Taking the common interest into account

Popel

Taken from : http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,731187-2,00.html

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

"Something that was not an issue with the Greeks or the Latvians has suddenly become one: the relationship between national sovereignty and European solidarity."

"A new government in Ireland could refuse the austerity measures negotiated with the EU.

"Can or should the EU force the Irish to swallow the bitter medicine? ... In Germany, the political will to protect the common currency, even if it requires actions that include financial support for a weaker member state, has prevailed."

"This principle goes both ways, however. There is also a duty to be loyal to the union. Could Ireland say that it is rejecting the EU's demands? That is hard to imagine. First of all, because of the threat of insolvency: Ireland would gain nothing if it had to go knocking on the IMF's door alone."

"The Lisbon Treaty states that member states should take the common interest into account in their economic policy. Every EU state had already given up part of its sovereignty and cannot now demand it back. However, the EU has to handle questions of national pride with care."

"Sure, theoretically Ireland has one defensive maneuver left: leaving the EU. However, that is about as likely as Bavaria leaving Germany."

I was reading the online version of Spiegel, the news magazine in Germany, and have been astounded by quite a lot of what they deliver as "facts" and "truth", it really goes to show how little any media from any one country ought to be trusted.

So, while already posessing a certain level of scepticism about the above extract, I wonder could one of you who know so many of the ins and outs of the various treaties explain the paragraph in bold, in particular the part about sovereignty? Did we sign it away, and in which of the treaties? And would Ireland contravene the Lisbon Treaty if it were to default on its debt? What would the punishment for this be?

Sorry for all the questions, but I know people on here know this a lot better than I do.

Thanks,

Popel

Amhran Nua

I'm still scratching my chin over "a duty to be loyal to the union". Methinks the perception of the EU is somewhat different in Germany.

Popel

I would say it's moreso that the perception of Ireland is different in Germany than it is in Ireland. Ireland is under suspicion of not being loyal to the EU because of voting down Lisbon the first time, and at the same time is being reminded of its duty to repay all it has recieved.

Not my view, but a common view within German media since the Lisbon Treaty

Amhran Nua

Popel wrote: »

Ireland is under suspicion of not being loyal to the EU because of voting down Lisbon the first time

For better or for worse, the nation-states that appeared in the 20th and preceding centuries are largely the way the map is going to be laid out forever more. France will always have a different culture and language to Germany, Thailand to Cambodia, the US to Mexico. The highest loyalty and responsibility most of these nation states will ever have is to themselves, because they will always have more in common with their fellow citizens than with the citizens of other states, regardless of the groups that existed before the appearance of nationalism.

The best that can be achieved beyond that is a common understanding and an agreement of mutual cooperation based on mutual advantage. Loyalty cannot be expected and will not be delivered, only enlightened self interest. If the EU was to force Ireland to surrender its corporation tax advantage for example, every tie between Ireland and the EU would be summarily severed. This is a misunderstanding that could lead to dangerous expectations in the future; trying to treat something like Europe as a homogenous population with majority percentages taking control is unsafe - overriding the requirements of even one small nation-state unravels the entire fabric of preceding agreements.

Popel wrote: »

and at the same time is being reminded of its duty to repay all it has recieved.

EU structural and CAP funding to Ireland was not made with any repayment specified, so that's null and void. As for the bank recapitalisations, there is (rightly) a very strong feeling that the public should not be liable for the gambling debts of traders and vested governmental interests, so this "duty" is called into question as well.

The situation at the moment seems to be a bad string of decisions being made by the EU itself, for which the EU and European states must be culpable.

Popel

Ok, but that all has really nothing to do with my original question. Anyone want to clarify that Lisbon reference to me?

View

In response to the OP's questions, the EU Treaties do contain various "common interest" clauses on various topics. Without doing an exhaustive search I don't think Lisbon necessarily introduced anything new in this regard though.

One such clause is:

Article 120
(ex Article 98 TEC)
Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union, as defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article 121(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article 119.

Given the mess we are in, it is very hard to see how Ireland could be said to have honoured that commitment.

As for the Sovereignity issue - sovereignity is essentially the right to make a decision. If a state limits it right to make specific decision and perform specific actions, it is depending on how you want to view it either "making a sovereign decision not to exercise it sovereignity" or "limiting its sovereignity" .

Likewise, if it transfer the right to make decisions to EU institutions (or other international bodies), it is again depending on how you view it "pooling sovereignity" with other states, "making a sovereign decision to accept the decisions of those bodies" or "giving up its sovereignity".

Obviously, if you want to preserve your sovereignity, you don't take part in bodies such as the EU or other comparable international bodies. If you do though - as we do - then arguments about sovereignity are to my mind a bit like being pregnant and arguing about how much of our virginity we should be willing to give up.

Scofflaw

I think the problem here is that when people see a phrase like "giving up sovereignty" they equate it with a phrase like "giving up cigarettes" - you either have given up, or you haven't. That's not correct in respect of sovereignty, because sovereignty isn't all or nothing.

As View says, sovereignty is essentially the right to make decisions freely. If a government makes 1000 decisions a year, say, and it gives up the right to make 10 of them freely, it has "given up sovereignty", but clearly only some sovereignty.

Also, if the government has the right to make a particular decision freely, but has agreed to consider the good of some other party in doing so, it has again "given up sovereignty", but again, not all of it. Its decision is somewhat constrained rather than entirely free, but it is not the case that the decision is being made for it, or that it is not able to make the decision as such.

That's why the arguments over sovereignty used by eurosceptics ring more than a little more hollowly in Ireland than they do in, say, the UK - because Ireland has never been able to make decisions without constraints. The constraints have been informal rather than formal - clearly, for example, we can't currently make economic decisions without considering the bond market's reaction to them, so we have "given up sovereignty" to the bond markets too. We've never been able to make decisions without considering the likely reaction of Britain as our largest trading partner, and traditionally, up to a few short years ago, we didn't make social policy decisions without considering the wishes of the Catholic Church - we had "given up sovereignty" to them too.

So when we signed up to "conduct [our] economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union", we were agreeing to a constraint on our decision-making, which is indeed giving up a certain amount of sovereignty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Popel

I appreciate the answers guys,

I think View is correct, we probably have not successfully worked towards the overall European good, but critically at the moment, were Ireland to default it would definitely be an act against the common European good, and would be an act of regain a part of its sovereignty which it has previously traded off. Much as we removed the shackle of our commitment to the Catholic Church.

However, we hadn´t signed treaties with the Catholic Church, we have with the EU, therefore, were Ireland to default on its loans from the EU and IMF and possibly bring about the falling of many major European banks and all its consequnces on the citizens of Europe, would we be acting legally, or would we be breaking the EU treaties?

View

Popel wrote: »

I appreciate the answers guys,

I think View is correct, we probably have not successfully worked towards the overall European good, but critically at the moment, were Ireland to default it would definitely be an act against the common European good, and would be an act of regain a part of its sovereignty which it has previously traded off. Much as we removed the shackle of our commitment to the Catholic Church.

However, we hadn´t signed treaties with the Catholic Church, we have with the EU, therefore, were Ireland to default on its loans from the EU and IMF and possibly bring about the falling of many major European banks and all its consequnces on the citizens of Europe, would we be acting legally, or would we be breaking the EU treaties?

I suspect that would be up to the ECJ to determine. There is no clause that specifically prohibits a default (to the best of my knowledge) but at the same time it would be really hard to defend such an action as being in any way compatible with the member states' stated goal of having a common currency. It would probably hinge on the damage that such an action caused.

Then again as a default would probably cause mayhem in our biggest creditors - namely, the UK, Germany, the USA, Belgium & France (with the latter two being by far the smallest), I suspect the collateral damage to Ireland would be such that an ECJ ruling and associated fines would probably be a minor worry.