Is this bailout constitutional?

zig

Bob_Latchford pointed out this link in the 6.7% thread and quote from the constitution:

5. 1° Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.
2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

Bob_Latchford wrote: »

Some interesting reading

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/11/22/imf-conditionality-the-irish-constitution-and-the-need-for-a-dail-vote-on-the-bailout-agreement/





you would have to be a laywer to unpick it I reckon

Could a citizen take this to court, or at least force it to be put to a vote in the Dail?

johnnyskeleton

zig wrote: »

Bob_Latchford pointed out this link in the 6.7% thread and quote from the constitution:

Could a citizen take this to court, or at least force it to be put to a vote in the Dail?

Discussed here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056097898

I'm not sure that it counts as an international agreement as such.

zig

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Discussed here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056097898

I'm not sure that it counts as an international agreement as such.

Cheers for the link , going to read it now!

Bob_Latchford

none the wiser after reading that bit of hand baging

zig

yep, just one guy ignoring a bunch of others, that said, no mention of the article you pointed out either though, seemed to be overlooked by everyone on that thread.
Maybe a solicitor is the best option.

Bob_Latchford

The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann”

Even from the linked page it seems an international agreement is a special term and an agreement with IMF doesnt fulfill that.

IMF looks specifical set up to avoid constitutional issues. The other point made is that they dont need solve any problems with countries recieving money in court as they just withdraw funding and country calls up again pretty soon.

the groutch

even if it did go to the dail, it'd probably still just about pass

zig

@grouch , Im not sure about that tbh, but even if it did at least you know there the whole of the dail officially stands.

@Bob_Latchford, this is true, you would really need to know what that term actually means before trying anything. There doesnt seem to be anything in the constitution that defines that term.
One person could argue the very fact they are sitting around , creating a deal and are going to sign on it means they are making an international agreement.
The other could just argue its just a loan, its not like a treaty where we have to contribute to something, i.e.we dont have to take the loan if we dont want.
As mentioned, I'd love to hear from a solicitor what 'international agreement' means.

Bob_Latchford

If it passes a dail vote the role of the President would be interesting, she is in a rock and a hard place over this. In spirit its against constitution but no other option?

Its just abit further down the linked page

Turning to direct Irish domestic precedent on the meaning of an international “legal agreement”, it would appear that the IMF arrangement would fall within the category of comparable to the Sunningdale Agreement which was challenged before the Irish Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Boland v An Taoiseach. The Supreme Court found that the ‘agreement’ was not a true treaty, as, in particular, its clause 6, provided that at a later date,a formal agreement would be signed and lodged with United Nations. It seems quite possible therefore, that Article 29.5.2 does not require that the Memorandum of Understanding be approved by a Dáil vote.

Guys, we have a legal discussion forum here, please feel free to use it.

zig

Hi, I didnt want to get this involved in the other thread because that thread seems to have just gotten derailed into an argument between one poster who seems to be ignoring everyone else.
This is my first time posting here and tbh I have no knowledge in law whatsoever so im just asking this as an outsider.
I just have a quick and simple question for people that may understand some of the terminology in the constitution
Article 29.5.2

5. 1° Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.
2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

Can a loan from the IMF be seen as an international agreement, or it just simply that, a loan.
On one hand there are international discussions, including a deal being made and signed, which would lead me to believe its an international agreement.
On the other hand, I understand that this is not exactly a tready or anything like that where we have to contribute money,etc. Its just a loan of money.

What do you think?

zig

zig wrote: »

Hi, I didnt want to get this involved in the other thread because that thread seems to have just gotten derailed into an argument between one poster who seems to be ignoring everyone else.
This is my first time posting here and tbh I have no knowledge in law whatsoever so im just asking this as an outsider.
I just have a quick and simple question for people that may understand some of the terminology in the constitution
Article 29.5.2



Can a loan from the IMF be seen as an international agreement, or it just simply that, a loan.
On one hand there are international discussions, including a deal being made and signed, which would lead me to believe its an international agreement.
On the other hand, I understand that this is not exactly a tready or anything like that where we have to contribute money,etc. Its just a loan of money.

What do you think?

So long as the Dail approved the agreement there would be no constitutional issue.

zig

Deleted User wrote: »

So long as the Dail approved the agreement there would be no constitutional issue.

Yes, but thats my point, there hasnt been a vote in the dail, and the dail requires a majority vote.

Im just questioning if this is even considered an international agreement, probably not.

Victor

International (between nations) agreements tend to be between states, whether on a bi-lateral or multi-lateral basis.

This would appear to be a matter of an agreement between the state and a bank that just so happens to not be based in Ireland and so is no different from any of the day to day borrowing that the state does.

kaiser sauze

zig wrote: »

Yes, but thats my point, there hasnt been a vote in the dail, and the dail requires a majority vote.

Im just questioning if this is even considered an international agreement, probably not.

The government sign the agreement and The Dáil subsequently 'ratifies' it.

This is similar to The US procedure for international treaties: the President signs it and the Senate ratifies it.

zig

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The government sign the agreement and The Dáil subsequently 'ratifies' it.

This is similar to The US procedure for international treaties: the President signs it and the Senate ratifies it.

Well thats what would it make it unconstitutional, they are not going to 'ratify' it.

However I think this post clears up my query, cheers...

Victor wrote: »

International (between nations) agreements tend to be between states, whether on a bi-lateral or multi-lateral basis.

This would appear to be a matter of an agreement between the state and a bank that just so happens to not be based in Ireland and so is no different from any of the day to day borrowing that the state does.

kaiser sauze

zig wrote: »

Well thats what would it make it unconstitutional, they are not going to 'ratify' it.

What are you talking about? As Kayroo says, if The Dáil were to vote on something it is not unconstitutional.

Did you happen to notice the quote around my use of the word ratify in my post? There was a reason for that. The Dáil do not need to ratify this agreement.

zig

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What are you talking about? As Kayroo says, if The Dáil were to vote on something it is not unconstitutional.

Did you happen to notice the quote around my use of the word ratify in my post? There was a reason for that. The Dáil do not need to ratify this agreement.

ok sorry was getting a bit confused, but my point is, in the constitution it says the dail must vote, however this is not being put to a dail vote. There is no intention of it afaik. Cowen has stated this.

kaiser sauze

zig wrote: »

ok sorry was getting a bit confused, but my point is, in the constitution it says the dail must vote, however this is not being put to a dail vote. There is no intention of it afaik. Cowen has stated this.

Yes, because there is no need to do so.