Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Neil]

I will also point out a political unwillingness to enforce the law makes the law de facto unenforceable.

This is actually an important point, and far more important than any laws.

The problem is that the laws that the EU seems to want to enforce are the human rights laws.  Ultimately, that means that the EU cannot be a force for the advancement of humanity.  You can't advance the cause of humanity by advancing the cause of individual humans.

[Martinus]

There is no mechanism for you to kick them out.

What mechanism?  I read a set of ideas on how this might work, but the conclusion was that there was no satisfactory answer.  My reading of the EU laws seemed to indicate that it goes through National Court systems most of the time.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/enforcementofeulaw.htm

I will also point out a political unwillingness to enforce the law makes the law de facto unenforceable.

There is a difference when the EU Commission sues a country (then it always goes directly to the ECJ) and when a private actor sues the country for a failure to implement the EU law etc. In the latter case this goes to national courts first but the courts have been remarkably willing to enforce the law and award damages in such cases - and as I said, ultimately there is always a recourse to the ECJ in one capacity or another. The fact that the bulk goes through national courts just speaks about their willingness to enforce this law, imo.

Plus, all EU member states consider EU treaties and laws to take priority over national laws (bar constitution) and their constitutional courts frequently find some national law invalid because it is in violation of the EU law.

There is, technically, a possibility that some low-legal-culture state can fall into the hands of some authoritarian party that would manage to effectively take over the courts (think Kaczynskis in Poland). That has not happened so far, but if it did, the EU has quite effective means of bringing the country to heel (the most important being the ability to suspend the rights the country enjoys - including free movement of its people, free movement of its capitals, free establishment of its companies, free movement of its goods and last but not least, cutting off the gravy tap of EU regional aid and CAP).

As things are now, I'd wager almost every EU country could be brought to its knees if it was suddenly cut off from the benefits of the single market. Even the "net contributors" to the EU budget would find the vast export markets taken from them to be a huge hit to their national economies (even the seemingly isolationist UK has 2/3 of its international trade done with the EU - this would become much less profitable if its goods would no longer be able to enter these markets without tariffs or special certifications the EU removes between members).

[Razgovory]

How much money to countries get from the EU?  Also what happens if a big country like France says, we don't want any Poles anymore.  You know, like they did with the Gypsies last year.

These things you describe are not effective means of bringing anyone to heel since they hurt everyone involved nobody is likely to use them.  Especially if the offender if a large important country.  And please, show me the mechanism for kicking someone out.

[Sheilbh]

Since you yourself said that everyone cheats, it's pretty obvious that the EU can't enforce it's own laws.  If a state gets sued, but just doesn't pay or do anything then what?  You sue them again?  Send some angry letters?  There is no mechanism for you to kick them out.  Hell, since they will often be tried in a national court a country could simply always find that the state is not violation of EU law.  I wouldn't compare the EU to the UN.  The UN at least has some teeth.  It can put a no fly zone on a country.

There are a few things here which are distinct that I think you're conflating.

First of all the Commission doesn't take states to national courts.  Those cases and cases in disputes between member states are automatically heard at the European law.  The national courts only hear cases from individuals and businesses and if it's relevant apply EU law.  In that sense it's best to think of domestic courts as inferior EU courts.

Secondly the Commission choosing, for political reasons, not to enforce EU law is a world away from the EU not being able to enforce its laws.  If the issue doesn't come before the court through an individual or the sort-of 'executive' then it's got nothing to enforce.

Thirdly I think the point about enforcement is a bit facile.  EU countries accept rulings from the CJEU because they're countries with the rule of law.  In the same way as the Supreme Court has enforced its rulings on the executive in the US - despite having no real powers - so the CJEU has established itself in all European systems.  The court has over-ruled national governments (and those laws have been struck down) and have overturned decisions of the supreme and constitutional courts of member states.  They've changed fundamental principles in some countries.  To give an example under the British system our courts can't disapply a law passed by Parliament.  They've been given that power by the CJEU in EU cases and have used it.  It was unprecedented at the time.

[Razgovory]

Thirdly I think the point about enforcement is a bit facile.  EU countries accept rulings from the CJEU because they're countries with the rule of law.  In the same way as the Supreme Court has enforced its rulings on the executive in the US - despite having no real powers - so the CJEU has established itself in all European systems.  The court has over-ruled national governments (and those laws have been struck down) and have overturned decisions of the supreme and constitutional courts of member states.  They've changed fundamental principles in some countries.  To give an example under the British system our courts can't disapply a law passed by Parliament.  They've been given that power by the CJEU in EU cases and have used it.  It was unprecedented at the time.

There have been times when enforcing the edicts of Supreme Court in the US have been tricky since it needs the agreement of the Executive to do any enforcing.  I imagine you have the same problem in Europe.

Did the EU ever do anything to France for the expulsion of the Roma.  http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-14/world/europe.france.roma_1_roma-deportation-france?_s=PM:WORLD

[Sheilbh]

There have been times when enforcing the edicts of Supreme Court in the US have been tricky since it needs the agreement of the Executive to do any enforcing.  I imagine you have the same problem in Europe.

Different countries tend to enforce at different paces, but the progress, so far, has been in one direction.

Did the EU ever do anything to France for the expulsion of the Roma.  http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-14/world/europe.france.roma_1_roma-deportation-france?_s=PM:WORLD

Well the commissioner says she's speaking 'personally'. 

I think the Commission did press the French with regards to transposing EU regulations on free movement of labour into French law.  That's been done.  That was the only ground on which the EU could really have intervened.  So there's no case for the EU to make because the regulation's been implemented, individuals can now sue the French state under that law to see if it's been correctly applied in France.

I think also that this could come under justice and home affairs which are really not EU areas at all.

[Razgovory]

What do you mean by "Press"?

[Sheilbh]

What do you mean by "Press"?

Put pressure on, threaten to sue, remind of their treaty duties.

[Razgovory]

So, angry letters.  Marty said there was a way to kick out members, do you know what it is?  Has the EU been able to punish a major European power in a way that immediately forced them to stop something they really wanted to do?  By major European power I mean one the big boys like the UK, France, Italy, or Germany?

[The Brain]

You should never write letters when you're angry.

[Sheilbh]

So, angry letters.  Marty said there was a way to kick out members, do you know what it is?  Has the EU been able to punish a major European power in a way that immediately forced them to stop something they really wanted to do?  By major European power I mean one the big boys like the UK, France, Italy, or Germany?

Why does the method matter?  The European Commission's job is generally to make sure that EU member states apply EU law.  Some countries do it automatically I think, some like France and the UK require French or British law to give it effect.  The Commission, in the case you asked about, wasn't happy with French implementation of a directive, they got the French to change that.  In 70% of cases the Commission gets the government to change policy through angry letters, it's only in that remaining third that they bring actions against member states.

The EU isn't generally in the business of stopping countries from doing things, they're passing their own laws and the main worry is getting them uniformally applied.  Also their procedures aren't really immediate.  The Commission has various stages of escalation before ultimately suing a country and ending up in the CJEU.  I imagine it would take time in the US for a case to do with Utah law to reach the Supreme Court too.  Having said that I know the Commission's won cases against the UK, France, Italy and Germany and in each case it's led to a change in domestic legislation and a fine.

[Neil]

The EU isn't generally in the business of stopping countries from doing things,

Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.

[Sheilbh]

Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.

Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.

[Neil]

Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.

Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, but they're trying to twist those meanings in order to advantage particular regions.  That's not alright, and we don't tolerate it.

[Martinus]

Unless a country wants to make feta cheese or champagne.

Words need to have meanings, nothing wrong with that.

Same reason Neil cannot call himself an "American" despite his painful desire to do so.