Reasons for lack of meaningful debate

THERE were three primary reasons why there was insufficient meaningful debate on the constitutional amendments.

1. The Government chose to conduct these two amendments in the minimum time allowed by legislation for the conduct of a referendum. They satisfied the technicalities (barely) but without enabling the people, who are responsible for the constitution, time to engage in discussion.

2. When the final wording was first revealed, the handful of concerned academics who independently and individually attempted to engage in debate met a media response that the 29th Amendment, on judicial pay, was a foregone conclusion so it was not worth debating. With regard to the 30th Amendment, on Oireachtas inquiries, it was not until certain members of the media saw that there was a possibility of inherent dangers in the amendment that it was possible to engage in any debate. There were and are complex issues underlying both constitutional changes.

3. The stock response to any attempt to develop an argument for voting “No” to either amendment was the word “nonsense”; or “it’s only lawyers: they would say that”, or a meaningless unsubstantiated mantra — ”it’s fairness”.

Not everybody who opposed the amendments is a lawyer, but to disparage the very people who ought to understand the potential legal consequences of constitutional change because they are lawyers has been the greater nonsense. I am not a lawyer.

Estelle Feldman

Research Associate

School of Law

TCD