Our constitution and the EU

WooPeeA

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The EU parliament is elected, and they are the ones who pass laws, the commission only enforces them, and the commission is appointed by our directly elected representatives.

Commissioners can make laws without Parliament agreement.

After Treaty of Lisbon all law duties, from creating to passing will be a job of directly elected people, MEPs. Commissioners will be only responsible for managing their departments.

It will work very similar to most of the national governments system.

Eurosceptic2008

Yes we should. But we should go further and do what Poland and the UK did and get Protocols opting us out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Treaty enshrines into EU law. Tbh, this is by far my biggest problem with this Treaty, which was the first EU treaty I voted no to. Gerard Hogan SC, one of Ireland's most eminent constitutional-law experts, warned before the first referendum about the implications of the Charter for the authority of the Irish Supreme Court in particular, saying it could 'eclipse' it. He furthermore pointed out that while it is being said that the Charter relates to EU law, in practice there is now so much overlap between the national and EU spheres of influence, particularly in terms of the transposition of EU directives into national law via national parliaments (unlike EU regulations which come into force without national parliaments having to consent). Article 6 (see pg4 of link) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Lisbon, enshrines the Charter into EU law for the first time. Here is an extract from the Irish Times article on what Gerard Hogan said.

Thursday, April 24, 2008
Charter 'could eclipse' Supreme Court
THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law.
The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented.
Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.
He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation.
One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented.
The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said.
Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects.
In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.
The "implementation of EU law" condition could also be triggered by accidental factors like nationality or travel, he said.".....

sceptre

Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.

I assume Gerard Hogan really means "since the Supreme Court decided around 1960 that the constitution meant to actually found a 'new' court that could give itself (thankfully) the power to start adding unenumerated rights" given that that series of events was a rather profound change in relation to judicial review and the protection of human rights, and is dumbing it down for the masses?