Legal-opinion is actually divided on that question. In particular, it seems pretty inevitable that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the creation of new full EU competences like energy would change the "scope" of the EU beyond what was envisaged in previous treaties. The enshrinement of the Charter into EU law was not foreseen in the other treaties that have already come into force before this one.Originally Posted by ibis
Actually, that's not my point but HBAP's. However, I might as well make the point that changing the scope of the EU beyond what was envisaged when previous treaties were signed is a rather less open and shut criterion than you appear to think. It's not sufficient that the treaties change how the EU works, because that's the whole point of the amending treaties - what is required is a material change, and the EU has been operating with one eye on the ECHR (of which the Charter is a somewhat reduced copy) for rather a while now - nor is the idea of rights-based law in any way a new departnure for the EU.
Additionally, a change in scope of the EU isn't the essence of the Crotty test in any case:
Finally, the Lisbon Treaty creates no "new full EU competences" at all. It creates only shared competences.While the action taken by Crotty was made on a number of grounds, the only grounds on which the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court were those relating to cooperation in the field of foreign policy. In particular, it was the opinion of the Court that all other aspects of the treaty were consistent with the Constitution, including the expansion of Qualified Majority Voting to new policy areas, and the creation of the European Court of First Instance.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
But if you read the ruling in full you will come to the part where a judge says that just because the expansion of QMV in the Single European Act was not unconstitutional, that this did not mean that all future expansions of QMV would be constitutional without a referendum. That is the crucial context in which your reference to QMV - by Stephen Collins - must be viewed. In any case, SC is hardly what you'd call "impartial" now is he. Him who called for ratification of Lisbon in spite of the no vote.
Hm, yes, but what we have is an opinion from the Court that does not rule out future QMV changes requiring a referendum, and what you're doing is applying that as if it meant that QMV changes do require a referendum.But if you read the ruling in full you will come to the part where a judge says that just because the expansion of QMV in the Single European Act was not unconstitutional, that this did not mean that all future expansions of QMV would be constitutional without a referendum. That is the crucial context in which your reference to QMV - by Stephen Collins - must be viewed. In any case, SC is hardly what you'd call "impartial" now is he. Him who called for ratification of Lisbon in spite of the no vote.
The Court's opinion is essentially there solely to preclude the use of the ruling against Crotty's QMV claim as a precedent in any future case. It is not a positive judgement in any sense.
My reference, by the way, is the judgement itself. The relevant statement is this one:
As you can see, that is by no means a statement that future changes from unanimity to QMV will require a change to the Constitution, particularly since in full that reads:As far as Ireland is concerned, it does not follow that all other decisions of the Council which now require unanimity could, without a further amendment of the Constitution, be changed to decisions requiring less than unanimity.
Which is to say that a change from unanimity to QMV would have to substantially alter the aims and objectives of the EU as agreed at the most recent Treaty (currently Nice).it is the opinion of the Court that neither the proposed changes from unanimity to qualified majority, nor the identification of topics which while now separately stated, are within the original aims and objectives of the EEC, bring these proposed amendments outside the scope of the authorisation contained in Article 29, s. 4, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution. As far as Ireland is concerned, it does not follow that all other decisions of the Council which now require unanimity could, without a further amendment of the Constitution, be changed to decisions requiring less than unanimity.
Last edited by ibis; 3rd April 2009 at 01:24 AM.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Can you edit your last post please? I can't reply to individual points if you've embedded everything in the quote function.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
Ah don't be confusing FT there, Ibis. He'll only go back to banging on about the Act of Union again.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
My mistake.. cheap at half the price so.
all fixed now.
your opinion, for the majority of voters (at last count) this is just a pointless waste of money asking the same question that we have already given an answer to
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
First, as the COFR does not extend EU competence it does not substantially inflict upon Irish sovereignty.
Second, as ibis points out, the EU has been gradually shifting towards a rights-based system for years now. It would have started with the SEA and Maastricht and the Treaty of Amsterdam contained express commitments to the recognition and protection of fundamental human rights. The COFR has been used by the ECJ for a long time, as has the ECHR, in guiding its judgements. the creation and expansion of citizenship has had a clear rights-based undertone.
To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote