4 ms·

Pardon my ignorance but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? In other words, is the EU a treaty union like th

by _8j50 4y ago

Pardon my ignorance but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? In other words, is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU?

flir 4y ago
Some aspects of member states' sovereignty have been "temporarily loaned on a permanent basis" might be a good way of putting it. As evidenced by the UK withdrawing. More of the former than the latter.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? ehhh, kind of? > is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU? its not exactly a one-to-one comparison with anywhere, but its easy to find an individual country's head of state or representatives saying - in a positive way - that they have given up sovereignty for a stronger many country union. additionally, the top EU court is still coming into its own, with its recent rulings over the last decade being more analogous to the US Supreme Court's "Marbury v. Madison" moment, where it kind of just noticed its finality and gravity and actually exercised that. But one key difference is that the ECJ is not simultaneously an appellate court. So national courts are still silo'd in their own country's processes, with the additional ability to weigh in on ECJ decisions and rulings. While the ECJ deals directly with union law. so, its happening. but kind of.
cm2187 4y ago
It’s a grey area. EU laws are senior to local laws (though in theory EU countries are supposed to translate those laws to local laws). But I do not believe EU laws are senior to local constitutions. Though people argued they were when a polish court stated that they are not. Not convinced this is really settled.
- soco 4y ago
  I don't know the Polish constitution but Romania when joining wrote in its own constitution that EU laws are senior, so that is that. Also in general, international accords and treaties are always senior - so one should pay attention when signing them, not years later.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    I don't think it is the case. The french constitution explicitely refers to the lisbon treatee, so it may be that european treaties are senior to the french constitution. But in general I don't think that international treaties are senior to a constitution. Not the least because treaties are typically ratified by the parliament, and the constitution is there to limit the authority of what the parliament or executive can decide to do. So a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify a treaty that goes against the constitution of the country without the constitution being changed. The notion of "international law" itself is also a bit murky. It implies that there is some sort of authority above countries to enforce this law, but there isn't. Countries are sovereign. If the legitimate authority of a country decides to walk away from a treaty, nothing prevents that. It is international law in the sense that it applies to the citizen of the country, as long as the country has the will to adhere to the treaty. History is full of broken treaties (in fact most of them end up that way sooner or later), including very recent examples (territorial integrity of Ukraine).
    - soco 4y ago
      Of course treaties get broken all the time, but the point is you cannot break them and (claim to) uphold them at the same time. You also say, a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify, but what if they did? The commission didn't check thoroughfully and issued a recommmendation, the party discipline voted for it and lo, you have a treaty contradicting the constitution - as somebody is bound to discover later. Now what? Real life is complicated... As for the authority to enforce it, again EU has it - the ECJ, and quite active at that. So coming back to earth, if the ECJ says the decision is binding, it's not their problem if it contradicts the constitution of Poland - that's Poland's problem and they will have to live with whatever consequences of not applying the decision. And they can always quit the EU and its treaties if they don't like the package, no biggie.
TacticalCoder 4y ago
Not really but when a EU directive is decided, the member states have x months to translate it into national law. It's still the law of the specific country that applies: but, simply, each country has to adopt the EU directive. It's kinda more complicated than this as many european states are divided into regions, so for many matters it's not even the individual states transposing the EU directives into national laws but regions transposing the EU directive into regional laws. One example would be the EU deciding, a few years ago, that the age for cars to be considered "old timers" is 30 years. Before that some regions had 20 years, others 25, others 30, etc. Then all the regions had to adapt their legislation. In a single country, like Belgium, the three regions all transposed the laws in varying ways (and at different times). But in the end the result is the same: all european regions have "harmonized" the notion that an oldtimer is a vehicule 30 years old or older. Now there are several matters on which the EU has no authority whatsoever. For example the EU has no fiscal authority: fiscality is decided by the countries/regions and the EU can shut the fuck up. (so far).
- tdhoot 4y ago
  What happens if there is a grandstanding region that simply refuses or can't get it passed into local law due to a euroskeptic local government?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Sternly worded emails.
calpaterson 4y ago
It is disputed. German judges have held that the answer is "no, the EU is not a state, just an transnational organisation" but the EU openly holds that the answer is "yes". https://euobserver.com/opinion/152160 https://euobserver.com/opinion/152160
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > but the EU openly holds that [it is a state] No it doesn't, and that's not what your link says. The "EU position" (if there even is a single position that can be called that) is that the EU's treaties are binding on the signatory states, and the EU's court is ultimately responsible for deciding the meaning of those treaties. Of course, if a country disagrees with the court, it is free to leave the EU completely.
frankfrankfrank 4y ago
That is a rather loaded question, but in short; yes, yes they have. Abandoned is actually a rather accurate descriptor, because it captures the neglect and negligence that has allowed the creeping metastasis of the EU (just to limit the scope for the purpose of this discussion). All one has to do is look around to notice that EU regulations and policies by unelected councils and bureaucrats has very much subverted and undermined not only national sovereignty, representative government, and the will and concerns of the people. Ironically, the EU is essentially the mechanism of the emergence of the US empire after the Republic was destroyed in the US Civil War, albeit using a few different methods and methods, however resulting in the same constituent outcome ... centralization of power among a ruling class, which citizens have been deprived of. In other words that may be more relatable to folks here, it's like being diluted out of company ownership. You are promised a certain percentage in exchange for your fundamental critical engineering work that gets the whole effort off the ground in the first place, and then when the moneyed interests come in they dilute you out of any kind of meaningful ownership, let alone value of the thing you created and built, which now others will abscond with and get wealthy from. The EU has always been deeply corrupt scheme to essentially deconstruct the consequences of the revolutionary era following the US revolution, the same way that the US Civil War essentially reverted the US revolution and nullified the US Constitution. My prediction if that we will likely in our lifetime see a kind of Oceana, consisting of all of Western Europe and the whole of the Americas, which "always has been at war with Eurasia". The trajectory and the fingerprints of the plan is all there. US power consolidation, EU power consolidation and centralization, US deracination, EU power centralization, EU deracination, ... transatlantic integration ruled by a hereditary ruling class that will drone any resister "extremists" to cheers during hate weeks decrying disobedient subordination to the faceless machine with a theoretical ruling class that may as well be AI as it may be some hereditary demigods you will never lay eyes on. Are you adequately worshiping your holographic leaders? (in case anyone missed it, that was a reference to the UK Queen being projected as hologram in her carriage and people waving at a hologram)

by _8j50 4y ago

flir 4y ago

Some aspects of member states' sovereignty have been "temporarily loaned on a permanent basis" might be a good way of putting it. As evidenced by the UK withdrawing. More of the former than the latter.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? ehhh, kind of? > is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU? its not exactly a one-to-one comparison with anywhere, but its easy to find an individual country's head of state or representatives saying - in a positive way - that they have given up sovereignty for a stronger many country union. additionally, the top EU court is still coming into its own, with its recent rulings over the last decade being more analogous to the US Supreme Court's "Marbury v. Madison" moment, where it kind of just noticed its finality and gravity and actually exercised that. But one key difference is that the ECJ is not simultaneously an appellate court. So national courts are still silo'd in their own country's processes, with the additional ability to weigh in on ECJ decisions and rulings. While the ECJ deals directly with union law. so, its happening. but kind of.

cm2187 4y ago

It’s a grey area. EU laws are senior to local laws (though in theory EU countries are supposed to translate those laws to local laws). But I do not believe EU laws are senior to local constitutions. Though people argued they were when a polish court stated that they are not. Not convinced this is really settled.

soco 4y ago
I don't know the Polish constitution but Romania when joining wrote in its own constitution that EU laws are senior, so that is that. Also in general, international accords and treaties are always senior - so one should pay attention when signing them, not years later.
- cm2187 4y ago
  I don't think it is the case. The french constitution explicitely refers to the lisbon treatee, so it may be that european treaties are senior to the french constitution. But in general I don't think that international treaties are senior to a constitution. Not the least because treaties are typically ratified by the parliament, and the constitution is there to limit the authority of what the parliament or executive can decide to do. So a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify a treaty that goes against the constitution of the country without the constitution being changed. The notion of "international law" itself is also a bit murky. It implies that there is some sort of authority above countries to enforce this law, but there isn't. Countries are sovereign. If the legitimate authority of a country decides to walk away from a treaty, nothing prevents that. It is international law in the sense that it applies to the citizen of the country, as long as the country has the will to adhere to the treaty. History is full of broken treaties (in fact most of them end up that way sooner or later), including very recent examples (territorial integrity of Ukraine).
  - soco 4y ago
    Of course treaties get broken all the time, but the point is you cannot break them and (claim to) uphold them at the same time. You also say, a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify, but what if they did? The commission didn't check thoroughfully and issued a recommmendation, the party discipline voted for it and lo, you have a treaty contradicting the constitution - as somebody is bound to discover later. Now what? Real life is complicated... As for the authority to enforce it, again EU has it - the ECJ, and quite active at that. So coming back to earth, if the ECJ says the decision is binding, it's not their problem if it contradicts the constitution of Poland - that's Poland's problem and they will have to live with whatever consequences of not applying the decision. And they can always quit the EU and its treaties if they don't like the package, no biggie.

TacticalCoder 4y ago

Not really but when a EU directive is decided, the member states have x months to translate it into national law. It's still the law of the specific country that applies: but, simply, each country has to adopt the EU directive. It's kinda more complicated than this as many european states are divided into regions, so for many matters it's not even the individual states transposing the EU directives into national laws but regions transposing the EU directive into regional laws. One example would be the EU deciding, a few years ago, that the age for cars to be considered "old timers" is 30 years. Before that some regions had 20 years, others 25, others 30, etc. Then all the regions had to adapt their legislation. In a single country, like Belgium, the three regions all transposed the laws in varying ways (and at different times). But in the end the result is the same: all european regions have "harmonized" the notion that an oldtimer is a vehicule 30 years old or older. Now there are several matters on which the EU has no authority whatsoever. For example the EU has no fiscal authority: fiscality is decided by the countries/regions and the EU can shut the fuck up. (so far).

tdhoot 4y ago
What happens if there is a grandstanding region that simply refuses or can't get it passed into local law due to a euroskeptic local government?
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Sternly worded emails.

calpaterson 4y ago

It is disputed. German judges have held that the answer is "no, the EU is not a state, just an transnational organisation" but the EU openly holds that the answer is "yes". https://euobserver.com/opinion/152160 https://euobserver.com/opinion/152160

dane-pgp 4y ago
> but the EU openly holds that [it is a state] No it doesn't, and that's not what your link says. The "EU position" (if there even is a single position that can be called that) is that the EU's treaties are binding on the signatory states, and the EU's court is ultimately responsible for deciding the meaning of those treaties. Of course, if a country disagrees with the court, it is free to leave the EU completely.

frankfrankfrank 4y ago

That is a rather loaded question, but in short; yes, yes they have. Abandoned is actually a rather accurate descriptor, because it captures the neglect and negligence that has allowed the creeping metastasis of the EU (just to limit the scope for the purpose of this discussion). All one has to do is look around to notice that EU regulations and policies by unelected councils and bureaucrats has very much subverted and undermined not only national sovereignty, representative government, and the will and concerns of the people. Ironically, the EU is essentially the mechanism of the emergence of the US empire after the Republic was destroyed in the US Civil War, albeit using a few different methods and methods, however resulting in the same constituent outcome ... centralization of power among a ruling class, which citizens have been deprived of. In other words that may be more relatable to folks here, it's like being diluted out of company ownership. You are promised a certain percentage in exchange for your fundamental critical engineering work that gets the whole effort off the ground in the first place, and then when the moneyed interests come in they dilute you out of any kind of meaningful ownership, let alone value of the thing you created and built, which now others will abscond with and get wealthy from. The EU has always been deeply corrupt scheme to essentially deconstruct the consequences of the revolutionary era following the US revolution, the same way that the US Civil War essentially reverted the US revolution and nullified the US Constitution. My prediction if that we will likely in our lifetime see a kind of Oceana, consisting of all of Western Europe and the whole of the Americas, which "always has been at war with Eurasia". The trajectory and the fingerprints of the plan is all there. US power consolidation, EU power consolidation and centralization, US deracination, EU power centralization, EU deracination, ... transatlantic integration ruled by a hereditary ruling class that will drone any resister "extremists" to cheers during hate weeks decrying disobedient subordination to the faceless machine with a theoretical ruling class that may as well be AI as it may be some hereditary demigods you will never lay eyes on. Are you adequately worshiping your holographic leaders? (in case anyone missed it, that was a reference to the UK Queen being projected as hologram in her carriage and people waving at a hologram)