Lisbon Treaty

[seanfhear]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...40.html?via=mr

Just as well he's a journo, because you wanted want to have him as a lawyer, seem as he doesn't understand this sovereign nation's constitution.

As Charlton asked Dunphy: "You call yourself a proper journalist??"

If we still have the offence of treason stephen collins should be charged.

[OneRedArmy]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...40.html?via=mr

Just as well he's a journo, because you wanted want to have him as a lawyer, seem as he doesn't understand this sovereign nation's constitution.

As Charlton asked Dunphy: "You call yourself a proper journalist??"

If we still have the offence of treason stephen collins should be charged.

Do either of you understand the Constitution?

The Constution didn't decide that we needed a referendum every time we entered a European Treaty, an unelected Supreme Court did.

Contemporary assessment of a document written many generations ago is a difficult business (eg US constitution and the right to bear arms).

Many pages back I referred to the disquiet in legal circles at the decision reached in Crotty vs An Taoiseach.

Its decision in respect of the 3rd Amendment is ripe for being put back in front of the Supreme Court as given the crux of Lisbon seems to be coming down to whether or not we get to keep a Commissioner that isn't even allowed to represent our interests, its hard to argue that it has any real impact on the constitution.

[seanfhear]

Is the lisbon treaty history rather than current affairs.

[mypost]

Do either of you understand the Constitution?

its hard to argue that it has any real impact on the constitution.

It's not hard to understand, that all EU Treaties require the consent of the Irish people in a referendum, in order to be ratified. They are part of the rules of this state, and one which all governments here must live under. There are NO exceptions.

[dfx-]

Still, nothing really to do with the Constitution though.

[OneRedArmy]

It's not hard to understand, that all EU Treaties require the consent of the Irish people in a referendum, in order to be ratified. They are part of the rules of this state, and one which all governments here must live under. There are NO exceptions.

Its an interpretation of the Supreme Court, which can be overturned by the very same Court at any time. Its got nothing to do with rules of the state or any guff like that.

The Supreme Court erred on the side of caution and threw out the previous approach that each European treaty should be individually assessed as to whether it altered the Constitution post 3rd amendment (and therefore rightly required a referendum to be held) and decided that every European Treaty, regardless of whether it impacted the Constitution, should go to a referendum.

No doubt getting back our (non-existant) Commissioner and re-stating our (non-existant) neutrality will make it all worthwhile though........

[mypost]

The Supreme Court decided that every European Treaty, regardless of whether it impacted the Constitution, should go to a referendum.

That's the crux of the issue, and the rules we adhere to.

[OneRedArmy]

That's the crux of the issue, and the rules we adhere to.

It suits your opinion.

In light of:
1) the rationale behind many voters decision on Lisbon (for mistaken or other misjudged reasons, as proven by subsequent polls)
2) the farce that was Nice I and II (where legally impotent "guarantees" suceeded in overturning a No vote)
3) the reality that many of the changes in European treaties don't materially alter the Constitution and in any case are covered by the 3rd Amendment

why shouldn't the Government ratify Lisbon and force a Supreme Court review of Crotty?

As for seanfhear's comment re treason, there aren't enough eye-rolling smilies to adequately respond to that.

[Student Mullet]

The Supreme Court ... decided that every European Treaty, regardless of whether it impacted the Constitution, should go to a referendum.

I'm not certain but I don't think that this is true. My understanding is that the court decided that the treaty under consideration required a referendum and since then the governments decided put all treaty's to referendum.

[mypost]

It suits your opinion.

the reality that many of the changes in European treaties don't materially alter the Constitution and in any case are covered by the 3rd Amendment

why shouldn't the Government ratify Lisbon and force a Supreme Court review of Crotty?

It can't be ratified in bits and bobs. It must be ratified as one full document, as in every other member state, and can't be without permission via referendum here. Any attempt to do so without it, is effectively breaking the law of the state, and will be instantly thrown out of court.

[OneRedArmy]

I'm not certain but I don't think that this is true. My understanding is that the court decided that the treaty under consideration required a referendum and since then the governments decided put all treaty's to referendum.

My apologies, Student Mullet, you are correct. The Supreme Court ruled only in respect of the particular referendum that was put in front of it in 1987. Sucessive Governments have interpreted the decision conservatively.

It can't be ratified in bits and bobs. It must be ratified as one full document, as in every other member state, and can't be without permission via referendum here. Any attempt to do so without it, is effectively breaking the law of the state, and will be instantly thrown out of court.

I don't follow.

Are you saying

1)that there is legislation in place preventing the Government from ratifying the Treaty? Can you point me to that legislation?; or

2) are you referring to the bit of the Constitution that says that the result of a referendum must be respected?; or

3) Or are you saying you believe Government would be going against the Crotty decision?

[shantykelly]

ORA, there may be the technical ability to push through either a legal showdown on Lisbon ratification, and hence future referenda, but does anyone believe that any of the main parties have the political will to do so, knowing that in all liklihood it will be political suicide. Irish people are thran at times; if the government ignore the referendum decision and force through bits and pieces, would this not give ammunition to the 'No' camp? A government that ignores a clearly made decision, especially following so much publicity over it, would not have long left to live.

[OneRedArmy]

ORA, there may be the technical ability to push through either a legal showdown on Lisbon ratification, and hence future referenda, but does anyone believe that any of the main parties have the political will to do so, knowing that in all liklihood it will be political suicide. Irish people are thran at times; if the government ignore the referendum decision and force through bits and pieces, would this not give ammunition to the 'No' camp? A government that ignores a clearly made decision, especially following so much publicity over it, would not have long left to live.

I think you're most probably correct they have no appetite for it. But IMHO a face-saving second referendum after some empty promises from Brussels (a la Nice) is considerably more embarrassing to us as a nation.

[mypost]

Lisbon II would be a different beast to Nice II. Another referendum on the same document, will be instantly rejected by No advocates/campaigners. Hollow guarantees, declarations, concessions etc would make no difference. We've had a referendum, the political establishment will have to accept the outcome, even though they don't like it. It's about democracy, stupid.

[pete]

The government can easily decide to ratify bits of the Treaty via the Dail. All they have to do is commission research that shows majority of people support certain aspects. The Commission issue would be an easy one to start with as could be explained that we risk losing entirely based on Nice vote if we don't sign up to current proposals. I don't believe there is any legal way this can be blocked.

They can also pick at sections of the 53% no vote saying they were confused. How many people voted based on gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion or any of the other spurious issues.

[mypost]

The government can easily decide to ratify bits of the Treaty via the Dail.

Can't. The document must be ratified as one full document, not in 20 pieces. That's the way it's been ratified in every other country in the EU, so that's the way it has to be ratified here, and only after approval by public referendum.

[OneRedArmy]

Hollow guarantees, declarations, concessions etc would make no difference.

Why not, they worked last time. Whats changed since then other than issues that are irrelevant to Lisbon such as where we are in the economic cycle, the number of immigrants, our financial burden as a net contributor etc?

Oh wait, thats democracy working.....

We should all be very proud!

[dublinred]

Is the lisbon treaty history rather than current affairs.

I would say its current affairs as they are trying to work out a suitable date in the near future for a second vote.

[mypost]

Why not, they worked last time.

.....

Lisbon II would be a different beast to Nice II.

[pete]

Can't. The document was must be ratified as one full document, not in 20 pieces. That's the way it's been ratified in every other country in the EU, so that's the way it has to be ratified here, and only after approval by public referendum.

I agree that the Lisbon Treaty has to be ratifief in one piece however I am unaware of any legal barrier to separately implementing other issues that also happen to be included in Lisbon. Lisbon No vote does not restrict the government at all legally. Politics is a different matter.