Poll: Stability Co-ordination and Governance in EMU Treaty.

[He3]

What I find incredible at this stage is that No one has even given an tiny insight into this. FG are hiding the wording from the public, no reference to anything. Surely at this stage the treaty is at an advanced stage, yet nothing has been circulated? If I remember properly Lisbon was circulated months before it was voted on (OK most of our eejts didnt read it). I cannot believe that this document is so far behind that the government do not know what is contained in detail.

It leads me to the conclusion that they simply do NOT want a referendum on the matter.

Remember too that the government reacted with horror to the first draft being published (by van Rompuy of the EU Council).

The latest draft is in the public domain afaics thanks to a British newspaper.

[sondagefaux]

what ever happend to them ?

Their final texts have been agreed several months ago, they've been agreed by the European Council (EU heads of state/government) and are going through the remainder of the ratification process, with a view to having them ratified by June 2013, before Croatian accession in July 2013.

More details on this thread:

Two Other European Treaties in 2012

[dave_irl]

Got it, so the view is that they try and avoid a referendum and then the only hope of one will be legal action.

[sondagefaux]

And surprise, surprise the same people who were so concerned about the issues they cover during the Lisbon referenda seem to be completely indifferent to the fate of the associated protocol - perhaps they actually weren't that concerned about those issues after all?

There have been zero replies to the thread I started about the Protocol which will give legal effect to the Irish guarantees, and the Czech protocol.

You could be forgiven for assuming that people don't really give a toss about them at all.

[Passer-by]

If I remember properly Lisbon was circulated months before it was voted on (OK most of our eejts didnt read it). I cannot believe that this document is so far behind that the government do not know what is contained in detail.

It leads me to the conclusion that they simply do NOT want a referendum on the matter.

Well, are you surprised?

The negotiations for Lisbon went on for years, yet no one bothered with it until after the government had decided their final position and signed off on it and we were faced with a referendum.

Anyone serious about seeking to influence what the government was about to sign up to in Lisbon should have been pushing their arguments before the government adopted a final position for Ireland in the negotiations. And given that there was a general election 6 months before the government finally agreed to Lisbon (in Dec '07), there certainly was a clear cut opportunity for anyone to make an issue of it had they wanted to at the time.

Given that and also that it looks a referendum probably is not required as the current proposed treaty does very little the government's position is perfectly understandable. What doesn't make a lot of sense is the suggestion that we should modify the constitution when no such modification is required...

[Passer-by]

There have been zero replies to the thread I started about the Protocol which will give legal effect to the Irish guarantees, and the Czech protocol.

You could be forgiven for assuming that people don't really give a toss about them at all.

Perhaps all the more reason for the government to hold a referendum on that protocol - we could leave it up to electorate to decide if they were worth all the fuss at the time...

[sondagefaux]

when the court case ruling there must be one finishes.

whichll start right after enda tries to say we dont need one.

Why would you assume that there's going to be a court ruling ordering a referendum?

The government has proposed to implement the debt brake provisions of the treaty by statute, rather than by an amendment to the constitution.

The other provisions of the treaty, which subject Ireland to the jurisdiction of an international court which has the power to impose fines, and in which Ireland can be litigated against by other parties to the treaty, are not necessarily going to require a constitutional amendment.

Ireland has been party to the European Convention on Human Rights since the 1950s.

That treaty subjects Ireland to the jurisdiction of an international court which has the power to impose fines, and in which Ireland can be litigated against by other parties to the treaty.

It has already been used to strike down Ireland's laws banning male homosexual sex, against the ruling of the Irish Supreme Court.

Ireland's ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights was done through the Oireachtas and did not require a referendum.

The precedent for Ireland signing up to a treaty with these features, without a referendum, has been set decades ago.

[ibis]

Apologies if it's been answered before but when should we here on whether or not we'll have a referendum?

Some time after the treaty is finalised, since any opinion offered before that is meaningless. As far as I know, the idea is to have it finalised by March.

[ibis]

Well, are you surprised?

The negotiations for Lisbon went on for years, yet no one bothered with it until after the government had decided their final position and signed off on it and we were faced with a referendum.

Anyone serious about seeking to influence what the government was about to sign up to in Lisbon should have been pushing their arguments before the government adopted a final position for Ireland in the negotiations. And given that there was a general election 6 months before the government finally agreed to Lisbon (in Dec '07), there certainly was a clear cut opportunity for anyone to make an issue of it had they wanted to at the time.

Given that and also that it looks a referendum probably is not required as the current proposed treaty does very little the government's position is perfectly understandable. What doesn't make a lot of sense is the suggestion that we should modify the constitution when no such modification is required...

On the other hand, it does make the publication of the drafts a good thing.

[He3]

John McManus reminds us that the draft is being discussed today, and makes a point or two on the linkage:

The draft, which is to be discussed at today’s meeting of euro zone finance ministers, is reported to contain a provision to the effect that the European Stability Mechanism cannot give loans to any country that has not signed up to a separate deal to impose stronger fiscal controls across Europe.

This agreement is also up for discussion today and the two will presumably go forward to the European leader’s summit set for next Monday.

The ESM, of course, will be the source of funds for any second bailout of Ireland post-2013 should one be required. The linking of the two issues – apparently at German insistence – appears to be a pretty heavy-handed attempt to scare the Irish electorate into voting yes in any referendum on the treaty. It also stymies Ireland’s ability to engage in some horse trading around issues such as the cost of bailing out the Irish banks.