Any deal with Europe illegal without a referendum? - CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
3,566
Article 1
The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.
This wont be the case as Europe/IMF will determine how Ireland functions.

Article 5
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Will we still be this if the IMF/EU control our spending?

Article 29

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.
3° This section shall not apply to agreements or conventions of a technical and administrative character.
6. No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas.
The nation will be paying debts which come from public funds?

Department of Taoiseach - Bunreacht na hÉireann - Constitution of Ireland
 


Inda Kenny

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
516
How would a bail out affect the constitution?
The Dail would probably vote it through anyway its not like Biffo and Co are going to hand over the keys to the Mercs and walk away.
As usual its the peopl on the street will be eeffected
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
We're not losing our sovereignty. We still retain the ultimate right to make decisions for ourselves. We just don't have the right to both make spending decisions for ourselves AND expect international lenders to keep giving us money. Indeed this has always been the case; it's just that we never came to the point where our decisions made lenders reluctant to give us money. We are now at that point. We don't have to listen to the IMF at all if we only cut our government budget by 40% this year, but is this really appealing?
 

Podolski1.5

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
572
We're not losing our sovereignty. We still retain the ultimate right to make decisions for ourselves.
Except a very large gun is being held to the people's heads. Like the Lisbon treaty and the Nice Treaty before that, the people were told they had a democratic choice but when they took that democratic choice they were told they would have to vote again. This time they wouldn't be given any choice. Our masters at home and abroad are continuing the "we know best line" and delivering the brutal medicine but are refusing to take it themselves or administer it to those responsible for the crisis.

We bailed out the banks to the tune of €70 billion. Now the country itself is bankrupt and a "rescue" package is being forced on it, not to rescue the Irish people but the whole corrupt capitalist system and the EU bureaucracy. At least €160 billion of debt is being strung around the necks of the people of this country. That's a debt of €40,000 each for every man, woman and child in this country.

We should have a referendum on the bank bailout. There's already one going at We Demand Democracy
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
3,566
We're not losing our sovereignty. We still retain the ultimate right to make decisions for ourselves. We just don't have the right to both make spending decisions for ourselves AND expect international lenders to keep giving us money. Indeed this has always been the case; it's just that we never came to the point where our decisions made lenders reluctant to give us money. We are now at that point. We don't have to listen to the IMF at all if we only cut our government budget by 40% this year, but is this really appealing?
But isnt part of national sovereignty being able to make financial decisions? If the IMF are calling the shots then we are indeed loosing this.

Regardless if you agree the IMF should be here, ( and I do think we need them) surely the upholding of our constitution should be principle.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
But isnt part of national sovereignty being able to make financial decisions? If the IMF are calling the shots then we are indeed loosing this.
No because they'll keep the Brian & Brian show or Enda and Eamonn in place to administer it and push it through the Dail. The Dail has the final say here (even the senate has no say).

Regardless if you agree the IMF should be here, ( and I do think we need them) surely the upholding of our constitution should be principle.
Sorry, which part of Lisbon II did you miss? The people spoke. The EU, our sock puppet politicians, aided by the media said "don't be stupid, you have to vote again" and we toed the line like an obidient puppy doing tricks for its master.
 
Last edited:

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Morally this is true enough but technically it is not IMO

We elect the TDs

- who elect a Taoiseach

- who selects a Cabinet to form a Government

After that they may serve their full term so long as they have a Majority in the House.
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
But isnt part of national sovereignty being able to make financial decisions? If the IMF are calling the shots then we are indeed loosing this.

Regardless if you agree the IMF should be here, ( and I do think we need them) surely the upholding of our constitution should be principle.
Sovereignty does not mean that you cannot freely enter into an agreement and abide by the terms of it. Under your expansive interpretation, we should not sign or ratify any of the International Covenants or UN Conventions on Human Rights as we agree to comply with externally agreed standards and practices.

Sovereignty means that we are free to enter into an agreement with an external entity. I think you need to read more about how the IMF works so that you can see that it has no constitutional implications.
 

Tigris Celtica

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
503
Sovereignty does not mean that you cannot freely enter into an agreement and abide by the terms of it. Under your expansive interpretation, we should not sign or ratify any of the International Covenants or UN Conventions on Human Rights as we agree to comply with externally agreed standards and practices.

Sovereignty means that we are free to enter into an agreement with an external entity. I think you need to read more about how the IMF works so that you can see that it has no constitutional implications.
Get real would you ! Even Lenihan on Newsnight didn't try to argue that we're not losing our sovereignty ( which we obviously are by any rational definition of sovereignty ) !

Lensahand's line was that we've always shared out sovereignty with our European partners ! ! :lol: - You couldn't make it up ! .:lol:
 

drkpower

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,018
But isnt part of national sovereignty being able to make financial decisions? If the IMF are calling the shots then we are indeed loosing this.
We still are able to make financial decisions.

We can stop paying Social welfare and various other things the government pays or we can take a loan from someone under certain terms & conditions. It is still entirely our choice, just not a nice one.
 

GridLock

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
52
''But isnt part of national sovereignty being able to make financial decisions? If the IMF are calling the shots then we are indeed loosing this.''

They never made good decisions on our behalf,never so what are we losing exactly?
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
This wont be the case as Europe/IMF will determine how Ireland functions.



Will we still be this if the IMF/EU control our spending?



The nation will be paying debts which come from public funds?

Department of Taoiseach - Bunreacht na hÉireann - Constitution of Ireland
Firstly, in purely Constitutional terms, Articles 1 & 5 which you quote, are merely declaratory articles and cannot be litigated really. It's not much of a point your making, to be honest.

Article 29 merely means that it would probably require a vote of the Oireachtas.

So, therefore, a bailout would be perfectly Constitutional.
 

Future Irish Leader

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
1,008
it wont affect the constitution if we accepted lisbon they will get it in somehow bypassing the constitution
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,197
it wont affect the constitution if we accepted lisbon they will get it in somehow bypassing the constitution
This has absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon, though. Anyway, Lisbon didn't bypass the Constitution, the people voted to ratify an amendment to the Constitution to facilitate its ratification.
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,515
Ireland's sovereignty isn't going to be affected by any bail out, assuming there is one.

Exercising sovereignty means having the ability to choose.

Ireland can choose between asking for a bail out or not asking for a bail out.

If the state asks for a bail out, in the form of a loan from either the IMF or the EU, the terms and conditions attached to the loan will be set by the lender.

If the state finds the terms and conditions set by the lender to be unacceptable, it can choose to not take the loan.

Alternatively, the state can choose not to ask for a loan from either the IMF or the EU. It can either continue to borrow at market rates or not borrow at all.

Whatever happens, the state will be exercising its sovereignty by making its own choice.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
FFS, any bailout would be a loan, with strings attached - and the strings would consist of "show us you're serious about getting back to the agreed deficit position". Whether it's the EU or the IMF, that will be the same, and unless someone is stupid enough to attach specific conditions which prevents the Irish state making sovereign decisions, there can be no conflict with the Constitution. As long as the Irish government decides what gets cut and what gets raised, there's no case here, because there's no legal infringement of our sovereignty.
 

SCALLION HEAD

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
17
The government has never failed to eventually get what it wants in referenda relating to the EEC, EC or EU, hence a referendum, while perhaps legally required, will not influence the final outcome.
Vote YES for JOBS, Vote YES for RECOVERY blah, blah, blah.
Civil society will be mobilised again to full effect, Micheál Martin will concentrate on context rather than content and we will merely be acting to "share our sovereignty with the EU" as explained recently by Comical Lenny.
A Sindo survey out today says that 69% want the opposition to support the December budget !!!! Simples.
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
Get real would you ! Even Lenihan on Newsnight didn't try to argue that we're not losing our sovereignty ( which we obviously are by any rational definition of sovereignty ) !

Lensahand's line was that we've always shared out sovereignty with our European partners ! ! :lol: - You couldn't make it up ! .:lol:
Ireland's relationship with the EU is most definitely a sharing of sovereignty. That is why amendments to the Treaty of Rome have involved so many referenda.

An agreement with the IMF to follow an agreed set of macro-economic policies in exchange for a large loan on generous terms is not a diminution of sovereignty, as it is generally understood. It would not be imposed on us; rather it would be agreed with us. if the Government or the Dail were not to approve it, then it would not happen.

As has been pointed out the OP is interpreting the Constitution, and sovereignty to make a very strained point, unsupported by anything other than emotion.
 

TheTinker

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
184
National importance of bailout decisions

I don't see how any could disagree with the premise that the condition of the
government/state run balance sheets are presently of 'national importance'.

Article 27 of the constitution provides for 'proposal(s) of such national
importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.'

Who doubts that the mechanism of debt relief will be written in a bill and quickly
passed by both houses in the 'national interest'.

The catch is that before signing the bill into law, a majority of the Seanad and
at least one third of the Dail have to sign a petition, present it to the President,
within four days of the bill having been passed.

The President can then decide that, yes, the people should be heard from and
the bill should go before the people.

In light of the IMF record on past national bailouts, this something the people
should know about and be required to consider.

We can expect cuts in government departments, primarily in those that look
after the public good. Socially, environmentally, agriculturally, educationally.

The people are to go through this because the government was instructed
to acquire the debt of about 850 borrowers at a pricetag of E73b.

People need to know that none of this is being done in their interest. In fact,
it is being done against their interest, without their full knowledge and
without their consent.

Is it possible to rally the country's thinkers to help people realize what is
going on?




Direct Democracy Ireland
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
Constitutional challenge to the bank guarantee?

It strikes me that the blanket guarantee on all bank assets could be subject to a challenge under the citizens' rights clause of the Bunreacht.

I could see a situation arising where a plaintiff files a case asserting that the government simply has no right to make a blanket guarantee of assets whose value dwarfs the GDP of the nation by something like 300%.

The Supreme Court has, in the past, set a lot of store by the principle of "proportionality".

I could well imagine that the court would rule that the Oireachtas is allowed to make guarantees to private entities. But it might feel compelled to order that such guarantees should fall within some bounds of reason. If a government's entire annual spend is 50bn, the court might feel that the state has exceeded its bounds by offering a guarantee of assets to the value of around 250bn and more. It hardly requires much imagination to see how an eloquent barrister could make such a disparity seem disproportionate.

Imagine, for a second, that the Court DID strike down the blanket guarantee? What would the fallout be? Does the EU outrank the Irish nation on these matters? It seems that it does not, as we are all waiting on the outcome of the German supreme court to clarify whether the EU rescue fund is kosher.
 


New Threads

Top