Monday, May 26, 2003
11:17 pm
The European Constitution - 26th May 2003, 23.14
The Constitutional draft, in pdf format, is 148 pages long and has changed in some important aspects from the original draft s published earlier this year. We can note no shift from the centralised superstate originally put forward by Giscard D’Estaing where the European institutions were responsible for all core competences and ‘permitted’ national states to act in certain areas. This new draft has dropped the federalist rhetoric and added an ‘intergovernmental’ flavour, as we can note from Art 1.5, Cl. 1:
“The union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, including for regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including for ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, and for maintaining law and order and maintaining internal security”.
The problem with this defence of national sovereignty is that it relies upon a continental definition of the State: one that is institutional and represented primarily through a bureaucracy, whereas the web of legal and constitutional convention that underpins the British state remains legally unrecognised. Effectively, the institutions of the British state would act as agencies and conduits for European regulation but their legal underpinnings would be gradually replaced (as they are at the moment) by new laws and regulations.
This is not the full picture but I suspect that this cultural disjuncture between the British and continental systems of jurisprudence has extremely worrying consequences.
Under Union Competences and Actions, the competences are now transferred upwards from the Member States to the supranational institutions through a process known as conferral. The Union will act up to the limits of its powers and areas which fall outside of these competences will remain with the Member States, under the subsidiarity principle. However, the balancing act of conferral and subsidiarity is undermined by Art 1.9, cl.3 which states that all actions which can be “better achieved” at Union level, or which Member States are unable to “sufficiently achieve” will fall within Union competence. Hence, the divisions of power between the Union and the Member States will be set by the European Court of Justice, a body known for its centralising instincts, and one can foresee judgements that set remarkably high standards for subsidiarity to take effect. To make the pill even more bitter, “national parliaments will ensure compliance” with the new laws of the Union, confirming their role as rubberstamp assemblies.
The initial clauses confirm the role of a common foreign and security policy, the coordination of economic policy and the takeover of social security policy (under the coordination of social policy), ensuring that the private pension provision that Britain currently holds, is now in danger of being reallocated, at some later date, at the direction of the Union. Indeed, the power of the Member States is so circumscribed that a policy area must be stated and defined within the Constitution as within their remit, to fall outside the powers of the Union. I haven’t come across any as yet.
The first few clauses appear to show that the Union has potentially no check on its power, given that there are no balances to the executive in terms of judiciary or legislature. Legally and theoretically, the Constitutions sets out a state, unaccountable and unchecked.
More tomorrow, and Iain Murray has promised his thoughts on this historical document.
The Constitutional draft, in pdf format, is 148 pages long and has changed in some important aspects from the original draft s published earlier this year. We can note no shift from the centralised superstate originally put forward by Giscard D’Estaing where the European institutions were responsible for all core competences and ‘permitted’ national states to act in certain areas. This new draft has dropped the federalist rhetoric and added an ‘intergovernmental’ flavour, as we can note from Art 1.5, Cl. 1:
“The union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, including for regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including for ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, and for maintaining law and order and maintaining internal security”.
The problem with this defence of national sovereignty is that it relies upon a continental definition of the State: one that is institutional and represented primarily through a bureaucracy, whereas the web of legal and constitutional convention that underpins the British state remains legally unrecognised. Effectively, the institutions of the British state would act as agencies and conduits for European regulation but their legal underpinnings would be gradually replaced (as they are at the moment) by new laws and regulations.
This is not the full picture but I suspect that this cultural disjuncture between the British and continental systems of jurisprudence has extremely worrying consequences.
Under Union Competences and Actions, the competences are now transferred upwards from the Member States to the supranational institutions through a process known as conferral. The Union will act up to the limits of its powers and areas which fall outside of these competences will remain with the Member States, under the subsidiarity principle. However, the balancing act of conferral and subsidiarity is undermined by Art 1.9, cl.3 which states that all actions which can be “better achieved” at Union level, or which Member States are unable to “sufficiently achieve” will fall within Union competence. Hence, the divisions of power between the Union and the Member States will be set by the European Court of Justice, a body known for its centralising instincts, and one can foresee judgements that set remarkably high standards for subsidiarity to take effect. To make the pill even more bitter, “national parliaments will ensure compliance” with the new laws of the Union, confirming their role as rubberstamp assemblies.
The initial clauses confirm the role of a common foreign and security policy, the coordination of economic policy and the takeover of social security policy (under the coordination of social policy), ensuring that the private pension provision that Britain currently holds, is now in danger of being reallocated, at some later date, at the direction of the Union. Indeed, the power of the Member States is so circumscribed that a policy area must be stated and defined within the Constitution as within their remit, to fall outside the powers of the Union. I haven’t come across any as yet.
The first few clauses appear to show that the Union has potentially no check on its power, given that there are no balances to the executive in terms of judiciary or legislature. Legally and theoretically, the Constitutions sets out a state, unaccountable and unchecked.
More tomorrow, and Iain Murray has promised his thoughts on this historical document.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
May
(47)
- The Things they say First they say that the const...
- Blogging on the Constitution - 28th May 2003, 23.0...
- More arrogance - 27th May 2003, 23.30 Hain showed...
- The Union's Institutions - 27th May 2003, 23.03 T...
- Discussion on the Constitution - 27th May 2003, 16...
- The European Constitution - 26th May 2003, 23.14 ...
- All Eyes on the Constitution - 26th May 2003, 12.1...
- Anti-War, Pro-Europe - 26th May 2003, 1.12 Tom Sp...
- The Sun says... - 25th May 2003, 23.12 As a follo...
- The Conspiracy - 25th May 2003, 22.55 The Observe...
- Nul point - 25th May 2003, 3.04 Just back from Su...
- Congo Intervention - 24th May 2003, 20.33 No doub...
- So far and no further - 24th April 2003, 16.57 Jo...
- The Referendum The Daily Mail referendum is one o...
- Time to go home Lew Rockwell attempts an economic...
- Losing value against what? The Mises Institute ha...
- Yet another reason to leave the EU Demography is ...
- Not an Imperial People Now it seems that Colonel ...
- Euro Logic So we should join the Euro because of ...
- How divisive is Europe? - 19th May 2003, 10.45 Ve...
- Slovakia - 19th May 2003, 22.28 Slovakia said yes...
- La Haine - 19th May 2003, 22.17 Hain recently cal...
- Decisions, Decisions - 18th May 2003, 22.38 Gordo...
- Run like a CND camp Most antiwar protestors prote...
- Zimwatch: When will we emigrate to Baghdad? - 16th...
- Basra - 16th May 2003, 20.12 The situation in Bas...
- Roll on the Referendum - 15th May 2003, 23.30 Ana...
- How to say a lot about very little - 15th May 2003...
- Krieg der Illusionen - 12th May 2003, 23.10 The 1...
- Lithuania - 12th May 2003, 22.52 Lithuania voted,...
- So you want to do something about Europe? The pre...
- A Critical Atlanticist - 8th May 2003, 23.54 Malc...
- The Iraqi archives - 8th May 2003, 23.16 Insight ...
- Hear, Hear for Heffer - 8th May 2003, 22.19 Altho...
- EU-CIS: A New Marketplace - 7th May 2003, 23.55 V...
- The next big battleground is tax - 7th May 2003, 2...
- Another reason for kicking the American Left - 7th...
- Action by example - 7th May 2003, 11.17 There is...
- Do not confuse neoconservatism with neoconservatis...
- CSIS: Euro-Focus - 5th May 2003, 18.00 The Centre...
- Finnish opposition to a "closed defence core" - 5t...
- German support for the European Army - 5th May 200...
- Zimwatch: Three Kings watch over negotiations - 5t...
- The Future of Europe: A Neo-Conservative Viewpoint...
- Will Tony Blair Resign If He Turns Out to Have Lie...
- So what's the problem Crispin Blunt has resigned ...
- Direct Hits on HMS Blair - 1st May 2003, 22.20 Th...
-
▼
May
(47)
0 comments:
Post a Comment