Travelling the South of England, speaking for Remain at debates and public meetings it has been fascinating to hear the arguments of speakers for Leave.
Phrases I have heard include “remember the English civil war” and “Enoch Powell was right” from speakers from the right of politics and “we owe the Red Army our security” and “we don’t want any free trade” from more left wing Leave speakers. These points are entertainment and have no real traction or credibility with undecided voters.
Another suggestion sometimes heard from Leave speakers, and from Leave-inclined attendees at debates, is that the European Union can makes law about anything it pleases.
This is completely wrong.
The Union’s power to make law is limited to certain areas (technically called “competences”) delegated to it by the 28 States.
If the Union exceeds the powers given to it by the States the law in question would have no effect.
The limited powers of the Union are set out in the Treaties that create the Union. If you want to be technical they are in Title 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The EU has been delegated exclusive competence in:
- The customs union between EU states
- Competition policy
- Monetary policy for the Euro members
- Fishing
- Common commercial policy (things like basic consumer protection)
- Certain international agreements that the EU enters collectively.
- The internal market
- The environment
- Transport
- Trans-European networks
- Energy
- Freedom, security and justice
- Public health concerns
- Farming
- Limited social policy areas (e.g. equal pay)
- Cohesion
- Technological research and outer space activity
- Humanitarian aid
In some further areas such as tourism, culture, and education the Union is empowered by the States to do work that supports their efforts- such us enabling students to study in other EU states.
These areas of activity are all ones in which modern problems and opportunities cross borders. The solutions are frequently cross-border too. As we face the future, it makes sense for the States to have empowered the Union to act for the common good in these areas.
I don’t expect or advise anyone to try to remember the whole list. But when you are canvassing or on a street stall, talking to an undecided voter, you can correct the false impression they may have got from the other side that the EU has unlimited power.
The point is underlined by the fact that our national government spends 42% of GDP of which the EU spends only 1%.
If I had to reduce it to a 10 second soundbite I might say, “Europe can’t make any laws it likes. It can only act in areas that the 28 states have delegated to the EU. These are areas where it makes sense to work together sometimes. Such as business, the environment and science.”
The big question is how should we use the EU’s competences in future? And do we want to be part of that or left outside?
* Antony Hook was #2 on the South East European list in 2014, is the English Party's representative on the Federal Executive and produces this sites EU Referendum Roundup.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
27 Comments
What’s the point in making laws that don’t or won’t work. A total waste of tax payers money.
I have written much on the failings to protect family life, and contact with your children.
In other words, our justice is one of the fairest I know. Not when you cross into some court systems within the EU. There have even been further additions to the Brussels 11a.
But then why should it be? Lets have some honesty in this debate!
Helen Dudden 14th Apr ’16 – 10:54am
Please bear in mind that this thread is about the European Union, the referendum on 23 June 2016 and therefore the issues on which the European Court of Justice can legislate.
The European Court of Human Rights also affects what happens in the UK, but it is part of the Council of Europe which includes Turkey, Russia and other countries which are not EU member states. Even where those countries refuse to accept adverse judgements there is an effect. In the case of Turkey their human rights record is one of the factors which prevents them being accepted into the EU. Russia and Belorussia have not applied. In the case of the UK we were taken to court by the Republic of Ireland and lost, but did something about it. The adverse precedent also has an effect on others.
So here’s a few controversial areas where the EU seems to have, or be trying to, override national law.
1. The working time directive.
2. Changing the benefits entitlement of non-British EU citizens
3. The ban on prisoners voting in elections
Under which of the listed competences do those come?
Actually, it might be easier to see if someone can name a possible thing a government could do which couldn’t be argued to come under at least one of the listed competences…
(one is reminded of Jeremy Corbyn claiming to have only ever rebelled on three issues: ‘war and peace, social and economic policy and matters of liberty’. It was then pointed out that these three cover everything a government could possibly do.)
Dav,
(3) is to do with the ECTHR not the EU.
(1 and 2) I would have to look up the legislation, which you may be able to do too but I expect social policy.
There is a lot the Union can’t do. Levying direct taxation is a big one. Establishing services like school or hospitals would be another. Declaring war and peace is another. All these things are left to the States.
(3) is to do with the ECTHR not the EU.
If that’s true, why is the ECJ ruling on it? See https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2015/October-2015/Lawyer-for-prisoners-denied-the-vote-welcomes-ECJ
I thought the ECJ was the court of the EU. Am I wrong?
There is a lot the Union can’t do. Levying direct taxation is a big one.
Although I understand there are proposals to change that and allow direct taxation to the EU, yes? Coming from none other than the commissioner for the EU budget.
So while that might be the case presently it seems likely that at some future date the EU will be levying direct taxes.
Establishing services like school or hospitals would be another.
Again, not currently, but regulating hospitals (which might, for example, place limits on how members states could choose to close or consolidate hospitals) could certainly come under ‘Public health concerns’, if the EU wanted to legislate in that area, couldn’t it?
Declaring war and peace is another.
Again, currently, but haven’t there been proposals for an EU army? Who would choose to deploy such an army, and isn’t that basically having a war and peace policy?
Not to mention that the EU now has a Foreign Secretary of its own…
All these things are left to the States.
And all have had proposals made to remove them from the states and take the powers to the EU instead.
In relation to prisoners you said “over ride national law”. The ECJ upheld national law.
People call for all sorts of things. I can’t see the UK agreeing a Treaty change in those areas.
In relation to prisoners you said “over ride national law”. The ECJ upheld national law.
National French law. In such a way as to suggest that if the relevant British law were to find its way into that court, it would rule against the UK.
But. The point is not the way the ruling went, but that the ECJ, and therefore the EU, claimed to have jurisdiction over the matter. It did not say, ‘this is not covered by any of the competences delegated to us by members states, so it is entirely a matter fro the members states and therefore we refuse to issue a ruling’ (as it ought to have done).
So: under which area of competence did it do that, and what other things might it also claim jurisdiction over under that competence?
People call for all sorts of things. I can’t see the UK agreeing a Treaty change in those areas
Given the UK agreed to the Lisbon treaty, I am not so certain of that.
I’m not sure that is right as to what happened at the ECJ. My reading of the case is a French applicant went to the court and said “I can’t vote and this violates European Union law” and the ECJ rules “no it doesn’t.”
Anyone is entitled to go to the court and the court (like every court) rejects all sorts of applications all the time.
Personally I think we should have had a referendum on Lisbon but the changes you are talking about would go far behind the level of change that was in Lisbon.
The EU Act passed by the coalition would require the UK to have a referendum.
I’m not sure that is right as to what happened at the ECJ. My reading of the case is a French applicant went to the court and said “I can’t vote and this violates European Union law” and the ECJ rules “no it doesn’t.”
Exactly my point. the ECJ ruled, ‘EU law allows proportionate removal of voting rights and this is proportionate’.
Thus setting itself, rather than the relevant national legislature, up as the final authority on what is proportionate.
The fact that it happened to side with the national legislature is less important here that the fact that it considered that it had the right to rule on the matter, rather than simply deferring to whatever the national legislature ruled ipso facto.
This is equivalent to saying that EU law overrules national law in this area. If there is a court of appeal about the national legislature that can overturn the national legislature’s decisions, then by definition the national legislature is not sovereign in this area: it only exercises powers within the limits delegated to it by the EU (just like the parliament at Holyrood, for example, only exercises powers within the limits delegated to it by Westminster, or like a local council exercises powers within the limits delegated to it by the national government).
The issue isn’t whether prisoners can vote, it’s which body has the final say over whether prisoners can vote: the national legislature or the ECJ? And by claiming jurisdiction in this case, the ECJ has claimed that it is sovereign in this area.
Do you really not see this?
So again: under which competence does the ECJ presume to have competence in this area? And what other things could it claim, by the same kind of reading, to have competence over in future?
The applicant made an argument he had a case. Any court has to engage with the argument put before it.
I wonder whether Jeremy Corbyn worries about the goings on at the ECJ? I’m surprised nobody appears to have commented (so far) on his EU speech today. Hot, lukewarm or cold, the ‘Remain’ campaign desperately needs Labour on board if it is to win on 23 June.
Apparently, the reason why Clegg and ‘Memory Man’ Laws put forward AV was because Miliband had signalled that it could well get Labour support. As it turned out, you could argue that the perceived lack of enthusiasm shown by the official opposition to what was a very modest change to our archaic voting system was one of the factors which led to ‘No’ camp triumphing in that referendum. So now, will Labour stand up and be counted this time on an issue which, with the greatest of respect, is far more important to our nation’s long term economic future?
The applicant made an argument he had a case. Any court has to engage with the argument put before it.
So you are saying that the ECJ would have to engage with any argument put before it, on any topic, even ones not covered by the listed competences?
How then can you continue to claim that EU law overrides national law only is regards to the competences, if you’re saying that the ECJ can rule even outside those competences?
Surely you’re undermining your own claim there.
(Or perhaps your point is that arguments outside the competences should never be put to the ECJ, so the question would never arise. But that then means that apparently the question of prisoners’ voting rights must be within a competence, as it was put to the court. So again: under which competence does the ECJ have jurisdiction over prisoners’ voting rights? Is it ‘Freedom, security and justice’? If so, that seems breathtakingly broad; what sort of questions wouldn’t fall under ‘Freedom, security and justice’? Could EU law, for example, overrule national counter-terrorism legislation? If so, will you be making that clear to people when you stop them at a stall: ‘You may have got the impression that the EU has unlimited power; it doesn’t, but of course it does reserve the right to possibly overturn our laws about spying on or detaining suspected or convicted terrorists.’)
The Brussels 11a is a Regulation, not a Convention like The Hague Convention.
Are you entitled to court action in Spain? This then is covered by the Spanish Civil Code. Different law to Case President.
Could I highlight Spanish, as the key word. So if you have court orders in the family courts in the UK that can make little difference to anything.
There was a pro bono produced by ECAS on the subject, Freshfields made it clear the failures that were only too clear. Why did ECAS get involved?
Why should an absent parent not be made to pay £10,000 plus to enforce decisions in say Spain?
Anyone who can’t see the unfairness of justice that also can happen in Poland and Greece, then they have little knowledge of this situation. I suggest you look at the Reunite International web page, smell the coffee!
“Britain is “obliged” to accept European Union laws and judgments, according to an official report slipped out by ministers.”
Just saw this on the telegraph website – would be interested to hear any “remainers'” views on this article that was published today and how it tallies with “UK democracy”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/uk-obliged-judgments-of-european-courts-official-document-from-m/
Of course we are obliged to accept the laws from Brussels, hence the Brussels 11a.
The clue is in the wording.
£10, 000 for court action, that’s just a basic amount, translation is another subject. Mediation is not cheap too, but that has to be a willing for both parties.
A documentary produced a new angle, steal your child back. A bit cheaper I understand.
How these children suffer.
It is unlikely that the Anthony Hook / Dav discussion will occur on many doorsteps.
There are very few questions asked in comments sections of websites that reflect doorstep discussions.
Although to be fair to Dav, his question is one I could imagine coming up at a public debate.
Dav 14th Apr ’16 – 11:26am
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke MP spelled out which prisoners are allowed to vote and there was a full day debate in the House of Commons which provided plenty of time for many MPs to express the same opinions and inform their constituents.
For instance some people are remanded in prison awaiting trial, innocent until proven guilty.
He also said that very few prisoners actually wanted to vote, contrary to the fears expressed by MPs who have prisons in the their constituencies and small majorities at their previous election. What the prisoners wanted was to get financial compensation for being denied the right to vote.
David Cameron said that the issue made him physically sick. OK, so let the Justice Secretary do his job.
OK, so let the Justice Secretary do his job.
Did you miss the point — it’s not about whether prisoners can vote, it’s about who gets the final say on whether prisoners can vote, Parliament or the ECJ, and if the ECJ gets final say on that what else do they get final say on?
Just to change the tone a bit – since the discussion is a bit of a stuck record – I’m intrigued by that mention of right-wing LEAVE speakers saying “Remember the English civil war”. In what context? That the war was sparked off by conflict in Ireland (that dreadful EU again) and in Scotland (being awkward as they no doubt would be if we voted LEAVE)? That Charles I had a French wife who tried to bring over troops from the continent? That both sides copied Swedish military tactics? That Charles had dispensed with Parliament for eleven years? That Manchester was saved by a German mercenary who organised its inexperienced Parliamentary defenders very effectively to repel Royalist attackers? Oh, no, they must be thinking of revolts against excessive executive power. Strange these people rarely challenge our own domestic overbearing executive.
The Financial Times (£) reports that the head of Deutsche Bank has said that London will lose it s lucrative business in ‘Forex’ (Foreign Exchange) if the UK votes to leave.
Dav 15th Apr ’16 – 12:10pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)
I can only hope, that within the next 20 years that the pro bono written by Freshfields is taken notice of.
I regard the EU as an institution more interested in milk cartons, and the size and shape of fruit, than children and the law.
On the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 on 17/4/2016 a Eurosceptic was one of the reviewers of the newspapers. He said that Christine Lagarde does not pay any tax.
In the current context of tax evasion and “aggressive tax avoidance” this looks like a smear on her. Could it be that the IMF, being an international body, does not have a currency of its own? Could it be that if its employees were paid in US dollars, or Kuwaiti dinars or any other national currency that IMF employees would be alleged to have a conflict of interest? Could it be that being paid tax free is the best method for such employees? Could it be that the BBC did nothing to correct this slur?
Could it be that Nigel Farage MEP is paid in euros?
Dav 15th Apr ’16 – 12:10pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)
That’s a case from the ECHR, not the ECJ. You may not be aware of this, but the ECHR is a different court that has nothign to do with the EU. That’s why in a discussion abotu the EU I referred to an ECJ judgement, not an ECHR one.