Why does Ireland have a referendum on every EU treaty

Stabshauptmann

Why does Ireland have a referendum on every EU treaty?
What is it about our constitution / membership that requires us to have referendums (and why not other countries)?

dlofnep

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Article 46

1. Any provision of this Constitution may be amended, whether by way of variation, addition, or repeal, in the manner provided by this Article.

2. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.

3. Every such Bill shall be expressed to be "An Act to amend the Constitution".

4. A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal.

5. A Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution shall be signed by the President forthwith upon his being satisfied that the provisions of this Article have been complied with in respect thereof and that such proposal has been duly approved by the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law.

THE REFERENDUM

Article 47

1. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.

2. 1° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register.

2° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall for the purposes of Article 27 hereof be held to have been approved by the people unless vetoed by them in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing sub-section of this section.

3. Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.

4. Subject as aforesaid, the Referendum shall be regulated by law.

Because Ireland is democratic and it is our democratic right to determine our own future.

Boston

And what, not other country in the EU has a constitution?

The_Minister

The answer is the Crotty judgement. A man called Crotty took a case to the Supreme Court, and we have to vote on these treaties (can't remember the reasoning for the judgement).

dlofnep

Boston wrote: »

And what, not other country in the EU has a constitution?

They all do. I'd imagine their constitutions don't protect their self-determination the same way Ireland's does. You'd have to read through them all indivually to pick them apart, but I'd imagine that to be about as possible as deciphering the LT.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

They all do. I'd imagine their constitutions don't protect their self-determination the same way Ireland's does. You'd have to read through them all indivually to pick them apart, but I'd imagine that to be about as possible as deciphering the LT.

The UK doesn't have a constitution and some countries ban referenda because the get hijacked by far right and left movements such as in Germany and Austria.

badlyparkedmerc

I think Raymond Crotty argued that legislation changes that could affect neutrality required a referendum.

It's sensible sounding but in reality no so good as you elect a government to make decisions.

If every country in the EU had a referendum to ratify any change to legislation the EU would need to be wrapped up as all progress would be stymied. For one thing it's unlikely that the original members would have allowed Ireland and the UK in to the EEC back in the 70s.

How would the No boys like to see someone voting Ireland out I wonder?

BMH

badlyparkedmerc wrote: »

How would the No boys like to see someone voting Ireland out I wonder?

You'd be surprised.

dlofnep

badlyparkedmerc wrote: »

I think Raymond Crotty argued that legislation changes that could affect neutrality required a referendum.

It's sensible sounding but in reality no so good as you elect a government to make decisions.

If every country in the EU had a referendum to ratify any change to legislation the EU would need to be wrapped up as all progress would be stymied. For one thing it's unlikely that the original members would have allowed Ireland and the UK in to the EEC back in the 70s.

How would the No boys like to see someone voting Ireland out I wonder?

The Lisbon Treaty is hardly a minor change, and therefore - a referendum is very much warranted.

Besides - Irelands place in the EU is fine and will be, regardless of what way we vote. Nobody should be scared into a vote like that. That's not democracy. The No campaign wish to remain apart of the EU, they just do not agree with everything in this treaty.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is hardly a minor change, and therefore - a referendum is very much warranted.

Besides - Irelands place in the EU is fine and will be, regardless of what way we vote. Nobody should be scared into a vote like that. That's not democracy. The No campaign wish to remain apart of the EU, they just do not agree with everything in this treaty.

So far your argument has been about things around the treaty but nothing from the treaty itself. Your main objection appears to have to do with the democratic processes of foreign countries.

The_Minister

dlofnep wrote: »

Besides - Irelands place in the EU is fine and will be, regardless of what way we vote. Nobody should be scared into a vote like that. That's not democracy. The No campaign wish to remain apart of the EU, they just do not agree with everything in this treaty.

If you read some of the other threads, you ill see that some of us aren't sure about that.

badlyparkedmerc

The Lisbon Treaty is hardly a minor change

I'm not arguing that it is, allowing Ireland and the UK in the '70s wasn't a minor change either, nor was enlargement over the last couple decades.

Would these enlargements have happened however if the original members had needed referendums to proceed. Pretty doubtful - it wouldn't be far off turning every legislation change into a eurovision vote.

Scofflaw

The specific reasoning in the Crotty judgment is actually quite technical (surprise!). Specifically, the part of the SEA that required signatories not to do anything that impeded closer cooperation in the field of security:

"Nothing in this Title shall impede closer cooperation in the field of security between certain of the High Contracting Parties within the framework of the Western European Union or the Atlantic Alliance." (from the SEA)

The issue is not that Ireland might be one of those "certain of the High Contracting Parties" (since Ireland is neither in the WEU nor NATO), but that by agreeing not to impede other member states we would be placing a restriction on our foreign policy - we wuld be agreeing not to work against NATO/WEU.

Again, the question is not whether we are likely to actually want to do so, but that the agreement prevents a totally free exercise of Irish sovereignty in the matter of foreign policy:

"In enacting the Constitution the people conferred full freedom of action upon the Government to decide matters of foreign policy and to act as it thinks fit on any particular issue so far as policy is concerned and as, in the opinion of the Government, the occasion requires. In my view, this freedom does not carry with it the power to abdicate that freedom or to enter into binding agreements with other States to exercise that power in a particular way or to refrain from exercising it save by particular procedures, and so to bind the State in its freedom of action in its foreign policy." (from the Crotty judgment)

Since only the people are truly sovereign in Ireland under the Constitution, the people must be consulted wherever limitations on the exrecise of that sovereignty are being agreed to.

If you think about it, that also sheds light the current referendum. The "solidarity clause" by which we agree to provide "aid and assistance" to other member states is exactly the same kind of limitation of sovereignty in foreign policy - we can no longer choose not to help. Whether we would or not is irrelevant - it's a limitation on Ireland's free choice in foreign policy, which can only be agreed to by the people in referendum.

(The simplistic alternative view that the "aid and assistance" clause "prejudices our neutrality" and therefore "requires a referendum" doesn't work, because neutrality is not in the Constitution, and so does not generate a referendum.)

The real world - always more complicated than the slogans...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The_Minister wrote: »

dlofnep wrote:

Besides - Irelands place in the EU is fine and will be, regardless of what way we vote. Nobody should be scared into a vote like that. That's not democracy. The No campaign wish to remain apart of the EU, they just do not agree with everything in this treaty.

If you read some of the other threads, you ill see that some of us aren't sure about that.

I certainly hope he's right, though. After all, it won't be the No campaign picking up the tab if he's not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlofnep

sink wrote: »

So far your argument has been about things around the treaty but nothing from the treaty itself. Your main objection appears to have to do with the democratic processes of foreign countries.

What argument? The poster asked why and I responded.

Also - Does anyone seriously believe Ireland's membership of the EU is in jeopardy if we vote no? I don't see France or Holland's membership in jeopardy?

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

What argument? The poster asked why and I responded.

Also - Does anyone seriously believe Ireland's membership of the EU is in jeopardy if we vote no? I don't see France or Holland's membership in jeopardy?

It's possible. We're not France or Holland, and the idea has certainly been raised.

I know you'll claim it's bullying, but is it bullying if the other members of the EU want to move forward, and choose to do so without us, because we don't want to? It seems to me they're simply respecting our choice at the same time as exercising theirs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BMH

dlofnep wrote: »

Also - Does anyone seriously believe Ireland's membership of the EU is in jeopardy if we vote no? I don't see France or Holland's membership in jeopardy?

I haven't seen anyone here say that it would.
Haha, except for that post that just appeared right above me...

Scofflaw, wouldn't practically ever small country kick up quite a fuss if countries were being forced out over issues like this? Besides, while we're no France, we're nett contributors to the Union now.

is_that_so

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055284592
Some links there to possible outcomes. No-one really knows, partly I guess because a rejection of the treaty has not been anticipated. Yet many people are pretty sure what a Yes vote will do.

Boston

Scofflaw wrote: »

The specific reasoning in the Crotty judgment is actually quite technical (surprise!). Specifically, the part of the SEA that required signatories not to do anything that impeded closer cooperation in the field of security:

"Nothing in this Title shall impede closer cooperation in the field of security between certain of the High Contracting Parties within the framework of the Western European Union or the Atlantic Alliance." (from the SEA)

The issue is not that Ireland might be one of those "certain of the High Contracting Parties" (since Ireland is neither in the WEU nor NATO), but that by agreeing not to impede other member states we would be placing a restriction on our foreign policy - we wuld be agreeing not to work against NATO/WEU.

Again, the question is not whether we are likely to actually want to do so, but that the agreement prevents a totally free exercise of Irish sovereignty in the matter of foreign policy:

"In enacting the Constitution the people conferred full freedom of action upon the Government to decide matters of foreign policy and to act as it thinks fit on any particular issue so far as policy is concerned and as, in the opinion of the Government, the occasion requires. In my view, this freedom does not carry with it the power to abdicate that freedom or to enter into binding agreements with other States to exercise that power in a particular way or to refrain from exercising it save by particular procedures, and so to bind the State in its freedom of action in its foreign policy." (from the Crotty judgment)

Since only the people are truly sovereign in Ireland under the Constitution, the people must be consulted wherever limitations on the exrecise of that sovereignty are being agreed to.

If you think about it, that also sheds light the current referendum. The "solidarity clause" by which we agree to provide "aid and assistance" to other member states is exactly the same kind of limitation of sovereignty in foreign policy - we can no longer choose not to help. Whether we would or not is irrelevant - it's a limitation on Ireland's free choice in foreign policy, which can only be agreed to by the people in referendum.

(The simplistic alternative view that the "aid and assistance" clause "prejudices our neutrality" and therefore "requires a referendum" doesn't work, because neutrality is not in the Constitution, and so does not generate a referendum.)

The real world - always more complicated than the slogans...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well that very clearly explains why we need to vote on this matter while at the same time dispatching some of the deceptions presented by the no camp. Thank you.

Daftendirekt

Scofflaw wrote: »

The real world - always more complicated than the slogans

Finally, a slogan for the yes side

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's possible. We're not France or Holland, and the idea has certainly been raised.

I know you'll claim it's bullying, but is it bullying if the other members of the EU want to move forward, and choose to do so without us, because we don't want to? It seems to me they're simply respecting our choice at the same time as exercising theirs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well - We'll never know what they wanted as the people of Europe did not get the chance to vote on it. You are assuming they want the treaty to pass.

Our position within the EU is secure. I don't see anything happening to Ireland. Why should Holland have security, but Ireland does not? I think you could put them closer on par than France & Ireland.

Worst case scenario IMO is that the treaty is altered slightly and repackaged for us to have a second go at.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Worst case scenario IMO is that the treaty is altered slightly and repackaged for us to have a second go at.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit, there was talk of the EU continuing without us when we rejected Nice. I can remember the eastern bloc calling us racists at some stage.

dlofnep

Karsini wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me one bit, there was talk of the EU continuing without us when we rejected Nice. I can remember the eastern bloc calling us racists at some stage.

And Holland & France got away scot-free? I don't see how rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is in anyway, shape or form to do with race.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

Well - We'll never know what they wanted as the people of Europe did not get the chance to vote on it. You are assuming they want the treaty to pass.

Hmm. No, I'm assuming the governments of the other member states want it to pass.

dlofnep wrote: »

Our position within the EU is secure. I don't see anything happening to Ireland. Why should Holland have security, but Ireland does not? I think you could put them closer on par than France & Ireland.

Worst case scenario IMO is that the treaty is altered slightly and repackaged for us to have a second go at.

As I said, I hope you're right. I think your "worst case" there is anything but a "worst case", though - it's more of a "best case".

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlofnep

That's my point Scofflaw - "The Governments". The elite of Europe. Not the people. I fully believe every member state should of given the right to their citizens to vote on this treaty and let Europe decide what it wanted.

But the fact is, we've been given the choice. It is our choice to make, and whatever way we vote should be in our best interests.

BMH

dlofnep wrote: »

That's my point Scofflaw - "The Governments". The elite of Europe. Not the people. I fully believe every member state should of given the right to their citizens to vote on this treaty and let Europe decide what it wanted.

But the fact is, we've been given the choice. It is our choice to make, and whatever way we vote should be in our best interests.

The people elect the government. Why aren't you complaining that Romania's last budget wasn't voted on by the people?

dlofnep

BMH wrote: »

The people elect the government. Why aren't you complaining that Romania's last budget wasn't voted on by the people?

I wasn't aware of Romania's budget problem.

The people elect the Government - but the people still should be afforded the right to vote on important issues like this. That's the point.

Stabshauptmann

dlofnep wrote: »

What argument? The poster asked why and I responded.

Also - Does anyone seriously believe Ireland's membership of the EU is in jeopardy if we vote no? I don't see France or Holland's membership in jeopardy?

You didnt answer the question at all actually. I didnt ask what a referendum was, I asked why was it necessary. Thanks to The Minister and Scofflaw for the answer.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

The elite of Europe.

I've always wonder what exactly people mean by that phrase. Any citizen of the countries of the EU can stand for election in their own countries and they are elected by the rest of the citizens. The word elite suggests some form of exclusivity whether by birth or other means. Elected politicians fall outside of the normal definition of elite as anyone can theoretically become one.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

I wasn't aware of Romania's budget problem.

The people elect the Government - but the people still should be afforded the right to vote on important issues like this. That's the point.

So national budgets are not important at all?

BMH

dlofnep wrote: »

I wasn't aware of Romania's budget problem.

The people elect the Government - but the people still should be afforded the right to vote on important issues like this. That's the point.

The budget governs the life of a citizen far more than this treaty.

dlofnep

sink wrote: »

I've always wonder what exactly people mean by that phrase. Any citizen of the countries of the EU can stand for election in their own countries and they are elected by the rest of the citizens. The word elite suggests some form of exclusivity whether by birth or other means. Elected politicians fall outside of the normal definition of elite as anyone can theoretically become one.

It is where the few decide the faith of the many. Like I've already previously stated, on issues such as the Lisbon Treaty - the many should have the right to have their say. That is what is meant by the elite. It is valid in every account.

dlofnep

I genuinely wasn't aware of the previous budget in Romania. I apologise. There is only so many hours in a day. I don't get to read every nuance that happens in Europe. I will read up on it.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

It is where the few decide the faith of the many. Like I've already previously stated, on issues such as the Lisbon Treaty - the many should have the right to have their say. That is what is meant by the elite. It is valid in every account.

Well you're using the term completely incorrectly then. What you're talking about is an oligarchy. We live in a representative democracy and those elites you refer to are representatives of those people who elected them.

BMH

dlofnep wrote: »

I genuinely wasn't aware of the previous budget in Romania. I apologise. There is only so many hours in a day. I don't get to read every nuance that happens in Europe. I will read up on it.

Don't, I just made it up as an example, as it will govern the lives of Romanians far more than the Lisbon Treaty, yet no one cares that they weren't allowed to vote on it. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing remarkable about Romania's last budget.

dlofnep

Sink - I think Elite is fitting.

BMH - I was wondering where you were going with it.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

Sink - I think Elite is fitting.

Fitting in the same way me calling Declan Ganley a monkey is fitting. Factually he's not a monkey but my feelings tell me otherwise.

dlofnep

I'm sure we have better things to do than sit here trying to conjure up fitting terms.

Duffman

Scofflaw wrote: »

The specific reasoning in the Crotty judgment is actually quite technical (surprise!). Specifically, the part of the SEA that required signatories not to do anything that impeded closer cooperation in the field of security:

"Nothing in this Title shall impede closer cooperation in the field of security between certain of the High Contracting Parties within the framework of the Western European Union or the Atlantic Alliance." (from the SEA)

The issue is not that Ireland might be one of those "certain of the High Contracting Parties" (since Ireland is neither in the WEU nor NATO), but that by agreeing not to impede other member states we would be placing a restriction on our foreign policy - we wuld be agreeing not to work against NATO/WEU.

Again, the question is not whether we are likely to actually want to do so, but that the agreement prevents a totally free exercise of Irish sovereignty in the matter of foreign policy:

"In enacting the Constitution the people conferred full freedom of action upon the Government to decide matters of foreign policy and to act as it thinks fit on any particular issue so far as policy is concerned and as, in the opinion of the Government, the occasion requires. In my view, this freedom does not carry with it the power to abdicate that freedom or to enter into binding agreements with other States to exercise that power in a particular way or to refrain from exercising it save by particular procedures, and so to bind the State in its freedom of action in its foreign policy." (from the Crotty judgment)

Since only the people are truly sovereign in Ireland under the Constitution, the people must be consulted wherever limitations on the exrecise of that sovereignty are being agreed to.

If you think about it, that also sheds light the current referendum. The "solidarity clause" by which we agree to provide "aid and assistance" to other member states is exactly the same kind of limitation of sovereignty in foreign policy - we can no longer choose not to help. Whether we would or not is irrelevant - it's a limitation on Ireland's free choice in foreign policy, which can only be agreed to by the people in referendum.

(The simplistic alternative view that the "aid and assistance" clause "prejudices our neutrality" and therefore "requires a referendum" doesn't work, because neutrality is not in the Constitution, and so does not generate a referendum.)

The real world - always more complicated than the slogans...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Useful explanation there.

Put more generally, the fundamental point in Crotty was that the Single European Act represented a change in the scope and direction of our membership of the European Communities. This was a major change from the Treaty of Rome as Europe sought to establish the single market.

The Europe that the People had agreed to join was to become a very different creature and in the Court's view the People's permission did not extend to this.

Most lawyers accept that Crotty is actually a very narrow precedent. The reality is that a referendum on any EU treaty has become a political imperative more than a legal one.

Lisbon represents nothing that even comes close to a fundamental change in the direction of the EU.

My view is that a referendum was not necessary this time and I am certainly not alone in thinking that.

molloyjh

dlofnep wrote: »

It is where the few decide the faith of the many. Like I've already previously stated, on issues such as the Lisbon Treaty - the many should have the right to have their say. That is what is meant by the elite. It is valid in every account.

There are so many more domestic policy issues that have a far greater impact on our daily lives than Lisbon that we do not vote for. Why should the likes of Lisbon be any different?