EU examining ‘treaty change’ without need for Irish referendum – reports

Cian92

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-examining-treaty-change-without-need-for-irish-referendum-reports-298847-Dec2011/

EUROPEAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT Herman van Rompuy is said to be examining methods of bolstering fiscal union within the European Union without the need for the adoption of a new EU treaty.
Plans being formulated ahead of this week’s two-day summit of EU heads of government – which is seen as the last chance for the EU to stop the euro from eventual collapse – are reportedly being formulated in order to ensure speedy adoption by all member states.
That move would avoid the need for a referendum in Ireland – which would be seen as the most obvious stumbling block to an adoption of a new treaty, with Ireland being the only member state required by domestic law to hold a public vote.
As a result, the new rules are not likely to see the creation of a fully-fledged central fiscal government – as the transfer of ‘competencies’, or government powers, from member states to Brussels would require a full treaty.
Instead, the Financial Times suggests, the heads of government may agree on amendments to a protocol attached to the Lisbon Treaty – which requires member states to adopt legal measures implementing the so-called “golden rule” on budget deficits.
Specifically, the measures would make it effectively illegal for a government to run up a deficit of more than 3 per cent of their GDP – or face massive sanctions imposed by Brussels.
The FT says Van Rompuy is satisfied this change could be agreed by all member states – potentially bringing an end to the debt crisis without needing any full-blown treaty change.
This is reinforced by Article 126 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (PDF link), which specifically allows for strengthening of the protocols as long as all member states sign up to it.
It is unclear whether the proposal will meet with the approval of France and Germany, however, who are today due to present Van Rompuy with their own joint proposals – which are set to include the speedy adoption of a new treaty providing for closer fiscal governance.
British prime minister David Cameron has also threatened to veto any plans for a new treaty, saying he would be “insisting on some safeguards too” in order to safeguard the UK’s own interests.

So now we won't even get to vote on this Treaty... Just typical...

RandomName2

Cian92 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-examining-treaty-change-without-need-for-irish-referendum-reports-298847-Dec2011/



So now we won't even get to vote on this Treaty... Just typical...

Well it wouldn't be a free vote anyway, and the amount of changes that they can achieve are more limited than one in which we would get a 'vote'; so in my eye's it is a win. It also lends credence, deserved or not, to the anti-Lisbon campaigners former claims of an elevator clause allowing the Lisbon treaty to be subsequently edited without need for a new treaty.

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well it wouldn't be a free vote anyway, and the amount of changes that they can achieve are more limited than one in which we would get a 'vote'; so in my eye's it is a win. It also lends credence, deserved or not, to the anti-Lisbon campaigners former claims of an elevator clause allowing the Lisbon treaty to be subsequently edited without need for a new treaty.

So I assume someone can point out where that is in the Lisbon treaty? It's a detailed legal document after all.

meglome

Cian92 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-examining-treaty-change-without-need-for-irish-referendum-reports-298847-Dec2011/

So now we won't even get to vote on this Treaty... Just typical...

Jebus the comments are worse than usual in here and that’s saying something.
The Crotty judgement means that *any* change in our sovereignty means an automatic referendum. So if no referendum is needed that by default means our sovereignty is not being affected. I’ll trust our Supreme court over a bunch of ill-informed ranters over the internet.
I hope that I don’t have to explain how representative democracy works, we elected people to make certain decision on our behalf, that’s their job. We just elected the last lot this year with a large majority. If you don’t like some of those decisions then you get to vote for someone else in a few short years.
I’ll ask again for all the Lisbon treaty whiners to point our where in the treaty it does the bad things you claim. It’s a detailed legal document so that should be easy right? Of course after asking many times previously and reading the treaty myself I know you won’t, I know you can’t.
Is having some fact in these discussions so difficult.

This is what I posted over on the Journal.

Manach

My understanding of the Crotty Judgement is that substantive changes that deviate from the signed treaty would trigger a referendum. So the Government might decide that these changes fall within the parameters of the existing treaties and hence no referendum is needed.
If this is challanged in the Supreme Court, this substantive issue might be clarified or perhaps overturned?

meglome

Manach wrote: »

If this is challanged in the Supreme Court, this substantive issue might be clarified or perhaps overturned?

That's exactly what would happen. Whatever view the government took they'd have to be able to back it up in court.

SnowY32

meglome wrote: »

Manach wrote: »

If this is challanged in the Supreme Court, this substantive issue might be clarified or perhaps overturned?

That's exactly what would happen. Whatever view the government took they'd have to be able to back it up in court.

They would just say they people voted for lisbon, which gives europe the power to make changes to any treaty we already have! anybody who voted yes to lisbon hadn't a bloody clue what they were voting for! The European Union is now our nationality we were duped..... sheepwalking into poverty.

meglome

SnowY32 wrote: »

They would just say they people voted for lisbon, which gives europe the power to make changes to any treaty we already have! anybody who voted yes to lisbon hadn't a bloody clue what they were voting for! The European Union is now our nationality we were duped..... sheepwalking into poverty.

I'm going to help you here.

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

My understanding of the Crotty Judgement is that substantive changes that deviate from the signed treaty would trigger a referendum. So the Government might decide that these changes fall within the parameters of the existing treaties and hence no referendum is needed.
If this is challanged in the Supreme Court, this substantive issue might be clarified or perhaps overturned?

The central issue in Crotty is sovereignty - it's not so much whether the changes proposed are substantive or not, but whether they restrict sovereignty. The constitutional issue behind it is that the government doesn't have the right to bind Irish sovereignty without the consent of the people at referendum. So the issue of a substantive change is a secondary one - you can have substantive changes as long as they don't impact sovereignty.

Either way, as meglome says, the government has to be able to stand over whatever position it take in the Supreme Court. That has generally meant that the government prefers to hold a referendum, rather than ratify, go to court, have the ratification reversed, and have to hold a referendum anyway in light of everyone knowing they tried to restrict sovereignty without a referendum.

Unfortunately, nearly everyone has their private definition of sovereignty, which they regard as superior to that of a mere Supreme Court.

cordially,
Scofflaw

carveone

scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, nearly everyone has their private definition of sovereignty, which they regard as superior to that of a mere Supreme Court

There's a serious problem with boards.ie Politics forums. After you read it for a while you can't watch TV3 or RTE or listen to the radio or read any paper other than the Guardian maybe without going completely spare, mainly because of the words "sovereignty" and "democracy" appearing in every other sentence. Often by people (Ganley, McWilliams etc) who fail to mention that they have a personal financial interest in the Euro going pop.

At least the Sun is (unintentionally) humorous - I liked their front page during the Lisbon Vote: "Vote No" and a page 3 girl with X on each breast. Classy.