constitution and referendums

wylo

Hi, could someone prove to me please that there will be future referendums regarding anything in our constitution if it were to be changed despite the fact that the treaty is self amending.
I have tried reading as much as I can but I guess I dont have the head for a full on legal document.
Its for my own piece of mind more than anything.

I just want to know what it says in our constitution now that gave us that situation where we have to vote on any changes. And I just want confirmation that that will still be there.

And also I would like to ask, if the treaty is self amending( I have read that bit in it myself, i dont mind that), then how would it be able to change if we still have that necessity for a referendum. Does "self amending" mean there will be no more new treaties and hence no change in our constitution? Apologies if this is confusing

im not trying to be lazy, I just dont know where to start regarding our constitution.

Scofflaw

wylo wrote: »

Hi, could someone prove to me please that there will be future referendums regarding anything in our constitution if it were to be changed despite the fact that the treaty is self amending.
I have tried reading as much as I can but I guess I dont have the head for a full on legal document.
Its for my own piece of mind more than anything.

I just want to know what it says in our constitution now that gave us that situation where we have to vote on any changes. And I just want confirmation that that will still be there.

And also I would like to ask, if the treaty is self amending( I have read that bit in it myself, i dont mind that), then how would it be able to change if we still have that necessity for a referendum. Does "self amending" mean there will be no more new treaties and hence no change in our constitution? Apologies if this is confusing

im not trying to be lazy, I just dont know where to start regarding our constitution.

In very brief, any future increase in competence for the EU cannot be done by the simplified revision procedure available in Lisbon - it would require a full Treaty, which, in turn, will require a referendum in Ireland.

Longer version - there's currently one way of changing what's in the treaties that govern the EU, which is to have an amending Treaty like Lisbon. Those more or less automatically trigger referendums here. Lisbon introduces a second method, called the 'simplified revision procedure', which allows for the making of certain specified and quite limited changes to the Treaties, assuming that every single government can agree on them - the things that can be changed are the EU's policy goals (for certain policies), and the method of voting (which can be moved from unanimity to QMV and/or codecision) - and that no parliament in Europe objects.

Outside those limited changes allowed under 'simplified revision', the situation in the future will be exactly the same as now. Any significant change in the EU will still require a referendum.

As to who decides what's 'significant' - our Constitution does. The reason we have referendums is because, in Bunreacht, sovereignty resides in the people of Ireland, and the government aren't allowed to sign up to things that impact our sovereignty without a referendum. Short of changing the fact that sovereignty resides in the people (which would require a major, and entirely obvious, change in Bunreacht - by referendum), nothing can change the fact that any time an Irish government believes that pooling a bit more sovereignty in the EU is a good thing, it has to ask the people of Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mrmoe

Scofflaw wrote: »

In very brief, any future increase in competence for the EU cannot be done by the simplified revision procedure available in Lisbon - it would require a full Treaty, which, in turn, will require a referendum in Ireland.

Longer version - there's currently one way of changing what's in the treaties that govern the EU, which is to have an amending Treaty like Lisbon. Those more or less automatically trigger referendums here. Lisbon introduces a second method, called the 'simplified revision procedure', which allows for the making of certain specified and quite limited changes to the Treaties, assuming that every single government can agree on them - the things that can be changed are the EU's policy goals (for certain policies), and the method of voting (which can be moved from unanimity to QMV and/or codecision) - and that no parliament in Europe objects.

Outside those limited changes allowed under 'simplified revision', the situation in the future will be exactly the same as now. Any significant change in the EU will still require a referendum.

As to who decides what's 'significant' - our Constitution does. The reason we have referendums is because, in Bunreacht, sovereignty resides in the people of Ireland, and the government aren't allowed to sign up to things that impact our sovereignty without a referendum. Short of changing the fact that sovereignty resides in the people (which would require a major, and entirely obvious, change in Bunreacht - by referendum), nothing can change the fact that any time an Irish government believes that pooling a bit more sovereignty in the EU is a good thing, it has to ask the people of Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you know who will have the final say?, for example if the government believes that it does not affect the constitution and so proceeds ahead, is there anyway to challenge this? Would you have to challenge it in the supreme court/European courts or would it be the president that has the final say? Could the government change something without the approval of the Dail? I find this section of the treaty the most confusing/ambiguous, just curious, ho hidden agenda I promise.:)

wylo

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason we have referendums is because, in Bunreacht, sovereignty resides in the people of Ireland, and the government aren't allowed to sign up to things that impact our sovereignty without a referendum. Short of changing the fact that sovereignty resides in the people (which would require a major, and entirely obvious, change in Bunreacht - by referendum), nothing can change the fact that any time an Irish government believes that pooling a bit more sovereignty in the EU is a good thing, it has to ask the people of Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cheers Scofflaw, if you have it off hand could you point to any particular article here that refers to how the government arent allowed to sign up to things that impact our sovereignty without a referendum.
Ill have a look through myself if you cant recall it.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

Its not just for myself, i want to prove it to other people as well.

edit: just found it cheers!

Scofflaw

wylo wrote: »

Cheers Scofflaw, if you have it off hand could you point to any particular article here that refers to how the government arent allowed to sign up to things that impact our sovereignty without a referendum.
Ill have a look through myself if you cant recall it.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

Its not just for myself, i want to prove it to other people as well.

edit: just found it cheers!

Ha! If only it were that easy. There is no provision in the Constitution which explicitly states that we must have a referendum in these circumstances. What there is, is Article 6.1:

Bunreacht wrote:

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

The really essential thing, though, is the interpretation of that by the Supreme Court, of which this is perhaps the fundamental point:

It is not within the competence of the Government, or indeed of the Oireachtas, to free themselves from the restraints of the Constitution or to transfer their powers to other bodies unless expressly empowered so to do by the Constitution. They are both creatures of the Constitution and are not empowered to act free from the restraints of the Constitution. To the judicial organ of government alone is given the power conclusively to decide if there has been a breach of constitutional restraints.

Source: Crotty vs An Taoiseach

In summary:

Crotty v. An Taoiseach was a legal action taken in 1987 by Raymond Crotty, historian and social scientist, against the Irish Government. The case made by Crotty was an appeal for the Supreme Court to dismiss the Government's ratification of the Single European Act on the grounds that it was 'repugnant' (contradictory) to the Irish constitution. The judgement made by the Court established that the provisions of Article 30, under Title III of the Single European Act were inconsistent with the Constitution, by virtue of it requiring the Government to consult, and take into account the opinions of other member states, when formulating foreign policy. The power of the Government to decide foreign policy was deemed, by Article 6 of the Constitution, to be conferred, in whole, by the people of Ireland, and that any entitlement of foreign states to provide input into Irish foreign policy would require the assent of the Irish people. The majority opinion of this judgement was written by Justice Walsh, with Justices Hederman and Henchy delivering a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Finlay dissented, and was joined by Justice Griffin.

While the action taken by Crotty was made on a number of grounds, the only grounds on which the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court were those relating to cooperation in the field of foreign policy. In particular, it was the opinion of the Court that all other aspects of the treaty were consistent with the Constitution, including the expansion of Qualified Majority Voting to new policy areas, and the creation of the European Court of First Instance.

The verdict led to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, and every significant change to European Union treaties made since has been ratified in Ireland by referendum, each in the form of an amendment to the Constitution.

In brief, though, Article 6.1 is the main Article in Bunreacht which is relevant.

wylo

ok cheers, thats enough for me, I was also happy to find article 46, if this isnt being removed I have no issues

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
Article 46
1. Any provision of this Constitution may be amended, whether by way of variation, addition, or repeal, in the manner provided by this Article.
2. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.
3. Every such Bill shall be expressed to be "An Act to amend the Constitution".
4. A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal.
5. A Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution shall be signed by the President forthwith upon his being satisfied that the provisions of this Article have been complied with in respect thereof and that such proposal has been duly approved by the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law.

marco_polo

Mrmoe wrote: »

Do you know who will have the final say?, for example if the government believes that it does not affect the constitution and so proceeds ahead, is there anyway to challenge this? Would you have to challenge it in the supreme court/European courts or would it be the president that has the final say? Could the government change something without the approval of the Dail? I find this section of the treaty the most confusing/ambiguous, just curious, ho hidden agenda I promise.:)

Open to correction on this point but I believe that any ratification would require a corrosponding piece of legislation to be passed through the Oireachtas, in order to do so. Like any other piece of legislation this could be challenged by any citizen in the Supreme Court or referred there by the President before signing, to test its constitutionality.