Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:47:56.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between the Single Market and the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Diarmuid Rossa Phelan
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan*
Affiliation:
Brasenose College (Oxford)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Community (EC) is poised between 31 December 1992, the target date for the completion of the internal market, and the coming into force of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union (TEU) upon ratification by Germany. The TEU presents integrationists with the constitutional structures for a decisive move to federation whose legal foundations currently run far deeper than popularly represented. Consequently there is urgent need for informed public participation in the shaping of European structures. Furthermore, there is growing discussion in the EC institutions on proposals for a European Constitution directly enacted by Union citizens. At the same time, the recent currency upheavals culminating in the weakening of the exchange rate mechanism raises questions of the stability of the EC's foundations. This article aims to provoke debate by raising arguments on a series of issues in the light of the legal approfondissement and in reaction to it. Section I summarizes the constitutional advance of the EC prior to the TEU towards the legal system of a federal nation. Section II raises the issues of spill-over, nationalism, democratic deficit, debate, referenda, social marginalization, and rights in the light of this undiscussed approfondissement.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 732 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

* The author wishes to thank Professor Bernard Rudden of the University of Oxford for his comments. Responsibility remains the author's.

1. H.C. Deb. vol. 207, col. 493 (12 May 1992).

2. The target date is set by Article 13 of the Single European Act. The coming into force of the TEU occurs “on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step”—Article R (TEU). The text used is that signed with the “Final Act” in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, Agence Europe No. 1759/60, 7 February 1992. Ratification by Germany depends on the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, which is expected in October 1993, on the constitutionality of the treaty.

3. Rapporteur Oreja, Projet de document de travail sur la stratégie relative à l'élaboration et la mise en oeuvre de la Constitution de l'Union Européene, Parliament Européen 204.541, March 16, 1993, considered by the Institutional Commission of the European Parliament, Compte Rendu Sommaire, Commission Institutionnelle, SP (93) 1189, April 27-28, 1993.

4. Communique by the Council of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the EC, Brussels, August 2, 1993, on the decision to temporarily widen the obligatory marginal intervention thresholds of the participants in the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System to plus or minus 15% around the bilateral central rates.

5. Barrington, D., “The Emergence of a Constitutional Court,” in O'Reilly, J., Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh (Dublin: The Round Hall Press, 1992), p. 251 Google Scholar.

6. Ibid., p. 255 (emphasis added).

7. Phelan, D. R., “‘It's God They Ought to Crucify,’” Working Paper E.U.I. Law No. 92/33Google Scholar.

8. Case 26/62 van Gend en Loos v. Nederlanse Administrate der belastingen [1963] ECR 1, 12.

9. Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585, 593-4; Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, 643-4.

10. Case 48/71 Commission v. Italy [1972] ECR 527, 532; EC law must be “fully applicable at the same time and with identical effects over the whole territory of the Community without the Member States being able to place any obstacles in the way.”

11. Goods: Art. 9, case 251/78 Denkavit ]1979] ECR 3369, 3384; workers: Art. 48, case 41/74 van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, 1347; services: Art. 59(1) and 60(3), case 33/74 van Binsbergen [1974] ECR 1299, 1310-12; establishment: Art. 52, case 2/74 Reyners [1974] ECR 631, 651-2.

12. Case 120/78 Rewe v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Re Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR 649; case 159/90 SPUC v. Grogan [1991] 3 CMLR 849.

13. Case C-106/89 Marleasing v. La Comercial [1990] ECR 4135, 4160; joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Bonafaci v. Italy [1992] Industrial Relations Law Review 84.

14. Opinion 1/91 Re the Draft Treaty on a European Economic Area [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 245, 269 paragraph 21; see also Due, O., “A Constitutional Court for the European Communities,” in Curtin, D. and O'Keefe, D., Constitutional Adjudication in European Community and National Law (1992, Dublin), p. 4 Google Scholar.

15. Opinion 1/91 at p. 272. SEA: first recital of the Preamble. Solemn Declaration of 19 June 1983: section 2.5.

16. Stoke-on-Trent City Council v. B & Q plc., The Times 17.12.92; Case 121/85 Conegate v. HM Customs and Excise [1986] I CMLR 739.

17. For example, in Germany, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. EVGF [1974] 2 CMLR 540 and Wunsche Handelsgesellschaft [1987] 3 CMLR 225; in Italy, Frontini v. Minestero delle Finanze [1974] 2 CMLR 372 and SpA Fragd v. Amministrazione delle Finanze (1989) 72 Revista di Diritto Internationale 103; in Ireland, SPUC v. Grogan (1992) Modern Law Review (MLR) 55, p. 670; in the U.K., case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR 2433.

18. Phelan, D. R., “The Normative Shaping of the European Union,” Modern Law Review 55 (1992): 670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. “Belling the Cats: Collected Speeches and Essays of John Kelly” (Dublin, 1991)Google Scholar.

20. The review of Rasmussen, H., On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice (Martinus Nijhoff, 1986)Google Scholar by Cappelletti, M., The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 401 Google Scholar.

21. For a proposal involving national parliaments, see Brittan, L., “Institutional Development of the European Community,” Public Law 567 (1992): 576–77Google Scholar.

22. The Financial Times, 29 January 1993.

23. Commission of the European Communities, From Single Market to European Union (Brussels: 1992), p. 13 Google Scholar.

24. Supra n. 12.

25. Report of the Senate on the revision of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic No. 375, 27 mai 1992, p. 94. See also Judgment of Conseil Constitutionnel, 9 April 1992, Receuil Trimestrielle de Droit Europeen, 28(2) (1992): 418 Google Scholar.

26. MacCormick, , “Beyond the Sovereign State,” MLR (1993): 1, 11 Google Scholar.

27. Phelan, D. R., “The Application of United States and European Community Domestic Trade Laws to the Imports of Non-market Economy GATT Contracting Parties—A Time for Change,” Working Paper E.U.I. Law No. 92/28Google Scholar.

28. Op cit. supra n. 23.