It assumes, as a good and very well-established principle, that people should take a case in the most local possible court. Why pretend that people would rather go to the ECJ than a national court? And why pretend it would be better, or even feasible, for half a billion people to take their cases through a single court?

Really, the constant work of denial leads you to some very strange places.

__________________
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

No pretence here. The facts speak. The Irish courts have not once referred an environmental case to the ECJ.

The Irish government knows this and continues on its delinquent way ignoring EC environmental law as far and as long as possible. It knows it is effectively beyond the reach of private citizens who are shut out from any effective Court access.

The Irish government has been condemned in the ECJ for environmental law breaches on average every six months through this decade. That is thanks to the Commission, who have an effective monopoly on access to the ECJ in this context.

Access to justice for a private citizen does not register on the EC/EU radar, which was built in an era when only member states and Community institutions were considered worthy of such privilege.

__________________
How many banks do we own today?

Perhaps, then, you should consider voting for the Charter, which changes that position. Not that you will, of course.

__________________
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

I note you dissapprove of the limited access that individuals have to the ECJ.

No doubt you will approve of the the fact that Lisbon, as opposed to Nice, improves the access of individuals to the ECJ.

So you will not doubt what I say, have a look at this explanation from a eurosceptic site. Its a rather good explanation to be fair to them.

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/do...ICLE%20230.mht

You have linked to a minimalist change, which will make not an iota of difference to private citizens in the real world.

__________________
How many banks do we own today?

That does seem reasonably substantial, despite He3's reiteration of his position:

I appreciate He3's concern that people may not use the channel thus provided, but it's hard to see what one can do about that exactly. A concerned group can very simply form itself into a legal person by creating a limited company - something like the Libertas Institute, for example - to take the case.

__________________
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

Amazing how you read all sorts of things into articles with minimamlist changes when it suits you, yet you discount ohters when that suits.

Amazing indeed...almost as if the facts were less important than his agenda.

__________________
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

I wonder why your doubt counts for so much more than mine?

__________________
To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.