Sir, – The risks involved in unnecessary tinkering with the Constitution are all too real and, in particular, as Michael McDowell points out, the undefined use of the word “durable” in relation to the proposed wording for Article 41.1.1 (“Voting No is the prudent choice on March 8th”, Opinion & Analysis, January 10th).
My only practical experience of the use of the word “durable” was many years ago when I worked in the retail sector. Consumer durables, such as cars, home appliances and toys were defined as goods that “were expected to last for at least three years”. Perhaps that definition has some validity in that it reflects the uncertain and precarious nature of personal relationships in today’s world but hardly one, I assume, that the Government has in mind. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN McDONALD,
Terenure,
Pamela Anderson: ‘I felt like life was really like death for me’
From national journalism and lecturing in TU Dublin to living as a Buddhist priest
Jamie Dornan: ‘I lost my mom, and I lost four of my best friends in an accident. I had a difficult few years’
Two simple and tasty pork dishes with an air-fryer hack for perfect crackling
Dublin 12.
Sir, – We must not be blindsided by arguments that hold no water.
Michael McDowell quite rightly dismisses the idea that mothers and others working outside the home are prejudiced by Article 41.2 of the Constitution.
The Government’s suggested use of that weasel word “reasonable”, without the requisite clarification that circumstances demand, is as weak as it is unnecessary.
As to the Government’s attempt to tinker with Article 41.3.1, the failure by whoever has attempted to redraft it to include a definition of “durable relationships” raises the likelihood, as Michael McDowell describes, that we may well get myriad interpretations by judges over time; costs, delay and uncertainty will follow in subsequent litigation, and the poor claimant will have to pay that unnecessary bill.
As with Article 41.2, take heed of Michael McDowell’s advice: “It would be entirely prudent to vote No” to both amendments.
I should go further; forget about prudence, just vote No. – Yours, etc,
ALASTAIR CONAN,
Coulsdon,
London.
Sir, – A solution to the upcoming referendum quandary and the exquisite implications of voting Yes or No might be to offer a third option of Yes and No. Either way, we could then have our cake and eat it, and go back for more. – Yours, etc,
BRIGID TIMMONS,
Sandycove,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Do the people in these “relationships” have to be cohabiting, or will they be living in different locations? – Yours, etc,
ALEC QUINN,
Caherdavin
Limerick.
