This paper is of very high quality in Germany, but I think I disagree with how portrait the gist of the arguments.

> In May 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe declared a decision by the European Court of Justice to be "arbitrary" and "not comprehensible." No one in Europe cheered the ECB ruling from Karlsruhe as enthusiastically as the government in Warsaw.

Many of those countries want the money so it is probably more influenced by the content of the ruling than on the principle of law but this is another issue. I don't think it is clear that people want the highest court to be on EU level aside for very specific fields that affect the EU itself. The ECB behavior was contrary to the law and contracts. Very clearly so, so it is the CJEU made the political ruling and violated the rule of law because it ignored the law. I don't think you find anyone that would honestly argue against it. This isn't something you need a judge for to determine that because this was a fundamental understanding when people gave legitimacy to the EU in the first place.

> "If every national constitutional court were to act as the Federal Constitutional Court does – that is, to argue exclusively from the national perspective – then that would lead to disaster"

This isn't arguing from a nationalistic perspective, this is arguing on behalf of the contents of EU contracts and the law. In fact Mrs. Barley here made it political. Mrs. Barley has a lot of bad ideas, I recommend to look her up and form your own opinion though.

The constitutional courts have more legitimacy than their EU pendant and given the politically motivated rulings of the CJEU, it is not hard to see why many might prefer national counterparts when they look for someone independent.

UvdL:
> EU law has primacy over national law and that rulings of the European Court of Justice are binding on all national courts.

If people could actually understand what UvdL is saying, I doubt she would even be commission president. Ironically she is because of support from Orban, who thought she was just a general conservative politician.

That EU law is above national law is also a ruling from the CJEU. This is like ruling your personal law is above all others. This is no an independent court in my opinion. The content of the ruling is NOT part of any EU contracts. It also puts itself above any national constitution...

> Brussels knows, of course, that Germany is not on the path to authoritarianism, that there are no enemies of Europe in Karlsruhe

The EU, not Europe, might not be as anti-authoritarian as it believes itself to be:

> Those who do not recognize the CJEU’s rulings will be disciplined

Not to excuse any developments in Poland, but self-analysis might be off and I don't believe in effective separations of power. The Karlsruhe judges were right in my opinion, even a layman could verify their decisions. You don't need to study law, you just need to be able to read texts.

To be honest, the only positive thing that was said about the current EU came from Merkel. Between the lines she said that the EU is important and should not be given up, even with all the crap going on. There is little wiggle room to interpret her words differently and it was the best argument for the EU we heard for a long time. I fear with her withdrawal, that we are left behind less capable individuals.

The EU also recently ended digital privacy. It is almost finished and I am not sure if a future without it wouldn't look a little brighter, even if that means that international policies would be harder to influence outside such a union. But international policies are less of a threat than the EU itself at this point.