Prof Gerry Whyte sees Constitutional issue in debt brake rule

[He3]

Prof Gerry Whyte is co-author of the leading book on the Constitution. He is professor of Constitutional Law at Trinity.

He believes the requirement to have a debt brake law of a permanent nature may be unconstitutional.

Permanency of debt brake 'may not be constitutional'

[TommyO'Brien]

IMHO he is correct. Constitutionally the Oireachtas cannot make any law unrepealable.

[sic transit]

No law is permanent anyway. It's just the language of the treaty. It would more beneficial if some of these legal heads offered opinions on the pertinent question of the need for a referendum rather than reflecting on semantics of a word.

[tonic]

IMHO he is correct. Constitutionally the Oireachtas cannot make any law unrepealable.

That was my thinking, but I don't know enough about it to be sure.

[tonic]

No law is permanent anyway. It's just the language of the treaty. It would more beneficial if some of these legal heads offered opinions on the pertinent question of the need for a referendum rather than reflecting on semantics of a word.

Surely it is the "word" or "words" that will make all the difference, no?

[sic transit]

Surely it is the "word" or "words" that will make all the difference, no?

Words yes; a single word no as it strips away the context that gives it a particular or an accepted meaning. It has become an Irish game unfortunately to obsess over individual words at the expense of the overall meaning. The recent furore about the word "people" is a reminder. I'm more interested in whether we need a referendum or not.

[sondagefaux]

The balanced budget legislation required under the treaty would not be permanent, since Ireland can repeal the legislation, thereby resiling from the treaty.

And this is a sensible point of view:

Dr Gavin Barrett of UCD agreed that the proposed treaty was not protected by Article 29, but he pointed out that all legislation is, when passed, “of binding force and permanent character”.

If the Government tried to make the proposed treaty more permanent than any other law, then it would run into constitutional difficulties, he said.

All laws are intended to be of binding force, and the vast majority, apart from a few exceptions, are also intended to be of permanent character.

[tonic]

Words yes; a single word no as it strips away the context that gives it a particular or an accepted meaning. It has been become an Irish game unfortunately to obsess about individual words at the expense of the overall meaning. The recent furore about the word "people" is a reminder. I'm more interested in whether we need a referendum or not.

We may well find that it's the word "permanent" that makes all the difference here.

[Nermal]

Constitutional amendments aren't permanent either. It's a meaningless formulation of words.

Granted it's even more ridiculous having it in legislation. You could probably both overturn it and pass the budget that would break the rule in the one vote...

[sic transit]

We may well find that it's the word "permanent" that makes all the difference here.

Not if you consider who put this together and I do find this kind of hair-splitting is used as an excuse to pick holes where none really exist. A law is permanent until repealed or superseded by another law. That's our understanding of the meaning in this context. I see this use as way of saying produce legislation to make this legally binding as against the earlier version of put it into your constitution. Muddying the waters with this type of intellectual conceit helps no-one.