The ECJ merely asserts primacy. The doctrine was invented out of whole cloth in the landmark Costa/ Enel case in 1964. This bootstrap jurisprudence - in essence a bluff - has been indulged and tolerated by member states. Until now.AEP, who has successfully predicted twelve of the last three recessions, is not sanguine about the effects of this bust up. We are wrong to believe it will be bodged over with the usual Eurofudge, wrong to imagine that the ECB can just carry on with its QE programme. He strongly believes that this time it's a binary choice between Germany's continued membership of the EU and the Euro.
There is no Treaty basis for EU legal supremacy. Judicial expansionists in the EU legal services unit tried to slip it into the Lisbon Treaty but all they got was a thin Declaration in the annex stating that the “settled law of the Court” has primacy over national law.
The German judges have repeatedly objected to judicial activism by the ECJ, thunderously denouncing its misuse of the Charter to extend its power. Their finger has been on the trigger. Finally they pulled it. The implicit has suddenly become explicit.
Their mistake was to trust in a popular misunderstanding. For years we have been lectured that 'EU law is superior to national law and supercedes domestic legislation' - true. It was easy for everyone to assume or be led to believe that if EU law was superior to national law, then the EU's court must be superior to national courts - not true.
Meanwhile, as the penultimate round of talks on an EU trade deal before the June deadline collapsed, with Boris holding firm against the EU didactic stubbornness, we are reminded that there are just six weeks remaining in which an extension can be agreed. Even though the government has made plain that no extension will be sought or accepted, this won't stop the entire forces of Remain and #FBPE idiocy from going flat out.
As the final round of pre-deadline talks start in June, expect hysteria from all the usual quarters, eager for the UK to handicap itself or shackle our laws to their sham-court, just so cruelly exposed as such by the German judges.
Expect Blair back on the Today programme explaining why an extension is essential, and the MSM to dig-up the crazed fools who were kicked out of the party; Grieve, Soubry, Rory Stewart et al. Oh, and of course Major will rise from his sepulchre to do the same. Plus the gerontocrats from the Lords will croak their protests over inadequate phone lines and PTSD Adonis and 'Howler' Grayling will melt down. Also expect the BBC to put out a Panorama explaining how not extending will cost more lives than the Wuhan virus, and Sky to interview no-one except closet Momentum members. Hey ho.
26 comments:
Nice piece; I see as more serious, a 'house of cards' about to fall:
1. UK 'leaves' on time, with a bare bones FTA
2. In February, EU tells member states how much more they have to pay into the club because no more UK money and Covid 19 caused additional finance. The ONLY member state with sufficient money is Germany, who finds herself with 40% of the bill.
3. Germany tells the rest of the EU, that from that time on, the ECB will be under Bundesbank supervision, and EU member tax rates and spending will need ECB approval, OR Germany will not fund the EU any more.
4. France realises that its got to chose, be an independent nation state or a province of 'Germania', France choses independence, the EU dissolves messily.
now that's going to interesting....
The ECJ has never asserted primacy in any area except where treaties expressly agreed it was.
That is, in the narrow areas of bland, non-controversial - to all except deranged, paranoid lunatics - law in which the European Union deals.
Your lockdown and all the rest are national, sovereign matters, and could never be European Union ones, for instance.
Anon 7.36 - perhaps you can point me to the treaty clause that gives the ECJ primacy in anything? AEP can't locate it and neither can I.
An on 7:36
Your argument sounds a lot like the equivalent of Privatising the profits and Socialising the losses - politically instead of economically of course.
In either case you can see that it's only the PEOPLE that lose.
As it ever was, as it ever shall be (or so the EU hopes for).
Pulleeeze, the fanzine is huffing and puffing ahead of a non-event come June. Well, a non event for the EU but an embarrassing trousers down time for the UK. We've got no knickers and everyone will see. Oh, and we've not done our homework either.
The EU has bigger fish to fry than Brexit, while the UK is heading to be a small broke island off the coast. Luckily for Boris et al CV19 has come along to act as a fig leaf, but a fig leaf that will rot away by Christmas.
So, a bit more Covid come November and a few industries undergoing strategic realignment and AEP really will have something to write about, probably for Die Welt.
So who will Back down/ride roughshod over the other then?
I'm referring to the ECJ/German constitutional court of course. One is irrelevant and has to be revealed as such before the entire world.
Which, in your esteemed opinion? And how will this total humiliation of one or the other strengthen the EU?
Go on, answer. I dare you.
Sorry for being a wee bit wooly. Does this stand as is?
"AEP, who has successfully predicted twelve of the last three recessions.."
This, I think, is the nub of the Leave/Remain debate. The UK had a tradition of Common Law and Free Trade and the EU a tradition of Napoleonic Law and Protectionism. Now Napoleonic Law means that you may only do what is permitted so the ECJ merely extends that principle by assertion. It is less obviously 'wrong' in the EU tradition.
No wonder the UK Clerisy middle class want to be part of the EU. First of all they get to work with their international Brotherhood of Bureaucrats in a bigger Blob with more room for self advancement and, secondly, they get to tell people in other social classes what they are allowed to do. That's the way to ever greater union and making 'their' class permanent rulers. And they have plenty of ideas of how society 'should' be.
"AEP, who has successfully predicted twelve of the last three recessions". Explain please.
@Smoking Scot
AEP is well known for crying wolf. So the reference is a jest.
The EU/ECJ has always been an "emperor with no clothes." It was only powerful because National Governments consented to its rulings and complied. One by one they are no longer doing that. Their dream of a federal United States of Europe has come up against reality and is collapsing.
I wish I could say I was confident that Boris wouldn't agree to extend the transition, but I'm not. He seems to have lost sight of his Government's purpose and has lost his nerve. It would be nice to think that another bout of the BBC's blatant partisanship would seal its fate, but when it comes to it, Boris will blink. He isn't ruthless enough.
Smoking Scot / Dave - nicked without shame from Jonathan Meedes - "Lutyens was known to have designed six houses, forty-seven of which are in Surrey .."
Smoking Scot, Dave from Bolton...what jim said: 12 recessions ago would be the Napoleonic Wars and even though Evans-Pritchard may seem older than his years he ain't THAT old.
It is a very difficult one to predict, we can all make our guesses; the EU is only ever going to last as long as Germany can be bothered.
@ interview no-one except closet Momentum members
actually, the Lexit tendency is much more explicit in those parts of late
Discovered Joys.
Your contribution reminded me of a talk given to our trade association in the very early days of our EEC membership. The speaker,( whose name I have now forgotten) made just the same points as yours in comparing and contrasting the British common law/free trade attitude with the Napoleonic/continental mindset. He made the point about “ everything permitted unless it’s forbidden” versus “ everything forbidden unless it’s permitted” in the continental system but added “ Except in Italy where things are permitted, especially if forbidden - provided you know the right people”. It raised a good laugh at the time!
You know they've lost the argument when they pass a law making it illegal to burn a flag - a flag of literally no nation. That's what Germany did last week with the infamous star spangled sphincter on a field of medical blue. Angela considers it a "hate crime", with up to three years chokey for transgressors.
You couldn't make it up.
Steve
@Mark
In case you missed my post to you on the 13 May blog ....
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/brexit-unionists-dismayed-as-irish-sea-border-looms-large-1.4253723
Liam
Anonymous Steve at 11:23
The new law relates to any flag. It was motivated by events where people were setting fire to the Israeli flag.
Should not be too difficult for you to check out the details. If correct, you could amend your post.
And who will this harm most?
Anon 15:22, "The new law relates to any flag. It was motivated by events where people were setting fire to the Israeli flag.
LOL. That was the excuse they used yes, but it could have been any flag. They needed to get the EU flag included but not being a nation/state etc was not covered. The Israeli flag being burnt (re Trump and embassy to Jerusalem I think) was used as the excuse to revist the law,...and get the EU flag added.
Should not be too difficult for you to check out the details... you could amend your post. By complete coincidence it was proposed from Saxony, where Afd were building fast and Pegida actually began. Can't ahve all those nasty "far-right" wingers burning EU symbols can we?
Anon (Liam) 15:18, from that link: "...always been clear that there will be requirements for live animals and agri-food...", this is simialr to what JPM (I think) posted about border controls going up in France...non story. Plus with a UK/US trade deal very possible very soon I suspect those controls will help the North no end.
Anonymous said @ 15:22
'Anonymous Steve at 11:23
The new law relates to any flag. It was motivated by events where people were setting fire to the Israeli flag.
Should not be too difficult for you to check out the details. If correct, you could amend your post.'
As Span Ows relates the existing law has been extended to include this non-nation rag because as Margaret would say, they're frit. From Die Welt:
The (German) Federal Council wants to better protect the European symbols such as the flag and the anthem from slurs. In a bill passed on Friday, the State Chamber proposes a new offense, which provides for the contempt of the European flag or anthem up to three years imprisonment or a fine. So far, the Criminal Code protects only symbols of foreign states and the Federal Republic of Germany against denigration.
The Saxon Minister of Justice Sebastian Gemkow (CDU) pointed out that in the spring in Saxony protesters marched over an EU flag. Such incidents should be punishable in the future.
Since this is a 'new offence' I won't be amending my post thank you. Fascism right there mate - Germans have previous banning stuff. I hear they've even got there eye on banning the wearing loud clothes in a built up area!
Steve
Wonder if this means the boche will start putting their "EU flag" towels all over beaches everywhere.
New flag law in Germany
17 May 2020 -https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/burning-of-israeli-flag-leads-to-german-law-to-ban-torching-of-all-flags-628142
A tad more up to date that the National File post.
Anon 03:46, we know what it says, same as you wrote in your 15:22 comment. The excuse they needed, nothing more.
@Span Ows
Seems to have got your gander up!
On a par with ReesMogg wanting to get the baying crowd back to help Boris make his arguments.
Post a Comment