Sir, - As a graduate of politics from UCD I have taken an interest in the proposed changes to Bunreacht na hEireann. As a current student of public relations I have paid particular attention to the proposed wording. It is extremely important in a written constitution such as ours that nothing ambiguous or open to interpretation should be put in without those interpretations being thrashed out beforehand.
For this reason I would like to bring to your attention a sentence in the proposed Article 3.1 which I believe is open to a peculiar interpretation: "The laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution." In other words the laws made by the present Dail, formed under the present Constitution, Eireann, shall have the same jurisdiction as those made by the Dail under the Free State Constitution.
Under the Free State Constitution, the Irish Government had jurisdiction over the 26 counties, with the exception of three places - Cobh, Berehaven, and Lough Swilly - otherwise known as the Treaty ports. Bunreacht na hEireann came into effect on December 29th, 1937, but jurisdiction over the Treaty ports was not returned to Ireland until four months later, as part of the April 1938 Anglo-Irish Agreement. Since the laws of the Free State Constitution never had jurisdiction over the Treaty ports, does this mean that we are giving them back to Britain if we vote for the proposed Article 3? I think it does but I am open to correction.
As far as I understand the workings of our Constitution it is certainly a possibility that the Supreme Court would interpret the sentence in question the same way I have. If so, the Government has trouble on its hands. - Yours, etc., Henry Conlon,
Ballytore Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14.