The idea has, however, become rather more entrenched in recent years – the Lisbon Treaty (and Constitution before it) being a prime example, what with it introducing treaty-level compulsions to include national parliaments in far more areas of EU-level decision-making than before. See, for example, parliament’s 2007 study of how the Lisbon Treaty may affect national parliamentary scrutiny and the subsidiarity principle (PDF). In fact, this is one of the few parts of the Lisbon Treaty I think is actually worthwhile.

“In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance of the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.”

Lord Mackenzie Stuart, a former President of the European Court of Justice, thought this article “a rich and prime example of gobbledygook”. He averred that to regard it as a constitutional safeguard showed “great optimism”.

Successive Ministers for Europe have held that the purpose of subsidiarity is not to give decision making rights to national parliaments. In a Written Parliamentary Answer in 2001, Keith Vaz told Peter Lilley, “subsidiarity is not about the repatriation of powers to Member States. Rather, it is about ensuring that where the Treaty already allows for action at both EU and Member State level, the most appropriate level is chosen each time action is required.”

Who decides when “action is required”? If there is a dispute between the European Union and a Member State as to which should be empowered to act, it is justiciable by the European Court of Justice. It is not an impartial arbiter but a body which is committed to European integration and which prides itself on a ‘dynamic’ approach to EU law.

If subsidiarity had delivered greater autonomy and power to national governments, then surely the pace of EU legislative activity would have slackened over the last fifteen-odd years? Have any areas of public policy been handed back to member state’s exclusive control? Perhaps they have been, I am not sure.

Well, except for every EU treaty since Maastricht, which introduced the subsidiarity principle at the heart of the way the EU is (supposed) to work. And as much as I dislike Barroso, his Commission during the last five years has made a few tentative steps down the path of deregulation and transferring powers back to the member states. As is often the case with the EU, it is the member states who have been resisting.

No doubt, the progress has been slow – but subsidiarity is an accepted principle of the way the EU runs, and is in the best interest of the Commission to implement. (After all, the Commission only has 30-35,000 full-time staff – about the same as Manchester City Council – it simply can’t handle all the work that it’s meant to do, let alone all the work it’s *accused* of doing…)

This was one of the main controversies surrounding Britain’s bid to join the EEC, as membership entailed kissing goodbye to trade agreements with Commonwealth countries.

The reason the European Coal and Steel Community was established as a supranational customs union rather than an inter-governmental free trade area was that the former provided the institutional means of achieving ever-closer union amongst the people of Europe. Inter-governmental free trade didn’t require a European Court of Justice, a European Commission, a European Parliament, or a single currency, hence it was (and is) a poor choice for those seeking European political union.

The key point about all EU law is that it is based on this underlying drive for union. The Commission has never produced a document saying things might be handled better by national parliaments, even when they admit – as they did with fisheries – that EU policy has been a complete disaster.

This process is ongoing, and even if we can’t fix a percentage to the amount of laws attributable to the EU, we know that percentage is rising – albeit slowly.

It is just a pity us Britons don’t have two political parties with two distinct positions regarding the EU: a party that is in favour of national independence, common law and traditional British democracy, and a party that clearly supports internationalism, civil law and technocratic rule.

That is an excellent post so it is!

You do have to wonder though what impact all these laws actually have, and whether or not similar legislation would emmanate from Westminster in the absence of a European dimension. If it was suddenly discovered that porridge was bad for you, does it really matter whether it is the EU or Westminster that decides to ban it?

Without reading every single piece of legislation and coming to a subjective judgement on whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ this debate will run and run.

Somehow though, I doubt it. The BBC’s journalism these days is beyond dire.

Of course the EU is indeed a political project – which was dressed up in 1973 as a “free trade area”.

Which is weird, because I’ve seen videos of both Thatcher and Heath, during the referendum campaign, talking about the political nature of the project, talking about the “ever closer union” phrase specifically, and saying that these were good things.

Of course, I wasn’t born in ‘73, and was less than a year old during the ‘75 referendum, but there do seem to be a lot of myths touted about by those now opposed to membership about how they were “never told” or “lied to” when Britain joined.

If the leaders of the yes campaign were clear in interviews and similar what the (then) EEC was, and they were, where were the lies? It’s not like Benn, Powell and the rest weren’t given any coverage while they were campaigning for withdrawal.

The EEC was founded as a political project with political union as its goal. EFTA was founded as a pure free trade area. In 1975, 3/4s of the population voted for the EEC instead of EFTA, and had access to all the facts. Those that opposed it then have been bitter about it ever since, and continue to lie about the whole thing.

@NM: Good to see you posting here, even if only as a guest post transferred over—had to delete a link to your original from the netcast this morning as this hit the frontpage as Debi was compiling it.

I assume you have heard of NAFTA?

Well, yes. That too is an international agreement which subordinates the will of its member states to an international accord. Only because it is a looser political framework, parties other than the US don’t really have much clout in discussions. The US is so large and so powerful that in the absence of a pooled political construct it can do pretty much what the hell it likes.

By the way Europhobes, EFTA is no solution to what boils down to a simplistic antipathy to cooperating with your fellow Europeans. EFTA countries not only follow the rules agreed upon by EU member states without having a final vote on their shape or implementation. They also pay a fairly hefty fee for the pleasure of doing so – Norway’s contribution famously being more per capita than the UK’s!

Everywhere you look, the eurosceptic aversion to the EU looks ramshackle, self-absorbed and contrary to the Britain’s national interest.

I mentioned Holy Roman Empire, the medieval empire. The Roman Empire was remarkably egalitarian for it’s age. If one served 20 years in the legion one became a Roman and was given land to farm , irrespective of birth. during the Roman republic a dictator was appointed to deal with a particular crisis facing the nation. Rome went from a monarchy, to republic and then an empire but it always maintained a senate , a lower house for knights and the Tribune of the Plebs. The Roman Empire started as a confederacy amongst the Latin towns of which Rome gained the ascendency. It was a republic for longer than it was an empire.

No thanks, not for me anyway. I think the UK is about the right size for everyone to be persuaded to “buy in”, though post-devolution England probably better now.

Of course the great test of EU / euro buy-in is upon us now is it not?
Do German savers really understand the extent to which they are *already* underwriting the Irish government debt mountain, via ECB loans to the now nationalised Irish banks?
We’ll see how this plays out…

Thanks!

Of course the EU is indeed a political project – which was dressed up in 1973 as a “free trade area”.

That may be a good thing; it may not. But people know (now) that they were not told the truth.

john b – you may think it a good thing, but I don’t want decisions made on my behalf by politicians from other countries.