Lawyers' letter blunder

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
Whatever our differences over the treaty on politics.ie, there are a couple of points that we all agree on. One of them is that under our Constitution, some EU treaty changes require a referendum, but not every treaty change does so. See the threads on the Crotty case for the reasons.

Has nobody told these people whose letter is prominent in the Times today?

''Despite statements to the contrary, this treaty makes it clear that any future changes to the EU Treaties will continue to have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member-state, which in Ireland's case is by referendum.

This Treaty is very important for the future of Ireland and Europe. - Yours, etc,

DAVID ANDREWS SC, MICHAEL BINCHY, DAVID BYRNE, KATE COLLEARY, SHARON DALY, RICHARD DEVEREUX, PAUL EUSTACE, DAVID GEARY, APRIL GILROY, RICHARD HAMMOND, GERRY KELLY SC, MARTIN G. LAWLOR, CHARLES MEENAN SC, HUGH I. MOHAN SC, COLM MacEOCHAIDH, EOIN McCULLOUGH SC, UNA McGURK SC, PATRICK O'CONNOR, JIM O'CALLAGHAN, RODERIC O'GORMAN, FERGUS O'HAGAN SC, KEVIN O'HIGGINS, MICHAEL O'KENNEDY SC, DESMOND O'MALLEY, ISEULT O'MALLEY SC, Cllr OISIN QUINN, Senator EUGENE REGAN SC, RORY STAINES, ERCUS STEWART SC, DECLAN J. WALSH, TONY WILLIAMS,

Irish Alliance for Europe''.


At least they got the last sentence right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
Should we expect a clarification after the polls close?
 

aodh_rua

Active member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
187
Website
drtod.wordpress.com
Why would a clarification be necessary? Article 48.4 of the amended Treaty on the European Union is pretty unambiguous regarding future treaties....

Article 48.4 said:
4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Which in our case means a referendum if required under Crotty.
 

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
aodh_rua as you rightly say we approve treaty changes by referendum IF they are changes that require approval by that method under Crotty. And the corollary is that some treaty changes would not be required to have referendum approval under the Crotty reasoning.

The signatories to the letter miss that distinction. For them to say that

any future changes to the EU Treaties will continue to have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member-state, which in Ireland's case is by referendum.

is simply wrong.

What is going on here?
 

aodh_rua

Active member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
187
Website
drtod.wordpress.com
Helium Three said:
aodh_rua as you rightly say we approve treaty changes by referendum IF they are changes that require approval by that method under Crotty. And the corollary is that some treaty changes would not be required to have referendum approval under the Crotty reasoning.

The eminent signatories to the letter miss that distinction. For them to say that

any future changes to the EU Treaties will continue to have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member-state, which in Ireland's case is by referendum.

is simply wrong.

What is going on here?
It's certainly in the spirit of what is required, and only a jesuitic interpretation would say otherwise.
 

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
It is either always a constitutional requirement to ratify by referendum or it is not. Both statements cannot be true.

If you call that 'jesuitic' you do the Jesuits an injustice.
 

The Red Rose of Cork

Active member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
100
In fairness its a long list of emminent lawyers who work in the field. I dont recall such a grouping emerging on behalf of interpretations from the NO campaigns
 

aodh_rua

Active member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
187
Website
drtod.wordpress.com
Helium Three said:
It is either always a constitutional requirement to ratify by referendum or it is not. Both statements cannot be true.

If you call that 'jesuitical' you do the Jesuits an injustice.
Not quite - we also have a political convention that treaties are put to referendum. I've heard one Euro-expert say that there is an argument to be made that Lisbon doesn't require a referendum under a strict constitutional interpretation. Therefore, as a matter of high probability, Treaties into the future will by law and convention be put to a public vote.
 

The Red Rose of Cork

Active member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
100
aodh_rua said:
[quote="Helium Three":1jyg50ut]It is either always a constitutional requirement to ratify by referendum or it is not. Both statements cannot be true.

If you call that 'jesuitical' you do the Jesuits an injustice.
Not quite - we also have a political convention that treaties are put to referendum. I've heard one Euro-expert say that there is an argument to be made that Lisbon doesn't require a referendum under a strict constitutional interpretation. Therefore, as a matter of high probability, Treaties into the future will by law and convention be put to a public vote.[/quote:1jyg50ut]

and virtually everyone agreed that Amsterdam did'nt strictly need one either but conventional wisdom and political imperatives take precedence
 

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
RROC is vainly attempting to muddy the clear waters as is aodh_rua.


The law is not in dispute. The letter is wrong.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
Well it was hacked down an awful lot by the editors, that may have played a part. In any case, it's simply not important enough a mistake to make an issue out of.
 

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
RedStar1916 said:
Well it was hacked down an awful lot by the editors, that may have played a part. In any case, it's simply not important enough a mistake to make an issue out of.
Let's think for a sec.

The Irish Times prints a letter on eve of polling that gets one of the key facts in the debate wrong - namely whether all EU treaty changes must by reason of our Constitution be put to a referendum.

The letter is signed by a former Foreign Minister or two, and others who should know better.

That sure is an issue.
 

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
You are welcome RS :cool:
 

badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
949
aodh_rua said:
It's certainly in the spirit of what is required, and only a jesuitic interpretation would say otherwise.
I think you will find the supreme court can be quite jesuitical
 

Helium Three

Active member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
186
Which misses the point. Like the letter. I wonder who drafted it?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top