The EU Reform Treaty

baztard

The EU Reform Treaty will be officially agreed on by EU leaders today. It is due to be brought into law within 1 year, provided all states ratify it. Ireland will be the only country to hold a referendum, with all other countries voting on the treaty in their parliaments.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1213/eu.html

I'm not sure what exactly the whole treaty is about, and I presume most Irish people are the same. So this is a good opportunity to talk about what external factors will effect how people vote, other than the actual details of the treaty itself.

Potential Fianna Fail backlash - Will people vote no on the treaty because Fianna Fail are backing it?

Given the way we voted no to the Nice treaty only to have another referendum on it two years later. Will Fianna Fail keep on having referendums until they get the result they want?
Will our experience with the that effect the way we vote?

Seeing as we're the only country where people and not politicians will decide on ratifying the treaty. Will the pressure from the other 24 governments effect us? We might feel we have to vote yes to keep face in the EU.

And on the flip side, will the abundance of Vote No lobby groups from around the EU (who will no doubt flood into Ireland) make a difference?

oscarBravo

baztard wrote: »

Potential Fianna Fail backlash - Will people vote no on the treaty because Fianna Fail are backing it?

Sadly, that's a distinct possibility. Heaven forbid people would vote against them in a ballot where it would actually count.

baztard wrote: »

Given the way we voted no to the Nice treaty only to have another referendum on it two years later. Will Fianna Fail keep on having referendums until they get the result they want?

Ah, that old chestnut again. You do realise we voted on a different proposition the second time around?

baztard

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise we voted on a different proposition the second time around?

It was the same treaty, just a different flavour of it. Much the same way France and Netherlands rejected the EU constitution, and are now being landed with it in its new EU Reform Treaty flavour.

oscarBravo

baztard wrote: »

It was the same treaty, just a different flavour of it.

If someone offers me chocolate flavour ice cream, and I turn it down, and then he offers me vanilla flavour, and I accept - does that mean that I've been pestered into accepting ice cream? Or that I preferred the flavour I was offered the second time?

You might also want to look at the difference in turnout between the two referenda.

LostinBlanch

Well I'm not looking to the campaign as I think it is going to be a dirty one.

Anyone who doesn't vote yes will be described as a malcontent/fascist/SF fellow traveller/anti EU/anti progress/antidemocrat etc.

Take your pick of the above.

baztard

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well I'm not looking to the campaign as I think it is going to be a dirty one.

Anyone who doesn't vote yes will be described as a malcontent/fascist/SF fellow traveller/anti EU/anti progress/antidemocrat etc.

Take your pick of the above.

antidemocrat would be a good one!

Moriarty

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well I'm not looking to the campaign as I think it is going to be a dirty one.

Anyone who doesn't vote yes will be described as a malcontent/fascist/SF fellow traveller/anti EU/anti progress/antidemocrat etc.

Take your pick of the above.

Do you think it will purely be "Yes" campaigners who will be engaging in these lowest-common-denominator tactics?

PHB

I'm very very very interested in this treaty (and also this thread). It is undoubtably 90% of the constitution. However in legal terms, the constitution wasn't that radical a document. It was in a large part codification of what has already happened. This treaty is very useful, and absolutely has to get passed. Ireland is going to be the battle ground for Europe on this one, it's going to be huge. If people ever say Ireland doesn't have a big enough say in Europe, this is our chance.
What's very interesting about this treaty is the role of symbolism, and how much the Commission thought it affected the constitution. Words like constitution, minister all gone, songs and flags gone.

The real areas to be affected by this treaty are Public Services, the Self-Employed, and Transport. There are massive extensions of co-decision in this area.
There is also a good re-working of the issues with qualified majority voting, and even by 2017 a blocking minority will still exist, either 19.25% of the population of 7 member states can use a veto even under qualified majority voting.

This is mostly a codification of what is already going on, and is a time for reflection on what the EU has done and if we're happy with it. I'm happy with it.

BobbyD10

can I ask why Ireland is the only country where the vote goes to the people...?

Moriarty

Presumeably we're the only country who's constitution requires a referendum for the changes proposed.

oscarBravo

There was a Supreme Court decision at the time of the Single European Act that requires all ratifications of EU treaties to be done through constitional amendments, which in turn require referenda.

cabinteelytom

26 european leaders managed to attend the official signing-one didn't. Gordon Brown was instead appearing before the House of Commons 'Liaison Committee' which he only does twice a year, for two and a half hours; so you can see it isn't a fixture that's easily changed. Simultaneously his 'Europe Minister' ,Jim Murphy,was on the radio, explaining that Britain 'had moved further away [such elegant speech] from the Constitution than any other european country' with a series of unique opt-outs.
But ..the reform treaty is 'neccessary to make the EU function' because of the expansion eastwards of the EU; a policy promoted within the EU by Britain; which now takes little interest in finding a solution, but wants the EU to next take in Turkey
Gordon Brown is though,tomorrow, looking forward to the EU tackling 'Iran' (not an applicant country ) and global 'competition with China and India' which, if he succeeds , will be a route by which even neutral EU countries lose trade and business opportunities in Iran in order to further British foreign policy.
I want an EU treaty which applies EQUALLY to all the countries even the UK. Am I a wrecker?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was a Supreme Court decision at the time of the Single European Act that requires all ratifications of EU treaties to be done through constitional amendments, which in turn require referenda.

The Crotty judgment - I suspect we'll be hearing a lot of it. Essentially, the outcome was that the Irish government cannot ratify any decision that affects the Irish Constitution without a referendum. As far as I can tell, this applies whether the decision is in the form of a Treaty, or changes to a Treaty.

The current position, then, is that the Irish government can't ratify EU decisions that affect the Constitution without a referendum. The position if the Treaty of Lisbon passes will be the same.

Interestingly, that gives Ireland an effective veto over any major changes to the Treaty - and of course we can also still change our own Constitution without reference to the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

extragon

Originally Posted by PHB
What's very interesting about this treaty is the role of symbolism, and how much the Commission thought it affected the constitution. Words like constitution, minister all gone, songs and flags gone.

Note, however, that 16 countries ( not Ireland ) have signed declaration no. 52, annexed to treaty, confirming flag and anthem as "symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegance to it."

It's interesting, also, that Ireland has inserted its own declaration no. 56, distancing its self from the opt-out shared with the UK on police and judicial cooperation - with the possibility of opting in, in three years. And, of course, we've signed up for the charter of fundamental rights, which we originally wanted to drop.

PHB

Indeed.

I want an EU treaty which applies EQUALLY to all the countries even the UK. Am I a wrecker?

Yeh. Some people don't want to integrate in certain areas and so be it. Ireland for a long time stayed out of any external relations policy because it was neutral. Fair enough.

brianthebard

Are people going to be discussing how they plan to vote? Personally I feel there are a number of big issues surrounding the EU which need to be properly addressed before we could more towards strengthening the union (and slightly decreasing the importance of our own government). issues such as water charges, neutrality, Turkey, farming and others would need to be dealt with before I could see myself voting yes to the treaty.

oscarBravo

I'd be curious to hear your positions on the issues you've outlined. I'd be particularly curious to hear what your issues are in the context of the treaty - in other words, in what way would voting against the treaty reassure you on those issues, or voting for it cause you concern?

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sadly, that's a distinct possibility. Heaven forbid people would vote against them in a ballot where it would actually count. Ah, that old chestnut again. You do realise we voted on a different proposition the second time around?

Um, the second Nice Treaty was basically the exact same as the first one. All they did was re-arrange some wording. If it was handed up as an essay claiming to be an original work, it would immediately be failed as an act of plagarism.

After Ireland rejected the first treaty there was no re-negotiation in Europe other than a dilution of some of the language. The biggest difference between the two campaigns was that there was a hell of a lot more resources pumped into buying a yes vote the second time around.

The Current 'E.U. reform treaty' is almost the same thing again. All they did is remove the word 'Constitution'. There has been no real substantial change, and you can be assured, if the Dutch got the chance to vote on it again, the result would almost certainly be the same.

Akrasia

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Crotty judgment - I suspect we'll be hearing a lot of it. Essentially, the outcome was that the Irish government cannot ratify any decision that affects the Irish Constitution without a referendum. As far as I can tell, this applies whether the decision is in the form of a Treaty, or changes to a Treaty.

The current position, then, is that the Irish government can't ratify EU decisions that affect the Constitution without a referendum. The position if the Treaty of Lisbon passes will be the same.

Interestingly, that gives Ireland an effective veto over any major changes to the Treaty - and of course we can also still change our own Constitution without reference to the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I heard someone on the radio say that this treaty was unique in that there were specific provisions that allowed the treaty to be changed at any point in the future without having to go through the ratification process.

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

The biggest difference between the two campaigns was that there was a hell of a lot more resources pumped into buying a yes vote the second time around.

If thats what little faith you have in the integrity/inteligence of the Irish voter,then I guess you won't ever again advocate a "recall" or a swiss style referenda decisions process for Ireland like you've done before on the forum ? Peoples vote would be just bought right ?
What utter rubbish to be honest.


Fact is people are entitled to change their mind on things.
Those that don't like that ability or the different decision probably also like sour grapes.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

Um, the second Nice Treaty was basically the exact same as the first one. All they did was re-arrange some wording. If it was handed up as an essay claiming to be an original work, it would immediately be failed as an act of plagarism.

Given that we voted on amendments to the constition, rather than the treaty per se, it's instructive to compare the proposed amendments.

The failed 24th amendment:

• Insertion of new Article 29.4.7:
  The State may ratify the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Nice on the 26th day of February, 2001.
• Insertion of new Article 29.4.8:
  The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13 and 2.1 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

...and the successful 26th amendment:

• Insertion of new Article 29.4.7:
  The State may ratify the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Nice on the 26th day of February, 2001.
• Insertion of new Article 29.4.8:
  The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13 and 2.1 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
• Insertion of new Article 29.4.9:
  The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.

An entire new article, directly addressing one of the key concerns expressed by the "No" campaign before the first referendum.

Akrasia wrote: »

After Ireland rejected the first treaty there was no re-negotiation in Europe other than a dilution of some of the language. The biggest difference between the two campaigns was that there was a hell of a lot more resources pumped into buying a yes vote the second time around.

...and by far the biggest difference between the two referenda (apart from having 50% more wording) was the substantially larger turnout in the second - a point I raised earlier, but you chose to ignore.

ircoha

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/109-01.html
This is an Aertel link, image attached

Le Pen is due as well.

Must say I regard all this as interference in our democratic process.

I reckon it is a shoe-in since MLMcD from SF is playing a leading part for the anti-side.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

If thats what little faith you have in the integrity/inteligence of the Irish voter,then I guess you won't ever again advocate a "recall" or a swiss style referenda decisions process for Ireland like you've done before on the forum ? Peoples vote would be just bought right ?
What utter rubbish to be honest.


Fact is people are entitled to change their mind on things.
Those that don't like that ability or the different decision probably also like sour grapes.

So where was the Nice Treaty part 3? Why were the people not given the chance to change their mind a second time? Ya Know, best out of 3?

A recall election would be a part of a transparent process. It would require a lot of effort, collecting and verifying signatures to reach a quorum of the population (15-20%) What the Irish government did was just decide they didn't like the result, and ran it again. It's one sided, it's unfair, and it's anti democratic to allow one side the option of a re-run and not the other.

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that we voted on amendments to the constition, rather than the treaty per se, it's instructive to compare the proposed amendments.

The failed 24th amendment: ...and the successful 26th amendment: An entire new article, directly addressing one of the key concerns expressed by the "No" campaign before the first referendum. ...and by far the biggest difference between the two referenda (apart from having 50% more wording) was the substantially larger turnout in the second - a point I raised earlier, but you chose to ignore.

The greater spending was greater spending on propaganda. The campaign rested on 2 issues. Calling no voters racists, and claiming that if we voted no again, we would be preventing millions of desperate eastern europeans from joining the E.U.

Neither of those were true. Nice was not necessary for enlargement. And the no campaign was not based entirely on xenophobia (although there were some racist elements that I would distance myself from)

In the second campaign the dirty tricks were out in force. In almost every debate RTE pushed Justin Barrett and other deeply disturbed individuals as the spokespeople for the NO campaign. It was guilt by association. Nobody wanted to be seen to be on the same side as those kinds of people

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

So where was the Nice Treaty part 3? Why were the people not given the chance to change their mind a second time? Ya Know, best out of 3?

I've heard no great call for one,have you? I know 80% of the population continously vote for parties that wouldn't reverse Nice in a millenium of sundays which tells me peoples priorities on it vis a vis yours.
But then you'd have them all living in encircled comunal villages sharing salaries and the like so I guess not many people are likely to go with you on a lot of idea's,I'd have thought you'd be used to that by now

A recall election would be a part of a transparent process. It would require a lot of effort, collecting and verifying signatures to reach a quorum of the population (15-20%) What the Irish government did was just decide they didn't like the result, and ran it again. It's one sided, it's unfair, and it's anti democratic to allow one side the option of a re-run and not the other.

Lol,thats just another way of saying people aren't allowed to change their mind (and by a bigger vote and a bigger majority as if that wasn't enough say on the subject) and that people are stupid, they can be bought.Though convinced as you are when it suits you that they can be bought ,it's convenient of course for you to dump that idea when you are advocating mass referenda and recall elections...
You can say it in German,spanish or the hundreds of google language tools available and it won't change the facts for you.

fictionaire

I am a bit confused...I read in the paper that Bertie actually signed the Treaty in Lisbon. Whats the point in having a referendum when he has already signed it? Is he jumping the gun?

I have not read the treaty yet, but does anybody know what effect it has on our sovereignty?

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

What the Irish government did was just decide they didn't like the result, and ran it again.

I've already clearly demonstrated that this simply wasn't the case. Read my last post again (I know you read it already, because you quoted it (although you didn't actually address any of the points in it)) - we voted on a different proposal the second time around.

Although this is strictly speaking off-topic, it's something I feel needs to be addressed. It's astonishing how lazy the "No" camp (on pretty much any topic, but especially European treaties) have become - they don't have to actually address the issues; they simply claim (untruthfully) that the government re-ran the Nice referendum unchanged, and whine about it being undemocratic.

oscarBravo

fictionaire wrote: »

I am a bit confused...I read in the paper that Bertie actually signed the Treaty in Lisbon. Whats the point in having a referendum when he has already signed it? Is he jumping the gun?

I'm guessing the signing was mostly a symbolic gesture. For the treaty to actually come into effect, it has to be ratified by all the member states. In our case, that requires a referendum.

oscarBravo

Wikipedia has an article summarising the main points of the Treaty. The Treaty itself will probably be quite difficult to read, given that it's mainly modifying the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty.

It's interesting to note that the Treaty will, for the first time, offer a structured way for a member state to secede from the Union.

Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

I heard someone on the radio say that this treaty was unique in that there were specific provisions that allowed the treaty to be changed at any point in the future without having to go through the ratification process.

I heard someone say on the internet that the treaty as proposed outlaws anarchism. It must be true.

Let's be clear here everyone: if you're going to comment on what the treaty does or does not propose to do, be prepared to back up what you say with direct references to the treaty document.

If you can't back up your point when asked, your posts will be deleted and you will be banned.

PHB

What I think the most interesting part of the treaty is the fact that it will beyond doubt end our neutrality. We will be part of a common defense clause, which is about time to be honest, since we've effectively been part of one for 60 years.

oscarBravo

PHB wrote: »

What I think the most interesting part of the treaty is the fact that it will beyond doubt end our neutrality.

Will it? See the post immediately above yours.

PHB wrote: »

We will be part of a common defense clause, which is about time to be honest, since we've effectively been part of one for 60 years.

Apart from not seeing anything in the Wikipedia article I linked that would suggest that (although I'm open to correction), the 26th Amendment explicitly rules out such a thing. Are you suggesting that the forthcoming Amendment will reverse that?

It's hard to imagine such a proposal being put forward, given that that was the difference between the failed and successful referenda last time out.

Offalycool

Considering we are going to land Irish soldiers in Chad on a peacekeeping campaign, where the opposition have sworn to declare war on any foreign troops who turn up; Who needs a common defense clause when you have peacekeepers!

Moriarty

imeddyhobbs' post deleted.

If you're going to post in politics in future, engage the brain first please.

lostexpectation

the politicians are already screwing up there chances, there another ff politician on there the other day ridiculing possible no voters, if no is such a stupid option why allow people to vote no? what the point of this referendum if they can concieve that theres reason to vote no.

the referndum should have multiple questions so we can have some say on its subparts

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote: »

...if no is such a stupid option why allow people to vote no?

With all due respect, that's a pretty stupid question.

lostexpectation wrote: »

what the point of this referendum if they can concieve that theres reason to vote no.

The point of the referendum has been clearly explained in great detail already in this very thread. Please re-read it.

lostexpectation wrote: »

the referndum should have multiple questions so we can have some say on its subparts

What, so we can ratify part of the Treaty?

Can we please keep this discussion sensible?

Scofflaw

PHB wrote: »

What I think the most interesting part of the treaty is the fact that it will beyond doubt end our neutrality. We will be part of a common defense clause, which is about time to be honest, since we've effectively been part of one for 60 years.

Not really. The clause in question creates an obligation of "rendering aid and assistance....without prejudice to the individual defence policies of certain member states".

There's a lot you can do to render aid and assistance to a fellow EU country under attack without breaching Ireland's neutrality and commitment to non-military solutions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

But thats the absurd thing, it is basically a standard mutual defence agreement, and then tacked on at the end is this, without prejudice.... How in the world can this not prejudice it? It's like saying, 'If England gets attacked Ireland will join with them militarily, this however doesn't violate our neutrality'
Ireland has no committment to non-military solutions, hell we're in the Nordic battlegroup!

I have no issue with this, personally I welcome it, but it is in breach of our 'neutrality' and it'll be a key argument on the anti-treaty side.

jmayo

A couple of questions first off.
Does anyone know Eoin Harris's opinion on the treaty ?
If we do vote Yes first time of asking, will it mean bertie will be rewarded down the road with a nice plum EU job after leaving Dáil Eireann ?

People will vote for a variety of reasons and only half of them will have anything to do with what is actually written down in the treaty.

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a lot you can do to render aid and assistance to a fellow EU country under attack without breaching Ireland's neutrality and commitment to non-military solutions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Like what? Sending them good luck cards? I can't think of any non-material assistance which meets the definition of 'All the means in their power.'

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States

If that's not a mutual defense pact, I don't know what is. It's not a full alliance, so if Ireland doesn't want to join in on the German invasion of Dirk-dirkastan, or would prefer to stay out of the EU RRF's deployment to Krasnovia on a peace-enforcing mission they can.

NTM

turgon

heard someone on the radio say that this treaty was unique in that there were specific provisions that allowed the treaty to be changed at any point in the future without having to go through the ratification process.

According to the irish examiner on friday (dont know date), article 60 allows for the treaty to be changed at later occasions. Legal lingo and all that but its there.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that's not a mutual defense pact, I don't know what is.
NTM

Well if you really dissect the sentence "the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".

The Irish government cannot actually declare war without a referendum as the country is constitutionally neutral. Simple as. Such aid might be diplomatic such as sanctions, closing of airspace etc etc.

AngryHippie

does it mention rendition flights ?

Moriarty

turgon wrote: »

According to the irish examiner on friday (dont know date), article 60 allows for the treaty to be changed at later occasions. Legal lingo and all that but its there.

If you're going to say that, please specifically reference where in the treaty you're talking about.

turgon wrote: »

The Irish government cannot actually declare war without a referendum as the country is constitutionally neutral. Simple as. Such aid might be diplomatic such as sanctions, closing of airspace etc etc.

We're not neutral. The constitution doesn't say we're neutral. We are non-aligned.

Manic Moran

turgon wrote: »

the country is constitutionally neutral. Simple as.

Hear something enough times, and it becomes truth.

There may be something in the Defense Acts relating to the triple-lock, but I haven't found it yet. I'm still looking.

NTM

uptherebels

what id like to know is if the governments of france and the netherlands are planning to let the people decide wether to ratify the treaty or not this time, cause if im correct both governments were in favour of the constituition last time

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

Like what? Sending them good luck cards? I can't think of any non-material assistance which meets the definition of 'All the means in their power.'

Hmm. A referendum is required before the Irish State has the power to declare war. Unless the referendum passes, the Irish State can assist only in non-military ways, because military force is not a "means within its power".

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that's not a mutual defense pact, I don't know what is. It's not a full alliance, so if Ireland doesn't want to join in on the German invasion of Dirk-dirkastan, or would prefer to stay out of the EU RRF's deployment to Krasnovia on a peace-enforcing mission they can.

They also have to stay out of a defensive war if the electorate decides not to allow the State to declare war.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. A referendum is required before the Irish State has the power to declare war. Unless the referendum passes, the Irish State can assist only in non-military ways, because military force is not a "means within its power".

This is obviously something in legislation other than the Constitution, because the Constitution is silent on anyone other than Dail Eireann having a say. Art 28 3 1*. Please cite the reference I'm missing.

You will note that Ireland has in the past had absolutely no problem with sending combat forces around the world without bothering with any referenda and without declaring war.

They also have to stay out of a defensive war if the electorate decides not to allow the State to declare war.

See above.

NTM

dathi1

A couple of questions first off.
Does anyone know Eoin Harris's opinion on the treaty ?
If we do vote Yes first time of asking, will it mean bertie will be rewarded down the road with a nice plum EU job after leaving Dáil Eireann ?

anything that wipes out Irish sovernty would be favoured by Eoin Harris. He would also be a yes man puerly because the shinners are a no. He loves Bertie too.
Bertie said last month "that he wouldn't rule it out" (EU President) which in Bertie speak means yes. As with all EU bureaucrat posts the financial rewards far exceed anything to do with National sovernty and democratic mandates. These guys will sell their mothers. Proncias "Vote no to mastrict" (early 80s) De Rossa.. a case in point.

brianthebard

dathi1 wrote: »

anything that wipes out Irish sovernty would be favoured by Eoin Harris. He would also be a yes man puerly because the shinners are a no. He loves Bertie too.

Just to add, some people might think that dathi is being a bit OTT, but I've read a column from Harris stating how he voted in nearly every election and it was always so that SF would not benefit. regarding neutrality, while we aren't neutral like Switerland or Sweden, I think there should be a referendum to definitively decide what our status is before we go any further with the treaty. This sort of messy are we aren't we stuff will only get much worse if we enter into an agreement that would at some stage ask us to send troops to war. It could also change when different parties come to power, which would lead to more headaches for us and the EU.

PHB

You will note that Ireland has in the past had absolutely no problem with sending combat forces around the world without bothering with any referenda and without declaring war.

Indeed. I'm well open to correction here, but don't we currently have troops in Chad as part of an EU mission? Not much, like around 50.

I'm pretty sure the legality of what it requires to declare war is very very very vague, and that we can pretty much do whatever we want without declaring war.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is obviously something in legislation other than the Constitution, because the Constitution is silent on anyone other than Dail Eireann having a say. Art 28 3 1*. Please cite the reference I'm missing.

I beg your pardon - you are quite correct. Feh, that's what I get for relying on someone else's reading of the Constitution...

Rather more weakly, I will point out that an aggressive war could easily be challenged as unconstitutional (29.1, 29.2).

Manic Moran wrote: »

You will note that Ireland has in the past had absolutely no problem with sending combat forces around the world without bothering with any referenda and without declaring war.

True, but for peace-keeping missions you don't need to declare war, because you're not at war with any of the parties to the conflict, but trying to keep the peace between them.

cordially,
Scofflaw