Why does Ireland have a referendum on every EU 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?