A major re-write?
If journalism is the first draft of history, I may have to go for a major re-write. How much can the be changed at an inter-governmental conference, which opens in July? told us for weeks that an agreement at last week鈥檚 summit would only be worthwhile if it was very, very clear. If all the major political points, and indeed the minor ones, were dealt with. They said that the civil servants would just be left with pulling the thing together and sorting out a few legal niceties. Every other government agrees with them. I certainly believed them. You might think this naive, but opponents of the treaty also argue that what it means is clear enough to demand a referendum.
So a couple of days ago I said that a senior academic was 鈥減lain wrong鈥, according to everyone I had talked to, when he argued in an interview that no-one could yet say what the treaty meant. I didn鈥檛 name him at the time, but he is , and he wrote to me very politely making a powerful case so I asked him if he could put his view here:
- "Visitors from Mars would look at the current state of play on the Reform Treaty with some bemusement. This group of European States, having come together ostensibly to produce the richest and most progressive region in the world, cannot even produce a document that anybody can understand or summarise. Is it significant enough for a referendum? What does it change? Nobody is quite sure. So-called experts come out with statements that appear empty, contradictory and arcane. If the visitor were a policeman, the words 'piss up' and 'brewery' might be mentioned. If they were a little green monster, they might take a bit of chewing gum and pop off in their space ship back home.
- There is a simple reason why this is so. The heads of state are intelligent people aided by intelligent people. If they had wanted a clear, comprehensive document, they would have written one. It is neither clear nor comprehensive because they did not want it to be these things.
- How do we know this?
- First, there is the length. The length is 16 pages, and a fair part of this is empty page or waffle. The agreed in 2004 is 482 pages long. The agreement, whilst it refers a lot to the constitutional treaty, is not intended to be, nor could it be at that length, a comprehensive resettlement of the latter.
- Secondly, there is the format. Normally, six months before an agreement (the current time-frame) one would have a framework document. This takes the form of a legal text with square brackets surrounding the points still to be agreed. There is no such detailed roadmap this time. Instead, the 16 pages contain a mixture of declarations ('No constitutional status for the Reform Treaty'); legal texts (the protocols with the UK opt-ins and outs); and instructions. Many of these instructions are vague, incomplete and even contradictory.
- Finally, civil servants say getting a final text by December will be a big ask, which would be odd if they only had to dot the i's.
- We also know why this is so. The Germans wanted to bring the matter to a head, after two years. Except there was a problem. Two-thirds of the member states had ratified the constitutional treaty and had indicated that the new treaty should be the same, with a few concessions for the individual trouble-makers. The other one-third did not see it this way. They not only had their individual red lines but thought the new treaty should be more modest in tone and substance than the old one. Otherwise, they would threaten a referendum.
How to bridge the gap? Here Angela Merkel played a blinder. The agreement states that the constitutional treaty will only be included in the Reform Treaty 'as specified in this mandate'. The one-third will argue the constitutional treaty matters only insofar as there are references to it in the document, and the rest is up for negotiation (as Geoff Hoon did on ). As the agreement is incomplete and only makes sense by looking at the constitutional treaty, others will argue that what has been agreed is, more or less, the constitutional treaty (the argument of the ).- Last week was significant and gave many important and detailed markers, but it has also allowed a lot of room for negotiation. In terms of giving the citizen a clear idea of what is going on, forget it!
- Let us take the , a hot issue for the UK.
- The bottom line for citizens is whether UK laws can be struck down for violating European Union fundamental rights and when this can take place.
- Well, the reality is that since 1990 national laws in quite wide areas of activity have been subject to European Union fundamental rights law. Only last December, for example, the UK was found to have violated them for designating an organisation a terrorist organisation. The charter is only one source amongst many of these fundamental right laws. Others include international human rights treaties and national constitutional traditions all of which are synthesised by the to generate its interpretation of a European fundamental right.
- When do these laws apply? The remit of these fundamental rights laws seem to be extended by the latest agreement to cover national measures involving policing and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, as these policies are now to be treated in the same manner to other policies. This would be a significant extension, although the agreement does make clear that national security is the sole responsibility of member states.
- So would the UK be subject to this 鈥 the extension of the remit of fundamental rights laws to policing and judicial co-operation in criminal matters - and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Well, we have an opt-out from the charter but not other fundamental rights norms... and here is the catch, all the charter claims to do is 'confirm' these other fundamental rights norms. It would be open to any court to find a violation of both sets of norms - and a violation of one would entail a violation of the other - and so the UK would still get caught. But this goes against the spirit of the opt-out, so maybe not...
- But what about the opt-in to police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, does it not protect us? It is true we will not participate in future legislation in these fields unless we wish. We are bound, however, by existing laws and decisions of the existing bodies (eg and ). Moreover, in relation to EU fundamental rights, these bind member states when they are acting within the field of EU law. Even if we have decided not to opt in to legislation here, we are still operating within this field (of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) and are therefore potentially bound by EU fundamental rights norms.
- And one final spanner to throw in the works. The EU established a earlier this year to check EU legislative proposals are compatible with, among other things, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Will the UK be bound by it insofar as its rulings on the charter affect EU legislation applicable in the UK?
- Confused? There will also be a few civil servants scratching their heads..."
So is the cat alive or dead? Will we really not find out until October? And I do promise to start writing about something else soon. Possibly. I think I am turning into one of those people others steer clear of in the corridors of Westminster.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Whenever there is ambiguity in EU treaties, it is up to the ECJ to say what European law really is. And whenever the ECJ makes a ruling, it always takes into account the preamble commitment to 'ever closer union' to interpret European treaties to the maximum integrationist extent possible. This cannot go on. We need a European Constitutional Court, populated by members of national Supreme Courts (or Constitutional courts where they exist) with the power of judicial review in matters relating to the competence of the EU. This Constitutional Court should be empowered to strike down EU acts or rulings that would extend EU competence beyond that intended by the member states that signed the European treaties. These treaties are now so complex that the scope for the ECJ to decide what they mean without checks on their integrationist activism can no longer be tolerated. This should be one item discussed in the IGC.
All this obfuscation about EU documents is depressing. I am a "federalist", I guess you could say, but I too deplore the lack of democracy in the EU and the confusion surrounding documents. Unfortunately, this befuddlement is because of the need to include all member states at each progressive treaty. As in, everybody needs to agree to a treaty - including Eurosceptic nations such as Britain and Europhile nations such as Spain. Consequently, the ensuing treaty ends up being so confused as to be almost unreadable...I believe that since what Britain basically wants from the EU is a free trade zone, it should be allowed to leave and join the EFTA (essentially, the economic benefits only). Otherwise, it just retards the progress of all other members. And apparently, the British don't want to be in Europe either...
There is an other point that it is worth of being mentioned: even if national security is explicity said to be the sole responsability of Member States in an other place it is said that the Union will be responsable for its own security... what does it mean? That there will be national security agencies in the Memeber States and a common European security agency for the whole? How they will determine when the security is just a national one or a common one?
This beast has certainly taken on a life of it's own and will drag our cart further down a road of imposed options. As for rights: when an old person in a retirment home does not fall under the additional protection of the human rights act if the home is private makes one wonder what the point of it all actually is.
With the Fundamental Rights Agency, the EU is trying to undermine that other organization (the Council of Europe, not to be confused with the European Council which IS part of the EU).
With the Rapid Reaction Force, the EU is trying to undermine NATO. The EU apparently does not like competition.
As for the 'new' treaty. In theory, the Intergovernmental Conference could throw the draft treaty given to them by the European Council into the trashcan. The European Council did not and does not have any legal right to limit the IGC's mandate. So theoretically, all it takes is 1 veto and the entire treaty is dead (again).
I share Toader Mateo's viewpoint. Since Britain is only inteerested in the market aspect of the Union, why doesn't it join the European Economic Area (EEA) where it would benefit from the free trade without having to incur the costs of the EU ?
Mark Mardell would also be able to return to covering Westminster which he probably prefers to the Berlaymont.
The funny thing about this discussion between member countries is that they all agreed to the changes in the institutional sector three years ago (the biggest part of the "Constition is actually the reacceptance of previous treaties, signed and ratified by the then memberes and accepted as "acquis communautaire" by the more recent entrants. If only Giscard hadn't prressed for the inclusion of all these treaties, we might not be in the present mess. And I wonder what exactly the British have against the Charter of basic rights, Do they consider that the Magna Carta is good enough (though it was written by and for the barons)
I really don't understand the arguments about the latest EU Treaty.
I have been reading an article from the German newspaper 'Der Spiegel Online'
It contains statements from practically every country in the EU.
Every one of them (except Britain of course) says that the Reform Treaty is just the Constitutional Treaty under another name. To quote the Spanish spokesman Diego Lopez Garrido, "99% of the Constitution has survived, (quoted in El Pais on 25 June. He also said about the Foreign Minister post, and again I quote "If your name is Maria, you can call yourself Jane but you will still do Maria's job"
And yes Mark, Chalmers is the daddy when it comes to EU law! His book on EU Law is now the must read/first point of reference textbook for EU law students, and promises to have the standing of its celebrated predecessor by Paul Craig and Grainne de Burca... worth a read if you have time...
John
"This cannot go on. We need a European Constitutional Court, populated by members of national Supreme Courts (or Constitutional courts where they exist) with the power of judicial review in matters relating to the competence of the EU. This Constitutional Court should be empowered to strike down EU acts or rulings that would extend EU competence beyond that intended by the member states that signed the European treaties."
Err... that is a near perfect description of ECJ! - the only tiny difference is that in addition to top judges, high level legal academics or legal advisers can also be nominated to the Court.
Furthermore, if you were familiar with its caselaw you would be aware of the fact that it has been more cautious in recent years as the EU has entered into more sensitive areas of competence. The principle of subsidiarity is used increasing and the ECJ has been cautious in granting implied powers in the field of external relations.
Marcel
"With the Rapid Reaction Force, the EU is trying to undermine NATO."
No it is trying to achieve sythesis and value for money - according to the MOD in 2005 EU-wide we currently spend a third of the US defence budget and yet have 10% of its deployable military capability. Why because we don't work together and are over-reliant on NATO assets. It doesn't necessarily mean undermining NATO either we could see a Europe more capable of shouldering more the defence and security burden (which the US wants us to do) and see the UK in the privileged position of gatekeeper in the transatlantic alliance!
"The EU apparently does not like competition."
Nonsense - the French people do not like it and Sarkozy is an opportunist. The Commission and the ECJ have been enforcing competition rules across Europe for years and have been streets ahead of most member states in this area (with the notable exception of Germany).
John S #6 wonders what the British have against the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The problem is not the Charter but how the ECJ would use jurisdiction in this area to advance 鈥榚ver closer union鈥. This Court has a long tradition of interpreting objectives in European treaties in ways that those countries signing the treaty could never have imagined. For example the seemingly innocuous objective of 鈥榚quality of men and women鈥 has been used by the ECJ to equalise age thresholds for pension eligibility that has lead to massive restructuring of the pensions industry throughout Europe. The Charter of Fundamental Rights includes a long list of human and social rights (one of which is equality of men and women) that would give the ECJ very extensive room in which to extend EU competence through its rulings. Indeed the Charter of Fundamental Rights arguably only exists for this purpose since many of its provisions are covered already by the entirely separate European Convention on Human Rights to which each EU member state is already a signatory. The reason that EU Federalists want the Charter to be incorporated into a resurrected EU Constitution is not simply to make it legally binding, but to make the 鈥榩oliticians in black robes鈥 at the ECJ the supreme arbiter of what is law in the areas covered by this Charter. 鈥淕overnment of the Judges鈥 always usurps the powers of the legislature (Parliament) and the people they represent. It is not acceptable at national level and is still less so at supranational level when European law has supremacy over that from any democratic parliament for 490 million people.
Im mostly and deeply disturbed by the fact that for the sake of the signing of the treaty, major European countries allowed several countries to have a special treatment regarding (and for me it is considered) the abolition of basic human rights and freedoms. The fact that the UK, Ireland and mainlz Poland have special treatment regarding the The Charter of Fundamental Rights is applaing. I am czech and I am most alarmed by the political directionin Poland and I simply cannot understand how such politics can be tolerated in a new and hopefully modern EU. Poland has got a special clause allowing it to deal as its see fit with laws regarding "morality" and everyone knows whats it all about. Laws like illegal gathering is illegal if its contituted of Gays.... banning gays from education and firing the rest as its so dangerous to the minds of the young generation... whats next? Poland LOVES to use the holocaust in its rhetorics almost constantly to show what a victim it was and I do presume that it will use this chord for a very long time but more and more people see now that its just a broken chord that doesnt have an affect anymore. If I may use the same argumentation then I would like to call to the attention of the Polish is that so many of then died in the II WW exactly due to the hateredand illiminationi and segregation of onepart of the society for one reason or other and that gays are at the same level for me as any other Holocaust victim whether it was a jew, disabled or any other minority that were targeted then.
Im gay but whats next? Is there an up to date guide of Poland on the internet that will show me where I can go and which parts are off limits? Which restaurants I may enter and which will have "straights only"?!!!!!!!!!!
oh...and one last thing... where can I buy the mandatory badge (inverted pink triangle) upon visiting Poland? I guess I shouldnt worry too much, I bet they are on ale in the airport upon arrival...
shame, shame and once more shame on all who sat quiet and let this happen.
Professor Chalmers reminds us of a long standing provision of the Treaties which is that once the Community has competence in a given policy area, member states are required not to bring forward legislation in that area that might conflict with Community policy aims.
If the new Treaty, when drafted, gives the Community the power to determine how member states must co-operate in police and judicial affairs (regarding criminal matters), I cannot see what the UK can do if it wants to coperate with other member states in these areas, except by going along with the methods determined by the Community. The supposed "opt in" appears, therefore, to be meaningless.
Stick with it Mark. Don't worry about turning into the sort of person people in Westminster turn away from. Most MPs have their head in the sand on Europe, not wanting to recognise that Westminster's legislative powers have long been limited by the fact that Community law is supreme.
Presumably, British politicians' obsessive focus, reinforced via the popular press, on the so called "loss of political autonomy" in an evil, undemocratic and subversive socialist EU is nothing more than a smoke screen to obscure the real loss of British autonomy as a US satelite.
As long as the supreme wisdom of "free market forces" cannot be seriously discussed -then there can be no real democracy -and "politics" becomes simply another tool for social engineering -together with education and the media.
Now it seems that the propaganda system has reached the limits of sustainability. So there is perhaps a small window of opportunity for a radical rethink of the consequences of current policies and beliefs.
Only one thing is clear about the draft treaty is that it will lead to enabling Acts in individual countries in line with common European practice. When the heat has subsided and the dust has settled what will be enabled may be a bit clearer. However it is clear there will be more pooled responsibilty and more co-ordination in both internal and exterior affairs. I also have a strong feeling that the main Contintal countrs such as France, Germany and Spain have got just a bit fed up with what they see as British obstructionism and self importance. I expect a much more 'take or leave it' attitude from now on. I am also fairly sure they have a plan 'B', devise by France and Spain, if Britain does not sign up which the British Government will not like one little bit! It might, however, be very good for the British people.
It's been a while since I studied the European Union in great detail, but this line in the professor's ramble stood out to me:
"We are bound, however, by existing laws and decisions of the existing bodies (eg Europol and Eurojust)."
Europol is still just a body designed to facilitate cooperation among EU police forces, right? I don't remember it ever being given decision making power over any field. Eurojust too; a facilitator for judicial cooperation not a decision making body.
Maybe I've misinterpreted him or maybe my memory is wrong?
Mark
Politics is the art of the possible. I do not agree with Damian that the mandate lacks clarity. It is in fact very presciptive indeed. The UK Government got what it wanted which was precisely a lack of clarity on the question of the Charter. It was more interested in the headline message that we have not given anything away. Other academics (I am one) are therefore less confused by the outcome in legal or political terms. The political challenge last weekend was how to preserve the main innovations introduced by the Constititional Treaty and at the same time respond to the political situation in the United Kingdom, Poland and to a lesser extent France and Holland. This was successfully negotiated. Damian should bear in mind that National Governments play to national publics and media and not for those of us who want to know about, or make sense of, the development of mega project. It is part of the multi-level governance problem and not surprisingly gives rise to some confusion and lack of clarity. This, in my view, explains part of the problem Damian identifies from the UK perpsective as it relates to the Charter. In my view -again. Virtually all of the institutional and substantive provisions of the Constitutional Treaty have been saved and will be inserted or attached to the two parts of the Reform Treaty. We will not however use the C word because words do matter and there is no point upsetting the the UK press and public opinion - not only in the UK -unnecessarily. Though Damian knows as well as I that the ECJ described the Treaties as the constitutional charter of the EU/EC years ago. The UK has had confirmed and clarified what it had already obtained in the 2004IGC. For my part I do not think they have negotiated substantial opt-outs that they did not already have, nor was there as desire to do so. The IGC starting later this month will probably have to confront the Polish question (or problem) once again if the Polish Government forgets what it agreed -which seems likely judging by the recent words of their PM. However, I do not think that the French - the UK having spent its political capital by claiming that it has not given anything away - will try and accommodate the Poles, as they did last weekend, if they try and reopen the QMV weightings and time of introduction question again. This could result in Poland being the first Member State to exclude itself from membership the Union. The EU is not quite like any other organisation established by international law treaty. That is what makes it a unique type of international organisation. I am not sure that the Polish Government is aware of that political fact.
Mike Turvey #9 says 鈥渢hat is a near perfect description of ECJ!鈥. The ECJ has a number of functions, including an unchecked power of judicial review that may extend the competence of EU law. A Constitutional Court would be an independent organization set up in parallel to the European Court of Justice, to deal solely with questions of distinguishing between competencies of the supranational institutions and those of member states. The ECJ has repeatedly demonstrated that it represents the supranational interest, where as this Constitutional Court should be independent of them. It must therefore be made up of members from the Constitutional courts (or Supreme Courts) of the Member States. It should be able to review acts of the Commission and the European Parliament and verdicts of the ECJ where distinguishing between competencies of the EU and member states is material to the verdict. This is clearly a distinct function separate from the wider role of the ECJ as a court of reference to provide a common meaning of European law across the different member states WITHIN the legitimate competences that they have conferred upon the EU as would be determined by this Constitutional Court.
In relation to the original question raised by Mark Mardel as to what scope the IGC has to change the draft treaty agreed by the European Council, I can only say that the IGC will clearly be an intergovernmental conference where the states that happen to be members of the EU will exercise their official sovereignty. It will therefore have a higher legal authority than the European Council (which is a simple body of the European Union) and will be able (even if it will be difficult in practice) to change the decisions taken in Brussels on June 21-23. The experience of the European Convention in largely ignoring the mandate of the Laeken Declaration further shows that Council decisions are not set in stone. And of course any treaty will still require ratification which is by no means assured when faced with massive public opposition.
Something one should keep in mind in considering Professor Chalmers鈥檚 comments on the text of the draft reform treaty is that academics can make anything seem complicated.
The prospects for negotiating a final reform treaty in the next few months depend less on the nature of the draft text than on whether enough political momentum was generated at the Brussels summit to conclude the treaty negotiations. If the momentum can be sustained, the Brussels text will seem clear to all concerned; if it isn鈥檛, negotiators will become sensitive to any cracks in the text, real or contrived.
The change in Mark Mardell鈥檚 perception does not indicate a positive outcome. As the Brussels summit ended, he must have felt that the political will existed and therefore discarded Professor Chalmers鈥檚 comments. Now, perhaps stimulated by refractory noises coming from Warsaw and doubts in London, his instincts seem to be telling him that the political momentum is flagging, so his brain is more open to the professor鈥檚 quibbles.
It will be interesting to see whether there has been a similar sea change in government sentiment.
Farouk, your post shows that you do not know history of Europe. For your information - during WW II - 6 millions citizens of Poland have been killed. Half of them were jewish origin... Your statement that Poland is using holocaust in its rethoric is simply untrue.
Moreover your post shows that you do not know Poland either.... Have you ever been in Poland?
Am I alone in picking up a rather arcane but potentially fatal legal problem with the draft reform treaty?
In response to Dutch pressure to involve national parliaments more in EU decision-making, the treaty (to be signed by heads-of-government and/or state) purports to set out the role that EU parliaments "will" play in scrutinizing and potentially rejecting proposed EU legislation. Maybe your US readers will appreciate that - under a doctrine of separation of powers - it is not the business of the executive branch, by way of a treaty, to tell the legislative branch how it should spend its time on a day-to-day basis. [Imagine how the US Congress would react if a treaty signed by the President required it to change its existing committee structures!] If, for example, any national parliament didn't want to allocate time to scrutinize potential EU legisaltion, it wouldn't be up to that country's president to tell it to do so, still less the EU to declare the legislature to be in breach of a treaty to which it was not a party. A broader "constitution" might be able to get round this difficulty, but a plain-vanilla treaty (not requiring a referendum) that purports to "bind the legislature's hands" is legally ticklish in a number of EU countries. Despite the eminently sensible - indeed democratic and "inclusive" - intentions behind the Dutch suggestion, and despite the tradition of active scrutiny of executive decisions in the Nordic countries, it is the Nordic legislators that are raising the loudest legal objections through various inter-parliamentary channels. As always, it is the unintended consequences that prove the hardest to overcome.
I think a number of the comments -- and the discussion of this issue elsewhere -- miss the crucial point that Professor Chalmers makes, ie that the EU already protects human rights via means of its 'general principles of law', and that the UK will be bound by this, just as it is at present, despite its opt-out from the Charter.
The history of human rights as general principles of EU law over 35-odd years is that the EU's Court of Justice has been fairly conservative on the whole in ruling on their scope (ie for the rights to apply, there must a link to EU law) and on the content of the rights. (The Court has, for instance, shot down every gay rights argument that has come before it). So it seems unlikely that the Court would suddenly take a more radical approach to the Charter if it were legally binding, especially since the Court has already said that the Charter merely 'reaffirms' the existing general principles (Case C-540/03).
If this continues to be the case once the Charter becomes binding, then the Charter would not change the status quo at all, and the UK's opt-out from the Charter would prove unnecessary. But if the Court suddenly decides to become radical about human rights protection when interpreting the Charter, then the UK has insured itself against this.
Then again, the UK has not insured itself against a radical change in approach to the existing general principles by the Court.
The underlying question is therefore whether the Court can be trusted not to 'go wild' or not -- most critics of the Treaty appear to believe that the Court will behave as 'badly' as possible, but there are only a few cases over the last 14 years or so that would justify this fear.
As for the UK's participation in policing and criminal law matters with other Member States, if the UK uses its opt-out in future in this area, there would still be scope for the UK to sign bilateral treaties with other Member States, and to continue criminal law cooperation with EU and non-EU members alike by means of treaties within the Council of Europe legal framework (ie a separate system from the EU).
Mike Turvey #9 says 鈥渢hat is a near perfect description of ECJ!鈥. The ECJ has a number of functions, including an unchecked power of judicial review that may extend the competence of EU law. A Constitutional Court would be an independent organization set up in parallel to the European Court of Justice, to deal solely with questions of distinguishing between competencies of the supranational institutions and those of member states. The ECJ has repeatedly demonstrated that it represents the supranational interest, where as this Constitutional Court should be independent of them. It must therefore be made up of members from the Constitutional courts (or Supreme Courts) of the Member States. It should be able to review acts of the Commission and the European Parliament and verdicts of the ECJ where distinguishing between competencies of the EU and member states is material to the verdict. This is clearly a distinct function separate from the wider role of the ECJ as a court of reference to provide a common meaning of European law across the different member states within the competences that they have conferred upon the EU.
In relation to Mark Mardel 鈥榮 question as to what scope the IGC has to change the draft treaty agreed by the European Council, the IGC will clearly be an intergovernmental conference where the states that happen to be members of the EU will exercise their official sovereignty. It will therefore have a higher legal authority than the European Council (which is a simple body of the European Union) and will be able (even if it will be difficult in practice) to change the decisions taken in Brussels on June 21-23. The experience of the European Convention in largely ignoring the mandate of the Laeken Declaration further shows that Council decisions are not set in stone.
Nick at 20 - I would suspect that the Treaty is unlikely to interfere to such an extent as to organising the parliamentary ordre du jour. And besides do you really see them throwing their hands up in horror at the prospect of being given a say in EU legislation?
John at 17 (and at 22)
"Constitutional Court would be an independent organization set up in parallel to the European Court of Justice"
While I appreciate the potential merits in having a specialised Constitutional Chamber perhaps you could explain further what value a separate Court would add.
"It must therefore be made up of members from the Constitutional courts (or Supreme Courts) of the Member States."
How about the Constitutional Courts of Member States? :P Cheap shots aside, the potentially large caseload and the practicalities of sitting together as a Court would require a permanent seat. The judges may not be able to keep up their day jobs in their national Courts and avoid doing what I presume you seek to avoid: "going native". Ultimately, I am not convinced that a newly constituted Court would take a different approach to the ECJ on the Constitutional issues of the day. As I have said before the doctrines of implied powers and the principle of effectiveness that have previously seen the Court dubbed as a motor for integration have been less liberally interpreted as the EU has beyond the economic into more sensitive areas of national policy.
Professor Peers at 21.
For me, one of the most interesting questions that the new Treaty raises and will hopefully answer will be the scope of application of the fundamental rights in the EU. They will apply either 'within the scope of EU law' or 'within its field of application' [to paraphrase the language used by the Court in Grogan]. There may be a subtle difference depending on which terms are used as the latter may be a broader concept. A narrow interpretation could mean that it covers only EU measures themselves and national implementing measures. A broad interpretation might extend their application into essentially national situations where the most tenuous cross-border element is enough to engage EU law. (Compare the case of Grogan with the cases of Wachauf and Annibaldi).
The latter aproach could stir up tension both with the Member States and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In my view it should be avoided, but aware of your expertise in this area I would be interested to here your views...
Mike Turvey at 23 makes a fair point: but I'm only reporting what I've heard through the inter-parliamentary grapevine. I still think it is a little impertinent for the treaty to "give" national parliaments an eight-week "use it or lose it" window to lodge a reasoned objection to proposed EU legislation. Surely this time limit risks forcing them to change their working practices: will the UK have to abandon the near-sacred "party conference season" for example? And what happens to the summer recess in the event of a whole raft of fresh draft legislation emerging in the last week of June? Securing parliamentary ratification may not be the doddle everyone is hoping for!
Replying comment no.19.by Radzio "wrote:Farouk, your post shows that you do not know history of Europe. For your information - during WW II - 6 millions citizens of Poland have been killed. Half of them were jewish origin... Your statement that Poland is using holocaust in its rethoric is simply untrue. Moreover your post shows that you do not know Poland either.... Have you ever been in Poland?"
Dear Dadzio.. I always like and tend to base my points of views on facts. unlike your "dductions" about my lack of knowledge in hsitory and of Poland. Just ot set it straight, I am a political science major so I have a little bit of knowledge of what went on including the tragic history of the 6 million Jews dying in the II WW however I havent seen you stressed about the fact that there were many many people killed in concentration camps on the basis of their race (not only non arians but Gypsies whoa re being treated appaulingly till today in Europe), physical incapacities (handicapped) and sexual orientation (gays and lesbians). My knowledge of Poland is sufficient and yes I have been to Poland numerable times for tourism as well as for business. My deductions comes from day to day assessment of the political realities of Poland and this is what worries me. There is a VISIBLE shift into a more strict (dare I say dangerous) non constructive approach in politics and diplomacy. Poland is gambling relying on its size and lately it was evident that even Central European countries are weary of supporting Poland in some issues as Poland always SHIFTS and chooses who suits its best. One day it is Europe and the next the USA. The way Poland acts and acted lost it many valuable friends. My statement of Poland using the holocaust as a tool is regretable and it is not nice to hear, hoewver i consider it true. Our history is filled with tragedy and I believe it is time for Poland to relly be a constructive part in Europe and the EU (reconciliation) instead of shooting right and left about how hurt they are and that everyone is bad and thus they deserve a special treatment. 6 million died in Poland and yet the government is STRICTLY discriminating against gays and lesbians...for me according to history, these people are as well part of the story of the WWII and as well survovors... werent there pink triangles along side the yellow davids star?
I love Poland and visit often ..I even founded an office in Warsaw for business however the political scene is in shambles, religion takes a big chunk of policies which for me as a Czech is a dangerous and non welcome outcome...and for me and from what I see... miles away from true diplomacy.
This is only but a part of the "debate" about the document craeted...