Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty - No Referendum

AugustusMaximus

Just a quick point.

We repeatedly have to hold referenda in regards to new European Treaties, where our relationship with the EU is changed to certain extent where is would be deemed necessary to hold one.

On one point, the EU has the ability to legislate in areas where it holds competencies. On the other hand, this ability isn't permanent and Ireland can withdraw from the EU and regain power making abilities in these areas. (Example being of Greenland).

On the other hand, Ireland signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without any need for a referendum. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is similar to any EU treaty by the fact that it is an international treaty. The treaty bans us from developing nuclear weapons. However, unlike the EU, there is no way to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and if we were to go against it we would face either sanctions or invasion.

On this basis we have given away our ability to have a nuclear arsenal yet the people were not consulted on such and no clause has been implemented in Bunreach na hEireann to state so.

On this basis, is our signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty unconstitutional ?

prinz

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

On this basis, is our signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty unconstitutional ?

No. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that only significant changes, or new treaties relating to the EU need to be put to a referenda. Other treaties can be ratified by the government directly without the need for a referendum.

Crotty v An Taoiseach was the court case which led to the Tenth Amendment.

AugustusMaximus

prinz wrote: »

No. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that only significant changes, or new treaties relating to the EU need to be put to a referenda. Other treaties can be ratified by the government directly without the need for a referendum.

Crotty v An Taoiseach was the court case which led to the Tenth Amendment.

No amendment to the constitution was ever made to require only new treaties relating to the EU to have to be ratified by way of referendum. The tenth amendment was nothing more than an addition of a clause to allow the ratification of the Single European Act.

The Crotty base was a review of our Constitution by the Supreme Court which found that as the Constitution grants powers of foreign policy exclusively to the government, any treaties which grant powers to external bodies need clauses put into our constitution to allow it.

On this basis, we are giving away our ability to have nuclear weapons to every other signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

prinz

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

No amendment to the constitution was ever made to require only new treaties relating to the EU to have to be ratified by way of referendum.

You're missing the point. You asked vis-á-vis the EU.. that is why EU treaties must be put to the people .

Ireland was actually the first state to sign and ratify the NPT, years before the Tenth Amendment is not applied retrospectively.

AugustusMaximus

prinz wrote: »

You're missing the point. You asked vis-á-vis the EU.. that is why EU treaties must be put to the people .

Ireland was actually the first state to sign and ratify the NPT, years before the Tenth Amendment is not applied retrospectively.

But the tenth amendment has nothing to do behind the reasoning to have to hold referenda for new EU Treaties. The tenth amendment is the amendment to allow ratification of the Single European Act.

It doesn't say anything about having to run referenda for future EU treaties.

This is the part entered into the constitutuion due to the 10th Amendment.

3° The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). The State may ratify the Single European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th day of February, 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day of February, 1986).

The reasoning behind have to run referenda on EU treaties is that the Supreme Court found that the Single European Act could not be ratified without referendum due to article 29 of the constitution as the SEA granted additional power to the EU which would have come into conflict with article 29 of the constitution.

4. 1° The executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.

On the above basis, I believe that the signing of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty contradicts Article 15, subsection 6.

6. 1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

Its clear that it is not vested exclusively in the Oireachtas with our ability to manufacture and deploy nuclear weaponry vested into the signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

prinz

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

But the tenth amendment has nothing to do behind the reasoning to have to hold referenda for new EU Treaties. The tenth amendment is the amendment to allow ratification of the Single European Act..

It's called setting a precedent via the Supreme Court ruling and the Amendment.

AugustusMaximus

prinz wrote: »

It's called setting a precedent via the Supreme Court ruling and the Amendment.

OK.

And do I have a valid point in that the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty contradicts Article 15, on the same basis that Crotty vs An Taoiseach proved that the Single European Act would contradict Article 29 ?

prinz

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

OK.

And do I have a valid point in that the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty contradicts Article 15, on the same basis that Crotty vs An Taoiseach proved that the Single European Act would contradict Article 29 ?

Under what section?

AugustusMaximus

prinz wrote: »

Under what section?

Article 15

6. 1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

My arguement is that the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is not vested exclusively in the Oireachtas due to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but is vested in the Oireachtais and the signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

turgon

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

My arguement is that the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is not vested exclusively in the Oireachtas due to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but is vested in the Oireachtais and the signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

But you see it is. The right is invested in the Oireachtes, who will voluntarily ratify this Treaty forbidding themselves for using nuclear weapons. Thye are just exercising this right.

EU Treaties are way different. They facilitate the decision to be made elsewhere. So power is transfered to another body, for that body which is to then make laws.

Can you see?

AugustusMaximus

turgon wrote: »

But you see it is. The right is invested in the Oireachtes, who will voluntarily ratify this Treaty forbidding themselves for using nuclear weapons. Thye are just exercising this right.

EU Treaties are way different. They facilitate the decision to be made elsewhere. So power is transfered to another body, for that body which is to then make laws.

Can you see?

That's fine, but the Oireachtas has lost power in the fact that they can never reverse this decision, or until the treaty has been anulled.

Isn't this in essance a loss of sovereignty and limits what the Oireachtas is allowed to do in regards our own military.


For instance, on a similar idea, can our government go out and sign an international treaty banning us from having any armed forces at all without having a referendum by your logic.

prinz

I think it's Article X of the Non Proliferation Treaty which sets out the procedures for withdrawing from it.

AugustusMaximus

prinz wrote: »

I think it's Article X of the Non Proliferation Treaty which sets out the procedures for withdrawing from it.

Withdrawal would require "extraordinary events" and "supreme interests" which are still restricting matters.

turgon

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

That's fine, but the Oireachtas has lost power in the fact that they can never reverse this decision, or until the treaty has been anulled.

Isn't this in essance a loss of sovereignty and limits what the Oireachtas is allowed to do in regards our own military.

You just contradicted yourself there. Firstly you say they cant have nuclear weapons until they annul the Treaty, and then you say that they lose sovereignty because they cant ever get nuclear weapons. Spo firstly you say they can get out of it and then you say they cant.

So the conclusion being Yes they can have nuclear weapons if they are willing to annul the Treaty. It would be different is this Treaty set up a situation where a foreign or super national body decided on their behalf.

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

For instance, on a similar idea, can our government go out and sign an international treaty banning us from having any armed forces at all without having a referendum by your logic.

Yes. Because the Oireachtas still has the option of annuling the treaty, so the Oireactas still has the power and the legal basis to have an army.

AugustusMaximus

turgon wrote: »

Yes. Because the Oireachtas still has the option of annuling the treaty, so the Oireactas still has the power and the legal basis to have an army.

So is it the case that in general, Ireland cannot enter into treaties which cannot be withdrawn from unilaterally without a referendum ?

In addition, it appears that we can only withdraw from the treaty in certain circumstances.

dlofnep

Is this just hypothetical or do you feel we should have nuclear weapons as a matter of self defense?

AugustusMaximus

dlofnep wrote: »

Is this just hypothetical or do you feel we should have nuclear weapons as a matter of self defense?

Completely hypothetical.

We prob wouldn't have much use for them as we have no delivery device for a start

turgon

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

So is it the case that in general, Ireland cannot enter into treaties which cannot be withdrawn from unilaterally without a referendum ?

No. You can annul any treaty when your a Western European country, as the co-signatories arent going to invade to make you keep it.

We only need a referendum when the rights and competencies of the Oireachtas are reduced. So in the case of the EU, the Dail no longer has the right to determine fishing quotas. So we need a referendum.