3 ms·

Yup. Then they rename it and/or break it up, and push it anyway. See EU constitutions, repeated referendums, and finally "treaty of Lisbon".

dane-pgp 8y ago
There was one attempt at passing a constitution for the EU (the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"), which had to be ratified by all member states to take effect. Most states did in fact ratify it, but a single referendum held in France, and one in the Netherlands, rejected the idea of giving the EU a constitution. Later, most of the reforms that were part of the TCE were repackaged into a more modestly-scoped treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, as you say. This time, though, all the "constitutional" language was removed, to make it clear that the EU is a collection of sovereign nations, as is still the case today. To give some examples of what was removed, the Lisbon Treaty does not give any official status to the EU flag or anthem, nor does it have an article that enforces the supremacy of EU law over national legislation. One might say that the EU was guilty of hubris, or even a cynical negotiating tactic of asking for more than they expected before settling for what they were prepared to accept, but the EU did at least reduce their demands after they failed to receive unanimous approval. I think that a lot of the fears about the Treaty of Lisbon have been proven wrong since then, and of course the irony is that it was the Treaty of Lisbon that first formally introduced a process for a state to leave the union, which the UK is now in the process of exercising. Whether that process is being managed well or not by the UK government is still a matter for local debate, though, it seems.
- matthewheath 8y ago
  > an article that enforces the supremacy of EU law over national legislation. For those unfamiliar with EU law, the Treaty of Lisbon didn't /need/ to include this particular article, so I don't know why they chose to originally (as the parent commenter says, it has since been removed). The reason the article was superfluous is that EU law is always supreme to national law. This is a core legal concept developed by the European Court of Justice. I agree that fears over the Treaty of Lisbon were overblown, and grateful that it established an exit mechanism for Member States wanting to leave. That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me.
  - nkkollaw 8y ago
    > EU law is always supreme to national law Are you sure about this?
    - matthewheath 8y ago
      Yes, but I'm happy to be corrected if you know otherwise? I'm not an EU lawyer, but my understanding is that EU law has supremacy over national law that would otherwise conflict. For example, the Factortame case required the UK Supreme Court (known then as the House of Lords) to set aside an Act of Parliament to comply with EU law at the time.
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    > That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me. If someone offers you a cup of tea, and you decline, do you get offended if they then offer you cup of coffee instead? Even if the question being asked were exactly the same, it would only be like a piece of software asking "Are you sure?" before you delete something, or providing a cancel button after the process has started. I concede, though, that you're absolutely right about the supremacy of EU law being a principle clearly recognised by the ECJ. The difference is, by not putting this principle as an article to the treaty, it remains slightly less binding on signatories (under international law), since it relies on the evolving precedent of the court, rather than being agreed up front. Now let me explain the logic of this supremacy principle. If a sovereign nation agrees to be part of an organisation which creates laws that apply to its members, then those new laws apply just as a new law passed by a national government would apply. This follows the basic legal principle of "lex posterior derogat priori", but moreover there is the principle of statutory interpretation which means that a national parliament can't "accidentally" pass a law which contradicts existing EU law. A member state, remaining sovereign, may choose to deliberately pass a law, knowing it will put them in breach of EU law, but that would also put them in breach of international law, which courts generally assume governments aim to avoid. In any case, it would be churlish for a member state to deliberately break the commitments it made as part of joining the union when there exists a mechanism by which it can leave and disapply all EU law.

dane-pgp 8y ago

There was one attempt at passing a constitution for the EU (the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"), which had to be ratified by all member states to take effect. Most states did in fact ratify it, but a single referendum held in France, and one in the Netherlands, rejected the idea of giving the EU a constitution. Later, most of the reforms that were part of the TCE were repackaged into a more modestly-scoped treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, as you say. This time, though, all the "constitutional" language was removed, to make it clear that the EU is a collection of sovereign nations, as is still the case today. To give some examples of what was removed, the Lisbon Treaty does not give any official status to the EU flag or anthem, nor does it have an article that enforces the supremacy of EU law over national legislation. One might say that the EU was guilty of hubris, or even a cynical negotiating tactic of asking for more than they expected before settling for what they were prepared to accept, but the EU did at least reduce their demands after they failed to receive unanimous approval. I think that a lot of the fears about the Treaty of Lisbon have been proven wrong since then, and of course the irony is that it was the Treaty of Lisbon that first formally introduced a process for a state to leave the union, which the UK is now in the process of exercising. Whether that process is being managed well or not by the UK government is still a matter for local debate, though, it seems.

matthewheath 8y ago
> an article that enforces the supremacy of EU law over national legislation. For those unfamiliar with EU law, the Treaty of Lisbon didn't /need/ to include this particular article, so I don't know why they chose to originally (as the parent commenter says, it has since been removed). The reason the article was superfluous is that EU law is always supreme to national law. This is a core legal concept developed by the European Court of Justice. I agree that fears over the Treaty of Lisbon were overblown, and grateful that it established an exit mechanism for Member States wanting to leave. That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me.
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  > EU law is always supreme to national law Are you sure about this?
  - matthewheath 8y ago
    Yes, but I'm happy to be corrected if you know otherwise? I'm not an EU lawyer, but my understanding is that EU law has supremacy over national law that would otherwise conflict. For example, the Factortame case required the UK Supreme Court (known then as the House of Lords) to set aside an Act of Parliament to comply with EU law at the time.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  > That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me. If someone offers you a cup of tea, and you decline, do you get offended if they then offer you cup of coffee instead? Even if the question being asked were exactly the same, it would only be like a piece of software asking "Are you sure?" before you delete something, or providing a cancel button after the process has started. I concede, though, that you're absolutely right about the supremacy of EU law being a principle clearly recognised by the ECJ. The difference is, by not putting this principle as an article to the treaty, it remains slightly less binding on signatories (under international law), since it relies on the evolving precedent of the court, rather than being agreed up front. Now let me explain the logic of this supremacy principle. If a sovereign nation agrees to be part of an organisation which creates laws that apply to its members, then those new laws apply just as a new law passed by a national government would apply. This follows the basic legal principle of "lex posterior derogat priori", but moreover there is the principle of statutory interpretation which means that a national parliament can't "accidentally" pass a law which contradicts existing EU law. A member state, remaining sovereign, may choose to deliberately pass a law, knowing it will put them in breach of EU law, but that would also put them in breach of international law, which courts generally assume governments aim to avoid. In any case, it would be churlish for a member state to deliberately break the commitments it made as part of joining the union when there exists a mechanism by which it can leave and disapply all EU law.