German Law Professor questions "design flaw" in Lisbon Treaty

[Pauli]

It seems that the German legal community are unhappy with the construction of the Lisbon Treaty. Professor Dietrich Murswiek of the University of Freiburg indicates in his article "The Stealthy Development of the Treaty on European Union into the Supreme European Constitution". (see 2nd and 4th articles in link)

Prof. Murswiek illustrates how Lisbon conflicts with German Basic Law and, if passed, would in his opinion, spell the end of the Besic Law in Germany as it is understood today. He states that the design flaw, which essentially gives a dynamic role to the ECJ of a magnitude which was never intended by its creatrors, was never made known to the members of the Bundestag when the German parliament come to discuss Lisbon.

Papers und Preprints — Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät

This could get interesting if it lands in the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court)

[eurosceptic]

What is partuicularly disturbing about this is the assertion that key info was withheld from the german parliament. Echo's of the info withheld from the british parliament re the iraq war.

[Pauli]

What is partuicularly disturbing about this is the assertion that key info was withheld from the german parliament. Echo's of the info withheld from the british parliament re the iraq war.

Indeed. What will be interesting to see is if those in Germany who are questioning the scope of Lisbon, as Prof. Murswiek does, get this into the constitutional court for the codified law version of judicial review. If they do, and the constitutional court rules that provisions of the Lisbon Treaty run contrary to the German constitution, then Lisbon is definitively dead since the German government will be restricted from supporting it. It's a long shot but possible.

[passthedutchie]

For everybody who will now jump up and shout: "I always knew it, and now an expert has confirmed it so this is definitive proof that Lisbon is evil!", please take some time to look at the background of Dietrich Murswiek: his reason for publishing is mainly to provoke controversial debate. So far so good, publishing hyphothetical theses to provoke debate is not uncommon in academia. Most of his wilder theories are quickly refuted by the majority of his colleagues. Moreover, Murswiek is not just some independent academic who happens to write about this topic, he is a known eurosceptic. He has a personal interest, often doing lucrative work for eurosceptic organizations. And FYI, he is already involved in the current case at the Bundesverfassungsgericht. Do you think it's a coincident that he suddenly happens to 'discover' this merely weeks before the BVerfG is expected to make its judgement?

And, for fear of being accused of putting irrelevant stuff into the discussion, let me not point at the fact that Murswiek was a prominent extreme right activist in his youth... (After all, dragging people's past indiscretions into the discussion is only the kind of thing eurosceptics do ehhh... all the time?!?!)

[Pauli]

For everybody who will now jump up and shout: "I always knew it, and now an expert has confirmed it so this is definitive proof that Lisbon is evil!", please take some time to look at the background of Dietrich Murswiek: his reason for publishing is mainly to provoke controversial debate. So far so good, publishing hyphothetical theses to provoke debate is not uncommon in academia. Most of his wilder theories are quickly refuted by the majority of his colleagues. Moreover, Murswiek is not just an independent academic who happens to write about this topic, he is a known eurosceptic. He has a personal interest, often doing lucrative work for eurosceptic organizations. And FYI, he is already involved in the current case at the Bundesverfassungsgericht. Do you think it's a coincident that he suddenly happens to 'discover' this merely weeks before the BVerfG is expected to make its judgement?

And, for fear of being accused of putting irrelevant stuff into the discussion, let me not point at the fact that Murswiek was a prominent extreme right activist in his youth... (After all, dragging people's past indiscretions into the discussion is only the kind of thing eurosceptics do ehhh... all the time?!?!)

Thanks for the additional information. It seems that the Bundesverfassungsgericht is where such matters are fought out in Germany and the decision, when it comes, could have serious repercussions for the treaty in general.

[marmurr1916]

Isn't the German Constitutional Court already deciding on whether or not the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with the German constitution?

Murswiek's opinion isn't going to affect the Treaty of Lisbon's ratification in Germany; it's the opinion of the German constitutional court that counts.

[Wakeupcall]

Just vote no, there are too many "fishey" scenarios from all sides and fronts to even warrant an attempt to trust "it".

[passthedutchie]

Isn't the German Constitutional Court already deciding on whether or not the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with the German constitution?

Murswiek's opinion isn't going to affect the Treaty of Lisbon's ratification in Germany; it's the opinion of the German constitutional court that counts.

Yes, and they have to give a motivation for their decision based only on the evidence presented to them during the hearings. So anything anyone writes now is irrelevant to the currently running case.

German experts are overwhelmingly expecting the BVerfG to give Lisbon the green light next month. Most of the criticism af Lisbon that was made during the hearing was about its style, rather than its content. (I personally would agree that, esthetically, Lisbon is a disaster, but what do you expect when so many people have to hammer out a compromise? What counts is that it's a long overdue, necessary piece of maintenance and an improvement compared to the current situation.)

[arnaudherve]

I didn't read every document yet, but I am impressed by the methodical clarity of the writing.

[ibis]

I didn't read every document yet, but I am impressed by the methodical clarity of the writing.

It is a complex and subtle argument...still, it boils down to "you have to accept the EU's 'constitutional' rules to be part of the EU, and as long as you are, you could say that the EU's constitution is superior to your own, because you have to stick to it to stay in".

The writer admits that countries can leave, but dismisses the possibility out of hand, because it nullifies the entire argument.