LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCorrect. That says nothing about subsequent Treaties.Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach
Hence, you have no basis to claim that "Sovereignity is involved when QMV is expanded" if the Supreme Court did not make that judgement.
Correct. That says nothing about subsequent Treaties.
Hence, you have no basis to claim that "Sovereignity is involved when QMV is expanded" if the Supreme Court did not make that judgement.
Well it depends on whether you interpret sovereignty as legalese or as "self-government".
No, it depends on whether the Supreme Court interprets it that way.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
Yes, but I never claimed that all future expansions of QMV would be considered thus. The point I'm making is that while the Supreme Court ruled that the introduction of QMV in the Single European Act required a referendum because it could not be foreseen from previous Treaties, it did NOT thus follow from its judgement that every future expansion of QMV should be considered as such.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
The wrong end of the stick again.What I mean is this: The SC held that referenda were required where a Treaty changed the "scope and nature" of what was then the EEC. It also stated that the reason why the SEA did so was because of its implications for foreign-policy. It also stated that the QMV in the SEA of itself did not change the scope or nature of the EU - but that this did not mean that future potential extensions of QMV would not so change the EEC/EU. Thus, the point I am making is that it is wrong of Passer-by to interpret the Crotty Ruling as giving carte-blanche to the Oireachtas to ratify future extensions of QMV without a referendum. Hope that puts you both straight.
Europe is good,
Europe is great,
We surrender our will,
as of this date!
Dec 1 2009
The EU Movementarians have successfully swindled the Irish People! How long will it take for them to work it out and take the appropiate measures against the swindlers!
We have got as much as we are going to get out of Europe; it is, now, time to leave!
EUROPA CONVENTUS DELENDA EST!...Whistle out the marching tune
No, it didn't. It held that referenda were required when a Treaty changed the scope and nature of the EEC in a way that could not have been foreseen by previous Treaties. Now your argument may be another example of you taking a sentence and quoting it in isolation, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - for the moment. Now, what the Supreme Court judgement meant in effect was that a precedent was established for future treaties, whereby a two-pronged case must be made - firstly, that the new Treaty or some aspect of it "changed the scope and objectives of the EEC", and secondly, if that is the case, that such a change could not have been foreseen in previous Treaties. So any future case for a referendum would have to clear both of those hurdles.The wrong end of the stick again.
Yes, but that does not mean that any future Treaty with foreign policy implications would by definition require a referendum - if the Supreme Court had meant that, they would have said it. But they didn't.It also stated that the reason why the SEA did so was because of its implications for foreign-policy.
Again, the case for a referendum would have to satisfy the twin conditions outlined above.
Er, that's the nub of the point both myself and Passer-By have been making to you. You cannot claim (as you seem to be doing) that because the Court chose NOT to say that all future extensions of QMV WOULD NOT change the EEC/EU, that it follows by definition that all future extensions of QMV DO change the EEC/EU (again, in a way that could not be foreseen by previous Treaties).It also stated that the QMV in the SEA of itself did not change the scope or nature of the EU - but that this did not mean that future potential extensions of QMV would not so change the EEC/EU.
But Passer-By didn't make that interpretation, and neither did I. What the Crotty Judgement did was establish the tests that any future case for a referendum on an EU Treaty would have to pass - a) changing the scope and nature of the EEC/EU; and b) doing A) in a way that could not have been foreseen in previous Treaties. Having established those tests, it looked at the SEA and determined that yes, it passed BOTH tests, and thus required a referendum. And in doing so, it laid down those tests as the precedent by which future treaties should be assessed for constitutionality.Thus, the point I am making is that it is wrong of Passer-by to interpret the Crotty Ruling as giving carte-blanche to the Oireachtas to ratify future extensions of QMV without a referendum. Hope that puts you both straight.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
Tell me HBAP what in your opinion could the next treaty contain that would trigger a referendum according to Crotty. Name 3 practical things not jesuitical spin about "in accordance with our constitutional requirements".
Very hard to say, really. Because it really is for the Supreme Court to decide, and I don't know as much about constitutional law as they do.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
As i suspected you are spoofing. Recycling cliches and catchphrases about "our constitutional requirements". So why cant you name 3 practical things, well one of two reasons:
1- There arent 3 practical things (concession of defence veto is the only thing that comes to mind).
2- You are not qualified to comment on this question. Yet you attack those who do comment.
Reply With Quote