Sir, – Regarding the shortened hours of polling for the Children Referendum, it is interesting that when we vote for the things that really matter, the hours for voting are shorter than when we vote for our politicians. Have they not noticed that for many people to make ends meet the working week is now six days and Saturday should be treated as a weekday? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The children’s referendum gave us again a good insight into the type of society we are.
When it comes to installing self-serving, ruthless, amoral politicians we turn out in big numbers. However, when it come to deciding on the rights of little children, in the backdrop of recent industrial and institutional child abuse, it’s only a tiny minority that consider it worthy to have an opinion and express it. Some society! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Seventy per cent of the Irish people care little for their own children and nothing at all for the children of others.
These are the same people who demand that the State take over their responsibilities in the education and health care of their children at minimal cost to themselves. These are the people who annually give out about the length of school holidays, “what are we to do with these children?” These are the people who regularly go on holidays to foreign parts and on their return begin the annual rant about the cost of school books and uniforms. In spring, those Catholics among them complain about the cost of Holy Communion and Confirmation ceremonies. They solve this problem by sending their children to the altar in worn old uniforms while they splash out on new outfits and the inevitable hotel meal for friends and family. They would never forego their social nights out but resent the cost of their children’s involvement in sports and scouts or the music lesson fees. So it continues.
On Saturday, when there was an opportunity to vote in a referendum concerning constitutional rights for the nation’s children, what did the 70 per cent do? They stayed away. They were too busy. Thank God for the 30 per cent who care. – Yours, etc ,
JOHN BURKE,
Woodfield, Dunmore East,
Co Waterford.
Sir, – I voted in the Children Referendum at my local polling station.
The official at the desk noted my particulars and used the edge of a flexible white plastic ruler to aid him in drawing a straight line through my entry in the registry of electors, confirming that I had voted. The ruler was of a type commonly used in schools, with metric and imperial measurements on the respective edges.
I noted that the words “Shatter resistant” were embossed in large blue print on the top of the ruler. I drew this to the attention of the official and sought his assurance, willingly given, that no adverse reflection on our revered Minister for Justice was intended, and that he might reconsider his continuing usage of this instrument, hopefully averting a possible further constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court, from whatever quarter. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the light of the Supreme Court judgment concerning the Government’s leaflet to support the referendum on children, may I assume, henceforth, that the standard defence “legal advice” advanced by ministers Noonan and Howlin, as an all-embracing defence to questions concerning special exemptions for the contracts of bankers and others, be, for the future, disregarded?
Given, too, that ministers Varadkar and Fitzgerald have acknowledged Government responsibility for the debacle, is it too much to hope that the costs involved in the production of the defective leaflet and subsequent legal fees, become a charge on the salaries of the Cabinet? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – While voting, I noticed a copy of the New Testament on each table.
The official explained that, if a voter has no means of identification, he/she may be required to swear an oath of identity.
No copy of the Koran, the Old Testament or any other religious book was provided by the State for this purpose. The official was surprised to learn that an affirmation is accepted in all courts instead of an oath, and we wondered if she would have been allowed or even obliged to offer the same facility to an atheist, agnostic or other non-Christian.
We parted very amicably, both of us with food for thought and discussion. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I have been doing a few sums. A Government spokesman has stated that delaying the opening of the polling stations for two hours resulted in a saving of €0.5m. Therefore the cost of opening for 13 hours must be €3.25m. Assume the cost of the count is the same, the Referendum Commission cost €2m, the Government spent €1m, an estimate of the costs of the McCrystal case €0.5m, and assume ancillary costs of preparation at €1m makes a total of €11m.
That sum would have provided a lot of child care services. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The Referendum Commission was set up to provide unbiased information to the public about proposed changes to the Constitution. No court case has been taken complaining of bias in the material provided by the Commission.
However, the Government saw fit to illegally waste €1.1 million of taxpayers’ money by providing biased information which could have had the effect of swaying voters toward a Yes vote.
If Government had bothered to check with the Referendum Commission before publishing and distributing, perhaps the taxpayer could have been saved the cost of both the €1.1 million and the subsequent court cases.
This waste should never have happened.
To put perspective on what €1.1 million could do . . . it would pay a nurse’s salary for 20 years, or provide 110,000 hours of home help for the elderly (at €10/hour).
Why, when a Referendum Commission was already tasked with providing sufficient information, did someone feel the need to provide additional information? Should the persons who initiated and approved this wasteful expenditure not suffer some personal consequences for their actions, eg monetary fines, to help focus their minds (and others) in future?
As long as there are no personal consequences for politicians, senior civil servants or bankers for their actions, this country will never be run as well as it could be. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In light of the low turnout for the children’s rights referendum I would like to suggest a simple way to increase participation in the voting process.
When the Department of Social Protection sends out a letter to parents of children on their 18th birthday informing them that they will no longer be receiving their children’s allowance, it would be a simple matter to include a voting registration form in the envelope that could be completed by the then adult and posted to the appropriate department.
Quite apart from the practical aspect, this would also send out a message that they are now valuable members of the adult population of our country and have a role to play in its future. – Yours, etc,