Letters to the Editor: Wording is flawed — a no vote is the safest option

One reader says that the proposed wording in the 'family' referendum on March 8 would call into question why anyone should get married if they already have a 'durable relationship'

On March 8, voters will choose whether or not to adopt changes to the Constitution for both the 'family' and 'care' referendums.

After careful consideration of the proposed constitutional amendments, I have concluded that a no vote is the safest option in both cases.

In the case of the family amendment, it is impossible not to conclude that the proposal is to accord the same constitutional status to "other durable relationships" as is at present accorded only to marriage. This begs the question: Why should anyone get married if they already have what they consider to be a durable relationship?

I recognise the worthy intention of the proposed change — to give explicit constitutional recognition to families not based directly on marriage. I think, however, that this objective could have been achieved without taking from the unique status of marriage.

The public and legal commitment to its durability is what makes marriage different from all other durable relationships.

In the case of the care amendment, the worthy intention appears to be to remove outdated gender-based language from Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2. This is being done by removing all mentions of women and mothers, with their implied reference to the role of parenting in family care, and substituting instead a general notion of "the provision of care, by members of a family to one another because of the bonds that exist among them".

The gender element could have been better dealt with by adding the same references to men and fathers that the current article makes to women and mothers. That way it would also have retained the implicit reference to parenting which is generally such a central part of family care. The proposed change in this amendment also appears to weaken, rather than strengthen, the commitment of the State to support care within the family. Instead of a requirement on the State "to endeavour to ensure" we are to substitute a promise that the State will "strive to support" such family care.

While the intention behind the proposed changes may have been good, the wording we are being asked to endorse is seriously flawed. This is why I’ll be voting no in the two referendums on March 8.

John Glennon

Hollywood, Co Wicklow

Why do we need a referendum?

I am currently reviewing the constitution of my local residents’ association and any proposed changes will have to go before our members at the next AGM.

If accepted, I will then have to make changes in the word file containing the constitution. The whole process will cost nothing and may aid the more efficient administration of our association.

Changing the Irish Constitution, however, is an expensive business and should not be done unless, in its current form, the Government is prevented from bringing in laws they feel would benefit the people.

This is not the case with the March 8 referendums. The Government can bring in increased supports for carers and families if it wants, and there will be public support for doing this.

So why is the Government holding this referendum, which will cost approximately €20m and contains the vague phrase "durable relationships" which could lead to unintended consequences around taxes, social welfare, pensions, and immigration? And closing schools and community centres for use as polling centres on a working day will not help parents and carers!

Enid O’Dowd

Ranelagh, Dublin 6

Time for change, so let’s vote yes

Gearóid Duffy is concerned by those who find the mention of the word “duties” objectionable in our Constitution.

I have no issue with the use of this word in relation to parents and their children. I do, however, find it outdated, sexist, and patronising that mothers might be considered neglectful of these duties if they go out to work.

The reality is that, often, their homes are able to function, and their families to survive, only because such women put their shoulders to the wheel. Article 41.2 does not protect mothers. It shames them. It shames us all. It’s time for change. I’ll be voting yes.

Bernie Linnane

Dromahair, Co Leitrim

Mother is an important word

The proposed deletion of the word "mother" from the Irish Constitution is a concerning one. The word "mother" is intertwined in all aspects of life, birth, death, nurture, nature, sociology, and language: Mother Earth, mother tongue, mother’s milk, a mother’s love, motherhood, Mother’s Day.

One reader believes that the word 'mother' is intertwined in all aspects of life, including Mother's Day. File Picture: iStock

If the term "mother" were to be deleted from the Irish Constitution, surely others cannot be far behind?

Aileen Hooper,

Stoneybatter, Dublin 7

RTÉ debacle is never-ending

I am nowhere near the level of exasperation as the drip-feed of revelations pertaining to our public broadcaster should merit.

Nobody, with regard to the massive "overrun" on the Children’s Hospital, from an initial estimate of €650m to a now forecasted €2.2bn, has been subjected to anything like the level of public scrutiny as RTÉ management.

The performance of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in particular leaves much to be desired in terms of the egocentric posturing of some committee members, who still don’t seem to have judiciously absorbed the lessons from the judgement against the committee with regard to proceedings brought by former Rehab chief Angela Kerins in 2016.

The more than obvious competition between PAC and the Media Committee is very disrespectful of witnesses who have to appear before both but for no added value in terms of the overall investigation into RTÉ.

Minister Catherine Martin’s recent public censuring of Siún Ní Raghallaigh has confirmed my frustration with politicians cynically using RTÉ as a football to be self-servingly kicked in whatever direction, albeit that some purposeful kicking is indeed merited.

Michael Gannon

Kilkenny city

Out of touch with energy realities

Over two years ago, Eamon Ryan obtained Cabinet approval to introduce legislation to ban licences for new oil and natural gas exploration.

The same minister has also been responsible for the delays in deciding on the long-awaited €650m liquefied natural gas (LNG) project for the Shannon Estuary.

Moreover, Ireland is the worst-prepared country in Europe for an energy crisis, as well as the possibility of continuous blackouts during the winter.

This will be a catastrophic scenario for industry and domestic energy consumers.

It beggars belief the ineptitude of the Government to be in the energy situation that we are now in and likely to get worse.

Aside from the Ukraine conflict, Ireland was heading for an energy crisis. Our current generating facilities (oil, gas, and coal) are nothing more than a patchwork of inefficient, ineffective, and outdated generating capacity. No new generating capacity has been added and what is there is on its last legs.

We are 100% reliant on imported fossil fuels from wherever we can obtain them. Some 71% of Ireland’s natural gas comes from Britain via a single route, but that gas source may reduce in the near future. A shortage of natural gas supplies in Britain would have an impact on Ireland.

Ireland is the only country in the world that recently dispensed with electricity generation from peat-derived sources. The only viable source of indigenous gas is the Corrib gas field as the Kinsale gas field is no longer viable.

So, this puts Ireland in the position whereby we have (1) no LNG terminal; (2) limited availability of biogas and biomass , (3) and no nuclear power.

As far as gas storage is concerned, Ireland is one of the least flexible countries to adapt to any potential gas shortages in Europe.

Some 50% of EU countries utilising existing nuclear energy infrastructure will have more to gain in the current energy crisis. In addition, they will also be energy-independent and not reliant on fossil fuels.

France has the most operable nuclear reactors, followed by countries such as Finland, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain.

It is regrettable that Ireland, in 1978, did not heed the sound technical advice of Irish engineers and scientists, and proceed with the construction of a nuclear power facility at Carnsore Point, Wexford.

Unfortunately, the Government of the day listened instead to the pseudo-science court of public opinion.

As for renewables,  energy from wind is fine provided the wind blows continuously!

As a nation, we are unfortunately out of touch with the energy reality — for which we will pay dearly.

Patrick L O’Brien

Kerry Pike, Cork

Read More

Catholic bishops call for no votes in upcoming referenda