Pooling of Sovereignty

jaself · 30-05-2012 10:42AM #1

At last... a Government Minister reveals what the Referendum is really about!

The "pooling of Soveriegnty".

This Treaty is NOT the "Stability Treaty", nor is it the "Fiscal Stability Treaty" as the Government and the Referendum Commission would have us believe, it is the "Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and GOVERNANCE..."

This Treaty does not promise or guarantee stability - it is an aspiration, nothing more.

This Treaty cannot guarantee co-ordination.
Again an aspiration to be worked towards.

But this Treaty DOES put in place Governance. And not just in law, but it has to be embedded in our Constitution. When Minister Burton was questioned on the subject of Governance she referred to it as a "pooling of Sovereignty". This was not a mistake on her part because she went on to repeat the exact same phrase: a "pooling of Sovereignty".

So there you have it. The real purpose of this Treaty.
To "pool the Sovereignty" of the participating States.
In other words to centralise the Governing of these States.
And which body politic is at the centre of this?
The E.U.

So this is yet another, but significant, step towards a European State.

THAT is what you are voting for on Thursday!

Regards

J

oscarBravo · 30-05-2012 10:46AM

jaself wrote: »

And not just in law, but it has to be embedded in our Constitution.

That's simply, factually untrue. I'm not describing it as a lie only because I'm charitably assuming you may be unaware of its untruth, but some people who do know better have lied about it.

As for governance: when did the idea of governance become a bad thing?

Oh yes, when it was sold down the river in exchange for votes. How did that work out for us?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 30-05-2012 10:47AM

Duh! If there was no pooling of sovereignty there wouldn't be a referendum, how is this news to you!?

Iwannahurl · 30-05-2012 10:56AM

What is the EU but a pooling of sovereignty?

The nature and extent of that pooled sovereignty has evolved since we joined the EEC/Common Market in 1973.

Is there something inherently wrong with pooled sovereignty? If so, what?

jaself · 30-05-2012 11:00AM

So you WANT Ireland to become a little backwater State in the Federal Europe?

Slozer · 30-05-2012 11:01AM

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Iwannahurl · 30-05-2012 11:05AM

jaself wrote: »

So you WANT Ireland to become a little backwater State in the Federal Europe?

The Ireland I grew up in was a backwater state. The EEC/EU has benefited us enormously, IMO.

Still a lot wrong with this country, but personally I blame that on our propensity for wanting to be closer to Boston than to Berlin.

oscarBravo · 30-05-2012 11:06AM

Slozer wrote: »

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Given that an oxymoron is an apparent contradiction in terms, I guess it might well be - if you're determined to create a false dichotomy, and are completely inflexible in your definitions. Which is, basically, begging the question.

Iwannahurl · 30-05-2012 11:07AM

Slozer wrote: »

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Interesting point, in terms of language.

Too simplistic, in terms of politics.

jaself · 30-05-2012 11:09AM

Slozer wrote: »

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Gosh, a lesson in semantics. Thanks

jaself · 30-05-2012 11:11AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The Ireland I grew up in was a backwater state. The EEC/EU has benefited us enormously, IMO.

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

meglome · 30-05-2012 11:12AM

This might help.

Test from the Fiscal Compact

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.

Text from the Lisbon treaty.

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or institutions thereof or bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it) and the Lisbon treaty was not written into our constitution.

jaself · 30-05-2012 11:13AM

Wake up people.
The Emporer is not wearing any clothes and this is your chance to see clearly!

Iwannahurl · 30-05-2012 11:14AM

jaself wrote: »

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

Once more?

meglome · 30-05-2012 11:14AM

jaself wrote: »

Wake up people.
The Emporer is not wearing any clothes and this is your chance to see clearly!

Genuinely wondering... are you high?

oscarBravo · 30-05-2012 11:14AM

jaself wrote: »

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

Or we could spit on the ground and say "piss off".

Or, less hyperbolically, we could work in partnership with the other EU member states towards a solution that best represents our respective interests, taking into account where those interests both overlap and conflict.

Which doesn't lend itself quite so well to pithy soundbites, I'm afraid, but them's the breaks.

jaself · 30-05-2012 11:36AM

meglome wrote: »

This might help.

Test from the Fiscal Compact

Text from the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it) and the Lisbon treaty was not written into our constitution.

From:
THIRTIETH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION) BILL 2012

———————— EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ————————

Purpose of Bill

The Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2012 is necessary for the State to ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (hereafter referred to as ‘‘The Stability Treaty’’). The Stability Treaty was signed on behalf of the government by the Taoiseach in Brussels on 2 March 2012; a total of twenty-five of the twenty-seven member states of the European Union have signed it and a ratification process is now under way in each member state. The Stability Treaty provides that it will enter into force when it has been ratified by twelve contracting parties whose currency is the euro.
With a view to securing economic recovery and sustainable growth, the key provisions of the Stability Treaty relate to a strengthening of rules underpinning the Stability and Growth Pact agreed by EU Member States in relation to the euro currency. As the full title of the Stability Treaty states, its core aims are improved stability, coordination and governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

Content of Bill

The Bill provides for the insertion of the following subsection after subsection 9 of Article 29.4 of the Constitution, in order to ratify the Stability Treaty and enable the Oireachtas to adopt any legislation necessary in order to implement its provisions:

‘‘10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.’’.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, March, 2012.

Read that bold paragraph carefully.

In plain language it means that nothing in our Constitution can override any law, act or measure by bodies competent under that Treaty.

So please tell me again how this Treaty is not just being written into our Constitution but overriding it?

Slozer · 30-05-2012 11:38AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that an oxymoron is an apparent contradiction in terms, I guess it might well be - if you're determined to create a false dichotomy, and are completely inflexible in your definitions. Which is, basically, begging the question.

No. I just dont think that a pooling of sovereignty is going to work. We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot. Personally I would rather our governing body to be closer to home.

jaself · 30-05-2012 11:43AM

Slozer wrote: »

No. I just dont think that a pooling of sovereignty is going to work. We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot. Personally I would rather our governing body to be closer to home.

At least one other person with their eyes open, thank God, thought I was going mad!!!

beeftotheheels · 30-05-2012 11:46AM

jaself wrote: »

‘‘10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.’’.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, March, 2012.

Read that bold paragraph carefully.

In plain language it means that nothing in our Constitution can override any law, act or measure by bodies competent under that Treaty.

So please tell me again how this Treaty is not just being written into our Constitution but overriding it?

We are voting to allow (or not) the Government to ratify the treaty. They don't have to if we vote yes, but they probably will.

If the amendment didn't specify that the Constitution couldn't override the Treaty, there would be nothing for us to vote on.

The reason we're voting is because the AG thought that there was a risk that the Constitution and Treaty might conflict.

However, there is nothing in the amendment that says a future Act of the Oireachtas cannot override the treaty, or that a future treaty cannot over ride the treaty, or indeed that we can't change the constitution again, in the future, to override the treaty.

You're reading way too much into the wording.

meglome · 30-05-2012 11:47AM

Here's what I posted on the previous page.

This might help.

Test from the Fiscal Compact

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.

Text from the Lisbon treaty.

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or institutions thereof or bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it) and the Lisbon treaty was not written into our constitution.

For your argument to work, the same things should have happened with the Lisbon treaty and they didn't.

hatrickpatrick · 30-05-2012 11:48AM

There's nothing wrong with pooling sovereignty to an extent.
The point I make as a no voter is, we're past that extent now. In fact we were past it before we ratified Lisbon.

Closer integration is fine, but... That's close enough now.

hatrickpatrick · 30-05-2012 11:51AM

meglome wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it)

Actually it did. Now whether or not you regard this as a bad thing - many on the yes side don't - is a different matter, but every area which moved from unanimity to QMV meant that Ireland no longer had the final say on our policies in those particular areas (aside from those we got exemptions from).

As I say, it's up to you whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but to deny that some of our sovereignty was lost is downright incorrect.

oscarBravo · 30-05-2012 11:54AM

Slozer wrote: »

We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot.

That's the false dichotomy I was talking about. We don't have to choose between those extremes; we have the option of finding a balance.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Closer integration is fine, but... That's close enough now.

Hasn't that been Sinn Féin's argument against every single treaty since accession? They never quite seem to explain how each treaty that they just opposed has morphed into the one that's working fine and we shouldn't change.

I accept that you think we shouldn't have ratified Lisbon, but I'm willing to wager that come the next EU treaty (which this isn't), SF will be telling us how the Lisbon treaty is working just fine, so we shouldn't change anything...

meglome · 30-05-2012 11:59AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it did. Now whether or not you regard this as a bad thing - many on the yes side don't - is a different matter, but every area which moved from unanimity to QMV meant that Ireland no longer had the final say on our policies in those particular areas (aside from those we got exemptions from).

As I say, it's up to you whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but to deny that some of our sovereignty was lost is downright incorrect.

You'll notice I used the word sovereignty in quotes. This is because the way that word is used tends to mean we are now under the control of Germany, when we're clearly not. Sovereignty the magic word that means whatever the person saying it thinks it means.

Gurgle · 30-05-2012 12:10PM

Slozer wrote: »

We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government.

Some minor points:
1. I don't want to be ruled by anyone, but I'm willing to be governed.

2. That would be an elected central european government or an elected irish government. I'm not aware of any significant difference.

3. The vote on thursday has nothing to do with whether the EU has lots of small governments or one big government.

jaself · 30-05-2012 12:16PM

Gurgle wrote: »

Some minor points:
...

3. The vote on thursday has nothing to do with whether the EU has lots of small governments or one big government.

But everything to do with where the real power lies. :eek:

Gurgle · 30-05-2012 12:17PM

jaself wrote: »

But everything to do with where the real power lies. :eek:

In what way?

View · 30-05-2012 12:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it did. Now whether or not you regard this as a bad thing - many on the yes side don't - is a different matter, but every area which moved from unanimity to QMV meant that Ireland no longer had the final say on our policies in those particular areas (aside from those we got exemptions from).

As I say, it's up to you whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but to deny that some of our sovereignty was lost is downright incorrect.

The Supreme Court largely rejected that argument in the Crotty case (see point 14 of it).

Their opinion was that such voting changes might - depending on the change - have an effect on sovereignty if they strayed from the confines of (the amendment related to) the pre-existing treaties. In other words, probably when the EU headed off into a new political territory.

That though wasn't the case in Lisbon since the tasks assigned to the EU in Article 3 remained unaltered.

RandomName2 · 30-05-2012 12:50PM

jaself wrote: »

At last... a Government Minister reveals what the Referendum is really about!

The "pooling of Soveriegnty".

Does this increase the competencies of the EU bodies in any real fashion? The fining and recapitalisation bypass via the ESM is relatively new, sure (with our liability to such fines and bailouts predicated on our passing the Fiscal Treaty)... but that's not really a loss of sovereignty.

Mind you, the posters who say that this isn't written into our constitution are being somewhat disingenuous. Sure, you won't find the text of ANY European Treaty in our Constitution, however, you will find the surrendering of national authority to various European organs within our Constitution. Duh.

I will listen though if you are able to give a cogent explanation of how this treaty might pool sovereignty.

jaself · 30-05-2012 12:53PM

Gurgle wrote: »

In what way?

Tell me this: When did you last elect a member of the European Commission?
Or have a democratic say in any of the actions of the Commission or its 23,000 strong body of civil servants?

Pooling of Sovereignty

Comments