Sir, – Fintan O’Toole implies that if one feels that there is no choice but to vote Yes, then one must spoil one’s vote, for this means “a referendum is a charade. It is a parody of democracy” (Opinion, May 22nd).
I would argue the converse, that this epitomises true democracy.
A referendum is the offering of a choice to the adults of Ireland, a chance to have a true say in the direction of their country. It entrusts the Irish people with the duty to examine an issue and determine an outcome; this duty includes an examination of the practicalities of a measure.
A referendum is restricted to voting adults precisely because it is a real decision, with real consequences; it is not a meaningless hypothetical or thought experiment.
In a real decision, it is possible for there to be a right answer. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – If Ireland does not ratify the fiscal treaty, it will go ahead anyway if another 12 eurozone countries ratify it.
If (as is possible and even likely) France does not ratify the fiscal treaty, it will still go ahead anyway if another 12 euro zone countries ratify it.
I believe both these statements to be accurate in law. But do they accurately reflect what would actually happen? In a real equal partnership, which the EU purports to be, both statements would be accurate in law and in practice. – Is mise,
Sir, – During Monday night’s The Frontline referendum debate, I watched an audience member wave a Government pro-treaty pamphlet in the air, clearly thinking that it was neutral information produced by the Referendum Commission.
Today I received the second leaflet in the Government’s campaign. Its design may fool people into thinking that it is a neutral document. It mimics what many might think to be a Referendum Commission informational piece. Nowhere on it is its true origin stated.
Might a court decide that the electorate was confused by the true origins of the document and its role as pro-treaty campaign literature? Research might establish that. Perhaps a matter for your next poll? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – For the first time in my life, I find myself to be an undecided voter. In trying to make my decision – and I will vote on May 31st – I am struggling with two issues.
First, it is abundantly clear since the French election that the treaty as now presented will change before it comes into force. Therefore, what am I saying Yes or No to on referendum day? I am asked to believe either Mr Gilmore or Mr Hollande. Whose voice carries most weight?
Second, I have yet to hear someone who is poor, or who represents the poor, advocate a Yes vote. For Government ministers, public representatives and others telling me to vote Yes, austerity and its impact does not mean losing a job that is the sole income for a household; it doesn’t mean having problems feeding and clothing the family, or being unable to buy schoolbooks or forgo an educational opportunity. It certainly does not mean that summer holidays are a distant memory.
However, for thousands in this country, these things, and worse, are the day-to-day impacts of austerity. So how should I interpret the absence of the voice of the poor advocating a Yes?
I will be listening carefully to Messrs Kenny and Gilmore in the days ahead to see if they can help me with these issues. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – While listening to Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore repeating over and over the need to placate and keep sweet investors, businesspeople, etc. above all else as he debates the fiscal treaty, the words of Woodrow Wilson came to mind; “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” That the Labour Party cannot see this is astonishing. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the context of the fiscal treaty, it could be said that one person’s austerity is another person’s discipline. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I read with interest your report that: “. . . the German position remains that eurobonds might be considered only as the end-point in the development of a fiscal union in which all countries adhere to rigorous financial discipline”, (Front page, May 21st). Such assistance puts me in mind of Dr Johnson’s characterisation of Lord Chesterfield’s famously tardy offer of patronage as: “. . . one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help. The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind: but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it; till I am solitary and cannot impart it; till I am known and do not want it.” – Johnson, Letters No 56. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If it is the case, and I hope it is, that the Yes vote is passed in the referendum allowing the State to ratify the “fiscal treaty”, this means that the 30th amendment to the Constitution will take effect.
However, if for some reason or another we find that this fiscal pact for stability is not our “cup of tea”, I see no reason whatever why the Irish people cannot reverse the situation by having another referendum to repeal the 30th Amendment if it is passed. Our Constitution is not written in stone. It is an organic document which can be changed by the will of the Irish people. Yes does not necessarily mean forever! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – We are being asked to ratify a treaty our Government has already signed up to. Surely it should have asked us before it signed anything? The main elements of the stability treaty are already enshrined in EU law.
The EU are unhappy with our non-compliance and they want authority to penalise us. They are offering us access to the new permanent EU rescue fund as a carrot. We have already received more than our share of emergency funding and we are still in trouble. Giving our Government access to more money is similar to giving an alcoholic more drink. We are spending up to €50 billion a year more than we earn. All these borrowings will have to be repaid. Providing facilities to borrow more borders on madness.
Enda Kenny reminded us during his recent speech at a Famine commemoration ceremony in Drogheda that “Shops were still full of food, and the well-off were still sated”. Does Mr Kenny realise that things have not changed much? The shops are still full of food and the less well off are living and dying below the poverty line.
Should we have a ceremony to commemorate the 500,000 people without work and the 1,500 people leaving the country every week? There will be little point in doing this when they are dead and gone. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Paul McCarthy (May 22nd) correctly points out a problem with Ireland’s current voting system. This situation could be dealt with by expanding the availability of the postal ballot. The rules for use of the postal ballot are very restrictive; they should be changed to allow anyone registered as a voter in Ireland to obtain a postal ballot for any referendum or election to select a public official. – Yours, etc,