The EU’s integrity has collapsed and We Are in Failure Mode
A structural systems failure — across EU law, across decades —where the form of legality persists, but nothing else.
This is not about left or right. This is not about crypto or MiCA.
It is about something deeper, more dangerous:
A structural systems failure — across EU law, across decades —
where the form of legality persists, but nothing else.
The wrong legal bases are used — repeatedly and knowingly.
Rights declared in Treaties are hollowed out in secondary legislation.
Regulations simulate harmonisation where no shared legal concept exists.
Institutional actors act beyond mandate — and no one corrects them.
I have nothing to gain personally from writing this. No financial interest, no personal agenda. I wish I didn’t have to speak out — but this is about human dignity. And given what is at stake, I cannot remain silent.
I am very supportive of the idea of Europe. If you’ve read any of my more recent articles, such a statement may surprise you — if we don’t know each other — because I’ve basically diagnosed anything EU-related as unconstitutional or ultra vires. I was wondering whether I’ve given the impression that I simply label everything ultra vires if etwas hinsichtlich der EU es nicht schafft bei drei auf den Bäumen zu sein (anything not gone like a squirrel).
Ultra Vires is not my “Kamehameha” (かめはめ波).
If you don’t know what that refers to, then perhaps it’s enough to say it’s from the anime Dragon Ball Z — a battle cry to channel Turtle Wave Power. I know how very interesting this topic must be for you.
My life would have turned out very differently if it weren’t for the EU. The alternative made possible for me because of the institution is testament to the noble ideals the EU represents — and how they are leaving their mark where it matters. I don’t mean to imply that this is me, I mean on people’s lives. Making a difference for many citizens and offering hope that peaceful cooperation could finally become normal for Europe.
And keeping that hope alive is worth a price.
But not any price.
When the institutions forget what gives them legitimacy — and when meaning becomes ritual, and course correction is no longer possible — then “more Europe” can no longer be the answer.
Emilio Colombo, the former Italian Prime Minister, gave a speech in Florence in 1978 while serving as President of the European Parliament. Referring to an initiative at the behest of President Giscard d’Estaing, the third President of the Fifth Republic of France (which sounds just like “Seven of Nine” and always makes me wonder whether the Borg assimilated French ideas of governance — or whether French politics inspired the Borg, which would explain a few things), he said something about the need to assess the effectiveness of the institutions — a sentiment that mirrors the present day:
“The first relates to the need to base our considerations of the problem of the institutions on the Treaties, on the preservation of the principles they contain and of the achievements which have been based on their ideals. We must correct the distortions produced by political expediency or routine, reassess each of the Community bodies in the light of experience and use all the powers contained in the Treaties without fear of making innovations which are in line with the highest Community ideals.”
“Eurosclerosis”—ineffective decision-making, limited democratic participation, and a lack of coordination among institutions was already a major concern at the time.
Giscard set up aa panel of three “wise men” to address a crisis of legitimacy and functionality. Imagine this today, we never get to discuss reform and spend all our energy on debating a name that suggests anything but inclusion. But say we swapped one guy for an equally qualified female candidate. It would not solve our problem: now we have a group called A wise women and wise men. That would suggest a wise woman is an outlier compared to many wise men. Ok if we swap out the second guy we create a new problem that group is now called Wise Women and 1 wise man. Ideally we’d say Wise People or Wise Citizens I think marketing will veto us for making daft choices because it sounds daft.
Why am I saying this?
When we hear a group called 3 Wise Men why do we assume it means anything beyond this group is composed of 3 sufficiently experienced men.
Why is our bias problematic?
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
“10 (3). Documents shall be supplied in an existing version and format (including electronically or in an alternative format such as Braille, large print or tape) with full regard to the applicant's preference.”
This regulation was supposed to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents held by EU institutions — “since the question of access to documents is not covered by provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.”
They gaslight us with Braille support while the actual right is hollowed out. That’s the unfortunate downside: institutions or individuals claim equality in order to enforce inequality — and superficial virtue signalling is mistaken for meaningful rights. A masterpiece of such deception can be found in this regulation. I am a massive advocate of diversity. But I don’t support this kind of abuse, which has become all too common.
The right in question was already part of the Treaty provisions at the time. Only the Council can set general limits on this right. The institution-specific rules mentioned in the third bullet do not establish a right to restrict access — they merely administer it. Parliament may set its business hours, but it cannot set them to ‘we are never open.’
By 2001, Article 255 EC (introduced by Amsterdam dated 2 October 1997) granted:
ARTICLE 255 (ex Article 191 a)
1. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
2. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 within two years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
3. Each institution referred to above shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents.
What do we get instead:
They claim to grant a right that it’s not for them to give. And instead of protecting our rights they remove our and instead create a right for themselves to deny access. This is not a regulation to implement a right. It is a regulation to manage and contain a right already declared in the Treaties and fundamental rights doctrine. Its structure suggests compliance but inverts the logic of public access:
The right to know becomes the right to deny.
This right always exist. Dear Bundesbank, can I have all your Euros? No! That is a right to request access to the money Bundesbank has and I don’t need EU regulation to enjoy this right.
The implementing act is used to break the law and yet it claims to implement it. This regulation violating Treaty obligations is directly referenced in the EU Parliaments Rule of Procedure even today!
This means that the EU Parliament, which has delegated authority from the Treaty and is limited in its scope to that Treaty, no longer takes instruction from it. Instead, it writes its own normative standards — turning a duty it owes into a right to grant us permission.
This is a structural phenomenon I have identified in multiple acts, where the measures in law have the opposite effect of what they claim. They systematically disable rights-protecting mechanisms and create rights for the institutions — even when the Treaty says otherwise.
Das ein schwerwiegender Rechtsbruch, strukturell über alle Institutionen hinweg ohne dass es irgendeinem mal aufgefallen wäre. Seit 2001 ist damit faktisch die Ewigkeitsklausel des GG nicht mehr gegeben gewesen. Das ein abscheuliches Verhalten seitens der Verantwortlichen was mit nichts zu rechtfertigen ist!
“EU Parliament - Rule 10 [..] Members shall respect Parliament’s dignity and shall not harm its reputation.”
Mensch ≠ Natural Person
The Human (Mensch)
Exists prior to and independently of legal recognition.
Bears dignity (Würde) as an inalienable, existential attribute.
Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law: “The dignity of the human being is inviolable.”
Not: “The dignity of the natural person.”
Possesses rights inherently—not as delegated privileges.
Has no legal duties—because duties imply subordination, incompatible with intrinsic dignity.
The Natural Person (natürliche Person)
A juridical construct defined in law (e.g., §1 BGB: begins at birth, ends at death).
Serves as a legal actor capable of holding rights and incurring duties.
Can be subject to obligations, liabilities, and coercion by the state.
Dignity is not assigned to the natural person by law—it is acknowledged as deriving from the Mensch.
Legal Consequences
Transferring Würde from the Mensch to a legal construct (natural or legal person, institution) constitutes a categorical error.
The natural person is a legal interface for engaging with humans—it mediates, but does not absorb, their ontological status.
Only the Mensch has dignity.
The natural person has rights and duties.
To conflate the two is to dissolve the boundary between law and life—and that is the very boundary the post-war constitutional order was designed to protect.
“EU Parliament - Rule 10 [..] Members shall respect Parliament’s dignity and shall not harm its reputation.”
Reading about Parliament just tells this requires decisive action a restart. These institutions are rotten at the core and we need to do damage control.
We need urgently:
Structural Audit
Objective: Identify which parts of post-Maastricht EU legislative output result in actual legal transformation, versus those that merely restate, relabel, or simulate law through narrative and terminology.
Preliminary Hypothesis
The majority of post-1993 EU statutory law does not function as law in the classical sense (norm-setting and enforceable); rather, it serves as ceremonial codification, institutional positioning, or simulation of harmonization.
How big is the problem. It’s massive. But manageable if the members states wake up bring their house in order and the EU is bankrupt and we need court appointed administrators to see if they still got any assets or not.