Highlights incl. distressed 'experts' calling for more surveillance, verbal insults by government officials, and the curious divergence of no-mandates Norway vs. Covidistan gives away the game
My take-away from your summary and listening to german and austrian tourists and expats:
1) They want out, all of them but some of them stil has money and power to make from mandates so wants them around for that reason, plus internal party politicking and electioneering and such.
2) The out, as you discussed earlier and as Eugyppius covered about Germany must be properly built - an off-ramp from the Covid autobahn - so no-one can even hint of malfeasance, national regulatory agencies (and worse, parliaments) being captured by way of EU and other international agreements, kick.backs and collusion between professionals working both private and public sector and so on.
3) Also, the out must make sure that those at the top have plenty of scapegoats and escape-clauses. Early retirement, a diplomatic posting aborad for a few years, some sinecure at the WHO or the UN or something similar.
Oh well, I'm unsure there's enough golden parachutes available: I mean--most institutions you refer are simply too small to take in all these 'heroes of Covid'.
I am, however, in agreement with your bottom line.
That there's not enough bolt-holes is my greatest hope, and I think what gives above-zero odds, of someone in the know with the requisite paper trail coming clean.
It only takes one person disgruntled enough who is contaced by the right handler for the whole thing to break. If and when that starts happening, expect it to be tied to Russia/China, both to discredit (from the angle of western media and their owners) but also from the other end as concrete proof of the West being a beehive of hypocrisy, as they need to show such examples to the home audience at regular intervals.
It would be a severe error for the KGB's descendants not to try to find such a person.
The former, a Verordnungsermächtigung, or (literally, if freely) translatable into something like 'empowerment of a public official in the executive branch to issue regulatory or other comparable executive orders'.
By contrast, an Ermächtigungsverordnung, or (same as above) translates into something like 'an executive order enabling, or empowering, a public official or anyone else concerned to act upon said order'.
Note, however, that the latter--legally as well as logically--derives from the former: an official must be empowered by law or another exeutive order to decree 'downstream' orders. Note further that both, by nature of being Verordnungen (regulatory, or executive, orders or, beyond 'the democratic free West', decrees), these instruments of governance both fall into the category of 'secondary legislation', i.e., something that, as the name implies, derives from 'primary legislations' (doh), which means: acts and bills of representative parliamentary institutions, which, under prevailing democratic theory, are the places where Law originates.
In other words: if there's no basis in Law, both such downstream notions are, of course, illegal.
Which, in other words, brings us to the 'Nixon Conundrum' (tm) of democratic theory: is doing something illegal actually illegal of the executive branch does it? In my book, of course, but if you look at the past 2+ years of Covid mindfuckery, this common-sensical assertion of mine is, actually as well as factually, subject to serious (ahem) debate.
My take-away from your summary and listening to german and austrian tourists and expats:
1) They want out, all of them but some of them stil has money and power to make from mandates so wants them around for that reason, plus internal party politicking and electioneering and such.
2) The out, as you discussed earlier and as Eugyppius covered about Germany must be properly built - an off-ramp from the Covid autobahn - so no-one can even hint of malfeasance, national regulatory agencies (and worse, parliaments) being captured by way of EU and other international agreements, kick.backs and collusion between professionals working both private and public sector and so on.
3) Also, the out must make sure that those at the top have plenty of scapegoats and escape-clauses. Early retirement, a diplomatic posting aborad for a few years, some sinecure at the WHO or the UN or something similar.
All of which takes time to set up properly.
Oh well, I'm unsure there's enough golden parachutes available: I mean--most institutions you refer are simply too small to take in all these 'heroes of Covid'.
I am, however, in agreement with your bottom line.
That there's not enough bolt-holes is my greatest hope, and I think what gives above-zero odds, of someone in the know with the requisite paper trail coming clean.
It only takes one person disgruntled enough who is contaced by the right handler for the whole thing to break. If and when that starts happening, expect it to be tied to Russia/China, both to discredit (from the angle of western media and their owners) but also from the other end as concrete proof of the West being a beehive of hypocrisy, as they need to show such examples to the home audience at regular intervals.
It would be a severe error for the KGB's descendants not to try to find such a person.
Challenge: explain to non-German readers the difference between Verordnungsermächtigung and Ermächtigungsverordnung.
Challenge accepted.
The former, a Verordnungsermächtigung, or (literally, if freely) translatable into something like 'empowerment of a public official in the executive branch to issue regulatory or other comparable executive orders'.
By contrast, an Ermächtigungsverordnung, or (same as above) translates into something like 'an executive order enabling, or empowering, a public official or anyone else concerned to act upon said order'.
Note, however, that the latter--legally as well as logically--derives from the former: an official must be empowered by law or another exeutive order to decree 'downstream' orders. Note further that both, by nature of being Verordnungen (regulatory, or executive, orders or, beyond 'the democratic free West', decrees), these instruments of governance both fall into the category of 'secondary legislation', i.e., something that, as the name implies, derives from 'primary legislations' (doh), which means: acts and bills of representative parliamentary institutions, which, under prevailing democratic theory, are the places where Law originates.
In other words: if there's no basis in Law, both such downstream notions are, of course, illegal.
Which, in other words, brings us to the 'Nixon Conundrum' (tm) of democratic theory: is doing something illegal actually illegal of the executive branch does it? In my book, of course, but if you look at the past 2+ years of Covid mindfuckery, this common-sensical assertion of mine is, actually as well as factually, subject to serious (ahem) debate.
Would that do?
Excellent. :)
Wonderful.
Next, please!