Merkel wants option of excluding members from euro zone

[McDave]

You see Ibia, pardon me for saying this, but it is misapprehensions such as this, that vindicates my notion, that the vast majority of people haven't a clue what they sign up for when they vote on European Treaties, nor the long terms effects of what they have signed up or.

It also vindicates my notion that Irish political parties never actually tell the truth to people because if they did, there is a good chance that people wouldn't vote the way that political parties want them to vote.

It's also possible that the changes proposed in treaty amendments are broadly sensible and sensitive to national sovereign interests.

In all my years following treaty amendments, the only time I felt I was being sold a pup was in the amendment of the old Article 111 on the common commercial policy (Maastricht?) which gave the Commission the power to negotiate on behalf of the member states in international economic negotiations like GATT/WTO. If there's one thing that got my goat on the international stage, it was adoption of international trade agreements that walked over every possible social and environmental consideration. That cheesed me off no end. So much so that I was ultimately delighted to see the Doha Round bite the dust.

However, with Lisbon I was seriously impressed with the deference given to national concerns on sensitive issues. Having researched the treaty and argued the toss on P.ie for 6 long months, I found very little to fault. If most Irish people didn't understand what was in there, in this case there was nothing particular to fear.

[rockofcashel]

It's also possible that the changes proposed in treaty amendments are broadly sensible and sensitive to national sovereign interests.

In all my years following treaty amendments, the only time I felt I was being sold a pup was in the amendment of the old Article 111 on the common commercial policy (Maastricht?) which gave the Commission the power to negotiate on behalf of the member states in international economic negotiations like GATT/WTO. If there's one thing that got my goat on the international stage, it was adoption of international trade agreements that walked over every possible social and environmental consideration. That cheesed me off no end. So much so that I was ultimately delighted to see the Doha Round bite the dust.

However, with Lisbon I was seriously impressed with the deference given to national concerns on sensitive issues. Having researched the treaty and argued the toss on P.ie for 6 long months, I found very little to fault. If most Irish people didn't understand what was in there, in this case there was nothing particular to fear.

I'm of the opinion at this stage, that such is the poor level of public representation that Irish people have to put up with, we'd be better off being run by the Germans. But, it still doesn't discount the point. Most Irish people would have no idea that European law supercedes Irish law, and most Irish political parties have no intention of ever telling them, because it is my belief, that the majority of Irish people wouldn't like it.

Treating people like fools is what annoys me.

[McDave]

"One of the most important aspects of the European Union is that its legislation is superior to all national legislation. This means that European law is supreme. Nothing in the Constitution of Ireland or any of our national laws can override or take precedence over an EU law. " (my bold again)

So, to answer your point, if European Law supercedes Irish Law (which it does), and the ECJ is the final intrepreter and arbiter of European Law, then ergo, the ECJ does interpret national constitutions

The supremacy doctrine indeed exists. Without it there'd be no point to the EU legal order. But it only applies within the limits of the operation of EU law. Successive Irish Constitutional amendments specifically provide for this. Accordingly EU law does not override the coverage of the Irish Constitution that falls outside the explicitly stated competences of the EU treaties. It remains open to the Irish Superior Courts to rule on any potential conflicts in this regard. As the German Constitutional Court did in its ruling on the Lisbon Treaty's and EU law's interaction with the German Federal Constitution last June (a difficult document, but well worth reading for anyone who wants a legal and philosophical understanding of the interplay between national sovereignty and the EU).

The ECJ stays well away from national constitutions. It rules on EU primary and secondary law, and its implementation in national secondary law instruments.

[rockofcashel]

The supremacy doctrine indeed exists. Without it there'd be no point to the EU legal order. But it only applies within the limits of the operation of EU law. Successive Irish Constitutional amendments specifically provide for this. Accordingly EU law does not override the coverage of the Irish Constitution that falls outside the explicitly stated competences of the EU treaties. It remains open to the Irish Superior Courts to rule on any potential conflicts in this regard. As the German Constitutional Court did in its ruling on the Lisbon Treaty's and EU law's interaction with the German Federal Constitution last June (a difficult document, but well worth reading for anyone who wants a legal and philosophical understanding of the interplay between national sovereignty and the EU).

The ECJ stays well away from national constitutions. It rules on EU primary and secondary law, and its implementation in national secondary law instruments.

Correct, but the problem lies with the process of "communitarisation", by which the EU moves competencies which were only covered by one pillar in the past, "economic and social laws", from what used to be covered by the other two pillars, i.e. foreign policy and justice and home affairs. In fact, Lisbon de-constructed the old pillar system. The problem now lies, in the fact that the EU decides in future, what it has competency in, rather than the member states.

"Communitarisation

The EU treaties were previously divided into a supra-national first community pillar , where supranational Community law operates, and two intergovernmental pillars, one on Foreign Policy and the other on certain aspects of Justice and Home Affairs.

The Lisbon Treaty abolishes this pillar structure and then brings some of the previous intergovernmental competences within the supra-national competence.

In Art. 47 TEU it establish a joint legal personality for the European Union, allowing the EU to enter into international agreements for all topics where the EU legislates.

The Lisbon Treaty also abolishes the still-existing European Community, which is the supranational entity only that had legal personality up to December 2009. "

http://en.euabc.com/word/994

[ibis]

You see Ibia, pardon me for saying this, but it is misapprehensions such as this, that vindicates my notion, that the vast majority of people haven't a clue what they sign up for when they vote on European Treaties, nor the long terms effects of what they have signed up or.

It also vindicates my notion that Irish political parties never actually tell the truth to people because if they did, there is a good chance that people wouldn't vote the way that political parties want them to vote.


European Law does supercede Irish law, all the way up to and including the interpretations of the Irish Supreme Court.

Here is the competency of the European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice (officially the Court of Justice), is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across all EU member states. (My bold)

European Court of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here is the effect of European Law

"One of the most important aspects of the European Union is that its legislation is superior to all national legislation. This means that European law is supreme. Nothing in the Constitution of Ireland or any of our national laws can override or take precedence over an EU law. " (my bold again)

European Laws-Information from CitizensInformation.ie

That second passage does not come from some Europhobe conspiracy theory website, it is copied directly from the link which is the Government run and funded, Citizens Information website.

So, to answer your point, if European Law supercedes Irish Law (which it does), and the ECJ is the final intrepreter and arbiter of European Law, then ergo, the ECJ does interpret national constitutions

You can now take a case in Irish law all the way to the Supreme Court, and if you lose, then go beyond it to the ECJ, and the final ruling of the ECJ will be the deciding factor, bot the Supreme Court

Sigh. See the various other posted rebuttals, both on this thread and around the time of Lisbon, specifically with respect to the constitutional challenges to Lisbon from the German and other national constitutional courts. They will lay out for you the slightly nuanced fact that that a Treaty cannot be deemed accepted by a country where it is unconstitutional, but once accepted as constitutional, the ECJ becomes the final arbiter of the Treaty. The relation of the Constitution and the Treaties has nothing to do with the day to day operation of EU legislation, which trumps Irish law for the same reason that any joint agreement trumps individual actions.

All I can add to them is that it's this kind of misapprehension that vindicates my notion that the vast majority of those who oppose EU Treaties have no idea what they're opposing. Not that I've felt much need for additional vindication, and not that you don't know a good deal more than most people about it.

[YoungLiberal]

Most Irish people would have no idea that European law supercedes Irish law, and most Irish political parties have no intention of ever telling them, because it is my belief, that the majority of Irish people wouldn't like it.

Treating people like fools is what annoys me.

They are fools. If you don't know that European law supercedes Irish law, and has done since 1973, you're a fool. Simple as.

This is exactly why referendums are bad ideas. Especially on international treaties, but generally on any complex issue.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."- Churchill. True as ever.

[McDave]

I'm of the opinion at this stage, that such is the poor level of public representation that Irish people have to put up with, we'd be better off being run by the Germans. But, it still doesn't discount the point. Most Irish people would have no idea that European law supercedes Irish law, and most Irish political parties have no intention of ever telling them, because it is my belief, that the majority of Irish people wouldn't like it.

Treating people like fools is what annoys me.

Most Irish people don't have an insight into almost every aspect of Irish and European law that is in any way technical. Moral issues (abortion, death penalty, childrens rights), yes - something you can have a discussion about. The more boring stuff, no.

I honestly don't think the EU electorates generally were being treated as fools. OK, there was a lot of patronising behaviour in Ireland (Dick Roche anyone?) - but we seem to roll over for everything else (13 years of FF anyone?).

But in the best of all possible worlds, it is difficult to truly engage people. In both referenda, I did try to engage with people I knew on Lisbon. The degree of indifference was conversation-stopping. If this stuff is too difficult to market, is that still valid grounds for avoiding taking decisions which are going to affect the fate of Europeans down the line? Maybe there's a reason why most continental societies broadly trust their governments to do the heavy lifting on stuff like this. It's not like they're morally disinterested or have no sense of what threatens their basic interests. They do get up in arms about stuff like the invasion of Iraq and attacks on their societies' freedoms.

[McDave]

Correct, but the problem lies with the process of "communitarisation", by which the EU moves competencies which were only covered by one pillar in the past, "economic and social laws", from what used to be covered by the other two pillars, i.e. foreign policy and justice and home affairs. In fact, Lisbon de-constructed the old pillar system. The problem now lies, in the fact that the EU decides in future, what it has competency in, rather than the member states.

Yes, that was the whole point. Many pillars were translated into EU competencies. I'd argue these were necessary to allow the EU to function internationally against the likes of China, Russia, the US and India (I'm thinking especially of foreign policy). But these particular transfers are governed by unanimity, combined on occasion with opt-out clauses.

Beyond that most of the competency-related issues concerned relatively non-controversial issues that had been subject to unanimity, but which could not be effectively negotiated in an EU of 27 and rising. These were subjected to majority voting (incidentally with extra safeguards). You still need a truckload of support to pass any measure.

Your last point is simply untrue. There is no provision in Lisbon which allows the EU to decide which competencies it has (that is entirely and utterly a matter for treaty revisions). There is a provision for changing voting arrangements (from unanimity to majority), but this must itself be agreed unanimously.

[seabhcan]

I think the scenario would be something like this:

Merkel to Greece: "Leave the eurozone"

Greece to Merkel: "No"

Merkel to Greece: "Leave or we will find you in breach of Rule 17.489h, paragraph 5".

Greece to Merkel: "Go ahead, we're still not leaving"

Merkel to Greece: "Leave or we will impose fines"

Greece to Merkel: "We will pay those fines, because its cheaper than trying to leave the euro. Infact, we will just borrow the money from you to pay the fine, and then accept the money back in the form of CAP payments."

Merkel to Greece: "Hmmmm...."

[rockofcashel]

I think the scenario would be something like this:

Merkel to Greece: "Leave the eurozone"

Greece to Merkel: "No"

Merkel to Greece: "Leave or we will find you in breach of Rule 17.489h, paragraph 5".

Greece to Merkel: "Go ahead, we're still not leaving"

Merkel to Greece: "Leave or we will impose fines"

Greece to Merkel: "We will pay those fines, because its cheaper than trying to leave the euro. Infact, we will just borrow the money from you to pay the fine, and then accept the money back in the form of CAP payments."

Merkel to Greece: "Hmmmm...."

Moral hazard at its finest