Madam, – John Robb (June 17th) refers to “power brokers” obtaining the response they want in relation to the Lisbon Treaty. Has he lost all regard for democratic institutions? An Oireachtas Committee identified concerns of citizens and the Government is seeking to have these accommodated.
The vast majority of TDs and Senators believe the Lisbon Treaty is good for Ireland. Should they now cower in some corner or should they exercise the right given to them by the people in referendum to refer any Bill they deem fit to the people for their consideration? If they continue to believe the Treaty is good for Ireland, especially after receiving the clarifications asked for, they not only have a right to put this to the people they have a duty to do so.
The alternative is for Oireachtas members to leave things as they stand, thereby blocking the Lisbon Treaty. The majority of EU states may then find some method of moving on without us. Schengen and the euro area could be added to by, for example, a common EU defence through the Western European Union and other coalitions of the willing could emerge. Is that in our interest?
It is time to respect the right of the Irish parliament, and in particular Dáil Éireann as the legitimately elected assembly of the people, to exercise the powers given to them in Bunreacht na hÉireann by the people. They are parliamentarians not “power brokers”. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Michael McLoughlin, (June 18th) refers to Article 46.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann which sets out the procedure by which the Government calls for a referendum.
He quite correctly states that this particular section does not limit number or frequency of such referendums. Mr McLoughlin incorrectly compares the re-running of a referendum on Lisbon, a year after it is rejected, to the way divorce and abortion were handled. Not only did more time elapse, but the legislation put forward in each referendum was different.
However, he seems to have skipped over Article 6.1 which states that “All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.” So if it’s our right to decide, in final appeal, this question, have we not already done this? In the courts system, the Supreme Court will never hear the same case twice.
And as for “in accordance with the common good”, regardless of what treaty is being voted on, surely it is not in accordance with the common good to damage the health of democracy by holding serial referendums, over the wishes of the people.
Is the voter turnout not low enough, and apathy and cynicism not deep enough, that one would wish to give the people even further proof that their wishes will be ignored? The result of the Crotty case was that the Government was forced to hold referendums on certain issues and therefore it was to the people to decide the question, not the government.
So when a treaty is rejected by the people, where exactly does the government claim a mandate to throw it back again unamended? We let them away with it once, when they did it with Nice. We should not allow them to make a habit of it.
I have no problem with a second referendum if, and only if, it was the people who desired to revisit the question after a period of reflection and national debate. What has happened instead is that the Government told us we got the wrong answer, after being leaned on by the same politicians who denied their own people a vote.
That’s no mandate, and it makes a mockery of Article 6.1 as well as the important principles established in the Crotty case.
A referendum is not a rubber stamp for government policy. – Yours, etc,