UK High Court dismisses EU reform treaty lawsuit

marco_polo

For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the claim lacks substantive merit and should be dismissed. Even if we had taken a different view of the substance of the case, in the exercise of the court's discretion we would have declined to grant any relief, having regard in particular to the fact that parliament has addressed the question whether there should be a referendum and, in passing the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, has decided against one.

"At a late stage in the proceedings, a few days before we expected to hand down judgment, we were informed by the Treasury solicitor that, following royal assent to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, the government "is now proceeding to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon". We were concerned that the government might be intending to pre-judge or pre-empt the decision of the court by ratifying the treaty while the lawfulness of doing so without a referendum was still in issue before the court. The prime minister, however, acted promptly to remove our concern by making clear that ratification would not take place before the judgment was handed down.

"In the event, the decision of the court is itself clear. We have found nothing in the claimant's case to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon treaty without a referendum."

The main points of the ruling are that the Lisbon Treaty is a fundamentally different document in from the EU Constitution and thus the promise to hold a referendum on the constitution does not apply to the treaty. Secondly that even if it was the case, the courts have no authority to force the governement to hold a referendum. And finally they ruled any such issue is a political matter and not a legal one.

PH01

What is it in the Irish Constitution where we require a referendum all the time for every EU treaty?

Couldn't we just do the same as the UK and let parliament do the ratification?

We might have to if we keep getting the answer wrong?

Scofflaw

PH01 wrote: »

What is it in the Irish Constitution where we require a referendum all the time for every EU treaty?

Couldn't we just do the same as the UK and let parliament do the ratification?

We might have to if we keep getting the answer wrong?

Essentially, we have referendums for any treaty that impinges on the capacity of the government to set foreign policy freely (such as the 'aid and assistance' clause).

In turn, this is because the government's capacity to set foreign policy is as a proxy for the people of Ireland, in whom sovereignty rests - and the free operation of foreign policy is the ultimate expression of sovereignty.

Therefore, in ratifying a treaty that constrains our foreign policy, we are constraining the sovereignty of the people, which can only be agreed to by the people in referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PH01

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially...
cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw. That clarifies things.

ChocolateSauce

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, we have referendums for any treaty that impinges on the capacity of the government to set foreign policy freely (such as the 'aid and assistance' clause).

In turn, this is because the government's capacity to set foreign policy is as a proxy for the people of Ireland, in whom sovereignty rests - and the free operation of foreign policy is the ultimate expression of sovereignty.

Therefore, in ratifying a treaty that constrains our foreign policy, we are constraining the sovereignty of the people, which can only be agreed to by the people in referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wow, that seriously stinks of De Valera! It's easily identifiable as a hangover from people who thought home rule wasn't good enough.