IMF Deal without Dail Vote = Unconstitutional

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?

themadhair

ISAW wrote: »

But the President is the Irish head of state.

Mea culpa.

Butch Cassidy

nesf wrote: »

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

The dogs in the street now that this was not voluntary.

nesf wrote: »

Not really. We'd be bailed out by the IMF/EU...

Again, dogs in the street know that if it's a bailout, it's a bailout not of Ireland but of the ECB/Euro currency. The EU are playing kick the can with the Euro.

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.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't give Paul Gallagher a phone call or text message to ask "hey, is this all square with our constitution?". This is after the govt. that claimed to not realise Anglo was a racket even after the NTMA didn't deposit funds with it & even after the share price plummeted after Paddy's Day 08, claimed a soft landing was coming even in the face of Morgan Kelly's thorough analysis.

They also thought they'd get away with not holding the DSW by-election.

I guess there's a fine line between incompetence and idiocy but where that line is with them is anyone's guess.


This could be Pat Rabbitte trying to drum up some popular support. If there could be a genuine constitutional issue then he/Labour would do well to take it seriously and not as a political football.

nesf

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

The dogs in the street now that this was not voluntary.



Again, dogs in the street know that if it's a bailout, it's a bailout not of Ireland but of the ECB/Euro currency. The EU are playing kick the can with the Euro.

Eh, we were pressured sure but it was still voluntary. And bailing out the Euro involves bailing out us.

dermot_sheehan

IMF agreement does not involve the state facing an international public law obligation to pay money. The agreement is for a line of credit, like negotiating an overdraft at a bank.

The draw down on the loan, which creates the obligation to repay it will be authorised by the Dail (in the same way all state borrowing is authorised) in the appropriations act.

simonj

Pat Rabbitte has questioned the legality of the IMF/EU deal.

Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution states: “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.”

And yet, the two Brians have no intention of putting this to a Dail vote!

Barry Andrews insisted the programme was not an international agreement for the purposes set out in the Constitution, and neither the Oireachtas nor any future government was restricted by the agreement.

After the lies, mistruths and the twisting of language in what amounts to a bailout I feel this is just FF scorched earth policy and ignoring the constitution.

The point could be made that since Lisbon II that the EU is de-facto and de-jure its own legal entity, a state in itself - so dealing with the EU is an international agreement.

The irony of Barry Andrews making that statement should not be missed either. Its not the first time an Andrews has been sent out to bend the Bunracht.

The concerns expressed by the No to Nice II campaign, which included the Green Party, in terms of assurances on neutrality were proved to be accurate.

In 1997 we were assured by FF and FG that voting Yes to Nice II would in no way compromise our traditional neutrality.

The 1997 Fianna Fail manifesto opposed PfP membership. traditional policy of neutrality would be respected.
Mr. Ahern told us that it would be 'fundamentally undemocratic' to join PfP without a referendum.

We were assured that any change to neutrality policy would have to be agreed by referendum.

And we told ourselves it would not happen anyway.

Then in 1999 Bertie sent then Foreign Minister David Andrews, Barry's daddy, to NATO headquarters and signed us up to the PfP, without a referendum.

By 2002 the parameters of Irish participation within the PfP were further expanded.

zig

Sinn Fein might be on the case as well
http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/sf-may-take-govt-to-court-over-bailout-deal-483858.html

Sinn Féin is considering a legal challenge to the Government's decision not to put the EU/IMF bailout deal to a Dáil vote.

The party said that the Government is acting unconstitutionally in its failure to allow TDs to have their say on the deal.

Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams said: "Any new government should refuse to honour the terms of the IMF/EU deal and Sinn Féin will seek a mandate in the General Election to renegotiate it.

"This Government has no mandate to impose the terrible deal it has negotiated with the IMF and EU.

"The interest payments alone will cripple our public finances for years.

"The people of Donegal South West have clearly endorsed Sinn Féin’s proposals for a better, fairer way forward. They have signalled that the Government must go."

Sinn Fein has also announced plans to enter talks with two independents to form a technical group which would give the party more speaking time in the Dáil.

Its newest TD Pearse Doherty takes his seat in the house today pledging to oppose the budget and the IMF rescue loan.

kaiser sauze

zig wrote: »

Sinn Fein might be on the case as well
http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/sf-may-take-govt-to-court-over-bailout-deal-483858.html

Well, tell them to get their finger out, stop waffling, and do it.

We do not need uncertainty right now.

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

Eh, we were pressured sure but it was still voluntary. And bailing out the Euro involves bailing out us.

I don't think the Constitution is referring directly to agreements that are not voluntary, I mean we also enter treaty's voluntarily. If we agree to the deal which we are in the 4 year plan then there are requirements that must be met, I think that can be seen an 'International Agreement' in terms of what is meant in the Constitution.

If that is the case then it is unconstitutional not to put it to the Dáil isent it?

nesf

deise go deo wrote: »

I don't think the Constitution is referring directly to agreements that are not voluntary, I mean we also enter treaty's voluntarily. If we agree to the deal which we are in the 4 year plan then there are requirements that must be met, I think that can be seen an 'International Agreement' in terms of what is meant in the Constitution.

If that is the case then it is unconstitutional not to put it to the Dáil isent it?

I wasn't saying voluntarily as a defence against the constitutional claim just as a comment against the constant rants about us being forced into it.


The question is whether it forms an agreement in the legal sense. This is not a question that anyone who isn't well versed in law can answer. I'd pay attention to gabhain7's post above since he knows a lot more than either of us I imagine.