The reporting on this case taken by Thomas Pringle has been very bitty and confusing.

On the 9th last thejournal.ie reported that Justice Mary Laffoy rejected a constitutional challenge in the High Court while referring ONE question to the ECJ for clarification as to what would be the effect and operability of the ESM if one or more Member States failed to give notice that they intended to approve the establishment of the ESM

http://www.thejournal.ie/pringles-challenge-to-esm-treaty-rejected-by-high-court-515115-Jul2012/

Last Thu the journal.ie reported that the Supreme Court had asked the European Court of Justice to issue urgent rulings on the following three questions dealing with whether the ESM is legal under existing EU law:

*Is the EU Council decision of March 25th 2011 to amend article 136 of the TFEU valid and does it violate treaty or EU law principles?
*If the decision of March 25th 2011 is valid, is a member state entitled to join the ESM before the decision comes into force?
*Is the terms and operation of the ESM Treaty compatible with the principles and provisions of the EU Treaties?

http://www.thejournal.ie/is-the-esm-legal-535053-Jul2012/

As the above questions which are awaiting clarification relate to matters intrinsic to the entire legal standing of the ESM I’m confused by the last para from the above:

”The decision was rejected by a High Court judge earlier this month who said she was satisfied that the Treaty was compatible with both European Union law and Bunreacht na hÉireann”

I was going to pose the question as to whether the questions posed in the original High Court ruling to the European Court still stands but looking at “another” news site it appears that they still do. So while the Government are free to ratify/do what they like with the ESM treaty, the ultimate test of whether it will sink or swim is now out of our hands and now lies with the European court who have effectively being asked by the High Court if the treaty was procedurally brought forward correctly and that it complies with all other European Treaties etc.

Oh and the German Constitutional Court is also looking at it and is expected to rule in September.

Plenty of twists and turns in it yet but I do expect that it will get through eventually.

Newsflash: We’ve already lost control of our financial affairs.

Also, the Treaty stipulates that we agree to the rules already laid down by Maastricht, etc. The rules are already in place. It’s just that we haven’t been taking them seriously.

Thomas Pringle is about as non-local a politician as a politician can be. His fight, carried forward at personal risk, has implications for every single European.

I urge everyone to become familiar with the ESM Treaty (NOT THE FISCAL COMPACT, NOT THE ONE WE VOTED ON) and see what is at stake for us all, particularly with regard to its powers to make potentially unlimited calls on our financial capital, and its exemption from oversight by any democratic institution.

http://taleoftwotreaties.tumblr.com/esmdownload#.UBf3xM_94UA

shock horror the courts agree with the politicians ways of doing things, must be nice to be able to safeguard your fat salary like the judges have done with this ruling!

I praise Mr. Pringle. The people of Ireland are 100% behind you.

Unlike the 25% who voted yes (only 50% turned out to vote on the referendum).