Posts Tagged Crotty Judgement
Brits In?…For Honesty!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on September 8th, 2009
Surely one of the greatest things about politics and public life in this country is that we have a written constitution. A relatively simple document (not counting millions of pages of judgements which are effectively part of it), which of course gives rise to our referendums on Europe.
The Crotty Judgement is often misinterpreted as meaning we have to have a referendum on every treaty. A careful read of it shows this is not the case. It is more accurate to say that only major transfers of sovereignty or changes in the nature and reach of the EU require referendums. As the Government has never published or really commented on the AG’s advice in this area it is hard to know the precise reasons for each referendum.
However it is reasonably clear that having a written constitution increases our prediliction for European referendums. We have seen fit to vote 6 times in 25 years on Europe putting us top of the referendum charts, with Lisbon 2 being our seventh go at relatively similar issues.
Such a fixation makes us prey for a whole load of others who have an interest in these topics. I suppose generally it is a good thing to have others take an interest and I don’t go along with the idea that it’s not anybody else’s business. However what I think most people would like to think was that outside involvement in a referendum here (remember SIPO makes it illegal for non Irish people to donate to a campaign) is at the invitation of Irish people or groups and respects some of the basics of our democracy and culture. In the end of the day I am far from convinced about it’s effectiveness anyway. Of late it is UK based groups that are showing a renewed interest in our debate. It’s a bit like the Battle of the Boyne all over again, English interests fighting out their European battles in Ireland.
Lisbon 2 promises to be a new watermark in this regard with UKIP and Nigel Farage promising to put in an appearance. UKIP of course welcomed the last Irish vote by using the national flag instead of beer mats in Kitty O’Sheas. A former leader opined that Ireland was a land of peasants and pixies and several of their MEPs have been prosecuted for various types of fraud and malpractice…takes all sorts I suppose
The Daily Mail’s Irish edition has similarly thrown it’s lot in with the Irish No campaign, along with the Trade Union Unite. While Unite have several Irish members they still like to categorise us as a region of somewhere…presumably the UK. The BNP European Election manifesto incidentally committed them to re-incorporating Ireland into the UK
Again I’m sanguine enough about all this and don’t believe in the little Irelander approach. What do these guys feel they will bring to the debate? Are our own naysayers not up to the job given that they have actually won two referendums.
Well one thing some of them bring is a good shot of honesty. UKIP state clearly that they wish to withdraw from the EU. Yes I said withdraw form the EU. Now nobody amongst the Irish No campaign on the surface advocates that. Of course they have campaigned against every referendum to date but they are all very clear in saying that the like Europe as it is. That’s quite a statement if you opposed all the building blocks that make it what it is like QMV, supremacy of EU law and the common institutions.
So roll on UKIP and their hangers on, let’s have the real debate that our No side won’t have. Under the surface many No campaigners don’t want the EU as it is, they oppose any move to QMV which brought us workers rights, better environmental legislation and the single market. They oppose the very notion of the EU Commisison which watches out for smaller states and pulls up the Microsoft’s of this world, they want only co-operation amongst independent states which is a charter for domination by the large states. They want no military role thus abandoning Bosnia, Kosovo and many more to the ethnic cleansers.
At least UKIP have the honesty to come out and say what the real agenda is, to leave the EU and to halt it’s progress. If only the Irish No campaign accorded us with the same honesty.
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