3 ms·
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 would
by 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.
- cm2187 4y agoI don’t think it would work any other way than any other law. If a fragment of a law is deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court/council, it is automatically void. I don’t think it matters that it is part of an international treaty, the parliament didn’t have the authority to vote that law in the first place. And again, things might be different in the case of the Lisbon treaty, as the treaty was adopted by means of changing the constitution, at least in France.
- soco 4y agoExactly, it gets automatically void, not "sorry we won't respect that part". Thus the ECJ is in its very right to call that country in breakage of the treaty and apply whatever sanctions finds adequate, and that country has no stand to say "yes but". Because one cannot have their cake and eat it.
- cm2187 4y agoExcept that the ECJ is not a constitutional court/council (at least not for national constitutions)