Originally Posted by ibis

Given that most legal opinion suggests that Lisbon could be ratified via the Oireachtas without being in breach of Bunreacht na hEireann, how can holding a referendum that may well be legally unnecessary constitute "trampling upon democracy"?

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

Legal-opinion is actually divided on that question. In particular, it seems pretty inevitable that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the creation of new full EU competences like energy would change the "scope" of the EU beyond what was envisaged in previous treaties. The enshrinement of the Charter into EU law was not foreseen in the other treaties that have already come into force before this one.

Originally Posted by ibis

Actually, that's not my point but HBAP's. However, I might as well make the point that changing the scope of the EU beyond what was envisaged when previous treaties were signed is a rather less open and shut criterion than you appear to think. It's not sufficient that the treaties change how the EU works, because that's the whole point of the amending treaties - what is required is a material change, and the EU has been operating with one eye on the ECHR (of which the Charter is a somewhat reduced copy) for rather a while now - nor is the idea of rights-based law in any way a new departnure for the EU.

Additionally, a change in scope of the EU isn't the essence of the Crotty test in any case:



Finally, the Lisbon Treaty creates no "new full EU competences" at all. It creates only shared competences.

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

But if you read the ruling in full you will come to the part where a judge says that just because the expansion of QMV in the Single European Act was not unconstitutional, that this did not mean that all future expansions of QMV would be constitutional without a referendum. That is the crucial context in which your reference to QMV - by Stephen Collins - must be viewed. In any case, SC is hardly what you'd call "impartial" now is he. Him who called for ratification of Lisbon in spite of the no vote.

Originally Posted by keepitreal

*No you didn't , I asked that if you did please show how they would mean something.

Originally Posted by ibis

Hm, yes, but what we have is an opinion from the Court that does not rule out future QMV changes requiring a referendum, and what you're doing is applying that as if it meant that QMV changes do require a referendum.

The Court's opinion is essentially there solely to preclude the use of the ruling against Crotty's QMV claim as a precedent in any future case. It is not a positive judgement in any sense.

My reference, by the way, is the judgement itself. The relevant statement is this one:



As you can see, that is by no means a statement that future changes from unanimity to QMV will require a change to the Constitution, particularly since in full that reads:



Which is to say that a change from unanimity to QMV would have to substantially alter the aims and objectives of the EU as agreed at the most recent Treaty (currently Nice).

Originally Posted by ibis

€25m a pop - the headline figure of €50m covers both referendums.

Originally Posted by hiding behind a poster

Can you edit your last post please? I can't reply to individual points if you've embedded everything in the quote function.

Originally Posted by petervalhala

So? What's your point?

Considering the benefits to Ireland of having Lisbon ratified, €50M is one of the best investments we can make.

Pity so many people believed the lies of SF and Libertas last time

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

Legal-opinion is actually divided on that question. In particular, it seems pretty inevitable that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the creation of new full EU competences like energy would change the "scope" of the EU beyond what was envisaged in previous treaties. The enshrinement of the Charter into EU law was not foreseen in the other treaties that have already come into force before this one.