Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#2> A ruling by the ECJ in March said that the EU can force member states to disregard certain provisions in national law, including constitutional law.
In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. Is this something the citizens of those states wanted? When joining the EU, was the pitch "EU law will be placed above our own laws and constitutions"?
Why can't the EU be merely a trade and foreign policy union - why does it have to spread into every area?
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#3> A ruling by the ECJ in March said that the EU can force member states to disregard certain provisions in national law, including constitutional law. In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. Is this something the citizens of those states wanted? When joining the EU, was the pitch "EU law will be placed above our own laws and constitutions"? Why can't the EU be merely a trade and…
yes this is something we agreed to, when signing Lisbon agreement.
re trade agreement: Trade works best when countries have unified regulation, thats why we do it
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#4Let the Poles go back to the Russians, if they cant abide by the Wests liberal ethos.
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#5> A ruling by the ECJ in March said that the EU can force member states to disregard certain provisions in national law, including constitutional law. In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. Is this something the citizens of those states wanted? When joining the EU, was the pitch "EU law will be placed above our own laws and constitutions"? Why can't the EU be merely a trade and…
Sovereignty isn't necessarily all or nothing. The USA has always had a dual structure with states retaining sovereignty but voluntarily surrendering some powers to the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. The trouble with the EU is that the foundational treaty was a little too ambiguous and they lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#6> A ruling by the ECJ in March said that the EU can force member states to disregard certain provisions in national law, including constitutional law. In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. Is this something the citizens of those states wanted? When joining the EU, was the pitch "EU law will be placed above our own laws and constitutions"? Why can't the EU be merely a trade and…
> In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign.
No, EU Member States are sovereign. They can quit whenever they want. Unlike say Texas in the USA.
> Why can't the EU be merely a trade and foreign policy union - why does it have to spread into every area?
This viewpoint, common with Brexiters, is completely wanting in historical accuracy.
The EU and its legal (edit: and de-facto) predecessors have always been political. The European Coal and Steel Community was founded in 1951 to “make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible”. Economic integration was just a means to an end, namely political integration.
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#7> A ruling by the ECJ in March said that the EU can force member states to disregard certain provisions in national law, including constitutional law. In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. Is this something the citizens of those states wanted? When joining the EU, was the pitch "EU law will be placed above our own laws and constitutions"? Why can't the EU be merely a trade and…
> In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. No, EU Member States are sovereign. They can quit whenever they want. Unlike say Texas in the USA. > Why can't the EU be merely a trade and foreign policy union - why does it have to spread into every area? This viewpoint, common with Brexiters, is completely wanting in historical accuracy. The EU and its legal (edit: and de-facto) predec…
> They can quit whenever they want.
At a steep economic cost. Should the EU be using its economic clout to meddle in the internal affairs of member states?
> wanting in historical accuracy.
I was making a suggestion ("why can't X be Y"), not a statement about current or historical fact. That things are or were a certain way, does not mean they should continue to be so.
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#8Let me try to put this in terms more familiar to Americans: Could an international agreement that the US ratifies, supersede your constitution?
E.g. if NAFTA had a clause curtailing the 1st amendment, would you expect your Supreme Court to concede to it? To allow circumventing the constitution via international agreement?
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#9Let me try to put this in terms more familiar to Americans: Could an international agreement that the US ratifies, supersede your constitution? E.g. if NAFTA had a clause curtailing the 1st amendment, would you expect your Supreme Court to concede to it? To allow circumventing the constitution via international agreement?
That's not really a question in a legal system in which judges are removable by a ministerial decree. The judiciary that has ruled this has been installed illegally and is literally pressed into making judgments made by the party elite - regardless if they make sense or not.
Re: Poland′s top court rules against primacy of EU law
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words, the ECJ considers EU member states to no longer be sovereign. No, EU Member States are sovereign. They can quit whenever they want. Unlike say Texas in the USA. > Why can't the EU be merely a trade and foreign policy union - why does it have to spread into every area? This viewpoint, common with Brexiters, is completely wanting in historical accuracy. The EU and its legal (edit: and de-facto) predec…
> They can quit whenever they want. At a steep economic cost. Should the EU be using its economic clout to meddle in the internal affairs of member states? > wanting in historical accuracy. I was making a suggestion ("why can't X be Y"), not a statement about current or historical fact. That things are or were a certain way, does not mean they should continue to be so.
Their union, their rules.