Sir, – Your Editorial (November 12th) describes the referendum process as flawed but says nothing about the method used. There are options, but we won’t take them.
For example, we could set a lower limit on turnout before a referendum result is accepted. We could let the people choose between a range of possible limits, but we don’t have a way to do that.
If we had such a method we would have chosen between various forms of Oireachtas inquiry in the last referendum and we would have got a result.
But we prefer to stick with the crudest decision-making method ever devised – the majority vote.
The series of referendum debacles continues and the electorate is blamed, the government is blamed, the Referendum Commission is blamed. No one suggests examining or changing the method.
The issues to be decided are of enormous importance and complexity and we rely on a blunt instrument to resolve them. This is either dogged lunacy or commitment to farce. It is most certainly not inclusive democracy in action.
The myth that “the people have spoken” and that it means something when – as in this instance – less than 20 per cent of them “approve”, must be debunked.
How low does turnout or approval have to get before we seek change? The common good cannot be determined using a majoritarian method. Only a victory for the majority can be achieved and all other shades of opinion are disqualified. A system of ranking preferences in a list of options would embrace diversity, encourage greater participation and give a result which was the collective will. However, it would take away a lot of the power from those who set the question.
Perhaps the forthcoming Constitutional Convention will address this area using a multi-optional decision-making method – if it is allowed. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Now that we have passed a “children’s rights” referendum that according to the Minister for Children sets the best interests of the child as “paramount”, and we have also won a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, will the Minister now please amend or abandon her Adoption Information and Tracing Bill? This Bill, in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, states that adopted people may not have access to their birth certificates. It permits access to “non-identifying” information only.
The same type of useless information (“Your natural mother was good at music and liked reading”) any adopted person has been able to get from their adoption agency, always, without any legislation. It is admittedly trickier to get our birth certificates – it can take a whole day or two in the public records room of the GRO – but the information on how to do so is widely available.
Why not, therefore, legislate on that basis? Any adopted person, in accordance with the UN Convention, should be able to apply for their birth cert – a public record – like any other citizen, without discrimination. We should be entitled to full adoption files. This, after all, has been the case in Scotland since 1930 and England since 1975. It is recognised as best practice and in the best interests of all concerned – children included – by the professionals. It is what was deemed best by a wide-ranging public consultation held by then minister for children, Brian Lenihan, in 2003.
If the best interests of the child – including the adopted child – are paramount, then Ms Fitzgerald has no choice but to amend or withdraw her Bill. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Enda Kenny claims he cannot force people to vote (Front page, November 12th). His Australian counterpart can, and does. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Ulster says No. Donegal certainly does. – Is mise,
Sir, – Christopher Morris (November 12th), and others perhaps, may be interested to know that a facility exists whereby intending voters in referendums and elections can opt for an affirmation instead of an oath as a means of asserting their identity at polling stations. The form of affirmation is non-denominational and is available to voters of all beliefs and none. – Yours, etc,