Finally my years of studying EU law will pay off. Also this took a while to write so ye. Sorry caskie I hope you don't mind us spamming your thread.
Secondly, the state of Texas has more control over its domestic policies than the Republic of Ireland. The death penalty being key example.
Ireland can't impose the death penalty because of the Council of Europe, which is a NOT a body of the EU. The CoE includes many human rights, the prohibition of the death penalty being one of them. Leaving the EU won't have any effect on this.
- Doesn't control its own currency
- Doesn't control its own borders
- Doesn't control its own agriculture policy
- Unable to set its own tax policy.
- Doesn't control its own laws.
- Can't deport immigrants.
I will include these in one part as they also explain your problems with sovereignty. Firstly let's talk about the competence of the EU to act. This is agreed on by ALL member states as it is in the TFEU. There are certain fields where the EU has exclusive competence and fields where they have shared competence. Exclusive competence means that only the EU can create laws on that subject. Art 2(1) TFEU.
The exclusive competence is limited to:
Article 3
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
This is a VERY limited scope of subjects of law that are created by the EU. Customs Union was established by the EU. the competition rules are rules such as 102 TFEU (about a company's abuse of a dominant position) and 101 TFEU (Cartel Prohibition) and merger rules. Monetary policy about the euro is self explanatory. The euro was created by the EU.Therefore, only it can establish rules on the subject. (d) has a very limited scope and is not very important. (e) i will come back to this later.
Now, there are also areas of shared competence. 2(2) TFEU. Which means that Member States are free to make laws until countries decide to cooperate on a EU level and make European legislation. Meaning that a country retains its sovereignty until it is decided to cooperate on such a subject.
I would advise you to look into the legislative procedure of the EU, it basically boils down to(it is a lot more complicated than this but i will simplify it for you): The proposal is submitted by the Commission ( this is the only body that represents the EU during the whole procedure)
after many hours of debating with the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.The proposal is sent to the European Parliament (voted for by EU citizens, AKA you) and the Council of Ministers.(filled with ministers from the member states, protects the interests of the Member states). The Parliament has a moment where it can veto the proposal on two occasions. (you love democracy right?) And the Council can veto the proposal once (hey, there is your sovereignty).
Then on harmonization (rules made by the Commission on agriculture policy borders, tax policy etc): The EU has always been about the four freedoms of the European Union. The freedom of movements of goods, people, capital and services. These freedoms need to be protected from national laws that could harm them. Yet, this does not mean that the countries can't control their laws. First of all: not many fields of law are harmonized in European Law. Many fields are left completely open to the Member State because of their political sensitivity, or for the simple reason that there is no need for harmonization. The harmonization levels of criminal law for example are barely existent and are mostly based on economic crimes like money laundering.
Then, when harmonization is agreed on it is a balance between the sovereignty and the four freedoms. Countries are often prohibited from making certain laws that could infringe one of the four freedoms. These are laws that ban things such as import taxes, authorization schemes or other forms of protectionism. These prohibitions improve the trade and acces to services in all member states, and have immensely positive effects on the economy of any member state by allowing goods to move from one country to another. They also protect consumers and producers by providing fairer competition and thus fairer prices. I could go on, but I think you get the point here.
I can see how this could make it seem like countries can't make their own laws anymore. Yet, if a member state finds that it has need of a certain import tax, or certain authorization scheme. It can still create one, and justify it through the Rule of reason (or other form of justification) that is given in the directive. What you are basically doing is violating the directive, but it is accepted because you are doing it with a public interest in mind. Such as public health, security, or policy. It is important that these rules are not directly discriminatory and are proportionate. This is often hard to determine but the CJEU tries to find a balance between the sovereignty and the protection of the four freedoms. The court knows full well that if it completely rams the sovereignty into the ground the member states will be outraged.
I hope you understand that the subject of sovereignty is much more nuanced than you think. And that it is difficult to balance cooperation on an EU level with sovereignty.
Now I will move on to some of your other points:
- Can't make trade deals with other countries.
This falls under point E of the exclusive competence of the EU. This is because it is useless to make trade deals with countries 100x your size when you are a small country like Ireland, or the Netherlands for example. A small country like us could never get a favorable trade deal with international giants like America and China. When we cooperate and represent ourselves through the EU, we appear as one market. Which is much stronger in negotiations and leads to favorable trade deals that a country like us could NEVER accomplish on their own. Even if you are a bigger country in the EU like Germany, UK or France you benefit from this. Also it is needed to appear as one market, otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of the internal market, which we are trying to protect for the economic benefits that it provides.
- The Irish Supreme Court isn't supreme.
The americans have a federal court, which has a limited scope, just like the CJEU has a limited scope only concerning matters of EU law. Then there is the ECHR which is not a court of the EU. They would still have to listen to this court. Then there is the International Court of Justice which is yet again a higher ranked court that is not part of the EU. And, EVEN IF you leave the EU, you'd still have to abide by all of the judgements of the CJEU to trade in and enter any EU country. You are still bound by any judgement of the CJEU if you are dealing with a member state or the EU itself, even if you leave the EU. Leaving the EU will barely make their court or your court more "supreme" than it is now.
Edit: also it is very possible for a court to be supreme under the EU. Most of the judgements of the CJEU are preliminary ruling procedures. In this procedure the court decides on the interpretation of law, and explains how it should be implemented in a certain case. The case is then sent back to the national court, which will determine the practical outcome of that subject. And it is also very possible for a court to stay independent from the CJEU. The German supreme court is an example.
- Unable to set its own budget.
I don't really know what you mean with this? The irish government can set their own budget just as any other country.
- Loss of Ireland's military neutrality.
?? Don't really know what you mean here, the EU can't declare wars. Nor has it tried to. That being said, Ireland might have been neutral (I will admit that I don't know how close the ties between Ireland and the UN/ the west have always been). But as far as I know Ireland has been on the same "side" as most of the European West since their liberation and the EU has no direct influence over their stance in any war after that.
Edit:Also ive made some spelling mistakes because I got lost in my own writing here and there, please ignore them D:
