Legal guarantees for Ireland impossible: leadingTreaty supporter

[He3]

The issue of how to create legally binding guarantees to take account of the concerns of the Irish people is taking an interesting turn. Yesterday one of the treaty supporters on P.ie was adamant that every respectable legal advisor in Europe (I exaggerate only slightly) was fully sure that the proposed method was sound.

That assurance cannot be tested by the rest of us as the legal opinions referred to are being kept confidential for some reason.

Today we have this report from Jamie Smyth about a leading supporter of the treaty in the European Parliament who says the government has got it wrong.

THE GOVERNMENT’S plan to have guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty added to the EU treaties by means of the Croatian accession treaty has run into opposition in the European Parliament.

The plan, which was announced by French president Nicolas Sarkozy last December, is intended to provide cast-iron legal guarantees to Irish voters ahead of a second referendum in the autumn.

Liberal MEP Andrew Duff, who is one of three MEPs who sat on the intergovernmental conference that drew up the treaty, told journalists yesterday that adding an Irish-specific protocol with the legal guarantees to an accession treaty was not legally possible.

“Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts,” said Mr Duff.

He added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state’s accession to be dealt with.

MEP queries legal basis for Ireland's Lisbon guarantees - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 02, 2009

[marmurr1916]

Why? A treaty is a treaty. It doesn't matter what the main part of the treaty is about. A protocol added to that treaty could be about anything.

For example, there was a protocol added to the Treaty of Amsterdam which set out where the legal headquarters of the EU institutions and some other EU organisations would be based.

This is what Dick Roche had to say in response to Andrew Duff's comments:

Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche said yesterday he did not agree with Mr Duff’s analysis and stressed that a decision on the guarantees had been taken last December.

“Frankly I don’t agree with him and I don’t think anyone else agrees with him either,” said Mr Roche, who added the Government may not seek to attach the protocol to the Croatian accession treaty but could ask states to ratify an Irish protocol separate from it.

[eurosceptic]

The duffman, one of the no sides best assets.
So we are only going to get "promises" and more "promises".
Btw. A referendum in croatia on joining the EU faces likely defeat so dont count on the croats yet!

[Clanrickard]

The duffman, one of the no sides best assets.
So we are only going to get "promises" and more "promises".
Btw. A referendum in croatia on joining the EU faces likely defeat so dont count on the croats yet!

That would be hilarious.

[eurosceptic]

Dick roche says we can "ask" for a mini-treaty. Very reassuring! as reassuring as if it was from Ibis.

[eurosceptic]

The duffman does have a solid point in that accession treaties are supposed to only handle the nuts and bolts of adding an extra member to the EU. Increasing the scope of an accession treaty could well be opening a can of worms.
I note even jamie smyth doubts a "mini-treaty" is possible.
Given croatia's and iceland's likely rejection of EU membership and cowens claim lisbon is the last treaty for a generation, when do we get protocols? Perhaps a secession treaty for one of the eastern malcontents?

[myksav]

Why? A treaty is a treaty. It doesn't matter what the main part of the treaty is about. A protocol added to that treaty could be about anything.

For example, there was a protocol added to the Treaty of Amsterdam which set out where the legal headquarters of the EU institutions and some other EU organisations would be based.

This is what Dick Roche had to say in response to Andrew Duff's comments:

Here was I, thinking that the main part of a Treaty was what it was all about.
Protocols are applied to a Treaty on points in that Treaty, not on previous Treaties. That would need re-negotiation of the previous Treaty.

[ibis]

How would that work? Another mini-treaty? Another referendum(s)?

A mini-treaty...I doubt we'd need a referendum, but we'd have to ratify it, which at least conjures up the entertaining prospect of us voting down the protocols we're being offered.

I think there's an element of confusion here, though - all that's important is that the Protocols wind up attached to TEC/TEU. It doesn't matter how they get in there. Lisbon is simply a mechanism to amend TEC/TEU, and those treaties can as well be modified by a mini-treaty consisting purely of the protocols as an accession treaty. There's no difference in effect.

If Andrew Duff is right about having to keep accession treaties purely for the details of the accession, then the mechanism would need to be something else like a mini-treaty. He could well be correct, and he's certainly right to raise the question of whether adding irrelevant Protocols by means of an accession treaty doesn't set a dubious precedent.

[eurosceptic]

Can a yesman answear me this:
If the duffman is correct and accession treaties can only be used for rearranging the furniture how long will we have to wait for the protocols? Cowen said lisbon was the last treaty for a generation didnt he.
Decisions of the european council are fine for the integovernmental elements but not the supranational elements. For how many years will our trousers be down if we accept this package. Denmark could afford to wait a few years for its citizenship opt-out and euro opt-out as presently EU citizenship has no practical effect and the euro was on the long finger at the time.

[ibis]

Can a yesman answear me this:
If the duffman is correct and accession treaties can only be used for rearranging the furniture how long will we have to wait for the protocols? Cowen said lisbon was the last treaty for a generation didnt he.

Decisions of the european council are fine for the integovernmental elements but not the supranational elements. For how many years will our trousers be down if we accept this package. Denmark could afford to wait a few years for its citizenship opt-out and euro opt-out as presently EU citizenship has no practical effect and the euro was on the long finger at the time.

Don't be more of a muppet than you can help. If a treaty is needed, there will be one. There's no point in pretending there won't be one simply because there wasn't one previously planned.