Farmer loses court bid to prevent Lisbon vote

meglome

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/farmer-loses-court-bid-to-prevent-lisbon-vote-1893285.html
Tuesday September 22 2009

A Co Tipperary farmer has lost his appeal in the Supreme Court where he tried to prevent the Lisbon Treaty referendum from going ahead next month.

John Burke, from Duncummin House, Emly in Tipperary, lost his action in the High Court earlier this month when the judge said that it was for the people to express their view on October 2nd and that the court could not interfere.

Mr Burke argued that the Government intended putting the exact same proposal before the electorate again and that this was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court today dismissed his appeal, saying the grounds on which he based it were manifestly unfounded.

Mr Justice John L Murray said he was satisfied there was nothing in the Constitution inhibiting the holding of this referendum, even if the same proposal was to be put to the people.

"the Supreme Court today dismissed his appeal, saying the grounds on which he based it were manifestly unfounded"... says it all really.

Scofflaw

From the Irish Times on the same case:

Mr Justice McKechnie found the court could not prevent, in the circumstances of this case, the implementation of the legislative and constitutional procedures associated with the referendum.

Article 46 of the Constitution provides any provision may be amended in the manner provided for by that Article, those procedures had been put into effect and no illegality was suggested in that regard, he said. The court could not embark on a consideration of the Bill being put before the people.

In the past 50 years, other issues, including proportional representation, divorce, abortion and the Nice Treaty had been put before the people on more than one occasion, he noted.

While that history in itself “would not be absolutely conclusive”, it was “strongly indicative of a legal acceptance, if not a view, that the putting of an identical question more than once is permitted by the Constitution”.

The judge noted the State, while stating there were important changes of significance since the people last voted on the Lisbon Treaty, had said it was prepared to meet Mr Burke’s case on the basis the question being put on October 2nd was the same as that put in June 2008.

The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view.

Issues change and it would be “highly surprising” to read the Constitution as preventing people expressing a view on an issue previously voted upon. The Constitution contained no such provision.

The people are “well capable” of deciding an issue on a second occasion and it was for the people to express their view on October 2nd next, he concluded. That was democracy working at its “most fluid”.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Considering the reason the No side give against a second referendum: that the people have already spoken and their view is No; surely it should not matter whether a second referendum goes ahead as they will re-iterate the No.

So given that they have a fear it wont be No, they are conceding that people can change their minds and that multiple referenda should be allowed (if encouraged).

meglome

turgon wrote: »

Considering the reason the No side give against a second referendum: that the people have already spoken and their view is No; surely it should not matter whether a second referendum goes ahead as they will re-iterate the No.

So given that they have a fear it wont be No, they are conceding that people can change their minds and that multiple referenda should be allowed (if encouraged).

Yeah but people are being tricked into voting Yes. :rolleyes:

Kev_ps3

Fair play to the farmer;)

Euro_Kraut

So the referendum is going ahead! Amhran Nua will be disappointed.

meglome

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Fair play to the farmer;)

Taking a case on something that was never undemocratic and that he had no hope of winning?

jaffa20

meglome wrote: »

Taking a case on something that was never undemocratic and that he had no hope of winning?

No, for voicing his right to free speech and opinion in a democratic society on something that has already been rejected by that "democratic" society.

meglome

jaffa20 wrote: »

No, for voicing his right to free speech and opinion in a democratic society on something that has already been rejected by that "democratic" society.

And strangely the court found that "The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view."

28% of our electorate voted No the first time. I didn't vote as I didn't know anything about the treaty but now I want to vote Yes. I suppose my rights don't count as much as yours?

prinz

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Fair play to the farmer;)

And there was I thinking all the poor farmers were losing their shirts and were desperately preoccupied with earning a living. Obviously some farmers have a bit of money and time to spare.

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

And there was I thinking all the poor farmers were losing their shirts and were desperately preoccupied with earning a living. Obviously some farmers have a bit of money and time to spare.

Maybe he thinks Lisbon will have a negative effect on his livelihood, and that'd it'd be worth his while trying to do something about it rather than wait for the fall of the axe?

Hydrosylator

There's a lot to be said for a farmer's ability to change the course of democracy all the same...

sceptre

jaffa20 wrote: »

No, for voicing his right to free speech and opinion in a democratic society on something that has already been rejected by that "democratic" society.

Meh, if someone wants to "voice his right to free speech and opinion", better to write to a newspaper, start a newspaper or go out into the street with a placard. Taking a court case to the Supreme Court that had no legal merit, obvious to the most feebly-minded legal mind in the state, is just timewasting.

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

I suppose my rights don't count as much as yours?

Lets not make this personal.

meglome

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Maybe he thinks Lisbon will have a negative effect on his livelihood, and that'd it'd be worth his while trying to do something about it rather than wait for the fall of the axe?

But the EU are propping up our farmers, that's what's nutty about what he did. Apart from the obvious point that he couldn't win.

Irish farmers 71% reliant on subsidies.

bonkey wrote: »

Lets not make this personal.

It was a fair question bonkey. He seems to think it's undemocratic that I should be allowed to vote this time. So are my rights not the same as his?

evercloserunion

Poor lad must've been laughed out of the High Court.