After some time away from research due to reasons and stuff, time to get back to my book-proposal. Given recent developments, I thought I'd share some thoughts on what I do. Put simply, my research concerns the question why there is so much law in EMU. A (long) thread/.

P.s. last post here on twitter: moving to the other place.

In other words, a bad reform of the SGP is immediately exploited by the Dutch gov, for purely national reasons. I'm not a big fan of the SGP, so I don't think this is overall such a problem. But interesting to see the NL gov blow up their decade old 'moral high ground'.

Sidenote2: under Dutch law, the government is obliged to conduct fiscal policy in line with "European norms". But they refer to the old norms of the SGP, which aren't relevant anymore. The EU-rules which require these national budgetary rules, aren't updated by the SGP reform.

This move by the NL gov immediately puts the new SGP under stress: what is the use of these new plans and of the net expenditure path, if you don't have to stick to it? Or do the rules only apply to countries with high debt? . It will be a tricky path forward for the Commission.

Sidenote1: this political assessment of the NL gov about the corrective arm is probably correct, but in the Dutch plan it is grounded on a legal view which is clearly incorrect, namely that the Council can only take action if debt is higher than 60%. This is incorrect.

What will happen next is quite straightforward: the Dutch gov won't stick to the net expenditure path. They'll take their chances under the corrective arm of SGP. "As long as our debt is below 60% of GDP, the Council won't care", appears to be the Dutch assessment.

The Dutch plan also says that if the Comm+Council reject the Dutch numbers, they won't submit new ones. The Comm indeed rejects the Dutch net expenditure path, recommending to the Council to set a different path.

In October, the MS submitted their plans. Now the Commission assessment has been published, with the Dutch receiving the only 'negative' assessement. The Dutch plan is explicit in diverging from Commission guidelines.

In april, the new SGP rules took effect. Most importantly, the 'preventive arm' has been replaced. MS submit a four year plan for their budgets, at the heart of which stands the net expenditure path. Diverging from this path leads to a start of the 'corrective arm'.

The Dutch are flouting the new budgetary rules? . A thread on yesterday's announcement of the Commission on the Dutch medium-term structural plan (the new rules of the Stability and Growth Pact)

RT @annapeychev: Do you lose sleep over the future of the Economic and Monetary Union? Do you know what's wrong with it? Have you any idea….

RT @stanjourdan: Super proud to announce a new report on the green interest rate (aka Green TLTROs) co-authored with colleagues at @SFL_nl….

RT @FrancoPeirone: In a month from now, on October 10, we will be hosting the ‘Time and Constitutions’ workshop at @lawinmaastricht 🇳🇱 Sign….

RT @MontesquieuInst: Vacature voor redacteur-analist

RT @FrancoPeirone: 📆 Join me on October 10, 204 at @lawinmaastricht for a workshop on ‘Time and Constitutions’! Dive into law temporalities….

Ook lijken de auteurs zich niet bewust van de recente ontwikkelingen omtrent het toetsingsverbod. Onduidelijk is ook welke 'verdergaande veranderingen' een grondwetswijziging zouden vereisen.

Nog even naar de definitie van juridisering. Dit is toch geen werkbare definitie voor een onderzoek? "juridisering is dat het recht belangrijker wordt in maatschappelijke relaties".

Oei, bijna elke paragraaf die ik nu lees is slordig. Wat staat hier?

Oei, deze is ook wel erg slordig.

Zitten wel wat missers in het rapport. Zo wordt een hele zwakke definitie gegeven van juridisering, en ook de beschrijving van 'het Nederlandse recht' is erg onnauwkeurig.