SF and FF: Let's have a referendum whether we need one or not

[Passer-by]

We didn't sign up to them in perpetuity

Unless we leave the EU or the EU member states decide to change the provisions we are "signed up to them in perpetuity".

and there was no shotgun to our heads in terms of being dragged to the ECJ.

There is in the Treaties but....

Also given that EVERY country broke the terms of Maastricht it was clearly not binding in the same way.

... you have to really, really TRY to end up in the ECJ with the current rules. Hence, the reason why they are being changed.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

Article 6.1

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

[ProfCalculus]

You are simply wrong, article 47 envisages two types of referenda; one to amend the constitution, and a proposal other than one to amend the constitution eg a referendum following a petition under article 27 (ie a matter of public importance).

AAAAAAAArggghhh..

You are right. I've gone down in flames. The lesser known Art. 27 referendum procedure.

It kills a lot of the arguments in my opening post.

So if a Bill is deemed to be of "national importance" it can be referred to the people in a referendum, notwithstanding that it is not a Bill that would necessitate amendment of the Constitution.

BUT 50% plus of the Seanad and at least 33% of the Dail is required to petition the President to put the matter to the people and even then he has a discretion to sign the Bill into law in any event... so no joy for the opposition there then I reckon.

Still, I have to withdraw the contention that it's a "legally indefensible" stance.

Still think it's a political miscalculation by Martin though (he said in a quieter voice).

*shuffles off with tail between legs*

[ibis]

I would argue that any loss of sovreignty, whether it was constitutional of not is a failure of the government. The government's primary duty of care is to the people and doing anything that reduces their sovreignty is clearly not in their best interests and is consequently legally indefensible. They fact that they are trying to find a way of disenfrancising the people is morally indefensible.

Which is an argument that relies on a personal definition of sovereignty.

The requirement is that the terms of Compact is in the constitution, either already (though already passed legislation) or through a new amendment.

Not necessarily in the Constitution - that part has been changed:

The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.

So, merely 'preferable' now.

[DownTheyGo]

If Kenny knows what is good for him, there'll be a referendum.

[former wesleyan]

If Kenny knows what is good for him, there'll be a referendum.

And if he loses should he then resign his government and go to the country ? And what should his platform be in that case ?

[niall78]

And if he loses should he then resign his government and go to the country ? And what should his platform be in that case ?

I'm sure he has a 'six point plan' somewhere.

[West-Cork]

If Kenny knows what is good for him, there'll be a referendum.

I think you're right. Otherwise without it can you imagine the headlines and articles listing the obligations that the government has signed us up to without public discourse/agreement etc.

Regardless of whether there's a constitutional impact or not, I thing the government is now in a lose/lose situation unless there is a rederendum. (And I know that is totally illogical from a legal perspective).

[DownTheyGo]

And if he loses should he then resign his government and go to the country ? And what should his platform be in that case ?

He wouldn't have to do a whole lot, just dig out the ol' five point plan again and go for a re-run! Lets see how that works out for them this time...

[former wesleyan]

He wouldn't have to do a whole lot, just dig out the ol' five point plan again and go for a re-run! Lets see how that works out for them this time...

Well lets pretend for a minuit that he's not that daft. What possible platform could he have ? There's no way that the economic powerhouses of Europe are going to bail us out and afterwards ask us to sign a stability pact - which is why there's no mention of it in the treaty - so he can't ofer that up . So what then ? Exit from the Euro ?