Stu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
The old EEC had legislative powers only in respect of matters relating to international trade. It could not, for example, have decided that menthol cigarettes must be banned from sale in member states, or that lawnmowers and golf buggies must have third party risk insurance when used on private land. Energy policy offers another example. As part of an annual review of the bloc’s ‘Energy Union’ – plans to unite member states' energy systems – the EU Commission set out plans to end the requirement for a unanimous vote by all 27 countries in the EU to make changes to energy taxation rules. BTW - under the proposal, such votes would move to qualified majority voting, which gives each country voting power based on its population.
How is the sale of menthol cigarettes not an international trade issue? If it's legal for sale in any EU country, then it can be sold to all EU countries. If you want to make it illegal (which many countries in the world have) then it needs to be done in all countries in the EU at once.
The whole issue about lawnmowers I'd never heard of but was caused by unclear wording (the drafters apparently thought the meaning of the word "vehicle" was obvious but apparently it wasn't). It's being
fixed. Third party insurance is an international issue because if you drive your car across the border and hit someone, your insurance better cover it. In any case, as a citizen you cannot be in violation of a directive, only your government can be.
The proposal to end the requirement for unanimous voting requires a unanimous vote. If countries don't like that then they should vote against it. I really don't see the problem with sovereign states being able to make agreements with each other about things like this.
Stu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
There are many other examples because, slowly but surely, the EU is expanding its scope far beyond international trade.
The EU is a treaty-making machine. It can do anything sovereign states can agree in a treaty. International agreements = good.
Stu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
We have seen how this fails with the recent conflict between the ECB and the German Federal Court, the latter concluding not only was the ECB acting unlawfully in providing financial stimulus, but even the ECJ had made a judgment outside its authority.
Sorry, a German Court doesn't get to decide if the ECB or ECJ have done their job correctly. That is the role of the combined heads of government of the EU, as represented by the Council.
Stu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
Harmonisation should ONLY apply to trade between nations and not to matters which are strictly internal.
Sure, but the list of things that are "strictly internal* is quite a bit shorter than most people think. Here in NL we have several nations within a stone's throw and near the borders everything up to and including family law, health, education, law & order can become international issues which need to be resolved and the EU is the obvious place to do that. That puts it beyond a simple trade bloc, but that was always the intention anyway. The trade bloc is called the EEA.