The Supreme Court has rejected Thomas Pringle’s claim that Ireland’s participation in the European Stability Mechanism required approval by the people in a referendum because it involved an unconstitutional transfer of sovereignty.
The challenge concerned the ESM Treaty, under which Ireland faced a potential contribution of up to €11.1454 billion to a €700 billion fund intended to support financial stability in the euro area.
Pringle argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier Crotty decision meant Ireland had to retain a right to approve or veto future decisions and could not allow ESM funds, including Ireland’s contribution, to be deployed without Irish agreement in every instance.
Mr Justice O’Donnell, agreeing with judgments of Chief Justice Denham and Mr Justice Clarke, rejected that interpretation. He held that Crotty did not mean Ireland loses sovereignty whenever it enters a binding international arrangement or joins a body operating through collective decision-making.
The constitutional problem identified in Crotty, he said, was the abdication, alienation, subordination or transfer of Ireland’s power to conduct its foreign policy. Joining the ESM was different. It was itself an exercise of sovereignty: the Government decided to participate in a defined financial mechanism with specified purposes, procedures and limits.
O’Donnell J. also rejected arguments based on the size of Ireland’s financial commitment. The scale or importance of a Government decision did not change which constitutional body was entitled to make it. Foreign affairs were entrusted to the Government, subject to constitutional controls and accountability to Dáil Éireann.
Separate questions remained about whether the ESM arrangements complied with EU law. Those issues were referred to the European Court of Justice.
Pringle also sought an injunction preventing Ireland from ratifying the treaty pending resolution of those questions. The Supreme Court refused it, finding no irreparable harm to him and concluding that delaying ratification could itself damage Ireland’s national interest. The balance therefore weighed strongly against judicial intervention while the EU-law issues were being resolved.