Direct democracy does not make sense

[ibis]

That being the case, would you have voted to pass an amendment possibly setting a precedent of EP precedence over Irish referendums, or would you have voted against it?

If you mean would I have voted for the motion that de Rossa voted against, then the answer is yes. It doesn't impinge on Irish sovereignty. Rather it respects it.

So you prefer the possibility of creating a bad legal precedent?

[FutureTaoiseach]

That being the case, would you have voted to pass an amendment possibly setting a precedent of EP precedence over Irish referendums, or would you have voted against it?

If you mean would I have voted for the motion that de Rossa voted against, then the answer is yes. It doesn't impinge on Irish sovereignty. Rather it respects it.

So you prefer the possibility of creating a bad legal precedent?

It wouldn't be a legal-precedent because it would only be the EP expressing an opinion, as its competences don't extend to this issue.

[evercloserunion]

That being the case, would you have voted to pass an amendment possibly setting a precedent of EP precedence over Irish referendums, or would you have voted against it?

If you mean would I have voted for the motion that de Rossa voted against, then the answer is yes. It doesn't impinge on Irish sovereignty. Rather it respects it.

So you prefer the possibility of creating a bad legal precedent?

It wouldn't be a legal-precedent because it would only be the EP expressing an opinion, as its competences don't extend to this issue.

It is and always has been the function of the judiciary in a classic separation of powers to implement the will of the legislature. Now, the word precedent refers specifically to previous judgements made on material facts which are legally binding in the courts, so I don't think ibis has the right word here. But to say that the opinion of the EP could not have any influence in the ECJ is incorrect.