Government promising Dáil vote on key Lisbon issues: point?

[He3]

Is the Dáil moving to a position of power in its own right?

The role of the Dáil as an institution is coming up for examination in light of two recent promises by government in the context of Lisbon ll. The government has said that Ireland's involvement in the EU Defence Agency will be subject to Dáil approval. Now it is promising not to use the device in the Lisbon treaty that would allow the EU Council of Ministers to move from unanimity to majority voting without Dáil approval.

Meanwhile, the Government will look for the approval of the Oireachtas before making any decision on abandoning the country’s veto, similar to the demand made by the German Constitutional Court on its ruling on the Lisbon treaty.

The provision will be in the bill to be published shortly to allow a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty due to be held in early October, a government spokesperson confirmed.

A government spokesperson said: "The 2009 Bill will include specific provision that prior approval of each House of the Oireachtas will be necessary before the Government can agree to use the passerelle clause and certain other options and discretions provided for in the treaty."

ibis pointed out elsewhere recently that this sort of promise is meaningless politically due to the whip system - the political reality is that the government controls the Dáil. (His example was in a different area to this but the point is just as valid here). I agree with that view.

So in the real world if the government decides to allow something to be brought in under the passerelle, the Dáil will not stop it.

That is why the key factor is the vote on Lisbon ll. If that vote is Yes, then the decisive political power on this issue passes from the people to the government.

...............................
More background here:
wiki - Passerelle Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Passerelle Clause (also known as an Escalator Clause) is a clause within treaties of the European Union that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas.

Certain matters in the Council of Ministers are decided by unanimous voting and certain by qualified majority voting. The distinction is laid down in treaties and cannot normally be changed without a new treaty. Under the passerelle clause, voting on certain areas can switch from unanimity to QMV if the European Council unanimously approves this. This decision cannot be later reversed without treaty change.

There are currently four current passerelle provisions:

The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 on police and judicial cooperation
The Treaty of Nice in 2001 on immigration and asylum, social policy and the environment
In 2004 the European Council used the passerelle clause to move to QMV on asylum and immigration

The unratified European Constitution proposed passerelle provisions on:

The Common Foreign and Security Policy [1]
The budget [2]
All other policies except defense [3]

In 2006 a United Kingdom House of Commons committee caused protests by referring to the passerelle clause as the "gangplank clause" [4]

[FutureTaoiseach]

This will boomerang in the govt's face. Not because its a bad idea to let the Dail vote on it - on the contrary. The problem is that it amounts to an admission by the govt that under Lisbon, the Oireachtas will be empowered to surrender further vetoes without a referendum. So to all intents an purposes, it means that - at least in this respect - Lisbon is indeed self-amending with respect to QMV.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I think you need to explain this a little more. For instance, if Lisbon is passed, in which areas, can the government act to hand over sovereignty without consulting the people?

Among other areas such as taxation, they will have the right to surrender the 16 vetoes on Justice and Home Affairs with the consent of the Oireachtas but without a referendum. These including policing, judicial-cooperation, asylum and immigration and border-controls. Indeed the text of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2008 included a paragraph stating that the govt could do this with the consent of the Oireachtas. Article 48 would likely have allowed this anyway, but just in case, the govt included this wording in the text of the amendment. In the context of Article 48, I am talking about the "simplified revision process". The British govt has also admitted aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy can be moved from unanimity to QMV under the Treaty. In fact, Article 48 will allow the abolition of the national-veto in practical every imaginable area of policy other than defence issues. The passerelle clauses are as follows:

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure

2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.

The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

13° The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas

In other words, it would require Oireachtas approval to surrender the JHA vetoes - but not the consent of the public in a referendum. Very clever. Thought we wouldn't notice that didn't they.

[mccafferty cat]

This will boomerang in the govt's face. Not because its a bad idea to let the Dail vote on it - on the contrary. The problem is that it amounts to an admission by the govt that under Lisbon, the Oireachtas will be empowered to surrender further vetoes without a referendum. So to all intents an purposes, it means that - at least in this respect - Lisbon is indeed self-amending with respect to QMV.

What a load of absolute bull. If the Dáil WASN'T voting, you'd say that democracy was being stifled

What a pathetic sadcase.

[FutureTaoiseach]

What a load of absolute bull. If the Dáil WASN'T voting, you'd say that democracy was being stifled

What a pathetic sadcase.

Where sovereignty is concerned, the Irish people have a moral and legal right to be consulted in a referendum. And after the Tribunals, that's how it should be. Politicians can be corrupted as an electorate cannot.

[mccafferty cat]

Politicians can be corrupted as an electorate cannot.

And yet we get the chance to elect or get rid of these same politicians on a regular basis. You seem to forget that. In your head, we're ruled by some kind of aristocratic elite who rule by right of birth

[locke]

Politicians can be corrupted as an electorate cannot.

I think it cold be easily argued that the sort of auction politics we saw during the Aherne years was a corrupting of the electorate.

[He3]

Where sovereignty is concerned, the Irish people have a moral and legal right to be consulted in a referendum. And after the Tribunals, that's how it should be. Politicians can be corrupted as an electorate cannot.

In their wisdom, and possibly against their own political interests, the drafters of the Constitution realised that the people should, in certain limited but vital areas, be able to restrain their elected representatives from having it their own way. The Supreme Court in the Crotty case upheld that basic democratic principle. Judge Barrington in the High Court had made that Supreme Court decision possible by injuncting the 1986 government from ratifying the SEA before the full legal argument could be heard and decided. He was pilloried in some circles for his judgment at the time.

That right to restrain politicians in certain areas is there for good reason. We owe it to our history to keep it a vital part of our political landscape.

It puts a responsibility on citizens to inform themselves, and a responsibility on representative politicians to treat the process with integrity.

[fergalr]

I think it cold be easily argued that the sort of auction politics we saw during the Aherne years was a corrupting of the electorate.

We love corrupt politicians, so long as they do something for the constituency. Or, like Ahern, roll over and have their tummy rubbed by ICTU.

[He3]

What an image fergalr.