Libertas lies on Article 48 . . . again

[NotDevsSon]

Libertas has yet again twisted opponents' words, in what seems to have become a pattern.

A press release by Libertas dated 3rd June states:

Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche has conceded the Libertas position on Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, Executive Director Naoise Nunn said this afternoon.

No he didn't, as the text below shows.

He was responding to the latest attack on Libertas by Minister Roche, in which the Minister made the following claim:

"Libertas claim: Europe can easily change this treaty into the future.

This claim is false. Article 48 provides that any proposed Treaty changes must be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each Member State of the EU. In our case, the Irish Government will seek the advice of the Attorney General, as is currently the situation, in order to determine if a referendum is required. "

Note the bold line.

Responding, Mr. Nunn said:

"We did not say that Brussels could "easily" change this Treaty, we said that they could. We also said that it would not necessarily require a referendum. Dick Roche agrees.

You have got to hand it to Libertas. Dr Gobbels would be proud.

1. Roche never said the EU can change the treaty. Yet reading the libertas press release you'd think he had.

2. NO-ONE has ever said a referendum is required in every case. The Supreme Court didn't say that. Bertie Ahern twice at the Forum didn't say that. Enda Kenny didn't say that. Eamon Gilmore didn't say that. Anyone with an elementary grasp of Irish constitutional law knows that a referendum is not needed. But the grounds on which a referendum is not needed are very very limited.

3. Even if a referendum is not needed, it is 100% untrue to imply that that means 'Europe" can change the treaty in those cases. It cannot, as Article 48 makes totally clear. That's the meaning of the line in the treaty - must be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each Member State. It says unambiguously that the member state's constitutional rules must be followed in each case, and in our case where in very limited cases the AG rules a referendum is not needed, the change to the treaty still has to be approved by the Oireachtas.

So the spin being put out by Libertas that Europe can just willy nilly decide the day after the treaty is signed rule that it is changing a treaty provision and it happens, is pure cr*p. As an international treaty change Ireland STILL has to approve it under its constitutional provisions. The only difference is that most changes require a referendum. A small minority require just the Oireachtas. But unless the Oireachtas says yes the change does not happen.

So much for the Libertas claim that Europe "could". A first year constitutional law student would know what the meaning of the Crotty case is. Either Libertas don't or they are relying on the fact that the average person in the street, or the average journalist, won't know, and they can bullsh1t them.

Take out the bit in it about Roche, and the next line in the statement by Libertas is about the only accurate thing Libertas says in the statement. The truth is this . . .

. . . is not just false, it is an absolute, categorical, total, and shameless lie.

With press statements like that, they then wonder why everyone else in the campaign (not just on the Yes side, BTW) regards them as such a joke.

PS: The worst thing about Libertas is that they have somehow got me defending Dick Roche. Ew ew ew ew. Compared to their disinformation Roche almost appears preferable. (I said 'almost'!) I'm off to scrub myself down now. I feel unclean having defended DR! *shiver*

[FutureTaoiseach]

What Roche said some months ago on Late Night Live on Newstalk106 was that the Dail would have a veto on further erosion of the veto.

Guess what Dick? It already has that power because of its role in the ratification of EU treaties.

What he didn't say is that we would automatically get a referendum on the removal of further vetoes. Because we won't.

[NotDevsSon]

What Roche said some months ago on Late Night Live on Newstalk106 was that the Dail would have a veto on further erosion of the veto.

Guess what Dick? It already has that power because of its role in the ratification of EU treaties.

What he didn't say is that we would automatically get a referendum on the removal of further vetoes. Because we won't.

We never had had one, you muppet.

[FutureTaoiseach]

What Roche said some months ago on Late Night Live on Newstalk106 was that the Dail would have a veto on further erosion of the veto.

Guess what Dick? It already has that power because of its role in the ratification of EU treaties.

What he didn't say is that we would automatically get a referendum on the removal of further vetoes. Because we won't.

We never had had one, you muppet.

Wrong. Each EU treaty since the Single European Act has given up national vetoes and were put to referenda. This Treaty, in particular Article 48, is about a self-amending EU treaty to get around the Crotty judgement.

[NotDevsSon]

What Roche said some months ago on Late Night Live on Newstalk106 was that the Dail would have a veto on further erosion of the veto.

Guess what Dick? It already has that power because of its role in the ratification of EU treaties.

What he didn't say is that we would automatically get a referendum on the removal of further vetoes. Because we won't.

We never had had one, you muppet.

Wrong. Each EU treaty since the Single European Act has given up national vetoes and were put to referenda. This Treaty, in particular Article 48, is about a self-amending EU treaty to get around the Crotty judgement.

Dear God. Utter rubbish. You haven't a clue about Article 48. (So I guess that's yet another article you completely misunderstand. Is there ANY article you actually understand the meaning of? There is no sign of it.)

[corkman2007]

Any changes to the treaty will have to be ratified in each member-state according to its consitutional requirements.

Any changes from unanimity to QMV have to be approved unanimously and can be blocked if even one national parliament objects within six months.

How does that make the treaty 'self-amending'?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Any changes to the treaty will have to be ratified in each member-state according to its consitutional requirements.

Any changes from unanimity to QMV have to be approved unanimously and can be blocked if even one national parliament objects within six months.

How does that make the treaty 'self-amending'?

By cutting out the automatic right to a referendum in Ireland. Article 48 is about changing the EU institutions without the Irish people having a direct say in a referendum in future.

[corkman2007]

There is no automatic right to have a referendum in Ireland. The necessity for a referendum depends on the nature of the proposed change to an existing treaty or the nature of a proposed treaty.

The government has erred on the side of caution since the Crotty judgement and has called referendums on EU matters, but if you read that judgement you'll see that the requirement for a referendum is not absolute.

Any future proposed changes to EU treaties will more than likely be put to a referendum, unless they're so minor that the government is absolutely certain that a referendum won't be required. Even then, these decisions are likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court which will be, as it is now, the final arbiter of whether or not a referendum is required.

[ibis]

Any changes to the treaty will have to be ratified in each member-state according to its consitutional requirements.

Any changes from unanimity to QMV have to be approved unanimously and can be blocked if even one national parliament objects within six months.

How does that make the treaty 'self-amending'?

By cutting out the automatic right to a referendum in Ireland. Article 48 is about changing the EU institutions without the Irish people having a direct say in a referendum in future.

Except that Article 48 doesn't have the power to do any such thing. It can neither require nor prevent Ireland having a referendum if the Irish AG or Supreme Court determines that a referendum is necessary to ratify any further amendment of the Treaties, because the EU has no such power to interfere in the constitutional arrangements of its member states. The Treaty itself simply says that further amendments can be carried out on a single-amendment basis. Some of those amendments may not require a referendum, but are likely to have one anyway, to avoid legal challenge to them.

As to the future QMV changes that "may take place without a referendum", the amendments we are voting on next week include the right to make those changes through Dáil ratification. They would not require a further referendum because they are covered in this one. Any other QMV changes that are not covered in this referendum will, however, require a further referendum.

[FutureTaoiseach]

As to the future QMV changes that "may take place without a referendum", the amendments we are voting on next week include the right to make those changes through Dáil ratification. They would not require a further referendum because they are covered in this one. Any other QMV changes that are not covered in this referendum will, however, require a further referendum.

So you admit then that this Treaty will facilitate further extensions of QMV beyiond those given up explicitly by Lisbon without Crotty requiring a referendum in Ireland? Well then that proves what I have said - that Article 48 is about letting the govt off the hook of actually having to consult us before giving the French and the Germans the right to vote on what our laws should be in a further range of policy areas - possibly including on Irish rates of taxation? The govt will be able, if this treaty passes, to give up the taxation veto under Article 48 (simplified revision process) without having to put it to a referendum, whereas at present it would undoubtedly constitute an erosion of sovereignty requiring a referendum in Ireland.

That is unacceptable and the Irish people, if informed on this, will not vote for it.