EU laws in Ireland

Bob Z

What laws have we got in Ireland that we wouldnt have if we werent in the EU?

BetterLisbon

Bob Z wrote: »

What laws have we got in Ireland that we wouldnt have if we werent in the EU?

That is very hard to say as EEA members have to implement some market regulations to ensure a level playing field in the single market. Switzerland also implements some market rules according to its bilateral treaties.
Even if we were not in the single market some rules would be copied anyway as our politicians and civil servants jump at the chance of avoiding a decision by saying "this is how its done in the EU and it works....".

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

That is very hard to say as EEA members have to implement some market regulations to ensure a level playing field in the single market. Switzerland also implements some market rules according to its bilateral treaties.
Even if we were not in the single market some rules would be copied anyway as our politicians and civil servants jump at the chance of avoiding a decision by saying "this is how its done in the EU and it works....".

I agree with that, really - I think it's pretty much impossible to say. Too many possibilities - were we in the EEA/EFTA, what bilateral and multilateral treaties would we have, how would Ireland not being part of the EU have impacted its social and economic development...?

cordially,
Scofflaw

jacaranda

Bob Z wrote: »

What laws have we got in Ireland that we wouldnt have if we werent in the EU?

Most laws from the EU are called statutory instruments and our Parliament has no power to oppose or stop a statutory instrument.

For example last year there were almost 3500 statutory instruments which became law in this country.

The tens of thousands of statutory instruments we have had to accept, and over which our parliament hav no power to stop, would never have become law had we not joined the EEC.

Bob Z

jacaranda wrote: »

Most laws from the EU are called statutory instruments and our Parliament has no power to oppose or stop a statutory instrument.

For example last year there were almost 3500 statutory instruments which became law in this country.

The tens of thousands of statutory instruments we have had to accept, and over which our parliament hav no power to stop, would never have become law had we not joined the EEC.

I know this could be subjective but are they good laws or bad laws?

Scofflaw

Bob Z wrote: »

I know this could be subjective but are they good laws or bad laws?

Since jacaranda is incorrect in any case, I'm not sure the question is useful. The legal instruments of the EU are not called statutory instruments - SIs are Oireachtas instruments. I suspect jacaranda is thinking of EU Regulations, which when issued by the EU take immediate force here as in every EU Member State.

The vast majority of those Regulations are Common Market regulations, and that is a partial answer to your question - without the EU, we certainly would not have had any common market regulations, and would have missed out on gems like this:

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96

or this:

Commission Regulation (EU) No 81/2010 of 28 January 2010 fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Irish whiskey for the period 2009/10

The EU also produces Directives - these are not law until they are transposed into Irish law. Again, the bulk of these are common market regulations like this:

Commission Directive 2009/155/EC of 30 November 2009 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the purity level required of the active substance metazachlor (Text with EEA relevance)

and this:

Council Directive 2009/157/EC of 30 November 2009 on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (Text with EEA relevance)

The bulk of what the EU produces are, unsurprisingly, trade and customs regulations - are those good or bad law? The answer, I suspect, is that mostly they aren't what we normally consider laws at all. They don't shape society in any way - they deal with the technical minutiae of trade.

In fact, considering the whole body of EU law, one would probably have to say that 99% of what we would not have had in the absence of the EU are a mass of detailed rules intended to ensure that what we call a sausage is something that can be translated into the trade vocabulary of other countries, and that adheres to certain specified standards. Whether one considers that "good law" or "bad law" seems almost an odd question - it is not, in general, either. It is the sort of "law" that shapes sausages, not society.

Directives do, of course, also contain some market-shaping legislation, more directly relevant to the general public, but still a lot of it is technical:

Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (Text with EEA relevance)

Then there are Decisions, some of which seem important:

Council Decision of 9 October 2009 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1 and 2 and their annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part

while others are a little abstruse:

Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems Decision No H4 of 22 December 2009 concerning the composition and working methods of the Audit Board of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement)

All of those examples are from 2009 - in which year there entered into force 171 Directives, 1383 Regulations, and 668 Decisions. If you'd like to look through specimens of that legislation, have a look at EUR-LEX.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jacaranda

Bob Z wrote: »

I know this could be subjective but are they good laws or bad laws?

I'm not sure if they are good or bad, which seem to be moral concepts.

K-9

jacaranda wrote: »

I'm not sure if they are good or bad, which seem to be moral concepts.

That's the problem, it is so subjective. Just as a Eurosceptic could point to laws that are bad, Europhiles could point to good laws necessitated by the Common Market, that we wouldn't have passed if outside it.

Basically, assuming that we wouldn't have passed some of these laws anyway, just because we wouldn't have been in the EEC, isn't a fair premise either. That applies whether you are a Eurosceptic or Europhile.

It would be an interesting study to undertake, but bias would need to be left at the door.

BetterLisbon

K-9 wrote: »

That's the problem, it is so subjective. Just as a Eurosceptic could point to laws that are bad, Europhiles could point to good laws necessitated by the Common Market, that we wouldn't have passed if outside it.

Basically, assuming that we wouldn't have passed some of these laws anyway, just because we wouldn't have been in the EEC, isn't a fair premise either. That applies whether you are a Eurosceptic or Europhile.

It would be an interesting study to undertake, but bias would need to be left at the door.

For me its about a lot more than bad laws or too many laws. The issue is irish sovereignty i.e. our democratically elected parliament can be overruled in brussels and our constitution can be overruled by treaty committments.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

For me its about a lot more than bad laws or too many laws. The issue is irish sovereignty i.e. our democratically elected parliament can be overruled in brussels and our constitution can be overruled by treaty committments.

Actually, the issue appears to be that you don't accept the democratic decisions of the electorate.

Under the terms of Bunreacht na hEireann, sovereignty rests with the people. As such, it is ultimately the people's prerogative as to what, if anything, they want to do with that sovereignty.

The people have decided to exercise their sovereign right to join the EU and to accept the limits that places on the exercise of sovereignty in certain areas. It is the people's sovereign right to do so.

You do not have the right to veto decisions by the electorate as to whether, or how, they decide to exercise or transfer some (or even all) of that sovereignty either today or at any time in the future. Were that the case, then sovereignty would no longer rest with the people - it would rest with you.

If you respected Irish sovereignty, then you'd accept the sovereign decison of the electorate and support Ireland's membership of the EU. It would appear that you don't though...

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

Actually, the issue appears to be that you don't accept the democratic decisions of the electorate.

Under the terms of Bunreacht na hEireann, sovereignty rests with the people. As such, it is ultimately the people's prerogative as to what, if anything, they want to do with that sovereignty.

The people have decided to exercise their sovereign right to join the EU and to accept the limits that places on the exercise of sovereignty in certain areas. It is the people's sovereign right to do so.

You do not have the right to veto decisions by the electorate as to whether, or how, they decide to exercise or transfer some (or even all) of that sovereignty either today or at any time in the future. Were that the case, then sovereignty would no longer rest with the people - it would rest with you.

If you respected Irish sovereignty, then you'd accept the sovereign decison of the electorate and support Ireland's membership of the EU. It would appear that you don't though...

Maybe the people will change their minds. After all we were allowed change our minds on Nice and Lisbon. Or is it a change from yes to no is unacceptable?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Actually, the issue appears to be that you don't accept the democratic decisions of the electorate.

Under the terms of Bunreacht na hEireann, sovereignty rests with the people. As such, it is ultimately the people's prerogative as to what, if anything, they want to do with that sovereignty.

The people have decided to exercise their sovereign right to join the EU and to accept the limits that places on the exercise of sovereignty in certain areas. It is the people's sovereign right to do so.

You do not have the right to veto decisions by the electorate as to whether, or how, they decide to exercise or transfer some (or even all) of that sovereignty either today or at any time in the future. Were that the case, then sovereignty would no longer rest with the people - it would rest with you.

If you respected Irish sovereignty, then you'd accept the sovereign decison of the electorate and support Ireland's membership of the EU. It would appear that you don't though...

To be fair, though, it's only necessary that BL accept the legality of the majority decision. He doesn't have to like it, and obviously he's free to work to change popular opinion.

cordially,
scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, though, it's only necessary that BL accept the legality of the majority decision. He doesn't have to like it, and obviously he's free to work to change popular opinion.

cordially,
scofflaw

Well unless someone has evidence of vote rigging i accept the result of October 2nd. Although referenda have now been heavily devalued by the reaction to the first result. A no vote is now simply an inconvenience and not the short to medium term settlement of an issue that they once were. Approximately 10 years used to pass before an issue was raised again (abortion, divorce, first past the post etc.).
As such i feel free to campaign and argue on issues related to Lisbon.

Bob Z

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well unless someone has evidence of vote rigging i accept the result of October 2nd. Although referenda have now been heavily devalued by the reaction to the first result. A no vote is now simply an inconvenience and not the short to medium term settlement of an issue that they once were. Approximately 10 years used to pass before an issue was raised again (abortion, divorce, first past the post etc.).
As such i feel free to campaign and argue on issues related to Lisbon.

a lot of people don't bother voting because they know it will be run again (although I know a couple of voted no the second time because they didn't like it being rerun)

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well unless someone has evidence of vote rigging i accept the result of October 2nd. Although referenda have now been heavily devalued by the reaction to the first result. A no vote is now simply an inconvenience and not the short to medium term settlement of an issue that they once were. Approximately 10 years used to pass before an issue was raised again (abortion, divorce, first past the post etc.).
As such i feel free to campaign and argue on issues related to Lisbon.

This issue has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court.

The electorate - when approving Bunreacht na hEireann - gave the Government the authority to hold referenda whenever they choose. There is no "minimum time between referenda" provision in the constitution. None whatsoever.

But - oh what a surprise - when the Government exercises the authority granted to them by the electorate (to hold a second referendum on an issue), you have a problem with that decision.

In other words, when the sovereign right to make decisions is used to make decision you disagree with, you reject it.

molloyjh

And back to Lisbon we go....again.....

jacaranda

molloyjh wrote: »

And back to Lisbon we go....again.....

And back we go you you saying "back to Lisbon we go..."

hobochris

33BHP restriction for on motorcycles for first two years of licence.

Avgas

BetterLisbon wrote: »

For me its about a lot more than bad laws or too many laws. The issue is irish sovereignty i.e. our democratically elected parliament can be overruled in brussels and our constitution can be overruled by treaty committments.

If we left the EU tomorrow, my guess is that much of our legislation would take the style of copying UK legislation...which is what we did before we joined anyhow. Not to mention that many Victorian laws were in force....and remain influential!!!!!

There's you fantastic sovereignty for you!

Very small open trading nations will by necessity have to adopt fairly pragmatic rules and laws that facilitate trade with bigger states nearby. Norway and Switzerland find increasingly that they simply have to adopt equivalent standards to many EU norms and laws on technical market measures (the bulk of what the EU does)...and .....yes they hold out on a few issues.....but really.....

We've over 400,000 unemployed and you're worried about EU laws cramping our style?

The issue you raise is actually the complex one of the supremacy of EU law...which is a doctrine developed by the ECJ.,...but limited only to the application of EU laws and norms....therefore the ECJ can overrule national laws when these conflict with some EU norm in a fundamental way....but only if there is a conflict between a specific national provision and a specific EU provision..... .on matters not relating to the EU...or marginally so. ....the EU court in Luxembourg has either no or very marginal jurisdiction to overrule anything.

How many Irish laws have been over-ruled by the ECJ?

Fratton Fred

so does a directive have to be adopted into law within a certain timeframe?

i ask, because i was surprised to learn that TUPE does not apply in Ireland, unlike most of Europe. i would have thought that with Ireland's strong union movement, it would have been adopted pretty quickly.

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so does a directive have to be adopted into law within a certain timeframe?

i ask, because i was surprised to learn that TUPE does not apply in Ireland, unlike most of Europe. i would have thought that with Ireland's strong union movement, it would have been adopted pretty quickly.

There's always a time line for adoption into national law - but is TUPE this one:

Directive 2001/23/EC on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses

The implementation report claims:

The Directive was implemented by the European Communities (Protection Of Employees OnTransfer Of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (Statutory Instrument No. 131 of 2003). Section 21 of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Bill, 2005 adopts the exchange of information provisions in Article 3.2 of the Directive. This legislation was in its final stages of adoption at the time of writing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fratton Fred

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's always a time line for adoption into national law - but is TUPE this one:

The implementation report claims:

that would be the one. I know it has been law in the UK for several years, i'm just surprised Ireland hasn't adopted it fully as yet.

marco_polo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that would be the one. I know it has been law in the UK for several years, i'm just surprised Ireland hasn't adopted it fully as yet.

While looking around I found a page here that may interest you. Perhaps what you are thinking of is what happens in the event of a refusal by the employee to transfer the contract of employment, which seems to be largely a matter for each Member State to determine themselves.

In the case of Ireland it appears that we have not gon eas far as the UK, and did not create any additional legislation regarding to the consequences of an employee’s refusal to transfer.

http://www.eversheds.ie/News.aspx?ID=79D21E24-862B-4685-A66A-2D7059FB72E2&PID=a257bece-c1e7-464a-9cd0-fde10d3a18c3&NID=79307581-8a2e-494d-b3a4-5d57b2c7763e&M=2

Irish Position
Unlike the UK, Ireland did not adopt any legislation to address the consequences of an employee’s refusal to transfer. The issue was therefore very unclear for some time, with the result that advising businesses involved in mergers or acquisitions on the potential costs to the transferor company was fraught with difficulty. In the absence of any legislation a decision by the Irish courts was necessary. However it is only very recently that this has been forthcoming. In the absence of any clear direction conflicting views were held by those advising on such transactions.

One viewpoint, similar to that of the German courts, was that where an employee refused to transfer – as was his right – no transfer occurred but nothing else changed either. The logical outcome of this was that the employee remained in the employment of the transferor – his original employer. If the transferor, as was likely, could not redeploy the employee elsewhere in the organisation, the transferor was left with no option except to make the employee redundant. Employees who have been with an employer for over two years are entitled to statutory redundancy payments under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2007. The question would therefore arise as to whether the transferor as the employer would be liable for these payments. The question also arises as to whether the transferor would be obliged to pay any contractual redundancy or ex gratia payments provided for in a redundancy policy.

It was suggested however, that even if it was correct to say that the employee’s employment continued with the transferor, it may be possible to avoid a liability to statutory redundancy on the basis that the employee had refused a suitable offer of alternative employment. Under Irish legislation such a refusal disentitles an employee to a statutory redundancy payment. However, while this would absolve the transferor of the duty to pay statutory redundancy payments, it might not alter the fact of the redundancy itself. The transferor could still be faced with an obligation to make any enhanced contractual severance payments unless its redundancy policy was carefully worded to deal with this particular situation.

An alternative view was that the proper consequence of the objection of an employee to a transfer was effectively a resignation by the employee. This approach was consistent with that adopted by the UK legislation.

UK Position
The UK adopted a very different approach to that of Germany and endeavored to ensure clarity by setting out the consequences of a refusal to transfer in legislation. In 1993, following the Katsikas decision, an amendment to the original UK legislation was adopted providing that the effect of a refusal to transfer would be the termination of the employment contract. The employee would not be treated as having been dismissed and would therefore not be entitled to any redundancy payments or other compensation for the loss of his job.

The question then arose in the UK as to what should happen where the objection to the transfer was as a result of a negative change in working conditions. The 1993 provision was silent as to what would happen where the employee had genuine grounds for objecting. This issue was addressed by the English Court of Appeal in the case of Humphreys v Oxford University where the Court held that the purpose of the original legislation had been to protect employees’ rights on transfer. Therefore where there would be a substantial detrimental change in conditions as a result of the transfer the employee could object and his objection would be treated as a dismissal as opposed to a resignation. Provision for this was later made in the EU Directive of 2001. The entire position in the UK regarding an employee’s right to refuse a transfer and the consequences of such a refusal is now set out in the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.