Posted on 05/14/2020 11:32:50 AM PDT by cartan
A ruling by Germany’s constitutional court has sparked serious fears of the unravelling of the European Union. It’s a delayed judgment from an old fight that has hit the EU at its most vulnerable. A group of German academics, including a former leader of the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland, Bernd Lucke, took a case in 2015 to challenge the bond-buying programme of the European Central Bank (ECB).
They hardly hoped to win, but thought they could make a political point. During the euro zone crisis, as now, the ECB was buying the debt of economically weaker EU countries to bid down their borrowing costs and rescue them from the threat of a debt spiral, and directing national central banks to do likewise.
This is an emergency measure taken to hold the euro zone together when its economic imbalances threaten to tear it apart, but it has long been hated by German conservatives who believe it harms savers and pension funds.
Last week, the German constitutional court unexpectedly sided with them. It ruled that the ECB failed to conduct a “proportionality” analysis of the effect of its bond-buying policies on “public debt, personal savings, pension and retirement schemes, real estate prices and the keeping afloat of economically unviable companies”. In a pithy 110-page judgment, the court ordered the German central bank to stop buying bonds if the ECB failed to produce such an assessment within three months. This immediately raised fears it could jeopardise current bond-buying efforts, and cause a run on Italian debt. This is perilous to the euro zone, but not as damaging to the EU as another part of the ruling, which has tugged at a thread that some fear may lead to the unravelling of its very order.
The German court stated that it was free to ignore an earlier ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the issue because “the Court of Justice of the European Union exceeds its judicial mandate”.
This is contrary to the concept of the primacy of EU law. Under this precept, if laws of a member state are in conflict with EU law, EU law takes precedence, and the ECJ is the final authority to adjudicate on it. For the European Commission, agreeing to this is what it means to be a member state.
“The case goes to the very heart, to the very basis of the European Union,” an EU official said. “The union is based on uniform interpretation and application of law,” he added. “Otherwise we have no union.”
The German court managed to make such a ruling because it “slipped through the door of attributed competence”, according to the official. This refers to the fact that the governments of member states grant EU institutions some powers, while retaining others for themselves.
The court deemed it had the authority to rule because the ECJ had strayed out of its jurisdiction into an arena of national power. This is contrary to EU treaties, which hold that the ECJ is the arbiter of EU law, including on determining where the boundaries of EU institutional powers lie.
The EU is weighing its options, and will observe the reaction of the German government as it assesses whether it can go after it for infringing EU law.
But a knot of fundamental principles binds the ability of both Brussels and Berlin to respond.
According to the principle of judicial independence, the German government is powerless to interfere with the judgment of the court.
While the Republic has amended its Constitution several times to adapt it to EU law, the German conundrum cannot be fixed this way. It is grounded in the German constitution’s “eternity clause”. Adopted after the second World War to ensure there could never again be a dictatorship, the clause guarantees certain fundamental principles and can never be amended.
The German constitutional court is highly influential in the region. Its ruling was music to the ears of EU critics in Poland and Hungary.
These countries are already battling judgments from the ECJ, which has found against them for interfering with the independence of their courts. Following the German precedent, their courts can simply deem that the ECJ has overstepped its powers, and can thus be ignored.
The EU is not a state, and has no army, or national guard. Its enforcement powers are limited. Its legal order relies on the voluntary compliance of member states and their courts.
“If national courts stop co-operating the whole system grinds to a halt,” said Ronan McCrea, professor of constitutional and European law at University College London. “Member states have been upholding it all for 40 years. Maybe we became complacent about how weak the system to ensure that is.”
“The EU is not a state, and has no army, or national guard. Its enforcement powers are limited. Its legal order relies on the voluntary compliance of member states and their courts.”
ALWAYS REMEMBER..
Germany is the Glue holding the EU together. If Germany’s commitment to the EU fades or worse, that will trigger the end of the EU.
Didn’t the French President a year or so ago said the European Union needs to build an army to counter America?
Not sure where he thought that army was going to come from
“In a pithy 110-page judgment...”
PITHY, ADJ. - Forceful and brief
Well, they ARE Germans...
That’s why the UK could leave but the southern states couldn’t leave the US. Might makes right.
If even Germany is turning against the EU, then the EU is over. It would be like when Russia seceded from the Soviet Union.
I do remember that but the krauts are a selfish buncha bastards. They’re pathetic trying to rival us..
Texas can..
I agree
I can’t imagine them wanting to put in the money that would be required to build a formidable military
“If Germany’s commitment to the EU fades or worse, that will trigger the end of the EU”
It’s already dead meat walking.
Brexit ensured that. Every country can see a way out now.
Or they could try just being a free trade association like the original Benelux group again.
From what? Sending in troops to save their sorry arses?
Conscription, no doubt.
In other words, "enumerated powers."
Coronovirus is the perfect time to ccut ooff buing junk bonds, or the worst, depending. Personally, I’d be glad the EU has to undergo a crisis if only that we weren’t still on ventilation here in the USA.
“Or they could try just being a free trade association like the original Benelux group again.”
Yes. That is what they should do, along with strengthening NATO instead of trying to build a counter to it.
It even would be fine if they had NOT borderless travel for their citizens, with each other, just passport required visa-less travel as long as they are one of their citizens and not from outside their group of countries. That would end the human-trafficking-refugee hoards getting admission to all of Europe once they set foot on the soil of any European country, while letting their own citizens travel and seek employment among each other.
They should then also can any taxes paid to the EU, move trade issues among them to independent arbitration instead of a European court or executive.
They should end the Euro, go back to their national currencies which over time will put most the onus on economic reforms on the countries independently.
Telling each other how much debt and deficit they can carry (like the EU tries to do now) is comparable to if Washington D.C. could demand debt and deficit limits on the states and the states were responsible for bailing each other out - which is not the American way.
A famous question... "How many divisions has the Pope?"
Oui, this.
I'm no EU expert, but I seem to observe that the least motivated among them (Greece, Portugal, etc) gain the most from the relatively more productive members. An advance peek at globalism, btw.
EU members would all benefit from separate currencies, less interdependence among their economies, and airtight borders.
Smart members will be among the first to bolt, I highly suspect.
“That’s why the UK could leave but the southern states couldn’t leave the US.”
In seventh grade history class, back in the ‘60’s, I asked on what grounds Lincoln went to war with the South. It made no sense to me that they couldn’t leave the union. (Setting aside slavery, which the history book pointed out was not the cause.) I was thoroughly raked over the coals by the teacher. (He was from the WWII generation.) I finally reasoned that the war must have been a response to the attack on Ft. Sumpter. But that was very unsatisfying and I have never read a good explanation of the legal reasoning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.