[nirimda]

The directive was approved by the European parliament and the Council of the EU. The Council of the EU is made up of the governments of the member states of the EU. Therefore, when one says "Portugal voted for the directive", one means "the government of Portugal voted for the directive in the Council of the EU". This was the wrong thing for Portugal (or indeed, any government) to do because no government can guarantee their parliament will change the law in a particular way, and the parliament might indeed prefer to eject the government rather than change the law. In this case, it has bitten Portugal and not Germany, but in principle it could bite any of them. It's a very strange process. It seems like provision should be made for a national veto at the implementation stage, or the entire process should be conducted at the EU stage and directly applicable. But the requirement for a translation into national law without the possibility of rejection at that point seems deeply problematic.

[ta1243]

My understanding in the US is that the Executive can sign international treaties, and those are not subject ot veto by the Legislative

> In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0]

An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed?

[0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[prmoustache]

The government of the member states is not the parliament of the member states.

Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.

[toyg]

That's the case for any international treaty - which is effectively what these laws are.

[prmoustache]

Not all of them. Regulations and decisions yes, Directives no. This one is a directive.

"Regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on their date of application. However, they may require changes in national legislation, and may require implementation by national agencies or regulators."

"Directives on the other hand, must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect."

source: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying...

That doesn't mean they have the right to ignore the directive and not decide on a law but there is definitely more leeway.

[toyg]

I'm not disagreeing, but what I meant was: if government of country X signs an agreement with country Y, then holds elections and the political wind changes, typically they won't be able to just rip the agreement without suffering massive diplomatic damage. EU Directives, in practice, are a way to create international agreements at scale across the continent, streamlining the necessary proceedings. In the same way as a country wouldn't be expected to simply toss an international agreement after a political change, they are expected not to simply ignore matters agreed at EU level by a previous administration without serious repercussions.