Content area
Full Text
Introduction1
In 2016, there have been a number of widely debated topics directly or indirectly concerning the issue of sovereignty. Civic organisations in numerous EU countries have criticised TTIP talks2 due to their concerns that they may result in restricting the sovereign rights of states, national parliaments, and voters themselves.3 Thus, TTIP has become a symbol of constraints, resulting from economic globalisation, on the sovereignty of European states and nations. Similar opinions could be heard during the campaign that preceded the "Brexit" referendum in June 2016, in which the majority of British citizens voted for their country to leave the EU. The reasons for the decision included the defence of the sovereign rights of the British parliament against regulatory pressure from the EU. The constitutional dispute in Poland was an example of an analogous debate. Intervention by the European Commission (EC) in this regard was understood by the politicians who represented the Polish government as undue interference by an institution that has an insufficient democratic mandate yet joined the internal political rivalry between the government and the opposition, thus violating the sovereign rights of national democracy.4
Another aspect ofthe sovereignty debate was the internal legal and political system. In Poland, for example, the Constitutional Tribunal controversy led to a fierce dispute about the form of democracy and interpretation of constitutional norms. The Polish government defended the rights of the parliamentary majority to determine its own policy, including far-reaching reforms, saying that such a programme had been given a clear mandate at the election. According to this argument, the sovereign voice should not be unduly constrained by the opposition. An example of such constraints is the situation in which the opposition, though it has lost the election, may use constitutional checks and balances to veto proposals by the parliamentary majority. Also, the other players can constrain the legislative process. We may here refer to Georg Tsebelis, who defines such players (the "veto players") as those who take part in the political game but do not have to be politicians or representatives of parties. The institutional system is constructed in a way that makes their consent necessary to change the legislative status quo. A greater number of such players and more complicated legislative procedure make a significant...