The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way.
The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way.
We've changed it now. Submitters: please don't do that.
Yes, I think the precise terminology generally used for discussing such situations is "within/outside the ambit of the competences assigned to it" or (more succinctly, but even less clearly) "intra or ultra vires".[0]
It's therefore not so surprising that people informally adopt the more familiar term "(un)constitutional", even if that implies a national structure that doesn't match the EU's legal basis under international law.
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290553083_The_ECJ_a...
They are referring to this chart as the supreme and binding force, where in which the highest court of the EU weighs things against
and used the colloquialism "unconstitutional"
More of the former than the latter.
ehhh, kind of?
> is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU?
its not exactly a one-to-one comparison with anywhere, but its easy to find an individual country's head of state or representatives saying - in a positive way - that they have given up sovereignty for a stronger many country union.
additionally, the top EU court is still coming into its own, with its recent rulings over the last decade being more analogous to the US Supreme Court's "Marbury v. Madison" moment, where it kind of just noticed its finality and gravity and actually exercised that. But one key difference is that the ECJ is not simultaneously an appellate court. So national courts are still silo'd in their own country's processes, with the additional ability to weigh in on ECJ decisions and rulings. While the ECJ deals directly with union law.
so, its happening. but kind of.
The notion of "international law" itself is also a bit murky. It implies that there is some sort of authority above countries to enforce this law, but there isn't. Countries are sovereign. If the legitimate authority of a country decides to walk away from a treaty, nothing prevents that. It is international law in the sense that it applies to the citizen of the country, as long as the country has the will to adhere to the treaty. History is full of broken treaties (in fact most of them end up that way sooner or later), including very recent examples (territorial integrity of Ukraine).
And again, things might be different in the case of the Lisbon treaty, as the treaty was adopted by means of changing the constitution, at least in France.
It's kinda more complicated than this as many european states are divided into regions, so for many matters it's not even the individual states transposing the EU directives into national laws but regions transposing the EU directive into regional laws.
One example would be the EU deciding, a few years ago, that the age for cars to be considered "old timers" is 30 years. Before that some regions had 20 years, others 25, others 30, etc. Then all the regions had to adapt their legislation. In a single country, like Belgium, the three regions all transposed the laws in varying ways (and at different times). But in the end the result is the same: all european regions have "harmonized" the notion that an oldtimer is a vehicule 30 years old or older.
Now there are several matters on which the EU has no authority whatsoever. For example the EU has no fiscal authority: fiscality is decided by the countries/regions and the EU can shut the fuck up. (so far).
No it doesn't, and that's not what your link says.
The "EU position" (if there even is a single position that can be called that) is that the EU's treaties are binding on the signatory states, and the EU's court is ultimately responsible for deciding the meaning of those treaties. Of course, if a country disagrees with the court, it is free to leave the EU completely.
Ironically, the EU is essentially the mechanism of the emergence of the US empire after the Republic was destroyed in the US Civil War, albeit using a few different methods and methods, however resulting in the same constituent outcome ... centralization of power among a ruling class, which citizens have been deprived of.
In other words that may be more relatable to folks here, it's like being diluted out of company ownership. You are promised a certain percentage in exchange for your fundamental critical engineering work that gets the whole effort off the ground in the first place, and then when the moneyed interests come in they dilute you out of any kind of meaningful ownership, let alone value of the thing you created and built, which now others will abscond with and get wealthy from.
The EU has always been deeply corrupt scheme to essentially deconstruct the consequences of the revolutionary era following the US revolution, the same way that the US Civil War essentially reverted the US revolution and nullified the US Constitution.
My prediction if that we will likely in our lifetime see a kind of Oceana, consisting of all of Western Europe and the whole of the Americas, which "always has been at war with Eurasia".
The trajectory and the fingerprints of the plan is all there. US power consolidation, EU power consolidation and centralization, US deracination, EU power centralization, EU deracination, ... transatlantic integration ruled by a hereditary ruling class that will drone any resister "extremists" to cheers during hate weeks decrying disobedient subordination to the faceless machine with a theoretical ruling class that may as well be AI as it may be some hereditary demigods you will never lay eyes on. Are you adequately worshiping your holographic leaders? (in case anyone missed it, that was a reference to the UK Queen being projected as hologram in her carriage and people waving at a hologram)
>one crucial question in the upcoming policy debate will be whether this latter measure, or its implementation, is compatible with the rights of privacy and data protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter).
The Charter of Fundamental Rights serves as the EU Bill of Rights (the American version of which accounts for a huge portion of "constitutional" jurisprudence), and the Treaty of Lisbon makes that charter legally binding. Of note is that a previous iteration of said Treaty was explicitly called "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" and was ratified by most of the member states.
the laws which construct and constrain the european union ie the treaties of member states can be appropriately called a constitution
just because there is not one document called "THE CONSTITUTION" doesn't mean one does not exist
the ecj is a constitutional court because it does judicial review of eu law and can strike down laws that break the treaty ie that are unconstitutional
An Example is the german law which did not allow women to join the millitary till 2000. After that, they had to change the constitution because it does not comply with the EU law about the same treatment of men and women:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_12a_des_Grundgesetzes_...
A country can only ignore EU law on the following grounds: - It reduces a right set in the national constitution - It goes against a right set in the national constitution(not if grants more rights or makes rights wider) - It does not fall in the competency of the EU
https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-un...
That article talks about austria and germany specifically, but it should apply to other countries as well.
I think this is a little bit naive (I mostly agree with you fwiw). America and the EU influence one another a lot. Decisions they make directly affect the other. GDPR affected most Americans. Or even things like the Double Irish. Similarly American laws define a lot for European ways of life (I figure this is more obvious). I think it is easy to ignore this connection, but it happens and is important.
To me this is an interesting idea, considering there's a lot more Europeans (especially among the young urbans and very educated) moving to America than the opposite.
To me this shows a desire from Europeans to live by the US Constitution.
Also going to the US in this context really means half a dozen cities where there are unique opportunities.