istorijski fragmenti

wrote:Mora li to razgovetno, šta fali mađarskoj notaciji?

buffalo bill wrote:Što nije "Spoils"?

Онда:

...
The Union, as we know it today, is a complex composed of five principal institutions: the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Central Bank. A consideration of these can begin with the term conventionally encompassing the story of their development, „European integration‟. This came from America, as Patel has shown, and was adopted to avoid another term too pointed for tactical purposes in the politics of the 1950s. The word it replaced was „federation‟, rejected by governments and what interested opinion then existed, if ardently espoused by a small but committed minority of activists. For them and their academic sympathisers, „integration‟ supplied a more neutral term for progress towards an ideal best kept, for time being, in petto.

Nowhere was it more helpful than in characterising the work of the Court of Justice, which was, as van Middelaar emphasises, the first mover in the „passage to Europe‟ after the Treaty of Rome.

Today the court remains, of all Union institutions, the most withdrawn from the public. Discreetly situated in Luxembourg, not exactly a European crossroads, and composed of judges appointed – one per country – by member states, its proceedings are hidden from public scrutiny; its decisions permit no admission of dissent; its archives grant minimal access to researchers. In modus operandi, the ECJ is the antithesis of the US Supreme Court, whose emoluments it comfortably tops – its president receives a salary worth $400,000, plus many allowances; the chief justice in Washington a measly $277,000. Its origins date back to the first stage of integration: the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) born of the Schuman Plan was endowed with a Court of Justice that was rolled forward into the European Economic Community set up by the Treaty of Rome five years later, and then into the European Union created at Maastricht.

Thanks to the pioneering work of a young historian from Luxembourg, Vera Fritz, we now have a detailed scholarly study of the composition of the court in the first twenty years of its existence. Her findings are illuminating. There were seven founding judges and two advocates-general. Who were they? The Italian president of the court, Massimo Pilotti, had been deputy secretary-general of the League of Nations in the 1930s. There he acted as the long arm of the fascist regime in Rome, advising Mussolini on what counter-measures to take to shield Italy from condemnation by the League for its actions in Ethiopia. On resigning his post in 1937, Pilotti took part in the celebrations in Genoa of the conquest of Ethiopia; and during the Second World War headed the high court of occupied Ljubljana after Italy‟s annexation of Slovenia, where resistance was met with mass deportations, concentration camps, and police and military repression. The German judge on the court, Otto Riese, was so devoted a Nazi that without any duress – he spent the war as an academic in Switzerland – he retained his membership of the NSDAP until 1945. His compatriot Karl Roemer, an advocate-general to the court, spent the war in occupied Paris managing French companies and banks for the Third Reich; after the war, he married Adenauer‟s niece, and acted as defence lawyer for the Waffen SS charged with responsibility for the massacre of the occupants of the French village of Oradour. The other advocate-general, Maurice Lagrange, was a senior functionary in the Vichy government, fully committed to the ideology of a „National Revolution‟ to sweep away the legacy of the Third Republic. Acting as link-man between the judicial apparatus of the Conseil d‟État and the political apparatus of the Council of Ministers, Lagrange was in charge of co-ordinating the first wave of persecution of French Jews. When Laval took over the reins of Vichy in 1942, transferring Lagrange back to the Conseil d‟État, Pétain thanked him for his „rare perseverance‟ in the regime‟s legislative and administrative work, to which Lagrange replied that „for me it has been a great privilege to be so closely associated with the enterprise of national renovation you have undertaken for the salvation of our country. I am convinced that every Frenchman can and should take part in this work.‟ After the war he was chosen by the Americans to help democratise the civil service in Germany, and by Monnet to help draft the treaty establishing the Coal and Steel Community.

That figures like these were the ornaments of Europe‟s first Court of Justice reflected, of course, the closing of political ranks after the Cold War set in, when what mattered was not the misdeeds of the fascist past but the menace of communist present. It was a time when the last commander of the Charlemagne Division of the SS, fighting to the last bullet to defend Hitler in his bunker, could emerge as best choice for the Robert Schuman Prize for services to European unity.
...

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n01/perry-anderson/ever-closer-union

из паћетовог саможивописа wrote:
27. септембра 1972.
Данас у школи русвај. Окрећу други лист. За сваки прекршај, избацивање. Веце више није пушионица, шишање обавезно, а како су блесави још ће нам измислити и радну одећу.
У разреду гадно, изгледа да ће неки по двапут да се шишају. Две године смо живели ко мали богови а сад изгледа стигла директива одозго да се пооштри, све у складу са оним говором Станета Доланца да то треба мало притегнути. Јесте он мислио на спречавање привредног криминала, да се унесе дисциплина у посао итд. И шта би - женски веце се запушио од пикаваца, диша добио нервни слом од тога, и сад следи одмазда. Почело рибањем риба по трећем и четвртом разреду, сад се чује да је и неки Л. избачен. Мора да је наша коса кочила привреду.

Modern Presidents

George Washington pic.twitter.com/CURJQB0kap

— Magdalene Visaggio (@MagsVisaggs) January 29, 2021