The referendum proposals to deal with the issue of abortion interfere with the checks and balances of government in a fundamental way, according to a senior counsel, Mr Peter Finlay.
Mr Finlay was speaking at a press conference of a new group, Lawyers Against the Amendment, formed specifically to intervene in the debate on the proposed referendum.
Consisting of solicitors and barristers opposed to the proposed amendment and accompanying Bill, it intends to counter claims made about the wording and legislation by Government representatives and other supporters of the proposals.
Mr Finlay said if the referendum was passed, the Oireachtas would be bypassed in that it would have no choice but to pass the Bill, without any possibility of amendment. This is at odds with Article 15 of the Constitution, he said. "Why have a parliament at all if its powers to pass legislation is to be dispensed with?" he asked.
He also criticised the provision in the proposals to dispense with the President's power to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court. "This is an unhealthy development. Our Constitution contemplates that, where there is a problem, the President could refer a law. This proposal suspends the constitutional function of the Supreme Court. Why is it so necessary to take the President out of the equation?"
He said a Minister of State, Mr Willie O'Dea, had drawn attention to the fact that the last time the Constitution was amended with an appendage - the Belfast Agreement - the right of citizenship was "inadvertantly" made a constitutional right.
This could now only be changed by referendum, involving changing the Belfast Agreement itself. This would have major consequences, as such a change would be open to challenge by residents of Northern Ireland who would not be participating in the vote. "Might there not be 'inadvertant' errors in this proposal?" he asked.
Group convenor Ms Aoife Goodman BL said the device being proposed enabled the Government to introduce the substantive proposals in a secretive way. All the substantive changes were in Schedule Two of the Bill, which was not being circulated to voters. There was, therefore, not enough awareness among voters of what the proposals were.
Mr Alex White BL said the absence of information on the proposals meant all sorts of claims could be made about what they meant. For example, the Minister for Justice had claimed they provided for the legalisation of the morning-after pill. This was not so as it was not mentioned anywhere in the legislation.
It has also been claimed, by the Minister for Health, that in a future C case (where a 13-year-old suicidal rape victim in health board care had been brought by the health board to England for an abortion) a health board could do the same because the right to travel was guaranteed in the legislation.
This was not so, according to Mr White, as the High Court judgment in that case was that the health board could only take the girl abroad because abortion in such circumstances would have been legal in this state. It would not be if these proposals became law.