Wasn't sure exactly where to post this; I perused 9 back-pages and found this thread which seems more than vaguely connected.
Apologies if this takes the previous topic on a tangent, but there's been no recent activity here anyway, so hey ho.
From UPI EU investigates Hungary for anti-immigration legislation
By Allen Cone
April 12, 2017 Timmermans said the new asylum law adopted by the national parliament at the end of March "also raises serious doubts about compatibility with EU law
."http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... m_medium=2
This is what I do not understand about the EU.
On matters of national sovereignty, there must be no ambiguity. The word 'sovereignty' is a noun with very clear definition : supreme power or authority
If a nation-state is sovereign, it then has sole authority to decide on matters concerning it's own interests, regardless of what the governments and/or peoples of other countries think or feel.
International diplomacy is the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, cultural exchange, environment, and human rights; these are areas which have an impact on the interest of other nations.
Whether or not, or in case how
, and to what extent, any nation chooses to allow citizens of other nations to enter it's territory and reside therein ~ either temporarily or permanently ~ is at the sole discretion of the sovereign. It is not a question of human rights. It is not every person's "right" to choose which nation in the world to belong to or reside in ~ nationality is but a birthright
is a privilege of immunity afforded by refuge, as granted by nations which are able and willing
to do so, within that nation's means and within parametres of national security interest.
In lieu of a constitutional law framework and a common bill of rights upheld by a federal Supreme Court (elected or appointed by elected officials), as well as a system of elected representation (on a federal level), by which legislation is drafted and enacted, and judicial appointees are selected (and terms predetermined) thereby uniting individual States within a common national sovereignty which outlines individual-state rights and federal powers and the extent and limits of each ~ it seems any such democratic union is doomed to fail
(become authoritarian) where it seeks to usurp sovereignty from nation-states already governed by self-determined constitutions and elected legislative bodies, and from which its citizens have not agreed to participate.
Either the EU is a nation
with sovereignty over its member-states, in which case the latter have limited sovereignty (e.g. within a constitutional revisory) and are therefore no longer sovereign nations unto themselves but which thereby must also have proportionate
representation within the unified sovereign itself as participatory legislators (so as to remain democratic ), or, the countries of Europe remain individual nations which may or may not, at each country's sovereign discretion, be signatory to the international accords of the EU.
If there is no clear Iine of demarcation
on the issue of sovereignty, then the elected officials of member-states are allowing foreign dictatorial governance of their own constituents, despite established law to the contrary.
the articles appear intentionally ambiguous, and this would seem to give credence to my theory that a test is being conducted to dissolve national sovereignty on a global scale (if such a plan succeeds in Europe) as a logical evolvement from the currently unsustainable capitalist system that manipulates economic outcomes and locks nations into a debt economy, the creditors being the global banks.