Archive for category Uncategorized
Durchgebratenes Deutschland
Posted by Michael in EU Law, The campaign, Uncategorized on July 21st, 2009
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
Abortion…difficult to understand?
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, Uncategorized on July 14th, 2009
This seems to be hard to understand for some reason (Maastricht Protocol)
“THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES
HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European
Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities:
Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities,
or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the
application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.”
Thus the latest ruse is the Charter on Fundamental Rights. However the charter itself states that it can only be used in relation to the EU Institutions and the implementation of EU law. The Charter states
“Article 51. Scope
- The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers.
- This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties.”
Therefore it cannot be used in relation to matters where the EU has no competence. EU law cannot be contradictory to the treaties. This is the most simple issue there could be in this debate and continuing attempts to misrepresent the position are clearly designed to ensure people are less not more informed in this debate.
European Defence Agency
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, Uncategorized on July 2nd, 2009
EU Supported Police in Kinshasa
For a number of people the European Defence Agency has become the bogey man of the Lisbon Treaty. Given the perceived complexity of the whole thing and perhaps due to the legally binding guarantees received by the Government this body provides an easy target after all it’s to do with guns and things so must be bad, right?
As with most aspects of European policy a closer examination provides a different picture. The European Defence Agency already exists having being established in 2004. The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to give a solid legal basis to the agency, rather like many agencies in Ireland which have existed on an administrative basis before been put on a statutory footing.
One of the big issues in the evolution of security and defence policy in the EU has been the difficulties in getting forces from several different countries to work together for example in peace-keeping missions in the Balkans. This can be down to different cultures, traditions and languages. However one of the main issues is the lack of interoperable equipment. This can lead to one set of communications systems not been compatible with another, troop transporters being unable to take equipment or radar or reconnaissance equipment not functioning correctly.
When we examine the historical tendency of cold war forces to be trained and orientated towards large scale battles on the plains of Europe as opposed to the inter ethnic strife that they have had to grapple with in the Balkans we can see that despite the rhetoric the EU is far form a military superpower. If it is to provide any assistance in solving conflict it needs to change. The entire point of defence and armaments co-operation in the EU is to address these problems, no more and no less.
Again as with all decisions of the EU the legal basis must be clear and the documentation establishing the EDA is available for all the see and read if they care to. The European Council acting under then Article 14 of the Treaty of European Union adopted Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP
On the 12th of July 2004.
The text of the founding document makes it clear that the EDA is subject to the Council of Ministers so cannot get involved in the military adventurism suggested by some. Such meetings will of course be totally open to the public on major matters should Lisbon be adopted.
Critically Article 2 of the founding document makes clear the mission of the Agency namely
“The mission of the Agency is to support the Council and the Member States in their effort to improve the EU’s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it stands now and develops in the future”
The European Security and Defence Policy is again set out in the Treaties, at the heart of it are the Petersberg Tasks which prioritise peace-keeping and crisis management, areas where Ireland has a considerable background and involvement. Thus the entire role and function of the EDA is to support the EU missions, not wantonly to sell arms around the world. Irish troops serve in several ESDP missions with Dail approval and under a U.N. mandate. Thus the work of the EDA is of critical importance to Ireland and to our foreign policy which informs our participation in such missions.
The ESDP currently has a number of active missions where Irish troops serve and many former ones. For example the provision of policing and security services in Bosnia, Policing and monitoring missions in Kosovo and Georgia. The list goes on to include the Congo, Chad, The Palestinian Authority. One might well ask where is the war mongering here? All these missions involve recovering societies from conflict and providing a new start. They are generally aligned with generous aid packages. This is the essence of the EU’s approach to security policy. It is in support of these missions that we have an EDA.
As with many aspects of the Lisbon debate the Government has moved to reassure the public about a variety of issues. Many people who have followed the integration process for a number of years do not see a great need for this but if these reassurances effectively reaffirm what people knew already what harm. Media reports suggest that legislation on the EDA is to be one of these. Insofar as this makes it clear that as with all aspects of ESDP participation is voluntary, such reassurance are helpful.
The Defence Agency in co-ordinating the defence activities in the member states in the areas of procurement and joint projects can also create more efficiencies and value for money. Despite constant repetition this does not necessarily incur extra expenditure; in many areas it will simply mean a different type of expenditure. For example the reduction in infantry and tank based divisions in favour of smaller special forces to deal with urbanised ethnic conflict and force separation would probably mean less cost. A greater emphasis on technology and dual use resources such as tactical transporters and close air support may also create efficiencies.
The United Nations Brahimi report on peace keeping in 2000 placed a particular emphasis on devolving these duties to regional actors. The EU has taken up the challenge. The U.N. and peacekeeping is at the centre of Irish foreign policy. The EDA assists Europe’s and Ireland’s efforts in this area and is a positive rather than a negative aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.