Questions in wake of the treaty referendum

Now that the people have spoken in the fiscal treaty referendum, we should examine some of the lessons learned during the debate.

A couple of issues in particular need urgent and specific attention in my opinion.

The controversy over the quasi-political remarks made by the chairman of the heretofore impartial Referendum Commission highlights alarming deficiencies within both Bunreacht na hÉireann and the relevant legislation concerning the conduct of referenda.

It also calls into question the real independence of the judiciary; an alarming thought. Surely the head of a body whose job is to provide impartial advice to the electorate should not come from, nor be associated with, one side of the debate or the other?

Secondly, the spectre of a low turnout and huge voter apathy (partly as a result of substandard public debate, which consisted of nothing more than shouting, interrupting, and jostling) made possible the prospect of the treaty being ratified by less than a quarter of the electorate.

Surely some provision needs to be inserted into Bunreacht na hÉireann stipulating that a quorum is needed before a referendum result can be considered legal and binding? There is ample space here for legal action, if one so requires (pace the Crotty Decision and the McKenna judgment).

Finally, seeing as how another referendum will be necessary on the European Stability Mechanism Treaty, these issues should be tackled by the Government as a matter of urgency.

To ignore or postpone these pressing democratic issues would only increase the likelihood of a democratic deficit.

This would be the ultimate ignominy for an Irish people with a proud record in deciding by the ballot box (sometimes more than once!) issues fundamental to the European project.

John O’Donovan

West Quay

Leap

Co Cork