IMF Deal without Dail Vote = Unconstitutional

Juicee

29.5.2 of the Constitution of Ireland:

"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."

http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf

What are peoples thoughts on this? how come the opposition aren't raising this?

Mahatma coat

I expect its, the people elected the Dail, the Dail Elected The Taoiseach, Same old Sh!t answer.

But it would seem to be a contravention of the Constitution, Maybe someone in the know can answer it

maxxie

Im sure the lisbon treaty has very much watered down our constitution!

Run_to_da_hills

maxxie wrote: »

Im sure the lisbon treaty has very much watered down our constitution!

Edited: Im sure the lisbon treaty has very much watered down abolished our constitution!

Cavehill Red

Juicee wrote: »

29.5.2 of the Constitution of Ireland:

"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."

http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf

What are peoples thoughts on this? how come the opposition aren't raising this?

I expect there'll have to be a Dail debate. Then it's up to the opposition to force a vote. Will they? I don't trust Fine Gael to have the balls, to be frank.

nesf

There's no charge on public funds, we're voluntarily taking out a loan. Big difference.


Oh and can we have less of the bringing up Lisbon in these threads please. It's completely off-topic and has nothing to do with the situation.

amacachi

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Edited: Im sure the lisbon treaty has very much watered down abolished our constitution!

Link to the pertinent passage please?

Faustino

nesf wrote: »

There's no charge on public funds, we're voluntarily taking out a loan. Big difference.


Oh and can we have less of the bringing up Lisbon in these threads please. It's completely off-topic and has nothing to do with the situation.

I think you are wrong on that.. it's a link in a chain of events that's led us to the point we're at now.

There's a bigger picture.. but lots of fragmented dramas going on which I feel is distracting even the great minds from seeing it.

Joan Burton called it right earlier.. it's Irish money that will be gone first.. and once that happens we're at their mercy.

And that 5.83% interest rate will most likely go up.. we shouldn't kid ourselves, every figure they've put to us has been way off.

Brian Cowen only 2 months ago said in his infamous hungover interview that the figure of 4 billion would be an over estimation of what we'd need to cut... where did the extra 2 billion come from??


They can't be trusted regarding anything.. and why they were let negotiate what can be salvaged of our future is just the final criminal act in a very sad end for this country as we knew it

nesf

Faustino wrote: »

I think you are wrong on that.. it's a link in a chain of events that's led us to the point we're at now.

Not really. We'd be bailed out by the IMF/EU regardless of whether we passed Lisbon or not. The seeds of this collapse were sown long before the Lisbon treaty was ever put to a referendum in this country and those seeds were Irish in origin.

Faustino

nesf wrote: »

Not really. We'd be bailed out by the IMF/EU regardless of whether we passed Lisbon or not. The seeds of this collapse were sown long before the Lisbon treaty was ever put to a referendum in this country and those seeds were Irish in origin.

Passing Lisbon took away many central powers of our Government and it's ability to react to situations.

Yes the seeds were sown before.. but as you are aware there is a whole plethora of opinions on what exactly caused the collapse.

Blaming it solely on our banking system or on our property developers would be naive.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

There's no charge on public funds, we're voluntarily taking out a loan. Big difference.

First and foremost: I am not a lawyer. But I am not sure this is a "loan". The sale of bonds is a loan. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that an IMF/EU bailout is more "international agreement" than "loan". Then we're in the territory of this thread, which cites Article 29.5:

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

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.

I think people may be too dismissive of the OP in that thread. The IMF ain't no bank.

Oh and can we have less of the bringing up Lisbon in these threads please. It's completely off-topic and has nothing to do with the situation.

+1

nesf

Faustino wrote: »

Passing Lisbon took away many central powers of our Government and it's ability to react to situations.

Name me one thing that Lisbon has prevented our Government from doing with respect to the present crisis.

Actually, no. Start a new thread and do it there. Leave it out of this one.

nesf

Time Magazine wrote: »

First and foremost: I am not a lawyer. But I am not sure this is a "loan". The sale of bonds is a loan. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that an IMF/EU bailout is more "international agreement" than "loan". Then we're in the territory of this thread, which cites Article 29.5:


I think people may be too dismissive of the OP in that thread. The IMF ain't no bank.

It's a complicated legal question really as to what it is. Honestly, if it required being passed through the House it would have done so. The Government is in many ways incompetent but they're not complete idiots and would have gotten advice from the Attorney General on this or whoever before acting.

My background is Economics not International/Constitutional Law so I'll leave it to others to pick out the truth.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

It's a complicated legal question really as to what it is. Honestly, if it required being passed through the House it would have done so. The Government is in many ways incompetent but they're not complete idiots and would have gotten advice from the Attorney General on this or whoever before acting.

You have far too much faith in this competence of the government! :pac:

Maybe they were chancing their arm on both occasions but the government have essentially acted unconstitutionally in voting down the writs for by-elections and (under the previous Dáil, granted) were Article 26'd on their health insurance bill.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not saying this definitely counts as an "international agreement" that involves "a charge on public funds', but it seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.

kaiser sauze

Faustino wrote: »

Passing Lisbon took away many central powers of our Government and it's ability to react to situations.

Yes the seeds were sown before.. but as you are aware there is a whole plethora of opinions on what exactly caused the collapse.

Blaming it solely on our banking system or on our property developers would be naive.

Please stop talking nonsense, Jim Corr.

kaiser sauze

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Please stop talking nonsense, Jim Corr.

Please speak with civility, kaiser.

Faustino

Papa Smut wrote: »

Please speak with civility, kaiser.

You should all really check out skunkers.net/reunited

Some on here would have a heart attack at the level of abuse and bullying that goes on.. it's great.

Kaiser, no offence taken at all by your post

kaiser sauze

Time Magazine wrote: »

You have far too much faith in this competence of the government! :pac:

Maybe they were chancing their arm on both occasions but the government have essentially acted unconstitutionally in voting down the writs for by-elections and (under the previous Dáil, granted) were Article 26'd on their health insurance bill.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not saying this definitely counts as an "international agreement" that involves "a charge on public funds', but it seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.

An international agreement can only occur between sovereign nations.

The EFSF and The IMF are not sovereign entities.

kaiser sauze

Faustino wrote: »

You should all really check out skunkers.net/reunited

Some on here would have a heart attack at the level of abuse and bullying that goes on.. it's great.

Kaiser, no offence taken at all by your post

That link gives me a 404.

Time Magazine

kaiser sauze wrote: »

An international agreement can only occur between sovereign nations.

The EFSF and The IMF are not sovereign entities.

Have you anything to back that up?

For example, Irish law has explicitly referred to the IMF as "an international body".

That said, I think that Act (probably partially repealed) allows us to call on IMF funds, once it's done through the mechanisms permitted. So it looks like our application has already been pre-approved by, er, the 16th Dáil.

kaiser sauze

Time Magazine wrote: »

Have you anything to back that up?

For example, Irish law has explicitly referred to the IMF as "an international body".

That said, I think that Act (probably partially repealed) allows us to call on IMF funds, once it's done through the mechanisms permitted. So it looks like our application has already been pre-approved by, er, the 16th Dáil.

An international body is different to a sovereign entity.

Faustino

kaiser sauze wrote: »

That link gives me a 404.

try www.skunkers.net/reunited

meglome

I'd love to go a whole day in here where someone doesn't try to blame the Lisbon treaty for problems that were sown long before it's existence. It's really tiresome to keep hearing the same incorrect nonsense...
OP: "AHHH I told ya the Lisbon treaty dunnit"
Reply: "Em what exactly did it do to cause this?"
OP: Silence...

gandalf

Notwithstanding the legal aspect of this whether its covered by the constitution or whether under the various EU agreements there is scope for the Government to force this through we need to have a debate on this agreement in the Dail.

This is certainly the most important and potentially crippling decision that has been taken by any Government in my memory (and I am 41 years old now) that effects this nation and there should be an extensive debate in the Dail to tease out all the details of this deal.

The time for spin has ended it is time for this Government to come clean with its Citizens and lay all the cards on the table.

GarlicBread

gandalf wrote: »

The time for spin has ended it is time for this Government to come clean with its Citizens and lay all the cards on the table.

They lied and spinned for the last two years and they will lie and spin themselves out of office and into exile. Id be surprised if it went any other way.

Scofflaw

Faustino wrote: »

Passing Lisbon took away many central powers of our Government and it's ability to react to situations.

Yes the seeds were sown before.. but as you are aware there is a whole plethora of opinions on what exactly caused the collapse.

Blaming it solely on our banking system or on our property developers would be naive.

And blaming it on Lisbon would be hilarious, given Lisbon only came into force earlier this year - long after the guarantee and the bank rescues.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Time Magazine wrote: »

Have you anything to back that up?

For example, Irish law has explicitly referred to the IMF as "an international body".

That said, I think that Act (probably partially repealed) allows us to call on IMF funds, once it's done through the mechanisms permitted. So it looks like our application has already been pre-approved by, er, the 16th Dáil.

The IMF is an inter-national body because it is created by inter-national agreement, but a bilateral agreement with a body that's not a nation would not have to be an inter-national agreement, because no other nation is involved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Juicee

it seems to me theres an awful lot of playing with semantics here.. I think the spirit of the constitution is quite clear and an agreement of this magnitude should definately go before a dail vote.

The reason fg and lab are not calling this is because they support this IMF deal and the austerity it involves.

Leo Varadaker on the week in politics last night already sounds like a government minister mealy mouthing about how their hands will be tied when they come to power early next year. If they really wanted to do something about it they would be doing all they can to bring this imf deal before the dail now and to subsequently do all they can to oppose the upcoming budget.. neither of which I expect them to do.

If it did go to a dail vote and fg/lab accepted it, they would have a lot of explaining to do on the doorsteps early next year.. no, I think all the signs point to it being just a different set of gombeens running us into the ground next year..

Are there any politicos or legal minds here who know whether there is anything a private citizen could do to force this issue eg bringing a case to the high court?

ps - it should also be noted that this deal does involve a charge on public funds - national pension reserve fund. I think someone described it earlier as just a loan..

I guess there may now be more obfuscation over what the definition of public funds is

yermanoffthetv

Ive a question, is the use of the NPRF for the bailout not illegal? I mean surely if it is a pension fund it is for financing public pensions Are we not setting ourselves up for a pensions timebomb is 20 years?

Laminations

Juicee wrote: »

If they really wanted to do something about it they would be doing all they can to bring this imf deal before the dail now and to subsequently do all they can to oppose the upcoming budget.. neither of which I expect them to do.

Do you want a side salad with those words?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking11.html

The €85 billion EU-IMF bailout package for Ireland announced last night was roundly condemned by the Opposition parties who are now all likely to vote against the budget on December 7th.

Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Féin attacked the intention to use the National Pension Reserve Fund to help provide a further €10 billion in further capital for the banks. In total, the banks could end up getting another €35 billion if their losses are bigger than expected.

The remaining €50 billion is to cover the State’s borrowing needs for the next three years. Opposition parties were highly critical of the 5.8 per cent average interest rate that will be charged by the EU and the International Monetary Fund.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland programme, Fine Gael enterprise spokesman Richard Burton said it was questionable whether the deal would allow Ireland to break out of the vicious debt cycle it is in.

zig

This issue finally getting a bit more publicity, doubt itll come to much though
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129103204923157739.html

The Labour Party Spokesman on Justice Pat Rabbitte TD has called on the Government to clarify the exact status in Irish and international law of the proposed EU-IMF Joint Programme for Ireland. He said that uncertainty about the status of this agreement would give rise to challenges in the courts and lead to further instability.
“On the one hand, it seems clear that, rightly or wrongly, the Government does not regard a programme which has been agreed with the other EU member states as well as the IMF as an international treaty”, Deputy Rabbitte said. “If it was a treaty, then, under Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution, its terms would have to be approved by the Dáil. Yet the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have made it clear that they will not submit this programme to a Dáil vote.
“On the other hand, if this is not a formal international agreement, then it is either an ordinary contract or it is simply a statement of future policy – having much the same status in law as an election manifesto or a programme for government.
“The problem here is that the courts have severely restricted the competence of the Government to enter into a binding contract which deprives it and its successors of the sovereign right to alter policies in the future.
“Of course the Government can borrow money on behalf of the State and can negotiate terms and conditions for repayment. But it is not entitled to contract away, on behalf of itself and its successors, the discretion to shape future policies differently.
“Nor does it have complete freedom by contract to take away the sovereign rights of the Oireachtas when it comes to legislating on future taxes, future expenditure and future laws on a raft of disparate issues including, for example, advertising by GPs.
“Specifically, the Supreme Court has adopted the following statement of principle arising in an English case:
‘No doubt the Government can bind itself through its officers by a commercial contract and, if it does so, it must perform it like anybody else or pay damages for the breach. But this was not a commercial contract; it was an arrangement whereby the Government purported to give its assurance as to what its executive action would be in the future … And that is, to my mind, not a contract … t was merely a statement of intention to act in a particular way in a certain event. My main reason for so thinking is that it is not competent for the Government to fetter its future executive action, which must necessarily be determined by the needs of the community when the need arises. It cannot by contract hamper its freedom of action in matters which concern the welfare of the State.’ (Mr Justice Rowlatt in Rederiaktiebolaget v The King [1921] 3 KB 500 at p. 503.)
“More recently in Ireland, the Supreme Court dealt with the Crotty case in 1987. When Raymond Crotty challenged the Government’s legal competence to sign the Single European Act without an enabling referendum, the Supreme Court upheld his argument that the agreement would bind the Government in its future executive acts in an unconstitutional way.
“The argument in Crotty was about future executive acts in foreign affairs. But the Supreme Court made a much wider statement of principle. Mr Justice Walsh said:
‘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 or issues 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. The freedom to formulate foreign policy is just as much a mark of sovereignty as to the freedom to form economic policy and the freedom to legislate.’
“The proposed bailout deal will be signed by the Government and the other EU governments sometime next week. But neither we nor they know what its legal status will be. It is clearly not done under the EU treaties or necessitated by membership of the Union. It seems the Government does not regard it as a stand-alone treaty in its own right. So, is it an ordinary contract, binding in its terms, or just a ‘statement of intent’?
“If the bailout deal is meant to be a binding contract, then how does the Government square that with the judgments of the courts that prohibit any Government from fettering its own discretion, and the scope for executive action of its successors, ‘which must necessarily be determined by the needs of the community when the need arises’?
“These are questions to which the Dáil, the public and the international community are entitled to answers. If the Government does not answer them, then the courts will inevitably become involved. In the meantime, the reticence if not refusal of the Government to deal with the issue can only add to current instability and further undermine its credibility.”

Juicee

Laminations wrote: »

Do you want a side salad with those words?

I guess thats derogatory but I'm not sure of its meaning. please enlighten me

Laminations

Juicee wrote: »

I guess thats derogatory but I'm not sure of its meaning. please enlighten me

It means you'll be eating your words. Not derogatory in the slightest

Juicee

Laminations wrote: »

It means you'll be eating your words. Not derogatory in the slightest

oh right, sorry

on this occasion I would be delighted to eat my words but i doubt I will..... because fg/lab do support a bailout while the people clearly dont.. if forced to show us their true colours in a dail vote they would indeed have a lot of explaining to do on doorsteps next year..

themadhair

Juicee wrote: »

it seems to me theres an awful lot of playing with semantics here.. I think the spirit of the constitution is quite clear and an agreement of this magnitude should definately go before a dail vote.

I agree but, to the inevitable dismay of the mods, Lisbon may actually bar such being necessary.

Under Lisbon certain competences were granted to the EU, allowing them to make some decisions regarding Ireland’s monetary policy provided they had unanimity among the heads of state (including Ireland). I don’t know off hand if any of the competences granted would include the bailout agreement, but if it did then our Taoiseach and other EU heads of state could pass it without requiring the Dail vote.

This is actually an interesting one. Having unanimity over certain decisions was believed to protect us because of our veto. I don’t think anyone predicted a scenario where our head of state could be voting against the rest the of the Dail. But all of this is entirely academic until someone can find if such a competence that would cover the bailout was part of Lisbon.

Drumpot

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I expect there'll have to be a Dail debate. Then it's up to the opposition to force a vote. Will they? I don't trust Fine Gael to have the balls, to be frank.

I dont trust Labour to have a definitive position either way. .

They will simply side with whatever position they think is most popular and shy away from comitting credible alternatives/explanations/debate on why they feel a certain way is best . .

zig

Nice one , this is gaining momentum, I think we underestimate the power of these forums, only last night this started becoming an issue on the Irish economy forum, the p.ie , and the Irish times as a result of Labours statement...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1129/breaking39.html

Labour's Pat Rabbitte today called on the Government to clarify the legal status of the economic bailout announced last night.
Mr Rabbitte said uncertainty about the status of the €85 billion agreement would give rise to challenges in the courts and lead to further instability.
“On the one hand, it seems clear that, rightly or wrongly, the Government does not regard a programme which has been agreed with the other EU member states as well as the IMF as an international treaty”, Mr Rabbitte said.
“If it was a treaty, then, under Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution, its terms would have to be approved by the Dáil. Yet the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have made it clear that they will not submit this programme to a Dáil vote.
“On the other hand, if this is not a formal international agreement, then it is either an ordinary contract or it is simply a statement of future policy - having much the same status in law as an election manifesto or a programme for government.
“The problem here is that the courts have severely restricted the competence of the Government to enter into a binding contract which deprives it and its successors of the sovereign right to alter policies in the future," the former Labour leader said.
“Of course the Government can borrow money on behalf of the State and can negotiate terms and conditions for repayment. But it is not entitled to contract away, on behalf of itself and its successors, the discretion to shape future policies differently.
“Nor does it have complete freedom by contract to take away the sovereign rights of the Oireachtas when it comes to legislating on future taxes, future expenditure and future laws on a raft of disparate issues including, for example, advertising by GPs," Mr Rabbitte said.
“The proposed bailout deal will be signed by the Government and the other EU governments sometime next week. But neither we nor they know what its legal status will be. It is clearly not done under the EU treaties or necessitated by membership of the Union. It seems the Government does not regard it as a stand-alone treaty in its own right. So, is it an ordinary contract, binding in its terms, or just a ‘statement of intent’?
Mr Rabbitte said the Dáil, the public and international community were due answers, and that if the Government did not answer them, "the courts will inevitably become involved".
The EU-IMF bailout package for Ireland has been condemned by the Opposition parties, who may now all likely to vote against the budget on December 7th.

LostinBlanch

Can't someone like the solicitors and barristers at New Beggining get together and set in motion a high court challenge?

Juicee

zig wrote: »

This issue finally getting a bit more publicity, doubt itll come to much though
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129103204923157739.html

yeah I agree. I mean how come this is only being raised after the deal is done? why weren't labour or fg talking about the constitutionality issue to the media last week?

themadhair

Juicee wrote: »

yeah I agree. I mean how come this is only being raised after the deal is done? why weren't labour or fg talking about the constitutionality issue to the media last week?

Not defending them, but if they are getting their information from the government and not able to see things behind the scenes then it would be an easy thing to miss. To make a good decision on something requires having all relevant information and expertise – not everyone is an economic expert with detailed constitutional knowledge.

LostinBlanch

Juicee wrote: »

yeah I agree. I mean how come this is only being raised after the deal is done? why weren't labour or fg talking about the constitutionality issue to the media last week?

Ummm . . . . . because they may not have been told the truth by FF/GP? I mean, it's not like they haven't been lying to everyone before.

Dannyboy83

I figured it was unconstitutional at first, but then, if it were, somebody in opposition would have raised it I presume (Labour/SF), seems like too easy a boon to pass up.

On the other hand, I do believe a referendum was required for NAMA, which is a charge on public funds, is it not?

Juicee

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Ummm . . . . . because they may not have been told the truth by FF/GP? I mean, it's not like they haven't been lying to everyone before.

they dont need ff/gp to show them 29.5.2 of the constitution..

t0mm13b

Just now there's a latest news that Cowen is in breach of Article 29 of Constitution along the context of "Any international agreements must be met with approval with the Dáil Éireann....", any ideas what is going to happen there, apparently Pat Rabitte brought that up and now what... ??? Does that mean the agreement with Brussels is declared null and void?:eek:

gizmo555

I'm certainly no fan either of the deal or of Cowen, but Rabbitte's point is a red herring. In essence, he says that if the deal is a treaty, it must be ratified by the Oireachtas, or if it is not - as Cowen says - then neither the present government nor any future one is bound by it.

Of course, this is absolutely true - we can repudiate the deal. But then, the EU & IMF can stop writing the cheques . . .

rumour

Seems Mr Rehn is on top of this:

Don't do it.

t0mm13b

gizmo555 wrote: »

I'm certainly no fan either of the deal or of Cowen, but Rabbitte's point is a red herring. In essence, he says that if the deal is a treaty, it must be ratified by the Oireachtas, or if it is not - as Cowen says - then neither the present government nor any future one is bound by it.

Of course, this is absolutely true - we can repudiate the deal. But then, the EU & IMF can stop writing the cheques . . .

Forgive my ignorance but isn't there a difference with Oireachtas and Dáil Éireann?

It's not a treaty, more of "International agreement", which is what I'm trying to get at - keep the two separate... an international agreement is not a treaty Pat Rabbitte's point is certainly legitimate imo...

Bob_Latchford

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/

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.

But as gizmo555 says you dont have to agree. They dont have to lend

lmaopml

Where are they going with this? Are they looking to scrap the deal all together - Re-negotiate for a better interest rate or something? They aren't committed to all the terms of the four year plan anyway - and have said as much.

It's not just hype and self promotion with no real 'intention' pre GE? If FG and Labour stop the budget going through and encourage others to do so, they could block the deal if they really wanted very easily.....I wonder will they?

kaiser sauze

OK, less talk more action, if someone is going to challenge this, be it a a constitutional challenge (after the signing) or a judicial review of the process, it needs to be done NOW!

Any uncertainty over a possible challenge will put us back in the pre-agreement quagmire very quickly again.

ISAW

themadhair wrote: »

I agree but, to the inevitable dismay of the mods, Lisbon may actually bar such being necessary.

Under Lisbon certain competences were granted to the EU, allowing them to make some decisions regarding Ireland’s monetary policy provided they had unanimity among the heads of state (including Ireland).

But the President is the Irish head of state. she hasen't signed off on it yet.

I don’t know off hand if any of the competences granted would include the bailout agreement, but if it did then our Taoiseach and other EU heads of state could pass it without requiring the Dail vote.

Taoiseach is NOT head of State!

This is actually an interesting one. Having unanimity over certain decisions was believed to protect us because of our veto. I don’t think anyone predicted a scenario where our head of state could be voting against the rest the of the Dail. But all of this is entirely academic until someone can find if such a competence that would cover the bailout was part of Lisbon.

Maybe you mean - Head of State not ratifying the rest of the Oireachtas?