Originally Posted by Elmo
So just to get in on this whole EU Constitution issue, which has been poo-pooed by many (prob because Dana is making it an issue). However aside from that let me just point out that it took someone go to the supreme court to get us the ability to vote on EU treaties as far as the political elite are concerned this voting business is just a loop hole in the constitution. (Raymond Crotty, btw). One reason why Kenny doesn't want any changes to Lisbon.
And Mary-Louise suggesting at the end that it was Xenophobic or at least trying to suggest that being sovereign and independent is Xenophobic is just pure bull****, are we to consider that Tone or Parnell or Childers where Xenophobic?
Oh and I suppose I should Say hello again, I have being avoiding the new thread.
People are poo-pooing it because she's referring to the European Constitutional Treaty of 2004 which died a death during the ratification process in 2005. Dana is living in some alternate universe where this document is an item of European Law. It is not. No matter how many times she thumps her copy of it. Might as well be arguing against the Free State Constitution of 1922 for all the relevance this has. If she's referring to The Lisbon Treaty, better to refer to that. At least that would be an operative body of law.
As for Crotty v. An Taoiseach , that was a mixed judgement for Crotty. He had also argued in that case that the Dail had no power to diminish its own competence (i.e. power to legislate) and delegate or devolve that power (such as to the European institutions.) The court disagreed and threw out that portion of the appeal. Where they did agree with Crotty was on the issue of substantial alterations to the working of European institutions (mentioned in 29.4.10) requiring ratification by popular referendum.
However, it is arguable just how much The Single European Act (the 1987 treaty which provoked Crotty's case) itself represented major alterations in the operation of the European jurisdiction.
In the event, every government since has hedged its bets by putting the matter to referendum even though certain treaties (such as Amsterdam in 1997) arguably did not represent changes so drastic that they required ratification by referendum. It would require a further test case to see precisely where the line is. Governments enter into international treaties which constrain their action and impose obligations upon them all the time without referendum (e.g. The Cluster Munitions Convention, etc.)
But! Long story short: Dana's scope for action is quite clearly circumscribed by 29.4.10. She knows (okay, that might be too generous) this. She can't do anything. At this stage it's purest pipe-dream stuff on her part.