And in case people missed it, the German Constitutional Court ruled earlier this year that all EU laws have to pass through Berlin and conform to Germany's Basic Law by being approved by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. So now Germany has become the de-jure ruler of the EU
That is complete nonsense. What the ruling actually meant was that the Federal Government cannot negotiate on the EU level without involving the states (or Bundeslaender), as that would infringe on their rights. So the states have to be involved in writing the law and have to be respected when implementing EU law, i.e. rewriting EU law into national law
No, that's not what the decision means.
This
article from der Spiegel features several quotations from other German publications that explicitly state that the meaning is as I have claimed. (Because it's what
they claim.) Why else would Peter Gauweiler have been so pleased about "losing"?
All EU legislation now has to conform to Germany's Basic Law.
No, that's not true at all. The "principle of subsidiarity" means that the powers "conferred" on the EU's government consist of all political power, to be doled out at Brussels' sole discretion, and anything that Brussels feels "can be done better at EU level" will never make it back down to the member state governments.
To be blunt: I am right, you are wrong. The difference between a nation like the US and the EU is that powers conferred to the EU can be revoked, whereas US states cannot secede from the union. In some cases that takes the form of opt-outs (e.g. not all EU member states use the Euro), otherwise by simply leaving the European Union, because ultimately the souvereignty and legitimacy lies with the nation states. Of course, leaving the EU would be an endlessly messy affair with a huge fallout (due to the close economic integration of the EU member states), but it is within the nations' rights. That's also why the reform treaty specifically features a secession clause
How can you revoke something you've given up, especially if it's your sovereignty? Member states can't get their powers back, unless they do what Germany did. Brussels had a brief period of
protestation, but then acceded to their masters' wishes. To all other states that do not have the political and military might that Germany possesses, the "principle of subsidiarity" means that their powers are taken away for good.
Did you ever read what you call the "secession" clause? The word "secede" is not in there; instead is the unclear words "withdraw from the Union". Member states are not allowed to unilaterally withdraw; furthermore, they are subject to a waiting period of two years, if the Council of Ministers decides to make them wait through deliberate delay, and they get no say in their own fate during the time they declare their "decision to withdraw". After that, they say that the "treaties shall cease to apply" without defining what that means—it could mean that the member state could be reduced to a vassal state, e.g. French Guiana.
As for the "principle of subsidiarity, it's the
Union that defines where "competences" (powers) lie, not the member states. Look at this condescending language in the Treaty:
Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
"Better achieved"? Declaring member states "incompetent" to perform certain tasks? Having exclusive control over foreign, economic and military policy? The USA doesn't do this to its own states.
But the EU will never wage a "civil war" against a member that decides to leave. What you call uncomfortable position results from the close integration of the economies and legal systems, which partly goes for non-EU members, too. Switzerland for example adopts a lot of EU legislation and has become a de-facto member of the common market without being a member of the EU. If the surrounding EU countries were to close the borders, the Swiss economy would suffer as well
Any "de-facto" member of the so-called common market is a de-facto EU member as well. Also, there's the whole "tax haven" debacle, where Switzerland, Luxembourg and Austria were taken off the "blacklist"; they had to give up something there.
To quote from the source: 11.1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 11.2 The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. 47. Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial In other words: so it's freedom of the media (not only press) and of expression (not only speech, but also blogs), different wording, same meaning
Same meaning how? The
Soviet Union's constitution also guaranteed "freedom of speech" (using the same three words as the USA), but was that ever put into practice? The EU doesn't even use the phrase "freedom of speech"—"freedom of expression" does not have a similar meaning (one can never assume that from different wording at any time).
And again, practice is not the same as application, otherwise the
Stockholm Program would not be proceeding.
The US has often referred to itself as an empire ("imperial presidency" etc.)
False. That term was coined by political scientists, historians and authors (particularly Arthur M. Schlesinger); the US government
never used this term to define itself whatsoever, whether officially or unofficially. The EU has indeed put the term "empire" on itself.
Of course the EU is an empire in the sense that it's the world's largest integrated economy and that this economic might / heft of course influences its neighbors, just like 2000 years ago all roads (i.e. infrastructure) led to Rome. But that's just semantics
No, it's not semantics. The politicians of the EU have christened it an empire, and one in particular, Otto von Habsburg, referred to it as "the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire". Empires have a specific character.