Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Treaty hits a snag in Germany
Options
-
30-06-2009 9:49am#1The German supreme court has just found that the Lisbon treaty is not unconstitutional. However, there is some critism about the power of the German parliament under the treaty. It appears now that the German president will not be signing it off until this issue is addressed.0
Comments
-
sparklepants wrote: »The German supreme court has just found that the Lisbon treaty is not unconstitutional. However, there is some critism about the power of the German parliament under the treaty. It appears now that the German president will not be signing it off until this issue is addressed.
This is the judgement (in English). The court has ruled that there are no issues with the Treaty itself, but that the German Parliament must be given greater oversight of the Ministers voting on the Council. Would that our courts would require the same.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
According to this report in Der Spiegel (and my pidgin German!) the Bundestag will have made the necessary legislative changes to allow ratification by 8 September next, so it appears this decision of the German courts should not affect the referendum timetable here.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,633389,00.html0 -
This is the judgement (in English). The court has ruled that there are no issues with the Treaty itself, but that the German Parliament must be given greater oversight of the Ministers voting on the Council. Would that our courts would require the same.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Agreed. Indeed reading the BVG's judgment, it is hard not to compare it with the Crotty judgment from the Supreme Court. The net effect of that (Crotty) judgment meant Article 29.4.2 (of BnaE) has essentially been ignored ever since and the the general populace have been left to play the role of Constitutional judges as they try to figure out what, if indeed any, articles in the various EU amending treaties have actual constitutional implications. And all without input or guidance from the Supreme Court on the matter...0 -
Looks as if the German Constitutional Court have just killed off Lisbon - despite having actually approved it. Lisbon has just run out of time with the UK election as no doubt having enacted legislation in line with Constitutional Court's judgement someone is going to come along and argue to the Court that it does not meet their requirements by which time the Conservatives will have come to power and withdrawn their instruments of ratification pending a UK referendum!0
-
Looks as if the German Constitutional Court have just killed off Lisbon - despite having actually approved it. Lisbon has just run out of time with the UK election as no doubt having enacted legislation in line with Constitutional Court's judgement someone is going to come along and argue to the Court that it does not meet their requirements by which time the Conservatives will have come to power and withdrawn their instruments of ratification pending a UK referendum!
I'd doubt that. You could have legislation in place by late September. Court Challenge in October (and it is has to happen promptly otherwise Germany completes ratification). Ruling in, let's say, early December and ratification completed by mid-December.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to this report in Der Spiegel (and my pidgin German!) the Bundestag will have made the necessary legislative changes to allow ratification by 8 September next, so it appears this decision of the German courts should not affect the referendum timetable here.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,633389,00.html
English language version of this article here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,633414,00.html
It does appear that as I thought, the legal changes needed in Germany to ratify Lisbon will be passed by September 8:
The German parliament is to gather for a special sitting on August 26 for a first reading of the new law, a spokesperson for the Social Democrats parliamentary party announced on Tuesday. The vote in the lower house would then take place on Sept. 8, just weeks before Germany's national election.0 -
The net effect of that (Crotty) judgment meant Article 29.4.2 (of BnaE) has essentially been ignored ever since and the the general populace have been left to play the role of Constitutional judges as they try to figure out what, if indeed any, articles in the various EU amending treaties have actual constitutional implications. And all without input or guidance from the Supreme Court on the matter...
Nicely put View. Some of you guys have darn good command of the english language
Yes, there were several articles in the Irish Times and others last year that wanted this exact route - let the Supreme Court decide on the constitutionality of the treaty instead of throwing it at the rest of us. Government didn't seem to learn anything from Nice unfortunately. 0 -
Imho, this provides more ammunition for the no side ahead of Lisbon II. The powers of national parliaments under Lisbon are woefully insufficient and certainly do not go far enough in counterbalancing the drift of sovereignty to Brussels. The powers of national parliaments under the Lisbon Treaty are purely consultative. Yes - they will get 8 weeks notice of new EU legislation. And credit where it's due - that is better than it not being the case. But in terms of an actual power of national parliaments - even as a group - to in -any way change or block the passage of EU legislation - such a power does not exist in the Treaty. From the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments and the Provisions on Democratic Principles of the TEU as amended by Lisbon.TITLE I
INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
Article 1
Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications) shall be forwarded directly by the Commission to national Parliaments upon publication. The Commission shall also forward the annual legislative programme as well as any other instrument of legislative planning or policy to national Parliaments, at the same time as to the European Parliament and the Council.
Article 2
Draft legislative acts sent to the European Parliament and to the Council shall be forwarded to national Parliaments.
For the purposes of this Protocol, ‘draft legislative acts’ shall mean proposals from the Commission, initiatives from a group of Member States, initiatives from the European Parliament, requests from the Court of Justice, recommendations from the European Central Bank and requests from the European Investment Bank for the adoption of a legislative act.
Draft legislative acts originating from the Commission shall be forwarded to national Parliaments directly by the Commission, at the same time as to the European Parliament and the Council.
Draft legislative acts originating from the European Parliament shall be forwarded to national Parliaments directly by the European Parliament.
Draft legislative acts originating from a group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank shall be forwarded to national Parliaments by the Council.
Article 3
National Parliaments may send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion on whether a draft legislative act complies with the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
If the draft legislative act originates from a group of Member States, the President of the Council shall forward the reasoned opinion or opinions to the governments of those Member States.
If the draft legislative act originates from the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, the President of the Council shall forward the reasoned opinion or opinions to the institution or body concerned.
Article 4
An eight-week period shall elapse between a draft legislative act being made available to national Parliaments in the official languages of the Union and the date when it is placed on a provisional agenda for the Council for its adoption or for adoption of a position under a legislative procedure. Exceptions shall be possible in cases of urgency, the reasons for which shall be stated in the act or position of the Council. Save in urgent cases for which due reasons have been given, no agreement may be reached on a draft legislative act during those eight weeks. Save in urgent cases for which due reasons have been given, a ten-day period shall elapse between the placing of a draft legislative act on the provisional agenda for the Council and the adoption of a position.
Article 5
The agendas for and the outcome of meetings of the Council, including the minutes of meetings where the Council is deliberating on draft legislative acts, shall be forwarded directly to national Parliaments, at the same time as to Member States' governments.
Article 6
When the European Council intends to make use of the first or second subparagraphs of Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union, national Parliaments shall be informed of the initiative of the European Council at least six months before any decision is adopted.
Article 7
The Court of Auditors shall forward its annual report to national Parliaments, for information, at the same time as to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Article 8
Where the national Parliamentary system is not unicameral, Articles 1 to 7 shall apply to the component chambers.
TITLE II
INTERPARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION
Article 9
The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall together determine the organisation and promotion of effective and regular interparliamentary cooperation within the Union.
Article 10
A conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs may submit any contribution it deems appropriate for the attention of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. That conference shall in addition promote the exchange of information and best practice between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, including their special committees. It may also organise interparliamentary conferences on specific topics, in particular to debate matters of common foreign and security policy, including common security and defence policy. Contributions from the conference shall not bind national Parliaments and shall not prejudge their positions.Article 8
In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.
Article 8a
1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.
2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.
3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.
4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.
Article 8b
1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.
2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.
3. The Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent.
4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Article 8c
National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:
(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft European legislative acts forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;
(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 64 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 69k and 69h of that Treaty;
(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 33 of this Treaty;
(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 34 of this Treaty;
(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union0 -
It might have been more useful to include Articles 6 & 7 of the Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality:Article 6
Any national Parliament or any chamber of a national Parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, in the official languages of the Union, send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. It will be for each national Parliament or each chamber of a national Parliament to consult, where appropriate, regional parliaments with legislative powers.
If the draft legislative act originates from a group of Member States, the President of the Council shall forward the opinion to the governments of those Member States. If the draft legislative act originates from the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, the President of the Council shall forward the opinion to the institution or body concerned.
Article 7
1. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and, where appropriate, the group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, if the draft legislative act originates from them, shall take account of the reasoned opinions issued by national Parliaments or by a chamber of a national Parliament. Each national Parliament shall have two votes, shared out on the basis of the national Parliamentary system. In the case of a bicameral Parliamentary system, each of the two chambers shall have one vote.
2. Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the draft must be reviewed. This threshold shall be a quarter in the case of a draft legislative act submitted on the basis of Article 76 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the area of freedom, security and justice. After such review, the Commission or, where appropriate, the group of Member States, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, if the draft legislative act originates from them, may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision.
3. Furthermore, under the ordinary legislative procedure, where reasoned opinions on the noncompliance of a proposal for a legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least a simple majority of the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the proposal must be reviewed. After such review, the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal.
If it chooses to maintain the proposal, the Commission will have, in a reasoned opinion, to justify why it considers that the proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. This reasoned opinion, as well as the reasoned opinions of the national Parliaments, will have to be submitted to the Union legislator, for consideration in the procedure:
(a) before concluding the first reading, the legislator (the European Parliament and the Council) shall consider whether the legislative proposal is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, taking particular account of the reasons expressed and shared by the majority of national Parliaments as well as the reasoned opinion of the Commission;
(b) if, by a majority of 55 % of the members of the Council or a majority of the votes cast in the European Parliament, the legislator is of the opinion that the proposal is not compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, the legislative proposal shall not be given further consideration.
So, while the national parliaments cannot block legislation by themselves, they can fatally weaken it, making it easy for the European Parliament to kill the legislation off. Given that most MEPs are from the mainstream political parties, and take direction from them, if a majority of parliaments are going to vote against it, getting a majority of MEPs shouldn't be too difficult.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
But at the end of the day, national parliaments cannot block EU legislation. In that context, the German Constitution court has a point. And it weakens the case for Lisbon in terms of the claims that national parliaments get powers under Lisbon. It essentially amounts to a power to petition, and a non-binding one at that.0
-
Advertisement
-
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »But at the end of the day, national parliaments cannot block EU legislation. In that context, the German Constitution court has a point. And it weakens the case for Lisbon in terms of the claims that national parliaments get powers under Lisbon. It essentially amounts to a power to petition, and a non-binding one at that.
National parliaments currently have no such powers at all, though. If Lisbon isn't what you would view as perfect in that regard, I wouldn't disagree, but it seems rather silly to put it forward as if it were some kind of negative for Lisbon. It's a positive thing, which could go further. Indeed, it probably will go further, since it's very much the first time something like this has been put forward - the mechanism wasn't in the European Constitution.
The German constitutional point, though, is entirely different. The Germans aren't seeking to control EU legislation, but to control their own Ministers (under certain particular circumstances). I would certainly agree we could do with such a mechanism, but thus far there's little evidence that the Dáil forms any sort of check on the government at all. Requiring that the government put their proposed position before the Dáil is also entirely a national issue.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
What makes it a negative is that it has to be seen in the context of the wider transfer of power from national parliaments to Brussels. The national veto is being eliminated in 50 areas, and while 16 of them are subject to the Irish optin/out under the Protocol on the Area of Justice and Freedom with respect to the UK and Ireland, the text of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2008 allowed the govt to surrender that Protocol. If that happens, then legislation on JHA with respect to Ireland will be passed via Qualified Majority Voting. This covers very sensitive areas including policing, judicial cooperation, border controls and asylum and immigration. Then there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is enshrined into EU law with the value as the Treaties (Article 6 TEU). In that context, it is clear that in the contest for influence over EU legislation, that more power is leaving the parliaments of member states than is returning to it. My point in raising these other issues is not to go off-topic, but rather to put the role of national parliaments in Lisbon in a wider context.0
-
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »What makes it a negative is that it has to be seen in the context of the wider transfer of power from national parliaments to Brussels. The national veto is being eliminated in 50 areas, and while 16 of them are subject to the Irish optin/out under the Protocol on the Area of Justice and Freedom with respect to the UK and Ireland, the text of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2008 allowed the govt to surrender that Protocol. If that happens, then legislation on JHA with respect to Ireland will be passed via Qualified Majority Voting. This covers very sensitive areas including policing, judicial cooperation, border controls and asylum and immigration. Then there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is enshrined into EU law with the value as the Treaties (Article 6 TEU). In that context, it is clear that in the contest for influence over EU legislation, that more power is leaving the parliaments of member states than is returning to it. My point in raising these other issues is not to go off-topic, but rather to put the role of national parliaments in Lisbon in a wider context.
In fact, you're simply pointing out some negatives that for you outweigh the positives. No need for the verbal dress clothes - we all understand that people think there are both good things and bad things in Lisbon, and that one votes on the balance. Those particular negatives aren't relevant to this thread though.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Let me get this straight, the German Parliament expresses reservations and the Lisbon Treaty is in jeopardy, the people of Ireland vote a definite NO an we are told to vote again? Jesus wept.0
-
-
Agreed. Indeed reading the BVG's judgment, it is hard not to compare it with the Crotty judgment from the Supreme Court. The net effect of that (Crotty) judgment meant Article 29.4.2 (of BnaE) has essentially been ignored ever since and the the general populace have been left to play the role of Constitutional judges as they try to figure out what, if indeed any, articles in the various EU amending treaties have actual constitutional implications. And all without input or guidance from the Supreme Court on the matter...
Indeed and it leads to posts like this:Let me get this straight, the German Parliament expresses reservations and the Lisbon Treaty is in jeopardy, the people of Ireland vote a definite NO an we are told to vote again? Jesus wept.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Indeed and it leads to posts like this:
Would it be possible to have Crotty overturned? Or is that it forever? Can we not have a referendum to overturn it, and grant the Government the power to ratify EU treaties where competencies are increased?
Can the judgement even be revisited, does it apply to all EU treaties or just the 1987 one?0 -
Pray explain it to us ignorant voters.0
-
Pray explain it to us ignorant voters.
If you cast your mind back all of a year, you might recall that when Ireland voted No, the newspaper headlines were a lot more hysterical, all about the EU being derailed, and so forth. At this stage, the No side is clutching at straws, desperately hoping that the UK will pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
As to us voting again, that's been thrashed out on multiple threads, and will not be gone into here, on pain of forfeit.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Pray explain it to us ignorant voters.
Let me get this straight, the German Parliament Supreme Court expresses reservations about the amount of oversight by the German parliament of German Ministers acting within the EU on behalf of Germany and some random poster on boards thinks that in his opinion the Lisbon Treaty is in jeopardy, the people of Ireland vote a definite NO an we are told to vote again on Lisbon, and for the first time on the additional guarantees, by Fianna Fail, who have no jurisdiction in Germany? Jesus wept.0 -
It will delay the ratification of the Treaty in Germany, and when the legislation on the role of the German parliament goes through, it's likely to spark more litigation in the Constitutional Court on the question of whether it goes far enough to addressing the latter's reservations. As an opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, it is my hope that the aggregate delay to proceedings in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic will be sufficient to allow David Cameron to hammer the final nail in the coffin of this Treaty, irrespective of how we voted in this country.Let me get this straight, the German Parliament expresses reservations and the Lisbon Treaty is in jeopardy, the people of Ireland vote a definite NO an we are told to vote again? Jesus wept.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »It will delay the ratification of the Treaty in Germany, and when the legislation on the role of the German parliament goes through, it's likely to spark more litigation in the Constitutional Court on the question of whether it goes far enough to addressing the latter's reservations. As an opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, it is my hope that the aggregate delay to proceedings in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic will be sufficient to allow David Cameron to hammer the final nail in the coffin of this Treaty, irrespective of how we voted in this country.
There's a very large amount of baseless and wildly optimistic supposition in your post, I fear, as well as a really rather touching faith in the Tories. Cameron has been extremely careful to make sure his promise to hold a referendum only applies in circumstances where the Treaty is already dead.
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
Why? Is it not fair to let the people decide about their own future as regards to the future of this country?PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »Would it be possible to have Crotty overturned? Or is that it forever? Can we not have a referendum to overturn it, and grant the Government the power to ratify EU treaties where competencies are increased?
Can the judgement even be revisited, does it apply to all EU treaties or just the 1987 one?0 -
Purple Gorilla wrote: »Why? Is it not fair to let the people decide about their own future as regards to the future of this country?
I'm really asking in a legal context, not a moral one.
AFAIK Crotty only applies to the components of EU Treaties affecting external relations policy, where the EU competency is increased, so the vast majority of Lisbon; QMV changes, numbers of Commissioners etc. aren't actually subject to the Crotty judgement.
It might be an interesting legal exercise to take the government to court to prevent them holding a referendum, given that Crotty was just one guy acting alone in the first place, maybe it would work the other way too?
I'm wondering if it's even possible to challenge that judgement, legally, or at least have it restated on a treaty by treaty basis.
As above, it certainly seems like the government have completely abdicated their responsibility, by just chucking these things wholesale at the populace, without even checking that they have to.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »I'm really asking in a legal context, not a moral one.
AFAIK Crotty only applies to the components of EU Treaties affecting external relations policy, where the EU competency is increased, so the vast majority of Lisbon; QMV changes, numbers of Commissioners etc. aren't actually subject to the Crotty judgement.
It might be an interesting legal exercise to take the government to court to prevent them holding a referendum, given that Crotty was just one guy acting alone in the first place, maybe it would work the other way too?
I'm wondering if it's even possible to challenge that judgement, legally, or at least have it restated on a treaty by treaty basis.
Presumably so - you'd need another Crotty, that's all.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Don't be delusional, there are some people to whom every drop of rain that falls from the sky kills off Lisbon or destroys the Yes side's credibility or whatever.Looks as if the German Constitutional Court have just killed off Lisbon - despite having actually approved it. Lisbon has just run out of time with the UK election as no doubt having enacted legislation in line with Constitutional Court's judgement someone is going to come along and argue to the Court that it does not meet their requirements by which time the Conservatives will have come to power and withdrawn their instruments of ratification pending a UK referendum!
The idea that you can single-handedly defeat any legislation you don't like by holding it up in the courts forever sounds appealing but I'm sure someone's thought of it before, probably a Euroskeptic too. People do not build politico-legal systems where the legislative process can be not only frustrated but utterly destroyed by the judiciary.0 -
evercloserunion wrote: »Don't be delusional, there are some people to whom every drop of rain that falls from the sky kills off Lisbon or destroys the Yes side's credibility or whatever.
The idea that you can single-handedly defeat any legislation you don't like by holding it up in the courts forever sounds appealing but I'm sure someone's thought of it before, probably a Euroskeptic too. People do not build politico-legal systems where the legislative process can be not only frustrated but utterly destroyed by the judiciary.
(Big generalisation) They do seem to actively seek offense which doesn't help reasoned debate.(/Big generalisation)Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
We tend to take Crotty for granted but interestingly, when it came out many Constitutional law experts were not optimistic about the case. Gerard Hogan, one of the most respected Constitutional law experts in the country, wrote that one should take a "less than sanguine" view of its viability and also, IIRC, wrote an article condemning the decision.PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »I'm really asking in a legal context, not a moral one.
AFAIK Crotty only applies to the components of EU Treaties affecting external relations policy, where the EU competency is increased, so the vast majority of Lisbon; QMV changes, numbers of Commissioners etc. aren't actually subject to the Crotty judgement.
It might be an interesting legal exercise to take the government to court to prevent them holding a referendum, given that Crotty was just one guy acting alone in the first place, maybe it would work the other way too?
I'm wondering if it's even possible to challenge that judgement, legally, or at least have it restated on a treaty by treaty basis.
As above, it certainly seems like the government have completely abdicated their responsibility, by just chucking these things wholesale at the populace, without even checking that they have to.
I personally doubt a legal challenge to prevent a referendum would fly though. The courts do *not* take kindly to attempts to prevent the people having a say on something. The way they see it, and it makes sense I suppose, is that you should err on the side of democracy. The people don't really lose anything, nor are the fundamental principles of our society violated, if the thing goes to referendum even when it doesn't have to. The bottom line is that the government is holding a referendum to amend the Constitution and it is doing so in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Constitution. B na hE says nothing about the content of the amendment and the courts tend to stay out of reviewing the content in any case.
If the Supreme Court were to review the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty, it would have to be in a case where the government tried to ratify it without a referendum and it was challenged, but that is unlikely.
Also, AFAIK Crotty does not only apply to areas of foreign policy; that was just the live issue in the Crotty case where the executive would be fettering its Constitutional power to make foreign policy for the State. Basically any amendment which changes the EU so that it would not have been the kind of EU (as opposed to the exact EU down to every detail) that voters would have had in mind in previous referendums. That's a VERY generalized summary of the case but you get the idea. This includes the giving over of significant competences to the EU. TBH I can't really see what is so unconstitutional about the Lisbon Treaty but I also can't see the government trying to ratify without a referendum, and I can't see any challenge to a referendum working either.
On your question of whether Crotty can be revisited or overruled by the courts, the answer is yes. In 1965 the Supreme Court declared that it had the power to overrule its own previous decisions.0
Advertisement