|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
THE COMPETENCE ‘CON’ AND THE MIRAGE OF
REPATRIATING POWERS |
This is a cut down version of a more detailed article.
On 23.1.13, David Cameron gave a speech on
Britain’s future in the EU. He appeared to question its goal of “ever closer union” (political union) and stated that power
must be able to flow back to Member States, not just away from them. He quoted
a political declaration made in 2001 that raised
three important concepts: competence, subsidiarity and the acquis
communautaire.
EU members must accept the acquis communautaire (‘the occupied field’). This means that they commit to both the entire body of EU law, such
as Treaty obligations; European Court rulings, such as Case Law; and the EU’s goals. The Court has decided
that EU membership obligations produce a permanent limitation of
national sovereign rights.
The EU’s own website
also makes it clear that “The main goal
of the EU is the progressive integration of Member States' economic and
political systems. To even discuss
the return of lost powers (except through leaving the EU) would seem to be
illegal under EU law, as it would go against both the goals of the EU and the
letter of the law (the acquis).
The Court has
ruled that EU institutions that make treaty changes were bound by EU goals, which
include ever closer union - but could a recent treaty provision reduce
‘the occupied field’ and bring back
powers despite the EU’s history of extending its powers? The
relevant Article 48 of
the Treaty of Lisbon talks of ‘increasing or reducing’ the competences of the
EU, and of Member States.
The key word “competence” (aka ‘competency’) is loosely
defined, relating to EU powers and legal supremacy – but with Member States’ sovereign
powers limited to a number of essential state functions. Beyond that, they are
obliged not just to obey the mass of explicit EU law, but to act in a wider “communautaire”
European spirit, towards further political and economic integration.
It is academic whether “competences” are classed as for
Member States or the EU, if Member States are not ensured sovereign powers and
the EU can intervene readily in those areas, on pretexts such as advancing
European integration.
It is like the established EU doctrine of subsidiarity which sounds like working
at the national level where possible. However the previous Blair government
confirmed that "subsidiarity is not about the repatriation of powers” – and as the interest is producing integration, the EU will make
the running centrally if it considers itself better placed than Member States
to achieve it.
In
conclusion, any meaningful repatriation of powers while inside the EU is a
mirage.
Article
ref: www.newalliance.org.uk/compshort.htm This article is
produced as a discussion summary – it is not legal advice in any form. Fuller
article with references on www.newalliance.org.uk/competence.htm
|For a view on the legality |
This page compiled: 19 February 2013