Sprokkelzinnen

The European project depends, far more than is generally appreciated, on a sense of inevitability. Voters might not care very much for the constant transfers of power to the EU but, as long as they believe that they can’t be stopped, they put up with them. The phenomenon is known in Brussels as the “occupied field doctrine”: once the EU has acted in any area of policy, its jurisdiction in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity.

Repealing a goodly chunk of Schengen would, of course, shatter that doctrine. People might start demanding the return of all sorts of powers. Why should the EU run agriculture given the disastrous mess it has made of the CAP? Or fisheries? Or monetary policy?

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, has acknowledged for the first time that Britain's freedom of action outside the eurozone has allowed the country to limit the damage from the downturn.

"Sterling flexibility has provided an additional support to demand," he said.

Such a policy is not possible for countries such as Ireland, Spain and Greece, which face debt-deflation strains within the eurozone.

Low voter turnout doesn’t come from any problem of presentation; it is the logical conclusion to the EU’s system of behind-the-scenes political manoeuvring that is seen as unsuitable for public engagement and scrutiny. As a result of this, EU officials come across as they really are: bureaucrats rather than political leaders.
...
The manipulative and dishonest style of rule-making confirms people’s cynicism towards conventional politics. Worse still, the insulation of decision-making directly contributes to the hollowing out of public life, which far too many people now see as pointless and irrelevant. In such circumstances, movements that are able to politicise people’s anger and dissatisfaction are able to make significant headway.

This treaty is bad and we know it. We supported the treaty among other things because we were a party in government and because we signed it and because we agreed on a compromise at the level of the European Council.

Is het een gebod van de democratie, een partij zoals de NPD te verbieden, of is het verbieden van een partij die haar doelstellingen geweldloos nastreeft een inbreuk tegen het democratieprincipe? Vormt verbruikend embryo-onderzoek een inbreuk op de menselijke waardigheid of is het net te rechtvaardigen met de waardigheid van de zieken die gered kunnen worden met de op basis van dit onderzoek ontwikkelde medicatie? Zulke vragen worden in verschillende Europese landen verschillend beantwoord. Met het verdrag van Lissabon wordt het definitieve oordeel over deze vragen niet langer door de nationale grondwettelijke rechtsinstanties geveld, maar door het Europees Hof van Justitie.