Tag Archives: European Court of Justice

Settling Disputes

The block over which the government are now stumbling is called ‘dispute resolution‘. There is substantial disagreement between the negotiators of the United Kingdom and of the European Union.

On the one hand, the EU has proposed that the European Court of Justice should be the final arbiter in the construction of the withdrawal agreement and any future problems, because it says that the agreement will embody many provisions of EU law: the CJEU has declared itself to be the only binding interpretative authority of EU law.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom has argued that it is unacceptable that the appeal body, the final resolution body, should be a court whose judges are drawn only from the continuing EU member states. That is the nub of the matter.

Of course, the issue is bedevilled by the irrational demonisation of the European Court of Justice, first by those who campaigned to leave the EU and later by the Prime Minister, who has lost no opportunity to declare that leaving the jurisdiction of the CJEU is one of her red lines. I have never understood how that court could have been painted in such scarlet colours. In the first place, its function has never been to lay down draconian law which binds us all in servitude, but to interpret law which, even if it starts with the Council of Ministers or the Commission, has been subjected to a democratic process in the European Parliament. The United Kingdom has, since joining the EU, had full representation in these three bodies.

Secondly, we have always provided a distinguished judge to sit on the court. Sir Konrad Schiemann, the former United Kingdom-nominated judge of the court between 2004 and 2012, said in evidence to the Lords EU Committee that,
“in the Luxembourg court the tradition is that you lose your nationality the moment you join the court, which makes no distinction between judges of one nationality and another. … The tradition was that you were not there to plug the point of view of your national Government. That was not your job. Your job was to try to decide the law in the light of the general European interest”.

That, indeed, is the way in which the Court of Justice has operated: it is not a court of competing national judges.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 6 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • Nick da Costa
    Some responses to the above comments, and thank you for your engagement with the report. @Katherine Pindar - apologies, my intent to publish this report whe...
  • David Evans
    Once again we have a leader who choses to do just what he or she likes and unilaterally change the party's stance on key issues, without a moment's real thought...
  • James Moore
    I agree - although officially we actually have a Rejoin position. It is just that our leader chooses to ignore it and develop his own policy. No wonder members...
  • David Raw
    Agree with Michael Meadowcroft...... who happens to be a proper Liberal.... and ought to be enrolled as tutor/adviser to Sir Edward in both Liberalism and campa...
  • suzanne fletcher
    I thought that some members were taking whatever Ed said out of context and unfairly quoting him. But I see that not one comment has come from Ed or his team s...