New expression of 'commitment' to the European Union in Referendum Bill

[eurosceptic]

I can see this as having consequences for the crotty criteria. This vague committment to the EU could be interpreted as an endorsement of future changes to EU treaties.
Have we not learned from the 8th amendment the perils of such vague language.

[ibis]

I can see this as having consequences for the crotty criteria. This vague committment to the EU could be interpreted as an endorsement of future changes to EU treaties.
Have we not learned from the 8th amendment the perils of such vague language.

I thought the No campaigns were deeply suspicious of legalese?

[He3]

To understand the thinking behind this new Constitutional declaration of our commitment to Europe, it might be useful to look more closely at something the Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan said, off script, in a speech to Irish lawyers in Budapest before last year's vote:

"...this referendum is unique to Ireland and to the Irish people, and that’s a constitutional requirement,” he said. “And my script writer has kindly said that I should not see this as a negative and potentially embarrassing process. I have to say I’m on the record on this as saying it is a negative and embarrassing process. I don’t actually agree with it."

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/Gaz...May%202008.pdf

So our Minister for Justice has laid his cards on the table. He finds our right to a referendum embarrassing.

Is this new unheralded subarticle 4 Minister Lenihan's idea?

[ibis]

To understand the thinking behind this new Constitutional declaration of our commitment to Europe, it might be useful to look more closely at something the Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan said, off script, in a speech to Irish lawyers in Budapest before last year's vote:

"...this referendum is unique to Ireland and to the Irish people, and that’s a constitutional requirement,” he said. “And my script writer has kindly said that I should not see this as a negative and potentially embarrassing process. I have to say I’m on the record on this as saying it is a negative and embarrassing process. I don’t actually agree with it."

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/Gaz...May%202008.pdf

So our Minister for Justice has laid his cards on the table. He finds our right to a referendum embarrassing.

Is this new unheralded subarticle 4 Minister Lenihan's idea?

Are you really going to try to spin this as an amendment that will overturn Crotty? Fascinating!

[molloyjh]

To understand the thinking behind this new Constitutional declaration of our commitment to Europe, it might be useful to look more closely at something the Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan said, off script, in a speech to Irish lawyers in Budapest before last year's vote:

"...this referendum is unique to Ireland and to the Irish people, and that’s a constitutional requirement,” he said. “And my script writer has kindly said that I should not see this as a negative and potentially embarrassing process. I have to say I’m on the record on this as saying it is a negative and embarrassing process. I don’t actually agree with it."

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/Gaz...May%202008.pdf

So our Minister for Justice has laid his cards on the table. He finds our right to a referendum embarrassing.

Is this new unheralded subarticle 4 Minister Lenihan's idea?

In a sense I can see where he is coming from though. He follows up with:

“I think one of the problems with our Constitution is that we have had it since 1937. It’s an excellent document. How could I say anything else, since the drafter was the founder of my party? But it has gone through a minute-by-minute analysis by the Supreme Court, which has led to an extraordinary set of conclusions. For example, our present Supreme Court requires that we have a referendum every time there is a marginal change in the structure of the European Union. Now, of course, it was very difficult to explain to people that this [the Lisbon Treaty] is only a marginal change in the structure of the European Union. People rightly think there is something afoot here. And one of the biggest difficulties in the referendum is going to be explaining to people that there isn’t all that much in the Lisbon Treaty. Because people naturally say, ‘Well, why are we having a referendum then?’”

He is saying that even though the majority of what is in the Lisbon Treaty is of no consequence to the Constitution we still need to have a referendum, and that the issue then becomes about more than it is legally about.

The Lisbon Treaty isn't really that big a deal overall and yet here we all are going ape-sh!t over it.

[He3]

One day they say there is nothing to it, and the next day it is essential to save the planet. Which is it?

Well they have the remedy in their own hands: publish the Attorney General's Opinion and let us see for ourselves what he has advised.

[molloyjh]

One day they say there is nothing to it, and the next day it is essential to save the planet. Which is it?

Well they have the remedy in their own hands: publish the Attorney General's Opinion and let us see for ourselves what he has advised.

I'll be honest, I gave up listening to them long ago so I've no idea what they are saying or how or why. And I really couldn't care either. I'm just itching for a GE though so I can exercise my democratic right to tell them to take a hike. Again. Only this time I might just be lucky enough to be in the majority!

[FutureTaoiseach]

In a sense I can see where he is coming from though. He follows up with:



He is saying that even though the majority of what is in the Lisbon Treaty is of no consequence to the Constitution we still need to have a referendum, and that the issue then becomes about more than it is legally about.

The Lisbon Treaty isn't really that big a deal overall and yet here we all are going ape-sh!t over it.

Is that why constitutional-law expert Gerard Hogan said the Charter of Fundamental Rights could "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court?

THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law.
The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented.
Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.
He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation.
One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented.
The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said.
Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects.
In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.
The "implementation of EU law" condition could also be triggered by accidental factors like nationality or travel, he said."..

[molloyjh]

Is that why constitutional-law expert Gerard Hogan said the Charter of Fundamental Rights could "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court?

I don't think you really read what he said did you? He said that there are parts to the Charter that wouldn't seem to make sense if only ever applied to EU law. That is all. He never said the Charter itself would overrule anything. More to the point he actually said it could not as EU law currently stands. He seems to be trying to imply that the EU will potentially try to expand their competancies into the areas covered by the Charter. But even if they do the ECJ would have supremecy over our Courts regardless of whether the Charter exists or not, never-mind whether it is enshrined in EU law or not.

At the end of the day his question is whether or not the Charter is a sign that the EU plans to extend its powers into all the areas covered by the Charter. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and to do so would require unanimity among all Member States and no opt-outs in the various issues. So it is highly, highly unlikely.

Given that, even if it were come to pass, the ECJ would then have supremacy over our own courts that makes the Charter irrelevant in such a situation anyway.

[Almanac]

So lets start at the beginning. In reference to your statement regarding amendment of the Irish constitution, I refer you to article 48 in The Treaty of Lisbon. This article translates into a self-amending clause. In layman's terms, this means that once the treaty has been ratified, the power to amend the Irish constitution changes hands from sovereign Ireland to Federal Europe. From that point on the European government can choose to change/amend the Irish (or any ratified member state's) Constitution without consulting or informing the people or political parties of that member state.

Tell me in plain English how this is a ridiculous far-fetched claim? It is the truth. If we want the Yes campaign to succeed, we need FULL DISCLOSURE of the treaty and we need to educate the public on all BENEFITS TO IRELAND of ratification and the creation of a more "formal" Federal Europe.

Whether you are for real or not a federal Europe is truly under construction.