Copyright © 2015 - 18 All rights reserved.

16th December 2017

EU Legal Primacy - Page 2

ECJ overcomes national vetoes by creative "interpretation"

Where the onward progress of European integration has been blocked by national vetoes,  the Court has been willing to re-interpret the Treaty to make up for the lack of progress on the legislative front.  In a whole series of tax cases,  the Court invoked the general clauses of the Treaty on non-discrimination to strike down national tax legislation.  An important example is the 2002 Lankhorst-Hohorst case on tax credits on payments by a subsidiary to its parent in another member state.  What is significant is that the Court departed from its earlier cases which had decided that such arrangements were compatible with the Treaty.

The Treaty had not changed, but its meaning,  according to the Court, had. Thus, the effective harmonisation of direct taxes proceeds step by step at the hands of the Court despite the UK’s theoretical veto on this area under the Treaty. 
The problem now is that ECJ's case law in this area makes it very difficult for national legislation effectively to tax the activities of multi-national companies who use tax avoidance structures set up for example under Luxembourg law.

In a 2005
environmental protection case,  the Court decided that the EC could, under its first-pillar supranational law-making powers,  specify and impose criminal offences and penalties in the very wide fields where the EC had an existing competence.  The remarkable thing about this decision is that, if it is right,  the EEC had these powers over criminal law from the day the Treaty of Rome was signed on 25 March 1957.

Yet if this had been suggested to those who signed the Treaty in 1957, or to those who signed Britain’s accession treaty in 1972,  they would have laughed.

The ongoing process of expansion of powers by 'interpretation'

By looking back over time, we can see how powerful has been the effect of the rolling process of the ECJ's re-interpretation of the European Treaties, coupled with the doctrines of direct effect and primacy.  

In more recent years, the ECJ has further extended the reach and scope of the EU law and of its own powers.  Its most powerful new weapon in doing so is now the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

We shall be explaining how the court has made use of that Charter, and how it has effectively castrated the "opt out" with the UK thought it was getting from the effects of that Charter, in a further article.

Please see more about the legal aspects of the EU as they relate to the Member States 

The Big Political Lie

As we can see from the above legal analysis by Lawyers for Britain - The big political lie is that the UK has a Sovereign Parliament - it simply does not, not since 1973 and all the claims from those who support the EU are by definition either content (or perhaps delighted) to see the UK destroyed or simply ignorant of the true nature of the EU.

All UK politicians and Peers know, or should know the facts about the EU and the demise of its member states as Sovereign entities since 1973 - so, unless they have an allegiance to the EU above any allegiance to the UK - they should all be supporting the attempts to take Britain out of the EU's political and legal influence and control as a matter of honour and pride - and urgency.

Sadly, the British establishment seems to care only about its own interests - they certainly do not care about the UK or the interests of the population of the UK - whatever they claim - and their "Dodgy Trader" attempts to claim that we do have a Sovereign Parliament in order to justify their betrayal of their own Constituents when they vote for the EU interests, are a source of immense distrust and shame that we have such a low level of honour within our ruling classes.

Previous Page