Martin: Don’t focus on details of Lisbon

[ibis]

Hence the 'incorporation' claim.

Which I'm forced to regard as meaningless...particularly since it applies to the Treaties, not the actions of the government.

[stringjack]

As an aside I was really tweed off reading the whole first bit by the Chief Justice & waiting for the money shot ... until I found out at the end he was on the losing side ...

I hate when that happens.

[ibis]

The amendment could, in the clearest possible terms, state that no future referendum could ever alter the substance of the amendment, and it wouldn't seem to matter in the slightest. (Legal systems presuppose political units.)

I think you'd find that an amendment that stated it could not be altered would be itself unconstitutional...and here we are amidst some very well-known paradoxes. Can the people, being omnipotent, bind themselves to be less than omnipotent...?

Fortunately, it would be sufficient to strike the existing amendment:

"10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

[He3]

Varifocals are the solution. Highly recommended in cases of Martinitis.

Pop on a pair of them and you could focus both on the L Treaty and the Big Picture at the same time.

[cyberianpan]

I think you'd find that an amendment that stated it could not be altered would be itself unconstitutional...and here we are amidst some very well-known paradoxes. Can the people, being omnipotent, bind themselves to be less than omnipotent...?

Fortunately, it would be sufficient to strike the existing amendment:

"10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

And that's the whole thing I've been banging on about, the treaties are what define the parameters of our membership. Once we accept them we accept all laws under them,but we could challenge the law under Bunreacht for not being in accordance with the treaty.

This is why I want to limit Bunreacht to the salient bits of the treaties ...

What's interesting in the Crotty judgement is that it is up to us what's good enough for ratification ... which means we can indeed only put a well defined chunk into Bunreacht.


cYp

[stringjack]

I think you'd find that an amendment that stated it could not be altered would be itself unconstitutional...and here we are amidst some very well-known paradoxes. Can the people, being omnipotent, bind themselves to be less than omnipotent...?

Fortunately, it would be sufficient to strike the existing amendment...

We could also strike the provisions relating to how the Constitution is to be amended (or simply render the amending provision exempt from the referendum provisions).

[ibis]

I think you'd find that an amendment that stated it could not be altered would be itself unconstitutional...and here we are amidst some very well-known paradoxes. Can the people, being omnipotent, bind themselves to be less than omnipotent...?

Fortunately, it would be sufficient to strike the existing amendment:

"10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

And that's the whole thing I've been banging on about, the treaties are what define the parameters of our membership. Once we accept them we accept all laws under them,but we could challenge the law under Bunreacht for not being in accordance with the treaty.

This is why I want to limit Bunreacht to the salient bits of the treaties ...

What's interesting in the Crotty judgement is that it is up to us what's good enough for ratification ... which means we can indeed only put a well defined chunk into Bunreacht.

[SIZE="5"]The text of the Treaties doesn't go into Bunreacht. We cannot leave some out and have it not be protected from constitutional challenge. That is not how it works.[/SIZE]

[EDIT]I'm wrong about this - it could be made to work this way. Yay me.[/EDIT]

[He3]

Varifocals, really.

[ibis]

Now, I did warn you. For God's sake stop saying that the Treaty text goes into Bunreacht. It is not correct. And yes, it's worth the negative rep!

I think you'd find that an amendment that stated it could not be altered would be itself unconstitutional...and here we are amidst some very well-known paradoxes. Can the people, being omnipotent, bind themselves to be less than omnipotent...?

Fortunately, it would be sufficient to strike the existing amendment:

"10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

And that's the whole thing I've been banging on about, the treaties are what define the parameters of our membership. Once we accept them we accept all laws under them,but we could challenge the law under Bunreacht for not being in accordance with the treaty.

This is why I want to limit Bunreacht to the salient bits of the treaties ...

What's interesting in the Crotty judgement is that it is up to us what's good enough for ratification ... which means we can indeed only put a well defined chunk into Bunreacht.

What you mean, I think, is that the constitutional exemption applies to all EU legislation once the treaties are ratified, and that the EU legislation is based on the treaties.

That is true, but is not a result of the ratification amendment - it is a result of the amendment I've quoted. The process is:

1. government signs a treaty
2. government puts the request for ratification to the people at referendum
3. if the people allow, the government can then ratify the treaty
4. the government is now bound by the obligations in the treaty
5. the actions of the government on foot of those obligations are now exempt from constitutional challenge

I appreciate what you're saying - that we should be able to pick and choose which bits of the treaty obligations are thus made exempt. However, even if we could do that (and it would be an exhaustive task) in any reasonable way, our ability to challenge the actions of our government on foot of a treaty obligation would not prevent the government having that obligation.

Before we could do any such thing, we would have to strike the quoted amendment. We could not do it the way you have suggested...because, he said, drawing a deep breath, the text of the treaties does not go into Bunreacht. Therefore, we cannot "leave some out" and have it not be protected by the amendment, as you appear to believe.

[cyberianpan]

Now, I did warn you. For God's sake stop saying that the Treaty text goes into Bunreacht. It is not correct.



What you mean, I think, is that the constitutional exemption applies to all EU legislation once the treaties are ratified.

That is true, but is not a result of the ratification amendment - it is a result of the amendment I've quoted. The process is:

1. government signs a treaty
2. government puts the request for ratification to the people at referendum
3. if the people allow, the government can then ratify the treaty
4. the government is now bound by the obligations in the treaty
5. the actions of the government on foot of those obligations are now exempt from constitutional challenge

I appreciate what you're saying - that we should be able to pick and choose which bits of the treaty obligations are thus made exempt. However, even if we could do that (and it would be an exhaustive task) in any reasonable way, our ability to challenge the actions of our government on foot of a treaty obligation would not prevent the government having that obligation.

Before we could do any such thing, we would have to strike the quoted amendment.

The text of the treaty does not physically go into to Bunreacht, but Bunreacht now points to the Treaty instead as the superior instrument... which to me is logically the same as putting the text into Bunreacht. Though I've been thinking of this in terms of push down (as in new legislation being shoved down our throats) ... I'm not sure if an Irish citizen could appeal up and try to gain benefits of some rights under the Treaties ?

Agreed that we'd have to
1) strike that amendment
2) then put in the changes (delta) that would allow subsequent EU legilsation be constitutional

And as I pointed out under Crotty above - we've total freedom as to how "The Government" ratifies the treaties - and as noted by you also we'd still remain with the International obligation if we missed anything from the delta.

However - we'd have a firewall to protect us - right now we're risking giving up unknown things (as no one seems willing to say what changes to Bunreacht the delta would entail)

Also note this delta should include SEA , Amsterdam,Maastricht & Nice (which is why I referred to situation as already SNAFU)

cYp