letter to the editor from Richard Corbett MEP |
|
10th April 2008 |
|
Scunthorpe Telegraph |
|
Dear Editor, The reason I did not mention EU law having primacy over national law in my recent article (letters, March 3rd) is because it dealt with only the new things the Lisbon Treaty would introduce. EU law has always had primacy over national law and it is logical that it does, otherwise what would be the point of countries agreeing to act on a particular measure at European level, if each country then went off and did something completely different. To take a topical example, we have agreed common rules across Europe to protect birds when they migrate from our part of Europe to Africa, by banning hunting during the migration season. This will only work if every country sticks to the agreed rules. Should Malta be able to adopt national law allowing for the massive slaughter of these birds, negating the conservation efforts of the rest of Europe, and contradicting the EU legislation they signed up to? It is also incorrect to suggest that European Court of Justice has a “final word on whether any of our laws are valid”. The European Court of Justice exists only to enforce laws that EU countries have already agreed and it therefore has no say on areas outside EU powers, such as national health services. In areas that do fall under EU competence, such as some environmental legislation, the British government and British MEPs will have agreed to these measures and it is entirely right that they should act on them accordingly. Britain is not forced to do anything by the EU; our elected MPs and MEPs agree to act in areas in which we judge our country will achieve more by working with our 26 EU neighbours. Richard Corbett Labour MEP for Yorkshire & Humber
|
|