Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 101

Thread: Lawyers' letter blunder

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Lawyers' letter blunder

    Whatever our differences over the treaty on politics.ie, there are a couple of points that we all agree on. One of them is that under our Constitution, some EU treaty changes require a referendum, but not every treaty change does so. See the threads on the Crotty case for the reasons.

    Has nobody told these people whose letter is prominent in the Times today?

    ''Despite statements to the contrary, this treaty makes it clear that any future changes to the EU Treaties will continue to have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member-state, which in Ireland's case is by referendum.

    This Treaty is very important for the future of Ireland and Europe. - Yours, etc,

    DAVID ANDREWS SC, MICHAEL BINCHY, DAVID BYRNE, KATE COLLEARY, SHARON DALY, RICHARD DEVEREUX, PAUL EUSTACE, DAVID GEARY, APRIL GILROY, RICHARD HAMMOND, GERRY KELLY SC, MARTIN G. LAWLOR, CHARLES MEENAN SC, HUGH I. MOHAN SC, COLM MacEOCHAIDH, EOIN McCULLOUGH SC, UNA McGURK SC, PATRICK O'CONNOR, JIM O'CALLAGHAN, RODERIC O'GORMAN, FERGUS O'HAGAN SC, KEVIN O'HIGGINS, MICHAEL O'KENNEDY SC, DESMOND O'MALLEY, ISEULT O'MALLEY SC, Cllr OISIN QUINN, Senator EUGENE REGAN SC, RORY STAINES, ERCUS STEWART SC, DECLAN J. WALSH, TONY WILLIAMS,

    Irish Alliance for Europe''.


    At least they got the last sentence right.
    Last edited by He3; 8th July 2012 at 01:56 PM.
    'To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront'. Dick Roche TD 21.12.01

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    And a month ago we pointed out the same mistake in the Media awards thread

    Sigh.
    'To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront'. Dick Roche TD 21.12.01

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    Should we expect a clarification after the polls close?
    'To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront'. Dick Roche TD 21.12.01

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member aodh_rua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cill Dara
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    Why would a clarification be necessary? Article 48.4 of the amended Treaty on the European Union is pretty unambiguous regarding future treaties....

    Quote Originally Posted by Article 48.4
    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.
    Which in our case means a referendum if required under Crotty.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    aodh_rua as you rightly say we approve treaty changes by referendum IF they are changes that require approval by that method under Crotty. And the corollary is that some treaty changes would not be required to have referendum approval under the Crotty reasoning.

    The signatories to the letter miss that distinction. For them to say that

    any future changes to the EU Treaties will continue to have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member-state, which in Ireland's case is by referendum.

    is simply wrong.

    What is going on here?
    'To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront'. Dick Roche TD 21.12.01

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member aodh_rua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cill Dara
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    Quote Originally Posted by Helium Three
    aodh_rua as you rightly say we approve treaty changes by referendum IF they are changes that require approval by that method under Crotty. And the corollary is that some treaty changes would not be required to have referendum approval under the Crotty reasoning.

    The eminent signatories to the letter miss that distinction. For them to say that

    any future changes to the EU Treaties will continue to have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member-state, which in Ireland's case is by referendum.

    is simply wrong.

    What is going on here?
    It's certainly in the spirit of what is required, and only a jesuitic interpretation would say otherwise.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    It is either always a constitutional requirement to ratify by referendum or it is not. Both statements cannot be true.

    If you call that 'jesuitic' you do the Jesuits an injustice.
    'To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront'. Dick Roche TD 21.12.01

  8. #8

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    In fairness its a long list of emminent lawyers who work in the field. I dont recall such a grouping emerging on behalf of interpretations from the NO campaigns

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member aodh_rua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cill Dara
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    Quote Originally Posted by Helium Three
    It is either always a constitutional requirement to ratify by referendum or it is not. Both statements cannot be true.

    If you call that 'jesuitical' you do the Jesuits an injustice.
    Not quite - we also have a political convention that treaties are put to referendum. I've heard one Euro-expert say that there is an argument to be made that Lisbon doesn't require a referendum under a strict constitutional interpretation. Therefore, as a matter of high probability, Treaties into the future will by law and convention be put to a public vote.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Lawyers' letter blunder

    [quote=aodh_rua]
    Quote Originally Posted by "Helium Three":1jyg50ut
    It is either always a constitutional requirement to ratify by referendum or it is not. Both statements cannot be true.

    If you call that 'jesuitical' you do the Jesuits an injustice.
    Not quite - we also have a political convention that treaties are put to referendum. I've heard one Euro-expert say that there is an argument to be made that Lisbon doesn't require a referendum under a strict constitutional interpretation. Therefore, as a matter of high probability, Treaties into the future will by law and convention be put to a public vote.[/quote:1jyg50ut]

    and virtually everyone agreed that Amsterdam did'nt strictly need one either but conventional wisdom and political imperatives take precedence

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •