from the corrupt edifice that is the EU

[jeba]

Firstly, a government cannot simply rewrite a law which was overridden by a "local" supreme court to achieve what it wanted to achive. Or maybe it could but the court would scrap the new law as well if it´s contents were not in line with the court´s ruling/interpretation of the constitution. Secondly, the German constitutional court will have the last word should there be a conflict between it´s interpretation of the German constitution and the CJEU as any transfer of sovereignity to the Eu would have to be subject to being in accordance with the German constitution in the first place. I doubt that would be different for other countries.

It is indeed very different for other countries. Germany is a relatively young country, a republic, who even in its relatively short history has a set of unparalleled abuses of the political system, keeping its focus [not without good reason] on the supremacy of its constitution. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, where the supremacy lies with Parliament [we've fought a couple of civil wars to ensure just that] and Parliament can do as it pleases, subject only to the legitimacy granted to it by the popular vote, and the approval of the monarch to form a government [which is why, on official UK government documentation, parliament is referred to as 'the Queen in Parliament' Unless the Queen decides to pull the plug on the whole shooting match, the only effect of the UK Parliament breaking constitutional protocols is that constitutional protocols have been broken. That's it. The fact that the common law system in the UK and the civil law system in the EU fit together so poorly is probably one of the main reasons the UK is uncomfortable in the EU, and why the policies are particularly onerous for us

That´s interesting but doesn´t change the fact that the members of the EU aren´t defenselessly at the mercy of an undemocratic but overwhelmingly powerful monster you´re trying to make the EU look like. Even though the UK doesn´t have a constitutional court (since there is no constitution) surely there will be an equivalent institution - be it parliament or some court - which will give it the same protection as countries with a constitution are enjoying?

Merkel never made an offer for any refugees who could make it across the German border. She had only allowed those 3000+ refugees who at the time were at the railway station in Hungary without food, water or toilets to enter Germany for humanitarian reasons. I doubt she had thought this through and was aware of what it triggered. But be that as it may be - she wasn´t breaking any EU law by waiving Germany´s right to send them back. I repeat: having a right doesn´t mean you must make use of it. Your repetetion of a false claim doesn´t make it correct.

She may have thought that is what she said, but me and a couple of million migrants heard different and [they, not me] were prepared to trample half of Eastern Europe underfoot, causing massive damage along the way all of which the intermediate countries will be paying for without further EU or German assistance. That made it either psychotically stupid and criminally irresponsible, or deliberately mendacious you can take your pick, I guess. Illegal it certainly was not because Germany chose to waive its rights [though God forbid that should happen], but that it deliberately overrode the rights of Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, and Hungary, to have migrants processed as per the Dublin Agreement, and not simply carve a swathe through their countries on the way to the promised German milk and honey. At best it was a cynical ploy by Merkel and the EU to disintermediate other member states sovereign powers, and they should be ashamed of themselves, if either party thought that despotism of the 'minor states' was indeed a cause for shame.

Well, at least you concede that it wasn´t illegal. However, it wasn´t a "cynical ploy by Merkel and the EU to disintermediate other member states sovereign powers" either as it wasn´t an EU decision in the first place but a decision Merkel took on her own. You may blame her for that (not that I´d agree with you even though I disagree with the way she handles the refugee crisis) but certainly not the EU. Also, the rights of Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, and Hungary weren´t overridden. They still have the right to protect their borders as they see fit (and they made use of that right e. g. by erecting fences and introducing border controls).

By the way, I hear de Maiziere has finally admitted that under 40% of the tide you encouraged can actually successfully apply for asylum, and therefore you'll need to repatriate around 660,000 of them [despite not actually being able to establish their actual country of origin in most cases], so you'll have to let us know how Merkel's offer is working out for you guys.

What do you mean when you say "finally admitted"? That sounds as if he had claimed otherwise before and was now somehow surprised. According to the German constitution only political refugees enjoy an undisputable right to be granted asylum and obviously a minority only can claim to be political refugees. However, apart from political asylum there are other reasons for granting (temporary or permanent) residence permits (most refugees are given temporary leave to remain only). During the Kosovo conflict in the ninetees there were more than 300.000 Albanian refugees in Germany - 90% of them were sent back. Which in many cases caused humanitarian drama (e. g. youngsters born and raised in Germany short of finishing their education but with no command of their "home" language nor any ties to the Kosovo and no future there).

As for how it´s working out for us: This is a difficult question. Under the bottom line it will not be beneficial for Germany and I´m not aware Merkel ever claimed it would. The cost is huge in terms of finances as well well as the social cost (crime, housing shortage, pressure on the health care system, people feeling intimidated etc.) and will not be offset (in my view opinion anyway) by potential benefits. However, if you jump into a cold river to rescue a drowning person you don´t do it for personal benefit. Does that mean it´s wrong to do it? Certainly not in Merkel´s view (who btw was raised as the child of a priest in communist Eastern Germany which may explain why she sees it as her Christian duty to do what she did).

Not all refugees (and so-called refugees who actually are economic migrants) are scum (even though more than enough are - again in my view). Most are normal people. Last year when I was visiting family in Germany I spoke to a local of the village neighbouring the one I´m from. This village has about 500 inhabitants and 54 refugees. He said they never had problems with those refugees and the attitude of the locals is still welcoming (volunteers offering language tuition, lifts to doctors and authorities etc) and the refugees are quite well integrated - as far as you can be expected to integrate without language command and a work permit (e. g. a few weeks ago they contributed and helped organise the 1275th anniversary celebrations of that village). That may well have to do with the fact that those refugees are almost exclusively from Syria and Syrians on average seem to be very decent people. Their crime rate is lower than that of Germans (however, 48% of prison inmates in Bavaria are foreigners) whereas e. g. those from Africa and Afghanistan seem to be a different kettle of fish (on average - I don´t want to paint everybody with the same brush). Other communities are less lucky - having to deal with crime and intimidation.

That may have been so but it doesn´t mean that he was legally bound to resign. It was a political decision which had more to do with creditors who refused to negotiate on relief measures with someone who had threatened to simply ignore his debt. It´s not as if the EU could have forced him to resign. The same might have happened to a non-EU debtor country.

Said the playground bully to his victim, assuring him he didn't have to 'lend' him his lunch money, but it would probably be a better day for him if he did. Papandreou was offered a choice - resign or we'll bankrupt your country - and he did what any honourable man would do under the circumstances, which is more than can be said for the EU, the ECB, and the BMFs performance

Do you think it´s playground bullying if a creditor wants his money back? Am I a bully because I sent the bailiff to my tenant when he hadn´t paid rent? Even if you were right - in contrast to how you made it sound there is no institutional / legal right of the EU to force a PM to resign. Greece´s creditors would have behaved the way they did even if they were not part of the EU (maybe even harsher), so it´s not an EU issue strictu sensu.

Just because Italian political standards don't meet EU or German standards doesn't mean you have a right to force them to change it.

Nobody claimed to have that right. It seems you´re trying to vilify the EU by trying to present your insinuations as facts. I can´t help but get the impression that you don´t like it

[Pete G]

That´s interesting but doesn´t change the fact that the members of the EU aren´t defenselessly at the mercy of an undemocratic but overwhelmingly powerful monster you´re trying to make the EU look like. Even though the UK doesn´t have a constitutional court (since there is no constitution) surely there will be an equivalent institution - be it parliament or some court - which will give it the same protection as countries with a constitution are enjoying?

Sorry for the delay in responding, I got a little sidetracked however the good news is that this other project did give me cause to get in touch with my old constitutional law lecturer, against whom I tested my logic. She agreed with me that, as the 'constitutional' position in the UK was only that 'Parliament is sovereign' then the UK is simply in the position where the 1972 act surrendered that sovereignty to Brussels, and there is no 'equivalent institution' by which the UK can overrule CJEU decisions. As a part of the Great Repeal Bill issued yesterday, HMG released some additional info including this diagram which makes the situation pretty clear, as there is no part of the UK law which sits [currently] wholly outside of the EU Acquis

[attachment=0]eu law graphic.jpg

Merkel never made an offer for any refugees who could make it across the German border. She had only allowed those 3000+ refugees who at the time were at the railway station in Hungary without food, water or toilets to enter Germany for humanitarian reasons. I doubt she had thought this through and was aware of what it triggered. But be that as it may be - she wasn´t breaking any EU law by waiving Germany´s right to send them back. I repeat: having a right doesn´t mean you must make use of it. Your repetetion of a false claim doesn´t make it correct.

Just to remind you of the history of German immigration in 2015

January 2015. Merkel, in response to growing disquiet about security issues a statement that 200,000 migrants had been successfully integrated into Germany in 2014 and that complaints about security and social issues merely showed the complainants as having a 'cold heart'

May 2015 de Maiziere announces he has increased his estimate of refugees due to arrive in 2015 to 450,000

July 2015 Merkel gives her [now famous] Rostock interview where she said it is not possible for 'all to come' to Germany, and gets pilloried in the press as cold hearted [exactly as she had accused her opponents of being]

Early August 2015 de Maiziere announces he has increased his estimate of refugees due to arrive in 2015 to 850,000

25th August German Office of Migration issues a global statement including the decision 'we are no longer enforcing the Dublin Procedures for Syrian Citizens'

31st August Merkel backs this up with her 'Wir Shaffen Das' speech confirms that Germany is unilaterally reneging on her responsibilities under Dublin [which is illegal] and has taken the decision, on behalf of Germany and the rest of Europe to fully open the doors to refugees [which is not only amazing arrogant, and massively exceeds her authority [well, her formal authority, at least] , but also shows an open contempt for the sovereignty of any European nations that might be in the way of the new German grand plan]

August - December 2015 A massive wave of immigrant hopefuls [strangely without documentation, and therefore unable to 'prove' their Syrian status] flood an ill prepared Eastern Europe [an additional 400,000 through Hungary alone] Schengen effectively collapses, and Germany puts pressure on the EU to prosecute EU countires which fail to live up to Germany's new expectations as to immigrant reception and processing

Early December 2015 de Maiziere announces he has increased his estimate of refugees due to arrive in 2015 to 1,200,000 [hence my use of the term 'final figure' though I now understand leaked internal documents put the figure for 2015 at closer to 1,600,000, so maybe it wasn't such a final figure after all

[jeba]

She agreed with me that, as the 'constitutional' position in the UK was only that 'Parliament is sovereign' then the UK is simply in the position where the 1972 act surrendered that sovereignty to Brussels, and there is no 'equivalent institution' by which the UK can overrule CJEU decisions.

So how to legally establish whether an EU law/regulation transgresses the confinements of those parts of it´s sovereignity the UK transferred to the EU? As a legal layman I´m struggling to believe that this potential conflict should not have been given consideration when the UK joined the EU.

25th August German Office of Migration issues a global statement including the decision 'we are no longer enforcing the Dublin Procedures for Syrian Citizens'

31st August Merkel backs this up with her 'Wir Shaffen Das' speech confirms that Germany is unilaterally reneging on her responsibilities under Dublin [which is illegal] and has taken the decision, on behalf of Germany and the rest of Europe to fully open the doors to refugees [which is not only amazing arrogant, and massively exceeds her authority [well, her formal authority, at least] , but also shows an open contempt for the sovereignty of any European nations that might be in the way of the new German grand plan]

Your wording is incorrect. Merkel didn´t "renege on a responsibility" - she waived a right, which is not illegal. Do you see the difference? And she took that decision on behalf of Germany only, not on behalf of the whole of the EU. Therefore, she hasn´t exceeded her authority. So your claim that she showed contempt for the sovereignity of other nations is unfactual (for lack of an English equivalent of the German word "unsachlich") , to say the least.

August - December 2015 A massive wave of immigrant hopefuls [strangely without documentation, and therefore unable to 'prove' their Syrian status] flood an ill prepared Eastern Europe [an additional 400,000 through Hungary alone] Schengen effectively collapses, and Germany puts pressure on the EU to prosecute EU countires which fail to live up to Germany's new expectations as to immigrant reception and processing

Obviously Merkel´s attempt to "put pressure" on the Eu has been unsuccessful, as the refusal of e. g. the Visegrád countries to accept refugees shows. Which (like e. g. Draghi´s policies) sort of negates the claim I´m reading so often that the EU is run by Merkel.

[Pete G]

Your wording is incorrect. Merkel didn´t "renege on a responsibility" - she waived a right, which is not illegal. Do you see the difference? And she took that decision on behalf of Germany only, not on behalf of the whole of the EU. Therefore, she hasn´t exceeded her authority. So your claim that she showed contempt for the sovereignity of other nations is unfactual (for lack of an English equivalent of the German word "unsachlich") , to say the least.

The Dublin Agreement is a treaty. A treaty is supposed to protect all parties equally [although I agree this is more honoured in the breach regarding EU ancillary treaties] By waiving Germany's right to be 'protected' by Dublin, Merkel also effectively waived the right of all sovereign member states between the 'refugees' current location and the German border at the same time, without consultation, as the resultant immigrant stampede generated by a desire to get to Germany by any means necessary was an inevitable consequence. Either you must accept that Frau Merkel is so stupid that she did not realize the drastic consequences for the intervening EU states [which I don't believe for a second], or she was fully aware of the consequences, but didn't care, as it was purely in service of domestic German policy. This is not the action of a partner in the great European experiment which respects the remaining sovereign rights of its fellow participants. This is the action of a dominant power who, realising that post-Brexit they will be the only remaining net contributor to the EU financially, are keen to show the other subject powers exactly what that will mean for them in the future.

Obviously Merkel´s attempt to "put pressure" on the Eu has been unsuccessful, as the refusal of e. g. the Visegrád countries to accept refugees shows. Which (like e. g. Draghi´s policies) sort of negates the claim I´m reading so often that the EU is run by Merkel.

On June 12th this year the EU announced that they, after much 'consultation' had decided to prosecute Poland, Hungary, and the Czech republic for not fulfilling their roles in handling the 'refugee' crisis exacerbated as it was by Germany's unilateral open door policy [though the Germans have now decided to reclose it, thankfully] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe ... KKBN19313G

I'm sure at some stage Germany will get around to thanking these countries for breaking Schengen and re-establishing hard borders, thus keeping the numbers of immigrants making the journey to Germany down to a mere flood, rather than the Tsunami promised earlier, though I admit I have seen no evidence of this yet.

Still, what a coincidence that exactly the same member states who frustrated Germany's unilaterally declared immigration policy are now the subject of prosecutions by the EU for failing to live up to their treaty-obligated role of clearing up the mess that was so exacerbated by ...... Germany repudiating its obligations under the exact same treaty [for which, strangely, no prosecutions appear to be pending].

I guess that is just the coincidental way things go sometimes, weird eh?