The concept of supremacy is key to European federalism, as it is supremacy which affects the national sovereignty of legislation within the domestic political system of the member states. If national legislation comes into conflict with European Law or directives; it is the national sovereignty which will cede to supranational law. A prime example of this was the Factortame case in 1991. This case about fishing rights and legislation was a key case regarding EU supranationalism. The Courts of the UK and the House of Lords found that where national legislation came into conflict with European Community Law, domestic law should be amended. They stated that under the European Communities Act 1972, the law regulating the UK's membership of the EU, it had "always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law."
An earlier case in 1963, called the Van Gend en Loos case, was another landmark case in the EU’s structure and influence. The case regarded the Netherlands raising an import tariff on the Van Gend en Loss company on importing a chemical into the country. This came into conflict with the EU supranational policy on free trade and reducing tariffs on members of the EU. The judgement of the European Court of Justice found that “The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the community.” This demonstrates EU Supremacy when in conflict with national law.
Finally the existence and ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, which was in all but name a European constitution, serves in principle to suggest that Europe is definitely moving towards a federal super state. The inclusion of a condition by which future decisions and directions of Europe no longer need the stringent ratification of heads of government of member states, allowing for a potentially far more powerful Europe that truly holds its own future in its hands. The introduction of the Qualified Majority Voting system has also sought to increase the federalism of the institutions by removing the power of the veto, which was vital to maintaining the individual sovereignty and power of the individual member states. The creation of the post of President of the EU with Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, create two permanent posts which hitherto the Lisbon treaty did not exist. The posts in themselves suggest a more federal Europe. A prime example would be the aid donations to the Haiti earthquake. Baroness Ashton has already held a conference addressing the issue of Haiti and has said that the EU must work together to back Haiti and to do all it can. It has pledged €3 million, which although not a lot in comparison to the USA’s $100, shows a coordinated response.
However the appointments of Van Rompuy and Ashton also demonstrate the reluctance of the EU to move towards a federal Europe, seen in the nature of the candidates chosen. Both figures were relatively unknown before their appointment, and as such do not wield a vast amount of influence or publicity. This serves to fill the role needed as a chairman role which can simply direct the EU and to manage the important position of the intergovernmental European Commission (made up of heads of government). The reason that Tony Blair was not appointed to the position of president of the EU is primarily due to the huge public profile that he possesses, and the reality that he would have overshadowed the national leaders and ultimately made the EU instantaneously more federal in nature.
Moreover the principle of subsidiarity, as aforementioned, is still vital to the makeup of the EU, with the majority of domestically important decisions taken by nationally elected government rather than the EU. The existence of mutual recognition, whereby there is not one unified standard across the whole of the EU, but an acceptance of the different and varied exports and cultures ensures the EU’s intergovernmentalism. For example the way in which the German and the British make their beers is wholly different, and there is not a norm, however both can be sold in the opposing country because of mutual recognition.
Furthermore to the issue of norms, the existence of ‘opt-outs’ most notably the UK and Denmark’s opt out of the single currency, show that this union at present is far more a member based organisation than a federal body. In theory, although not possible in reality due to convention, dependence and uproar, all member states have volunteered to enter the European Union, and as such could legislatively leave if they so desired. Although extremely unlikely, it serves as an important example as to the non-compulsory nature of the EU, which states in America certainly do not have.
The EU, at present, does not have one single collective front. The existence of realist theory still prevails in international relations, and we can see this in many different circumstances. The tariffs which still exist on certain products in different member states, even if they are technically not within the spirit of the EU, still dominate some markets. For example the UK imposes huge tariffs on GM foods, despite their being no health risks scientifically proven, and many would suspect that this is because the majority of European exports are GM produced, and as such British GM-free foods are essentially protected.
Thus I would argue that the EU; whilst certainly possessing several federalist qualities, most notably the Lisbon Treaty which contains within it several clauses which allow for a more federalist Europe in the future; at present is not a federal state. Subsidiarity and the existence of realism between the member states cements the fact that we are not Europeans yet.