Independent Media Centre Ireland     http://www.indymedia.ie

Thomas Pringle Q&A: ESM Constitutional Challenge

category national | eu | news report author Wednesday April 18, 2012 13:17author by O.O'C. - National Platform EU Research & Information Centreauthor phone 01-8305792

Legal Proceedings have taken by Thomas Pringle TD, member of the Dáil for the Donegal South-West constituency, challenging the Irish Government on fundamental aspects of a far-reaching amendment to the EU treaties. Both the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaty are under consideration.

Q: Who are the solicitors acting for you on this case?

A: Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey, 54 North Main Street, Cork
_____

Q: What aspect specifically are you challenging?

A: An amendment to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the approval of ESM treaty without a referendum in Ireland.
____

Q: You welcomed the Referendum, are you no doing a U-turn?

A: I, Thomas Pringle, welcomed on the public record the Government’s decision to submit the issue of the Fiscal Treaty to the people by way of referendum. BUT I have grave concerns, due to the intense pressures on Government at this time, that the need to put the amendment to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and the ESM Treaty to a referendum may not yet have been fully scrutinised.

In order to assist in that scrutiny, I have asked for legal advice to set out some particular points for consideration.
_____

Q: What are your concerns?

A: That there are serious legal difficulties with regard to the proposed amendment to Article 136 TFEU both at the level of EU treaty law and at the level of Irish Constitutional law.



_________

Q: What are you suggesting by way of Referendum? Or an Alternative course of action?

A: The decision to refer the SCG Treaty ratification question to the Irish people by way of referendum was undoubtedly correct.

The SCG Treaty is one of two interdependent treaties.

The second treaty with which it is so intertwined must also be submitted to referendum.

Because of the EU Treaty issues and the Constitutional issues raised above, the Government is not in our view entitled to seek to approve the proposed amendment to Article 136 as it stands. Those difficulties require to be addressed further at EU level at least initially.

Recognising that these issues are exceptionally complex and exceptionally grave matters and the pressures from all sides is acknowledged as being unrelenting and intense, nonetheless these pressures must not be permitted to override the requirements of Bunreacht Na hÉireann as they have been interpreted particularly by the Supreme Court in Crotty v An Taoiseach.

______

Q: Why are you seeking legal advice in respect to Constitutional limits?

A: The Constitutional limits on the type of international agreements that may be entered into by the Government on behalf of the State without the approval of the people by way of referendum are found in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987]

They are encapsulated in this comment by Hederman J: “The State's organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution. They are the guardians of these powers - not the disposers of them.”

Walsh J addressed the central issue in this part of the case as follows –

"... 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."

As Walsh J observed "To the judicial organ of Government alone is given the power conclusively to decide if there has been a breach of constitutional restraints."

It is clear that the ESM Treaty could only be ratified by Ireland if ratification first secures the approval of the people by way of referendum.

______


______

Q: This is coming at a time when the date for the referendum has been set? Why take this case now?

A: In my opinion "The Devil is in the Detail”

The ESM Treaty breaches both the inclusivity requirement of the amendment to Article 136 to include all eurozone members and the requirement that the Stability Mechanism only be activated if "indispensible to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole".

Taking this approach further difficulty immediately becomes apparent, which is the effect on Article 125 TFEU, commonly called the “no bailout” clause.

Article 125 states that “The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State.”

The amendment to Article 136 TFEU is intended to circumvent the provisions of Article 125.

The Article 136 amendment purports to amend the TFEU so as to permit the creation of a bailout fund through the establishment of a Stability Mechanism by way of a new institution set up under a new treaty which is not an EU treaty.

It is internally contradictory to use the proposed amendment to the TFEU to that end, so as to evade the clear terms of the existing Treaty Article 125.

By setting up the ESM as a new independent agency outside the EU system, the European Union is weakened not strengthened.

This is a breach of EU law obligations and it is inconsistent with the terms of Article 29.4.4 of the Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht Na hÉireann). By virtue of that Article, Ireland as a member State of the Union having an embedded Constitutional commitment to that Union cannot agree to a measure which would subvert the Union. In addition, the amendment does not enjoy the immunity provided by Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution since such immunity could only apply to valid acts of the Institutions.

This weakening effect on the Union is further illustrated by the provision in the ESM Treaty mentioned above, mirroring a provision in the Fiscal Treaty, allowing the treaties to come into effect for a subgroup of the signatory States once a specified minimum level of ratification is achieved.

This approach envisages and provides for what may be then be a sub-group (possibly as few as eight) of a sub-group of EU members (the 17 eurozone States) striking off in a particular direction through the vehicle of a non-EU institution and while doing so, purporting to give that body legal authority to avail of Union institutions.

Putting the matter positively, if it is intended to establish a bailout mechanism consistent with the existing EU treaties, then Article 125 should be deleted or suitably amended and replaced.

If the EU States were unanimously agreed on the need to establish the ESM (and indeed the Fiscal Pact), then both would be entirely capable of achievement within the EU treaty framework and with due regard to the existing EU and Irish and other member State Constitutional norms.
_______

Q: If the SCG Treaty referendum in Ireland is lost...?

A: The Government claims that in the event that the people reject the Fiscal Treaty, the State will then be ineligible to seek any ESM funding which it might require after mid-2013.

With all due respect such a claim is misleading.

The State has no entitlement to access the ESM now.

The ESM does not even exist yet.

Irish approval and indeed the approval of other States is still required so as to ratify both the Article 136 amendment and the ESM Treaty. The supposed ineligibility is a direct consequence of the change made in February 2012 (and signed by Ambassadors) to the wording of the original ESM Treaty signed by the Minister for Finance and his counterparts in July 2011.

This change is found in the preamble to the current version of the treaty at Recital No. 5 and renders access to the ESM conditional upon prior ratification of the Fiscal Compact.

Related Link: http://www.irishreferendum.org

Comments (2 of 2)

Jump To Comment: 1 2
author by bourgeois courtpublication date Mon Apr 30, 2012 16:55author address author phone

I dont have any faith in the courts, but if someone took a case that forced the fg and their labour mudguard to give the Irish people a referendum on whether we wanted to pay back the debt or to default, then that would be excellent.

author by W. Finnertypublication date Tue May 01, 2012 09:56author address author phone

While I believe this Thomas Pringle ESM Constitutional Challenge is potentially very much worthwhile, I fail to see how it can ever be realistically expected to produce any useful results: unless and until the extremely serious and growing problem with corruption in our judiciary is first sorted out.

Since 2002, I have accumulated what might be described as a "small mountain" of what I see as irrefutable evidence of judicial corruption of the kind which is perverting our Constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) in extremely serious ways; and, much of the evidence in question has been on public display on my web sites for several years now.

"We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men (and women) who pervert the Constitution." (Former US President Abraham Lincoln)

My lengthy research strongly suggests that the present extremely (and unprecedently) dangerous bout of "western judicial corruption" is rapidly taking humanity in the same direction as that outlined in the excerpt immediately below; and, that the Republic of Ireland's Judiciary is going down the same road (and not all that far behind) their counterparts in the Republic of the United States of America:

"But for Giraldi, the parallel is Weimar. Like Weimar after the Reichstag Fire, the U.S. has destroyed the Constitution and replaced it with a 'lawless Fuehrer state,' like that provided for Hitler by Carl Schmitt and other leading jurists. Giving a brief summary of some of the crisis powers given to Hitler after the Reichstag Fire, which 'was almost certainly carried out by the Nazis themselves,' Giraldi emphasizes the importance of the 'Enabling Act, which gave [Hitler] the authority to ignore parliament and pass laws by decree.' "

It is worth keeping in mind also perhaps, that in Abraham Lincoln's time, as in the Fuehrer's time, there were no large stockpiles of THERMONUCLEAR weapons-of-mass-destruction for humanity to worry about.

There are now though.

Related link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/ChiefJusticeSusanDenh...eople


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101721

Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.