Lisbon Treaty - constitutional amendments?

SeanW

I'm leaning towards a Yes vote about Lisbon but I have some reservations.

Chief among them is the "Twenty-Eight Amendment Of the Constitution Bill 2008" and the proposal to insert into Article 29, Section 4, as subsection 11, the following text:

"No provision of this constitution invalidates laws endacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membershi of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State."

I read that proposed amendment quite simply as asserting:
"Our constitution becomes subservient to a bunch of EU bodies in whole and without recourse or exception"

Questions:

1) How is this proposed amendment a good thing?
2) Is it necessary? Can the Lisbon treaty not go into force unless this amendment is made?

IrishKnight

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN

Article 29, 4. 10°

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

We have being working fine for the past few years...

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng)Nov2004.htm

The amendment adds a new 10°, a few renumbering and a word or two here and there.

The amendment is needed for any EU treaty...(I think)

Scofflaw

As IrishKnight says. That's a new version of the existing amendment we put in in 1973.

Existing amendment:

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

New amendment:

"No provision of this constitution invalidates laws endacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State."

The reason for the change is that the Treaty does away with the European Communities, so the reference to 'the Communities' in the existing amendment needs to be taken out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

I read that proposed amendment quite simply as asserting:
"Our constitution becomes subservient to a bunch of EU bodies in whole and without recourse or exception"

Questions:

1) How is this proposed amendment a good thing?
2) Is it necessary? Can the Lisbon treaty not go into force unless this amendment is made?

I'm not a legal person, but from my reading:

1) It only applies to areas where the EU has full competency, not areas where there is joint or no competency. So for instance, this amendment would have no force with respect to the EU setting tax law, since the EU doesn't have competency in this regard with Ireland and any such law would have to be adopted by our Government etc, similar to any tax law. Ditto with abortion, as per articles in EU law, EU law cannot overrule our constitution on the right to life issue of the unborn. Which leads to 2)

2) Yes. If the EU is going to have competencies, it needs to be able to enforce them. There's little point in granting a competency to the EU that it can't enforce. If we're going to give the EU competency on something, this amendment makes sense, it means that where we choose to give primacy to EU law that we give the EU primacy in law.

sink

nesf wrote: »

1) It only applies to areas where the EU has full competency, not areas where there is joint or no competency. So for instance, this amendment would have no force with respect to the EU setting tax law, since the EU doesn't have competency in this regard with Ireland and any such law would have to be adopted by our Government etc, similar to any tax law. Ditto with abortion, as per articles in EU law, EU law cannot overrule our constitution on the right to life issue of the unborn. Which leads to 2)

I would disagree here. I too am no legal expert but my understanding is that in areas of joint competency whether it be through the ordinary legislative or special legislative procedure, or whether it is taking through unanimous decision or QMV , any legislation that satisfies the requirements for ratification are legally binding to all member states and supersede their constitutions. However it must be remembered that if it conflicts with our constitution it will require a referendum in this country to pass, if it does not pass a referendum here it cannot become law. We can opt-out of certain areas and other states can use the enhanced co-operation procedures to go on without us.

nesf

sink wrote: »

I would disagree here. I too am no legal expert but my understanding is that in areas of joint competency whether it be through the ordinary legislative or special legislative procedure, or whether it is taking through unanimous decision or QMV , any legislation that satisfies the requirements for ratification are legally binding to all member states and supersede their constitutions. However it must be remembered that if it conflicts with our constitution it will require a referendum in this country to pass, if it does not pass a referendum here it cannot become law. We can opt-out of certain areas and other states can use the enhanced co-operation procedures to go on without us.

*shrugs*

SeanW

So the provision was, in essence already there and only needs some housekeeping.

Fair enough. That's all I needed to know.