Sir, – If we had any doubt as to whether the motivation behind the proposed 30th Amendment was: 1. the greater public good, or 2. a self-serving attempt to usurp the power of the courts, we now have our answer: the reservations of the attorneys general dismissed as “nonsense” and the Referendum Commission vilified for its independence. Perhaps we should be grateful that we were even allowed to vote on the issue. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – May I congratulate the “establishment” on its scare-mongering, self-serving campaign to ensure that the banking crisis which brought the country to its knees is unlikely to ever be the subject of an in-depth public inquiry by our elected representatives. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – So the 30th Amendment was overwhelmingly voted against. The Government in its arrogance claims that it was because it was poorly worded for the people. So when can we expect a second referendum on this issue? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In reply to Shane Ross’s letter (October 26th) concerning the referendum on the proposal to expand the powers of Oireachtas committees, I have to express my serious disappointment that this amendment was defeated.
Prior to the referendum, I had looked forward to the day when an Oireachtas committee could conduct a full inquiry into the causes of the banking crisis in this country and apportion the blame appropriately among the guilty parties. In particular, I had looked forward to Mr Ross himself being summoned to appear before such a committee. This would have been the appropriate forum before which he could have been questioned concerning his role during the boom years as a cheerleader for both Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. During those years, Mr Ross frequently praised the aggressive business models of those two institutions and criticised other banks for not following suit. Eventually, of course, the other financial institutions did adopt the business models favoured by Anglo Irish and Irish Nationwide, with disastrous consequences.
Your columnist, Stephen Collins, referred in an article earlier this year (Opinion, April 23rd) to the admiration expressed by Mr Ross during the boom years for the two financial institutions concerned. To the best of my knowledge, the latter never replied to that article.
Please allow me to make it clear that I have profound admiration for Mr Ross’s forensic intellect and readily acknowledge that he is the leading expert on Ireland’s banking crisis. It is tragic for all our sakes, though, that he only acquired that expertise after the eruption of the crisis and not beforehand. – Yours sincerely,
Sir, – Fintan O’Toole may be right when he argues that “the Government’s handling of the debate was in itself the best argument for” rejecting the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum (Opinion, November 1st).
In voting No, however, voters may have also shot themselves in both feet.
After what happened to this country in recent years political reform was a great mantra. All of us were in favour. That was until a few very powerful, articulate and well-placed vested interests had their say on the Oireachtas inquiries referendum.
After that, the voters had second thoughts and judged political reform not all it was cracked up to be.
The problem is that Mr O’Toole’s erstwhile “pathetic” politicians may get very careful before they pursue any more risky political reforms. As a result, facts about projects like Nama (“the largest project in the history of the State”, according to Mr O’Toole), “cannot be disclosed”.
I think the result of the No vote is: Insider Elite 1, The Rest of Us 0. Yours, etc,
Sir, – Referring to his outburst directed at the Referendum Commission, Brendan Howlin says he regrets that his comments during the referendum count “were seen to be critical of that body” (Front page, November 1st).
This is the approach of someone seeking damage limitation without offering an apology. An apology does not consist of regretting how one’s comments were misunderstood.
The fate of Amendment 30 proves the voters know the difference. When will the Minister catch up and do the same? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Peter Pierse (October 31st) laments the eleventh-hour intervention of the eight former Attorneys General in the debate surrounding the inquiries referendum. We are told that “they had ample opportunity to contribute constructively to a much needed reform.” This refrain – that the No campaign got off to such a late start as to deny the Government a right of reply – has been a favourite of Ministers Shatter and Howlin also.
It is imperative, then, to put certain facts on the record. John Rogers SC, like others involved in the No campaign, did indeed make a submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution last year. These submissions were taken into account when producing a draft text for the referendum, which was published in January. This original draft text preserved the right of access to the courts, and did not give the Oireachtas the final say regarding whether fair procedures had been observed in any inquiry.
For some unfathomable reason, however, the wording of the proposed 30th Amendment presented to the people last Thursday was nothing like the wording which was recommended (unanimously) by the Joint Committtee in January. I have yet to see any explanation, however tenuous, as to why this change was made. This is the reason, in any case, why those of us who agreed with the first proposed wording of the 30th Amendment came out so late in the day against the altered version. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The intemperate and totally unjustified attack by Brendan Howlin on the Referendum Commission underlines the arrogance and contempt which this Government has for the Irish people. The Irish electorate is a canny, sophisticated and discerning one and always realises when a government attempts to sell it a pig in a poke dressed, up as reform. Twice in the past it rejected attempts by governments then in power (Fianna Fáil attempting to copper-fasten its then position as the biggest party in the state) to dilute the PR voting system.
The attitude of ministers Howlin and Shatter is disgraceful and both should consider their positions. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Is it Shatter howlin or Howlin shattered? – Yours, etc,