Yes, but that is not the same as sovereignty. Suppose we strongly object to a directive but are outvoted and the directive goes thru. We are obliged to enact provisions that are anaethema to us. That is the sovereinty issue.
Looking to the future, as the EU approaches closer and closer union, if we are still in it, this question looms larger and larger. An example that actually happened. Two Australian academics were visiting London when a Spanish judge issued a European Arrest Warrant against them for hate crimes. They were lecturers in Religious Studies and had written a paper critical of Islam. The "crime". took place in Australia. Thay were arrested in London. The judge said it was highly unlikely that they had committed an offence at all but he was obliged to issue an extradition order. Over the following weekend, the academics were spirited out of the country back to Oz. Home office connivence, probably. Now, under our old law, neither the arrest nor deportation could have happened. The fact that our gov was a willing partner in framing the law is irrelevant. The point is, had the academics actually been deported, there would have been a great scandal, but our parliament would have been powerless to change that law. That is parliament would no longer be sovereign, for the first time since the English civil war. Other examples are coming now: see the Italian budget row, or the suspension of Austria or the stand off between Poland and the EU. Closer union multiplies these problems, but little attention is given to them. It seems economics trumps all. To stay alive the EU needs to rethink subsidiarity. See also Federal US gov relationships with individual states.
PS EDIT I might add the view of some academics that closer union impoverishing nation states' powers is partly responsible for the growth of loony populist parties in Europe.
Last edited:
