Point three is most applicable to this essay in the sense that it dictates that EU law does take precedence or is superior to the relevant national law that may be thought applicable.
History of the Doctrine of Supremacy
The issues of European Supremacy began long before the EU threatened Britain’s legal system. In 1957, when the Treaty of Rome was first shaped, the forefathers of a Federal Europe knew exactly what they intended for member states. During Macmillan's reign as Prime Minister (1957 - 1963), he and his Conservative Government accepted the certainty of the EEC and sought to place Britain at its heart, reasoning that we could provide the Europeans with sound political leadership, due to our diplomatic experience, skills in negotiation and a special relationship with the US, a theory that would be proven to be tenuous. In the creation of the Treaty of Rome, three directives were to be met, (1) To achieve peace in Western Europe (2) To form a customs union, facilitating a strong trade block and (3) Build an alternative Super-power to rival the US and the USSR. Macmillan's application for British membership of the EEC was met with rebuttal, in 1963, Charles De Gaulle vetoed the request suggesting, “Britain's nature, structure and situation differ profoundly from those on the Continent.” But in reality, was he concerned with the UK's close association with the US, he proved this again, by once again vetoeing again in 1967.
In 1971, Edward Heath had leaflets distributed to every household in Britain detailing the impending devotion to a European community outlining, “Britain losing essential sovereignty,” while dismissing fears regarding loss of independence as “completely unjustified, as no member of the Community would be able to override another, therefor Britain would keep her own Parliament, Courts and Legal system.” Geoffrey Howe reiterated this by saying, “The impact of the Community law is, by definition, confined to essentially economic matters” However in practice, EU law has clearly extended far beyond this definition, which can be seen in the case of. R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Traders Ferry Ltd
Monism and Dualism
Monism is the theory that national and international law form part of one greater legal structure, in which international law is supreme to all other laws.
Whereas Dualism is the process or belief where by it is opposed to monism, as dualists believe that they are separate systems operating in different fields.
National courts acceptance of the EU legal system
As you can expect, not all EU member states surrendered to the emerging constitutionalization of the EU at the same time. The Benelux trio of countries accepted the applicable direct effect aswell as the supremacy of EU law almost immediately after the creation of the doctrines. Since the 1920s Belgium have chose to inherit the international law as their own. The German court also adopted this method to be adhered to for their countries legal benefit, however in 1974 they retreated from this position when they decided that where conflict between the national and international laws occurred, the German court could decide the limits on how supreme the international law was to actually be.
Reform
Britain has also seen ludicrous rulings including: Carrots being defined as fruit when applied to Jam, laws on incorrect curvature of imported bananas and proposals for law reform on the noise made by lawnmowers. All UK firms have had to comply with single market legislation, even if they had no intention of exporting goods, (only 30% of our output is sold abroad, under half of this exported to the EU) This legislation part of a harmonisation programme that entailed 1368 directives that our own Parliament were made to legislate upon. The implementation of Corpus Duris would appear to threaten our institution further as it would eradicate trial by Jury, introduce Double Jeopardy, allow Imprisonment without charge and replace the Innocent until proven Guilty concept with Guilty until proven Innocent. Indeed, since the treaty of Amsterdam, Britain is now facing the very real comprehension of what being part of the EU has in store. New policy areas include, Employment, Equal Opportunities, Research and Development, Public Health, Social Policy and Transport. We are now signed up to a European Union that has a Parliament, a Flag and an Anthem, a Union that wants a single Currency, Army and Foreign Policy.
One could argue that Britain has kept its sovereignty with the fact that it could pass an Act to, “renounce the Treaty, or would that be an illegal act of rebellion?”
British courts acceptance
Upon accession of Britain to the EU in 1973, we accepted direct effect pretty much immediately. However this was completely opposite when it came to the United Kingdom accepting the supremacy of EU law. This was seen to be a problem because the doctrine conflicts centrally with the concept of having British constitution of ‘parliamentary sovereignty.’ The acts of parliament override all existing law or legislation.
However in 1990 the House of Lords found a way to reconcile British parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. As on a reference from the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice ruled that a 1988 act of British parliament was in breach of EU law. “The House of Lords accepted the judgement on the grounds that in passing the 1972 act of accession to the EU, British parliament had voluntarily accepted the EU legal system of which the supremacy of EU law is a central part. The House of Lords also argued that this does not compromise parliamentary sovereignty, as a future British parliament could repeal this act of accession.”
Britain’s entry into the European Treaty's has attracted huge reform, as British Parliament must legislate in conjunction with EU law. And Acts and Laws already in existence must be interpreted to conform to EU Law, and the State has to ensure that all EU law is transposed and implemented accurately. This puts a huge strain on the Courts whilst ruling, thus making a mockery of Precedent as any case incorporating EU legislation can only be considered using the purposive approach, in order that EU directive can be met. So then this means that Britain has not in fact reserved its sovereignty as promised when first mentioned to the public all those years before.
To understand the concept, we first need to acknowledge the unwritten code of the constitution and its efforts to ensure that Parliament is the executive law producing body of the land. And so, any Act of Parliaments will need to be adhered to directly by the applicable national court. In the case of Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame it is easy to see the ingratiating manoeuvres of The House of Lords as it bows to supremacy of EU law.
The future of EU supremacy
Until the Maastricht treaty, the EC could remain an economic association of sovereign States, since (1992) Maastricht, and even more so since (1997) Amsterdam, there can be no argument that Britain is heading towards a political, monetary and economic union, or the birth of a single state called EUROPE. EU law, including regulations made by un-elected bureaucrats of the EU Commission, now take precedence to the twin legal systems of Britain, the tried and tested institutions of both Common and Statute law, undermining our own Parliament, Courts and Customs. EU convention insists that member States pass necessary and appropriate measured legislation to bring their own criminal law into line with EU law.
Conclusion
On concluding this essay it would be logical to say from the evidence presented in the essay that the Supremacy of European Union law seems to be crippling all member states that opt to use it over their own national personal law. The main reason for this seems to be because national law has been around for as long as the country it is being used in, whereas EU law has only been around for a few decades and has not been tailored specifically to the countries it is and will be used in. And also it will never be suited to every member state as each member’s laws are established upon that particular countries culture, among other things. Whereas if there is only one Supreme law to be used then the chances are it wouldn’t be fair to use it in all countries as it wouldn’t reflect the peoples individual opinions on what is right and wrong in that country.
Unanswered questions
Should Supremacy of EU law have been allowed to proceed so far as having precedence over such things like countries Parliament, Courts and Legal system and economic matters?
Bibliography
www.bbc.co.uk Website, Norman Tebbit Nov. 1998
Law of the European Union, Third Edition, Palgrave Law Masters, London, Jo Shaw (page 28)
The political system of the European Union, Simon Hix, Macmillan Press, London, page 117
R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Traders Ferry Ltd (1997) 2 All ER 65
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No. 3) [1996]
Law of the European Union, Third Edition, Palgrave Law Masters, London, Jo Shaw (page 28)
R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Traders Ferry Ltd (1997) 2 All ER 65
bbc.co.uk Website, Norman Tebbit Nov. 1998
The political system of the European Union, Simon Hix, Macmillan Press, London, page 117
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No. 3) [1996]
