> That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me.
If someone offers you a cup of tea, and you decline, do you get offended if they then offer you cup of coffee instead?
Even if the question being asked were exactly the same, it would only be like a piece of software asking "Are you sure?" before you delete something, or providing a cancel button after the process has started.
I concede, though, that you're absolutely right about the supremacy of EU law being a principle clearly recognised by the ECJ. The difference is, by not putting this principle as an article to the treaty, it remains slightly less binding on signatories (under international law), since it relies on the evolving precedent of the court, rather than being agreed up front.
Now let me explain the logic of this supremacy principle.
If a sovereign nation agrees to be part of an organisation which creates laws that apply to its members, then those new laws apply just as a new law passed by a national government would apply. This follows the basic legal principle of "lex posterior derogat priori", but moreover there is the principle of statutory interpretation which means that a national parliament can't "accidentally" pass a law which contradicts existing EU law.
A member state, remaining sovereign, may choose to deliberately pass a law, knowing it will put them in breach of EU law, but that would also put them in breach of international law, which courts generally assume governments aim to avoid. In any case, it would be churlish for a member state to deliberately break the commitments it made as part of joining the union when there exists a mechanism by which it can leave and disapply all EU law.
That's a valid point, regarding the analogy. I respect their decision to offer modifications, I just don't agree with it myself because I don't think the modifications were anything substantial.
To expand upon this further: in the House of Commons, the Government cannot keep coming back and asking the same question. They may only ask the House to vote on an issue once. If they come back with something "substantially similar", then the rules dictate it is treated as though it were the same and cannot be asked again. I like this approach. It prevents people from giving in and being "bullied" into accepting something they clearly didn't want the first time.
In respect of the approach to the referendum re-runs, I viewed it as using the "Ask for 100%, and then settle for 90%" approach. Voters aren't stupid — they rejected the original constitution for a reason... and I suppose I'm tired of the perception (rightly or wrongly!) that the Commission and Council know better than their citizens. Whether they intended it or not (and I'm sure they didn't), that's the sense I get from them now – that they know better and we ought to just accept whatever they suggest. :-(
It's a shame, because I like the founding principles of the Union.
If someone offers you a cup of tea, and you decline, do you get offended if they then offer you cup of coffee instead?
Even if the question being asked were exactly the same, it would only be like a piece of software asking "Are you sure?" before you delete something, or providing a cancel button after the process has started.
I concede, though, that you're absolutely right about the supremacy of EU law being a principle clearly recognised by the ECJ. The difference is, by not putting this principle as an article to the treaty, it remains slightly less binding on signatories (under international law), since it relies on the evolving precedent of the court, rather than being agreed up front.
Now let me explain the logic of this supremacy principle.
If a sovereign nation agrees to be part of an organisation which creates laws that apply to its members, then those new laws apply just as a new law passed by a national government would apply. This follows the basic legal principle of "lex posterior derogat priori", but moreover there is the principle of statutory interpretation which means that a national parliament can't "accidentally" pass a law which contradicts existing EU law.
A member state, remaining sovereign, may choose to deliberately pass a law, knowing it will put them in breach of EU law, but that would also put them in breach of international law, which courts generally assume governments aim to avoid. In any case, it would be churlish for a member state to deliberately break the commitments it made as part of joining the union when there exists a mechanism by which it can leave and disapply all EU law.