Remember that far-reaching German Constitutional Court ruling qualifying the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty?

Spiegel Online International has a lot more:

In essence, the court ruled that by passing the so-called "accompanying law" to the Lisbon Treaty, which determines the rights of German parliament to participate in European legislation, the representatives had relinquished significant monitoring rights to Brussels.

According to the judges, this unconstitutionally subjects the people that they represent to the whims of a bureaucracy that lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy.

A point everyone is now busy trying to hide from the Irish as they are pummelled into voting Yes in a second Treaty referendum. That said, the ruling is encouraging those parties in German concerned that the Lisbon Treaty creates ‘too much Europe’ to pursue other manoeuvres aimed at qualifying the Treaty and its legal impact in and on Germany at least. Scope for some impressive mess in due course.

Meanwhile the Czech President appears to have in mind some new legal ploys to effect further delay, much to the chagrin of the Swedish EU Presidency who wants everything sorted out tidily under its benign leadership..

Is ‘Europe’ amidst all this wrangling on the wane? Dominique Moïsi fears that in looming realignments of international groupings brought about by global economic uncertainty, Europe risks losing out if it does not speak with a united voice eg at the United Nations:

… Europe’s last chance to be a credible actor in a multi-polar world rests precisely on its ability to present a single, united, responsible voice. Europe currently exists as an economic actor, not as an international political actor.

If Europeans were to set for themselves the goal of speaking with one voice, of having one representative in the spectrum of multilateral institutions – starting with the UN Security Council – they would be taken more seriously. In this case, one can really say that “less is more”.

Well … no.

The chances of the UK and France ceding their UN Security Council seats are … [pause as he gets out his calculator and does some feverish number-crunching] … nil. So let’s proceed on that basis, shall we?

Looking on what might be said by some Europhiles to be the bright side:

The European Union in the year 2009 represents a world-historical optimum. Never before have 500 million people united under a single political order been better off. Never before have they been as free, as healthy, or as well educated; and never before have they been as peaceful.

To be sure, it is the systemic improbability of this state of affairs that lends a certain credence to the current pessimism about the future…

Peering ahead a mere two thousand or so weeks to 2030:

Instead of a globalized world economy that crosses continental barriers with ease, we will see continental autarchic zones being formed that will be shaped by the military defense of the basic resources available in each zone. We will thus see the logic of imperial expansion replaced by an aspiration to autarchic inclusion (already the EU strategy). The internal market of each zone will reassume economic primacy.

This process does not have to end in war. It could well take an ordered course and lead to a multipolar equilibrium, the stability of which — like that of the Cold War — is guaranteed by an awareness of what military options are not available.

Based on these assumptions, two conclusions can be drawn for Europe.

First, strengthening the EU confederation remains the only rational way forward, although this only makes sense if it entails the formation of a (nuclear armed) European army.

Second, no comparable state formation is better equipped and structured to deal with the new era of autarchic zones than Europe…

All of which leaves Europe with sufficient internal harmony but also bland inoffensive external irrelevance in the greater scheme of likely 2030 world tensions to be quite nicely placed:

Whichever way one looks at it, if Europe can maintain its federation of states (and if it can include Russia and gain Turkey as a comprehensive buffer), it will remain the continent of the relative optimum – the best of all possible future worlds. Indeed, the scenario outlined here recalls the end of the first truly critical story of globalization, Voltaire’s Candide, ou l’Optimisme.

After the adventurous hero Candide, inspired by the notion that he lives in the best of all possible worlds, has circled the globe and thus directly experienced the deep "misère du monde" in all its conceivable forms, he returns to a fenced garden, the fruits of which at least guarantee him and his own an agreeable livelihood.

Now and again dreadful news from other parts of the world penetrates the walls and leads to discussion about responsibility and the possibility of a new departure, to which the now wise Candide responds, "Cela est bien dit, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin." (That is well said, but we must cultivate our garden).

Tending to one’s own garden, ensuring its sustainability, and continuing to cultivate it innovatively: this is Europe’s future — behind walls.

Bonkers? Or plausible?

I report. You decide.