SF High Court Challenge turned down

Scofflaw

THE HIGH COURT has refused an application by Pearse Doherty seeking a declaration that the Referendum Commission made a misleading statement, when it suggested that Ireland had already foregone its opportunity to veto the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism.

In an oral ruling, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan refused Doherty’s argument that the government still had the power to opt not to refer the necessary measures to the Dáil, despite having already agreed to them at European Council level.

http://www.thejournal.ie/high-court-ruling-pearse-doherty-referendum-commission-468476-May2012/?utm_source=shortlink

The judgement here is actually about whether the Referendum Commission was wrong in stating that to be the case, and the refusal is fundamentally a rejection of Sinn Fein's claim that they were wrong.

More broadly, this comes down, again, to the question of "good faith" at the negotiating table. The government, should it simply decide not to refer the necessary measures to the Dáil, could no longer be trusted in future negotiations by the other parties negotiating.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Do you think it will make any difference?

Hogan held that the argument involved aspects of domestic, international and EU law, so novel, that the CJEU would need to rule on it. As such there is no way SF can prove that the RC was wrong in its statement.

No doubt SF will now be out claiming that the High Court didn't find that the RC was right.

Bits_n_Bobs

Will SF have costs awarded against them?

carveone

Replacing diplomacy with brinkmanship is the path to isolation. Not for nothing are they called 'We Ourselves'

PopeBuckfastXVI

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No doubt SF will now be out claiming that the High Court didn't find that the RC was right.

Too late for that, but they will be hoping they muddied the waters sufficiently on the eve of the referendum.

seamus

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Too late for that, but they will be hoping they muddied the waters sufficiently on the eve of the referendum.

I think that was the aim, but it's failed now. They wanted the high court to rule that RefCom had given conflicting and confusing statements, then before there was a chance to discuss or debate it, the moratorium would kick in.

Instead it's blown up in their face and SF look like they've just been slinging mud.

Ozymandius2011

This ruling does not mean we cannot block the ESM at Oireachtas level. Judge Hogan refers to the govt’s obligations to the EU. However he does not rule on whether the Oireachtas can block ratification. So there remains uncertainty and it would be foolish for us to commit to something permanently without sufficient clarity. If I were SF I would emphasise the element of the ruling that is somewhat in their favour – that themodalities of ratification of the ESM are unclear and so it may still be possible for the oireachtas to block the ESM. The term “veto” and “block” are different for the purposes of this case. Judge Hogan appears to be taking a very narrow interpretation of the term “veto” as applying only to governments, while saying he cannot rule on the question of how the ESM Treaty is ratified or otherwise. So there remains uncertainty here.

oscarBravo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Too late for that, but they will be hoping they muddied the waters sufficiently on the eve of the referendum.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If I were SF I would emphasise the element of the ruling that is somewhat in their favour – that themodalities of ratification of the ESM are unclear and so it may still be possible for the oireachtas to block the ESM.

Looks like you've hit the nail on the head, your holiness.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

However he does not rule on whether the Oireachtas can block ratification. So there remains uncertainty...

Of course the Oireachtas can block ratification: it could vote not to ratify. But the government has an overall majority in the Oireachtas, so it's not going to block ratification.

I believe Scofflaw has used the word "Jesuitical" a number of times lately - I think that's a kind way of describing what you're doing here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all this arguing about the government being able to do something they absolutely will not do? Something that's related to a different treaty?

We have the worst f***** politicians...

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course the Oireachtas can block ratification: it could vote not to ratify. But the government has an overall majority in the Oireachtas, so it's not going to block ratification.

I believe Scofflaw has used the word "Jesuitical" a number of times lately - I think that's a kind way of describing what you're doing here.

but if we fail to ratify the F.C., it's hard to imagine even this govt would cut off its nose to spite its face by ratifying an exclusion of Ireland from the ESM fund for refusing ratification of the F.C. It would amount to economic and political self-flaggelation.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

but if we fail to ratify the F.C., it's hard to imagine even this govt would cut off its nose to spite its face by ratifying an exclusion of Ireland from the ESM fund for refusing ratification of the F.C. It would amount to economic and political self-flaggelation.

Your theory rests on the premise the the ESM has no benefit to Ireland beyond as a source of funding. This premise is not true, it's in Irelands interest for the ESM to be available to other countries which may struggle and impact our economy by default. Ireland will ratify that treaty, and rightly so, for the same reason as all the other countries who do not expect to borrow from it.

Your premise is false, your theory falls.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

but if we fail to ratify the F.C., it's hard to imagine even this govt would cut off its nose to spite its face by ratifying an exclusion of Ireland from the ESM fund for refusing ratification of the F.C. It would amount to economic and political self-flaggelation.

You're openly advocating that the government consciously renege on a treaty that it signed in good faith.

That's a disgraceful thing to advocate, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're openly advocating that the government consciously renege on a treaty that it signed in good faith.

That's a disgraceful thing to advocate, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This govt wouldn't know good faith if it poked them in the eye. Remember "Labour's way or Frankfurts way"? Remember restoring services to Sligo General Hospital? Plz.... :rolleyes: No govt has a right to sell Ireland down the river and then force the Irish people to go along with it based on "good faith".

Your theory rests on the premise the the ESM has no benefit to Ireland beyond as a source of funding. This premise is not true, it's in Irelands interest for the ESM to be available to other countries which may struggle and impact our economy by default. Ireland will ratify that treaty, and rightly so, for the same reason as all the other countries who do not expect to borrow from it.

Your premise is false, your theory falls.

That's debatable. It's arguable that the ESM and F.C. copperfasten austerity, thereby prolonging their respective recessions by deflation.

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're openly advocating that the government consciously renege on a treaty that it signed in good faith.

And based on what the judge said risk being taken to Court into the bargain since he didn't think it clear that they could do this.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're openly advocating that the government consciously renege on a treaty that it signed in good faith.

That's a disgraceful thing to advocate, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This govt wouldn't know good faith if it poked them in the eye. Remember "Labour's way or Frankfurts way"? Remember restoring services to Sligo General Hospital? Plz.... :rolleyes: No govt has a right to sell Ireland down the river and then force the Irish people to go along with it based on "good faith".

Your theory rests on the premise the the ESM has no benefit to Ireland beyond as a source of funding. This premise is not true, it's in Irelands interest for the ESM to be available to other countries which may struggle and impact our economy by default. Ireland will ratify that treaty, and rightly so, for the same reason as all the other countries who do not expect to borrow from it.

Your premise is false, your theory falls.

That's debatable. It's arguable that the ESM and F.C. copperfasten austerity, thereby prolonging their respective recessions by deflation.

ESM copperfastens austerity? If that's arguable I'd love to see you try! Next you'll be banging on about it being a ponzi scheme or whatever other nonsense you've read in the ULA rhetoric phrase book!

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Do you think it will make any difference?

Hogan held that the argument involved aspects of domestic, international and EU law, so novel, that the CJEU would need to rule on it. As such there is no way SF can prove that the RC was wrong in its statement.

No doubt SF will now be out claiming that the High Court didn't find that the RC was right.

Very much so - that argument is now being plugged in multiple places, in some cases using Ozzy's argument verbatim...

amused,
Scofflaw

View

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

but if we fail to ratify the F.C., it's hard to imagine even this govt would cut off its nose to spite its face by ratifying an exclusion of Ireland from the ESM fund for refusing ratification of the F.C.

No, it is very easy to imagine particularly since our government had a "veto" to stop a linkage between the ESM and Stability Treaty and choose NOT to use it already (i.e. the government agreed to sign the Treaties with the linkage being there when they had an absolute right to refuse to do so).

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It would amount to economic and political self-flaggelation.

Nope, it would amount to honoring our political commitment to "an ever closer union" as approved by the people in a referendum.

Ozymandius2011

View wrote: »

No, it is very easy to imagine particularly since our government had a "veto" to stop a linkage between the ESM and Stability Treaty and choose NOT to use it already (i.e. the government agreed to sign the Treaties with the linkage being there when they had an absolute right to refuse to do so).



Nope, it would amount to honoring our political commitment to "an ever closer union" as approved by the people in a referendum.

If that were true we wouldn't need a parliament. What you are advocating is essentially that the Oireachtas should be a rubber-stamp where international treaties are concerned. I reject that concept and regard it as elitist since it maximilises the power of governments at the expense of national parliaments, which are elected to represent their constituents - not simply their governments.

As for "ever closer union" that was contained in preambles, and they have less legal value than the body of the treaty. Michael Noonan acknowledged recently that there is precedent for the ECJ holding to this. Furthermore, the term "ever closer union" is open to interpretation e.g. ever closer cultural links, friendship, trade, etc.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If that were true we wouldn't need a parliament. What you are advocating is essentially that the Oireachtas should be a rubber-stamp where international treaties are concerned. I reject that concept and regard it as elitist since it maximilises the power of governments at the expense of national parliaments, which are elected to represent their constituents - not simply their governments.

I reject your argument and regard it as elitist since it maximises the power of a small anti EU minority within the Oireachtas at the expense of the vast majority, which are elected to represent their constituents.

Out of curiosity, how do you think governments come into power, if not through consent of the Dáil?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I reject your argument and regard it as elitist since it maximises the power of a small anti EU minority within the Oireachtas at the expense of the vast majority, which are elected to represent their constituents.

Out of curiosity, how do you think governments come into power, if not through consent of the Oireachtas?

True but they are like a board of directors in that they are accountable to their shareholders/voters. Getting into office is not and should be a blank cheque. In this respect the Constitution is the memorandum of association of Irish democracy, and as directors of the nation the politicians are bound by it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

True but they are like a board of directors in that they are accountable to their shareholders/voters. Getting into office is not and should be a blank cheque. In this respect the Constitution is the memorandum of association of Irish democracy, and as directors of the nation the politicians are bound by it.

Yes they are, and if you can show they are conflicting with the Constitution I'm sure Pearse Doherty would love a word with you.

So you accept that the Dáil elect the government, but feel that it's somehow repugnant that the Dáil, as a demos, might share the views of the government it elects, and support it when asked?

I don't know how you can square that circle to be honest.

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes they are, and if you can show they are conflicting with the Constitution I'm sure Pearse Doherty would love a word with you.

So you accept that the Dáil elect the government, but feel that it's somehow repugnant that the Dáil, as a demos, might share the views of the government it elects, and support it when asked?

I don't know how you can square that circle to be honest.

I don't accept that national parliaments should meekly accept a govt's every whim/decision/bill. The govt wanted the Irish Parliament to vote for the Act of Union in 1800 too. Are you saying that was right on grounds of "good faith"?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

Very much so - that argument is now being plugged in multiple places, in some cases using Ozzy's argument verbatim...

amused,
Scofflaw

Just saw this on the local news facebook page

By refusing to even consider the application, have the High Court breached its own Constitutional obligations to be impartial?

It seems now the High Court has joined the conspiracy...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I don't accept that national parliaments shouls meekly a govt's every whim/decision/bill. The govt wanted the Irish Parliament to vote for the Act of Union in 1800 too. Are you saying that was right on grounds of "good faith"?

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that the should, I'm saying that it's unsurprising when they do. They are the body that elects the government, even if you ignored parties, the chances are the government they elect will most likely mirror the wishes of the majority, and therefore policy made by the government will mirror those wishes, and therefore when that policy is put back to the body, the majority will vote in favour of that policy.

When you bring the party whip system in it's even more obvious that that is what will happen. I don't know how you propose to change that fundamental reality of the situation, aside from giving more power to anti-government deputies, but then that wouldn't be exactly democratic.

Like I said, I don't know how you can square the circle.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I don't accept that national parliaments should meekly accept a govt's every whim/decision/bill. The govt wanted the Irish Parliament to vote for the Act of Union in 1800 too. Are you saying that was right on grounds of "good faith"?

The parliament doesn't have to accept the government's view at all - nor, obviously, do the people at referendum, and neither the parliament nor the people are acting in bad faith by refusing. The government proposes, and the people, or parliament, disposes - the "proposes" bit is the good faith.

A government is obviously entitled to go back to the negotiating table with a parliamentary or referendum refusal and say "I tried, but..." without being accused of bad faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that the should, I'm saying that it's unsurprising when they do. They are the body that elects the government, even if you ignored parties, the chances are the government they elect will most likely mirror the wishes of the majority, and therefore policy made by the government will mirror those wishes, and therefore when that policy is put back to the body, the majority will vote in favour of that policy.

When you bring the party whip system in it's even more obvious that that is what will happen. I don't know how you propose to change that fundamental reality of the situation, aside from giving more power to anti-government deputies, but then that wouldn't be exactly democratic.

Like I said, I don't know how you can square the circle.

The problem with that argument is that the F.C. treaty never even existed at the last GE so the govt has no mandate to ratify, nor to claim to speak for public opinion on that treaty.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that the F.C. treaty never even existed at the last GE so the govt has no mandate to ratify, nor to claim to speak for public opinion on that treaty.

This again? By this logic if there was a horrific storm tomorrow (unforeseen at the time of the General Election) the Government would have no mandate to try and deal with the disaster.

We don't get to vote on every single decision a Government makes. We vote for candidates to the Dáil, and once we elect them they form a Government which is empowered by the Constitution to make decisions on our behalf.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that the F.C. treaty never even existed at the last GE so the govt has no mandate to ratify, nor to claim to speak for public opinion on that treaty.

They will have that mandate, one way or the other, on Friday morning.

seamus

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that the F.C. treaty never even existed at the last GE so the govt has no mandate to ratify, nor to claim to speak for public opinion on that treaty.

Well the point of the referendum is to obtain such a mandate to ratify...

As for public opinion, since the two parties in Government ran on a pro-EU platform then it stands to reason that the majority public opinion who voted them into power also have a pro-EU stance and as such the Government have a mandate from the public to negotiate EU treaties which are in the best interests of both Ireland and the EU.

So they do indeed have a mandate to speak for public opinion on the treaty because we gave it to them.

In fact, threads you yourself have posted have shown that a significant number of "No" voters are voting in protest at the Government rather than out of an anti-EU sentiment.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

This again? By this logic if there was a horrific storm tomorrow (unforeseen at the time of the General Election) the Government would have no mandate to try and deal with the disaster.

We don't get to vote on every single decision a Government makes. We vote for candidates to the Dáil, and once we elect them they form a Government which is empowered by the Constitution to make decisions on our behalf.

Wait - that means they had no mandate to deal with the snow! So that's what happened - they were constitutionally paralysed...

It's amazing how much people complained, really, considering they didn't give the government a mandate to deal with the snow in the first place.

apologies,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that the F.C. treaty never even existed at the last GE so the govt has no mandate to ratify, nor to claim to speak for public opinion on that treaty.

The government has a standing mandate to conclude international treaties. The FC treaty is going to referendum, by the way.

Edit: Also, you're claiming the Oireachtas should have a say, I merely pointed out that it's unsurprising when the body that elects a government chooses to support them in a particular decision when asked. Now you're talking about mandates which are nothing to do with anything.

RandomName2

The Government approved the treaty.

It would be grossly irrational and quite clearly in bad faith for it to not ratify.

On a semantic note the Oireachtas is not the government (despite the government's majority) and, from a theoretical point of view would have the capacity to veto.

However, as far as I can see, the former, rather than the latter, was Pierce Doherty's SF's argument.

RandomName2

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that the F.C. treaty never even existed at the last GE so the govt has no mandate to ratify, nor to claim to speak for public opinion on that treaty.

I believe that party promises during elections should be legally binding (and such promises should come with necessary health warnings in terms of unforeseen situations). Notwithstanding this, even I find it silly in the extreme to argue that a party should be hamstrung in an area where it has made no election promise whatsoever... :P

Elmo

Someone explain what the point of having a veto is exactly?

The Government with other governments agree on a course of action. All agree. It is at this point that a government must veto the course of action agreed. If none do then they go on to sign the agreement.

Then each government goes back to their parliaments and debate the agreement reached, so that they may ratify the agreement into law. One parliament refuses to ratify the treaty, the government of that country have to then go back to the other government and say sorry we can't ratify this agreement, even though they have signed the agreement.

The other governments can then continue with the agreement regardless of of non-ratifying countries.

It seem backwards. Surely a government will agree on foot of discussions and it is up the the ratification process in national parliaments to decided on weather the government should veto the agreement or approve the agreement.

RandomName2

Elmo wrote: »

The Government with other governments agree on a course of action. All agree. It is at this point that a government must veto the course of action agreed. If none do then they go on to sign the agreement.

Then each government goes back to their parliaments and debate the agreement reached, so that they may ratify the agreement into law. One parliament refuses to ratify the treaty, the government of that country have to then go back to the other government and say sorry we can't ratify this agreement, even though they have signed the agreement.

The other governments can then continue with the agreement regardless of of non-ratifying countries.

It seem backwards. Surely a government will agree on foot of discussions and it is up the the ratification process in national parliaments to decided on weather the government should veto the agreement or approve the agreement.

The idea has merit: but surely it would be somewhat clumsy (hold on a minute there, have to go back to my own Parliament) and not actually change much (as the government holds a majority, notwithstanding the possibility of a backbench/coalition partner revolt)

Scofflaw

Elmo wrote: »

Someone explain what the point of having a veto is exactly?

The Government with other governments agree on a course of action. All agree. It is at this point that a government must veto the course of action agreed. If none do then they go on to sign the agreement.

Then each government goes back to their parliaments and debate the agreement reached, so that they may ratify the agreement into law. One parliament refuses to ratify the treaty, the government of that country have to then go back to the other government and say sorry we can't ratify this agreement, even though they have signed the agreement.

The other governments can then continue with the agreement regardless of of non-ratifying countries.

It seem backwards. Surely a government will agree on foot of discussions and it is up the the ratification process in national parliaments to decided on weather the government should veto the agreement or approve the agreement.

Well, no. If the Treaty has a de jure veto where a specific set of countries are needed to allow the treaty to go ahead, then that veto is exercised not by the government at the negotiations, but at the ratification stage by whoever exercises that constitutional power.

In the case of EU treaties, for example, the Irish people usually directly exercise a veto, because the Irish people vote on whether the government can ratify the treaty. Their veto, in those circumstances, is the real veto.

At the negotiating table, every government always has a 'negotiating veto' on such treaties - they just refuse to sign the text. Until all governments involved have signed, there is no treaty to ratify.

In the case where a treaty can go ahead with a variable number of parties, and the failure to sign or ratify by any given country doesn't prevent the treaty going ahead, then there is no veto for the government at the negotiating table - the text can be agreed without them - and no veto at the ratification step either, because the treaty can come into force without their country ratifying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Occupy Dame street has jumped on the bandwagon claiming that SF were right and the high court wrong. They've "occupied" the referendum commission offices.

The Facebook page of the Occupy Dame Street movement said its protest was due to alleged errors in the commission's referendum treaty literature.

"The leaflet from this ‘neutral’ commission was delivered late so that people wouldn’t have a chance to read, research and understand it. The literature is also full of threats on what will happen if we vote no," a statement from the movement said.

These guys backing SF up make it a guarantee that there was no substance to the court case.

I haven't seen anything but facts from the referendum condition, certainly nothing with threats in it. Oh well.

Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

Occupy Dame street has jumped on the bandwagon claiming that SF were right and the high court wrong. They've "occupied" the referendum commission offices.

The Facebook page of the Occupy Dame Street movement said its protest was due to alleged errors in the commission's referendum treaty literature.

"The leaflet from this ‘neutral’ commission was delivered late so that people wouldn’t have a chance to read, research and understand it. The literature is also full of threats on what will happen if we vote no," a statement from the movement said.

These guys backing SF up make it a guarantee that there was no substance to the court case.

I haven't seen anything but facts from the referendum condition, certainly nothing with threats in it. Oh well.

They're rather carefully not claiming that, though. They're saying "the literature", which, unless they've specified it as RefComm literature elsewhere, can be taken to mean anything written about the referendum at all.

Possibly they are concerned about being sued by the RefComm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

Occupy Dame street has jumped on the bandwagon claiming that SF were right and the high court wrong. They've "occupied" the referendum commission offices.



These guys backing SF up make it a guarantee that there was no substance to the court case.

I haven't seen anything but facts from the referendum condition, certainly nothing with threats in it. Oh well.

But I thought the nice Occupy Dame Street people were just ordinary Joe Soaps and they were not serial protesters or SF/ULA lackeys. Are you sure it is the same people?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The government has a standing mandate to conclude international treaties. The FC treaty is going to referendum, by the way.

Edit: Also, you're claiming the Oireachtas should have a say, I merely pointed out that it's unsurprising when the body that elects a government chooses to support them in a particular decision when asked. Now you're talking about mandates which are nothing to do with anything.

The government concluded the F.C. and ESM Treaty in a context where it expected both to come into force. In that context, were the F.C. not to come into force, I think it is quite reasonable to suspect that the ratification of the ESM Treaty might not occur in this country too, since to do so would be to ratify cutting this country off from ESM funds.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The government concluded the F.C. and ESM Treaty in a context where it expected both to come into force. In that context, were the F.C. not to come into force, I think it is quite reasonable to suspect that the ratification of the ESM Treaty might not occur in this country too, since to do so would be to ratify cutting this country off from ESM funds.

If the government *wanted* to do that they could have tied both together in the referendum. They didn't, it's government policy to pass the ESM treaty and that is what they'll do. I don't see a contradiction here.

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If the government *wanted* to do that they could have tied both together in the referendum. They didn't, it's government policy to pass the ESM treaty and that is what they'll do. I don't see a contradiction here.

The 2 treaties are somewhat interdependent so it's logical one falls without the other in terms of Irish ratification. The ESM without the F.C. is like Hamlet without the Prince.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The government concluded the F.C. and ESM Treaty in a context where it expected both to come into force. In that context, were the F.C. not to come into force, I think it is quite reasonable to suspect that the ratification of the ESM Treaty might not occur in this country too, since to do so would be to ratify cutting this country off from ESM funds.

That ignores the fact that there is a benefit to Ireland of a stable Europe hence there is a benefit to ratifying the ESM treaty.

And remember, the only reason we'd be locked out of drawing on it would be that our electorate decided to take that leap in the dark by voting no.

The mental gymnastics required to follow your logic through is exhausting.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The 2 treaties are somewhat interdependent so it's logical one falls without the other in terms of Irish ratification. The ESM without the F.C. is like Hamlet without the Prince.

Not really, the ESM has merit for the Eurozone, which includes us, even if we don't sign up for the Treaty on SCG.

later12

It's quite a pity this didn't have more time to go on to the Supreme Court/ ECJ.

I think many people would be interested in a case where the state would face litigation on the grounds of its Parliament rejecting a Treaty to which a consul of the state had merely given his consent.

That, if true, would diminish the role of the domestic Parliaments considerably.

While I agree that SF's tactics here appear cynical, Hogan's opinion raises the question of the entire nature of European summits and the democratic accountability of European Treaties. As bad as the Irish whip system is, I would be more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of an agent of the state legally binding the Parliament to vote in a certain manner or face legal proceedings. I think the very idea of that should be addressed so as any confusion should be avoided.

Just one thing to say on the Referendum Commission. If a High Court judge i unable to come to any decision on whether the Ref Com's first statement on the Veto was legally valid, one would seriously have to wonder what business the Ref Com had in making such a statement in the first place.

Surely anything they say should be verifiable with evidence - if there is an absence of evidence, they should point that out and avoid assuming opinions that cannot be validated.

Ozymandius2011

seamus wrote: »

Well the point of the referendum is to obtain such a mandate to ratify...

As for public opinion, since the two parties in Government ran on a pro-EU platform then it stands to reason that the majority public opinion who voted them into power also have a pro-EU stance and as such the Government have a mandate from the public to negotiate EU treaties which are in the best interests of both Ireland and the EU.

So they do indeed have a mandate to speak for public opinion on the treaty because we gave it to them.

In fact, threads you yourself have posted have shown that a significant number of "No" voters are voting in protest at the Government rather than out of an anti-EU sentiment.

If the Treaty is bad for the EU, then voting no is also a pro-EU position.