EU adherence to rule of law Mickeyfinn?
With respect, please tell that to thousands of citizens who looked to their MEPs for support with regard to protection of property rights across member states, lack of financial regulation and monitoring systems to ensure banks were made compliant with ethical behaviour and legal practice, lack of financial resources and adequate monitoring systems to ensure timely and consistent justice and enforcement procedures were adhered to, etc, only to be told that such issues were not within the remit of the EU given current Treaty arrangements.
And all of the above was brought to the attention of the EU Commission via a succession of petitions highlighting large scale ongoing abuses from collusion (lawyers/developers/agents), legal malpractice / lack of due diligence, illegal licences and town hall maladminstration, illegal demolitions and retrospective changes to coastal laws without any form of compensatory structures in place to protect, banks negligences to adhere to purchasers inalienable rights ( adherence to existing law Ley 57/68) with large scale failures to provide obligatory bank guarantees when purchasing offplan properties etc. The list goes on and on.
So what transpired in reality?
Continuing failure by the EU Commission when presented with petition evidence (s) to ensure EU Treaty change I'm afraid, effectively leaving thousands of innocent citizens to their own devices to fight against corruption and major financial negligences, with little concerted effort to follow through necessary treaty changes or infringement processes against member states ( a process already in place to protect), and thereby ensure member states adequately honoured their commitment to adhere to the rule( s) of law.
Were the EU Commissioners ( in full knowledge via petitions) willing to address necessary reform to Treaty arrangements to ensure adherence to the rule of law and protection of citizen's rights? The answer is a resounding NO.
Bureaucrats were more concerned about their own member states upcoming elections and any requirement for treaty change to resolve problems relating to citizen protection prior to their elections was of minor significance and appeared way down the pecking order.
The bottom line for many fighting the Banks was that without EU protection from infringement rights or Treaty change to make member states accountable, by allocating the necessary financial resources to justice and court systems that were overloaded with claims (essential financial provision required to ensure timely and consistent justice across the varied regions), thousands upon thousands of citizens were left under immense financial strain and risk until such time as member states Supreme Courts reached rulings that could act as jurisprudence to support their rightful claims. And in the abusively lengthy interim periods in regions that failed to receive adequate resource, all manner of other Banking failures have come to light further exacerbating the court and judicial system (s).
And that is not to mention the thousands of citizens compromised and left uncompensated by illegal licences, illegal demolitions, town hall mal-administrations, retrospective changes to coastal laws where citizens have been used as pawns in ongoing disputes between local and regional authorities.
So please don't imply that rule of law and protection of citizens rights, a fundamental basic principle, has been adequately recognised by the EU Commission in order to ensure member states adherence ( adequate resourcing of justice systems) during this last decade and beyond. They had full knowledge of the many and growing injustices.
Their references to rule of law appears merely as rhetoric intended to appease citizens demands, with little or no commitment by the EU Commission to rectify and prioritise these basic fundamental principles
According to UK select committee questioning the requirement for treaty change also applies to freedom of movement in so much as once again there was little bureaucratic appetite for treaty change prior to member state upcoming elections ( to review the need for fairer factoring mechanisms to counter compromising pull factors and abuse of in- work benefits etc).
It appears that growing citizen concerns relating to freedom of movement across Europe have been considered way down the pecking order in terms of essential reforms.
As for suggesting the majority of Europeans are content with the status quo, tell that to those member states citizens facing major unemployment, where citizens have had little option but to leave their families and flea abroad in search of work, to those who have seen living standards compromised by large scale uncontrolled migration, those exposed to growing citizen unrest and the threat from the potential growth of political extremes.
Tell that to those who believed that stability mechanisms would be adhered to, mechanisms intended to act as fair balance between member states so that no one member state ( such as Germany) would benefit beyond defined boundaries at the expense of others.
Tell that to those who have witnessed the turning of blind eyes to accession criteria, that subsequently led to a nation state ( Greece) being crippled by repayment of debt under the most onerous unrealistic timeframes with little compassion or comprehension of the impact on a generation of citizens.
I wouldn't call such a system something to aspire to, I would call it a system in dire need of major reform with far greater priority given to citizens needs and rights and far greater accountability by those responsible for such major failings, all in the name of ideology striving for a federal state within unrealistic timeframes that pay scant regard to the need for flexibility, for adequate forward planning, for adherence to the rule of law and mechanisms intended to protect.