Well it’s not many times we say that but reading the judgement of the German Constitutional Court (in summary form at least) gives some very clear insights into EU integration and the Lisbon Treaty. It should also be noted that, around the internet anyway, the judgement has received plaudits form Lisbon yes and no supporters alike.
Most importantly of all the Karlsruhe Court audited Lisbon and the process of EU integration from a democratic standpoint an area where both often come in for unfair (in my view) criticism. The court places a huge emphasis on the concept of conferral which is of course more explicit in the Lisbon Treaty.
It has made some pithy summaries of how EU democracy works and how it does not
“in some fields of policy, the European Union has a
shape that corresponds to that of a federal state,
i.e. is analogous to that of a state. In contrast,
the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain
predominantly committed to the pattern of an international
organisation, i.e. are analogous to international law;”
The Court is clear that Lisbon does not create a superstate and maintains the foundations of integration in the member state. It even has some interesting points to make about EU and U.N. involvement (the latter in the field of peacekeeping and military operations)
“it is a voluntary, mutual commitment pari passu, which secures
peace and strengthens the possibilities of shaping policy by
joint coordinated action”
For those who believe Lisbon will lead to the sky falling in the Karlsruhe judges opine
“The authorisation to transfer sovereign powers to the European Union
pursuant to Article 23.1 GG is, however, granted under the condition that
the sovereign statehood of a constitutional state is maintained on the basis
of a responsible integration programme according to the principle of
conferral and respecting the Member States’ constitutional identity, and
that at the same time the Federal Republic of Germany does not lose its
ability to politically and socially shape the living conditions on its own
responsibility…It is not a federal state but remains an association of
sovereign states to which the principle of conferral applies. ”
Key to the German courts ruling was that the democratic nature of the EU principally through the European Parliament was not enough to “compensate” for powers that Germany had and was giving up but that critically the solution to this lay in changes to national law and practice in Germany and greater involvement of it’s national parliament.
The Irish courts have dealt with similar questions but obviously in a different context given our constitutional set up. The Crotty case was of course the seminal one which is believed to require a referendum on all EU Treaties in Ireland; however this also bears some more analysis. Crotty was principally decided on the issue of European Political Co-operation (the forerunner of CFSP) and the courts narrowly held that this was a new and innovative area for the EU and therefoe not envisaged by the accession referendum. Whether all treaties since would have passed or failed this test we will never know because the decision to have a referendum was made.
Politically the issue of parliamentary involvement in EU matters and legislation has figured in debates here although perhaps not enough in public debate. The interregnum between Nice 1 and 2 saw work in this area and the National Forum on Europe gave the subject a few outings. A new EU scrutiny Act was introduced and an Oireachtas Committee is dedicated to the task. Many may wish for more an if they do they need to look to Dublin not Brussels
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-072en.html