Building a Swiss Chalet in an Irish Legal Landscape? Referendums on European Union Treaties in Ireland &amp; the Impact of Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Barrett, Gavin

doi:10.1017/s1574019609000327

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most obvious difference is that the UK government instigated the EU Act, a detailed piece of legislation that seeks to be comprehensive as to the circumstances where a referendum will be necessary. Crotty is, to state the obvious, judge-made law, stemming from the actions of a private citizen and a degree of activism on the part of the Supreme Court (Barrett 2009, 35). Nonetheless, both the EU Act and Crotty contract the win set of their respective states by drawing a legal line (however blurred in the Irish case) between treaty changes that require a referendum and those that do not.…”

Section: Crotty V An Taoiseach and The Risks Of Involuntary Defectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a single judgment, the Supreme Court saw no reason why the European Communities (Amendment) Act (1986), which sought to transpose the Single European Act into Irish law, was unconstitutional. In separate judgments, however, the Court held that Title III, providing for co-operation in foreign policy, was in fact a new treaty that went beyond 'the essential scope or objectives of the Community' and not merely an extension of the integration objective at the core of the [then] EEC project (Barrett 2009). A majority of three judges went on to hold, therefore, that Title III could only be ratified by referendum as it curtailed the sovereign powers of the state in foreign affairs in a way not sanctioned by the constitution.…”

Section: Crotty V An Taoiseach and The Risks Of Involuntary Defectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

British Brinkmanship and Gaelic Games: EU Treaty Ratification in the UK and Ireland from a Two Level Game Perspective

Hodson¹,

Maher²

2013

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Viewed from the theory of two-level games, the European Union (EU) Act (2011) is a rare example of a government tying its hands in international diplomacy. • The UK government could find its hands more tightly bound than anticipated under the EU Act, inter alia, due to the enhanced role of the courts in EU treaty ratification. • The EU Act could convey bargaining advantages to the UK, but it could also encourage other EU member states to walk away from the negotiating table. • The risks posed by tighter ratification rules are borne out by Ireland's experience of EU treaty ratification since the Supreme Court ruling Crotty v. An Taoiseach (1987). • David Cameron's 'veto' of plans for a new EU treaty in December 2011 illustrates the difficulties of knowing ex ante when a referendum is required under the EU Act. The European Union (EU) Act (2011) provides for greater parliamentary oversight and the possibility of a referendum before EU treaties can be ratified. This article explores the EU Act from a two-level game perspective, seeing it as a rare example of a government tying its hands in international diplomacy. That the UK government could find its hands more tightly bound than anticipated is suggested by Ireland's turbulent experience of treaty ratification in the light of Crotty v. An Taoiseach (1987), a landmark ruling by the Irish Supreme Court and an inspiration for the EU Act. This situation could, the theory of two-level games predicts, bolster the UK's bargaining position in Brussels, but it could also damage the country's credibility and encourage other member states to walk away from the negotiating table. This last point helps to shed some light on the UK's 'veto' of the Fiscal Compact in December 2011.

show abstract

Section: Crotty V An Taoiseach and The Risks Of Involuntary Defectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crotty V An Taoiseach and The Risks Of Involuntary Defectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

British Brinkmanship and Gaelic Games: EU Treaty Ratification in the UK and Ireland from a Two Level Game Perspective

Hodson¹,

Maher²

2013

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

‘Who’s Afraid of the EuropeanDemos?’

Alexiou¹

2019

The Crisis Behind the Eurocrisis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lisbon Treaty

Piris¹,

Merkel²

2010

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the controversies and difficulties which preceded the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, it is easy to forget that the Treaty is a complex legal document in need of detailed analysis for its impact to be fully understood. Jean-Claude Piris, the Director General of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, provides such an analysis, looking at the historical and political contexts of the Treaty, its impact on the democratic framework of the EU and its provisions in relation to substantive law. Impartial legal analysis of the EU's functions, its powers and the treaties which govern it make this the seminal text on the most significant recent development in EU law.

show abstract

Building a Swiss Chalet in an Irish Legal Landscape? Referendums on European Union Treaties in Ireland & the Impact of Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

British Brinkmanship and Gaelic Games: EU Treaty Ratification in the UK and Ireland from a Two Level Game Perspective

British Brinkmanship and Gaelic Games: EU Treaty Ratification in the UK and Ireland from a Two Level Game Perspective

‘Who’s Afraid of the EuropeanDemos?’

The Lisbon Treaty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About