A chara, – I have returned from a meeting on the fiscal treaty in Inchicore, Dublin South Central; where those assembled were drawn from all walks of life. On the same day, some union leaders advocated a No vote; the very same leaders that quite rightly call for continued investment in local services, community groups and employee welfare.
We are now moving to a position where union leaders are aligning themselves with the flawed logic of United Left Alliance (ULA), People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA) and Sinn Féin, consciously removing the safeguards that their members and wider society demand and benefit from. Let us hope that such unions find themselves in a situation where those who they purport to lead have sensibly considered the merit and pragmatism of voting for the treaty; otherwise the union members and those who support the easy “protest” call of ULA, PBPA and SF will know who to blame when the cost of any future borrowings soar, local services are cut back and further austerity is required.
Voting for the treaty is a positive and constructive action; voting against will lead to the decimation of our communities, and thus empowering the fools on the fringes whose interest and oxygen is further negativity. – Is mise,
CORMAC O’CULAIN,
Thomas Davis Street,
Christchurch,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – I write to you as the longest surviving president of the Irish College of General Practitioners.
We read or hear of patients whose life savings and pensions have been decimated by recent events through no fault of their own.
Each day we read of privileged persons retiring on huge lump sums and enormous pensions.
To my mind it is vital that the forthcoming referendum is carried in a few weeks’ time. It is too late to embark on doorstep explanations of the predicament we are in.
The taxpayer is being burdened with taxes and each day seems to bring news of further taxes on the way, yet some people seem to be living charmed lives.
Several tribunals have been held as enormous expense. I think that the Government or DPP should intimate what action if any, following the published reports, they intent to pursue. Taxpayers might feel less aggrieved if it could be shown that they are not the only ones asked to bear the burden. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – PN Corish (April 25th) laments that governments are "inhibited by the bizarre Supreme Court ruling that prevents a government campaigning in favour of a proposal it deems essential in the national interest . . ." This statement deserves some examination, particularly in light of recent Sinn Féin complaints that the provision of information by the Government on the stabilitytreaty.iewebsite is contrary to law.
The “bizarre” ruling to which your correspondent refers is that of McKenna (No 2) v. An Taoiseach [1995] 2 IR 10, and does not, in fact, prohibit campaigning by a government in favour of (or, indeed, against) any proposal whatever. The import of that that case, rather, is that the government may not bankroll any such campaign from public funds. Mr Justice Blaney was very clear in the McKenna case that “the government, as such, is entitled to campaign for the change and the individual members of the government are entitled either in their personal, party or ministerial capacities to advocate the proposed change.”
Furthermore, if one reads the judgment of Mr Justice O’Flaherty, it is stated that ministers are entitled to use their State transport in relation to the referendum; or to avail of the media to put forward their point of view. The only restriction is that taxpayers as a whole should not have to foot the bill for such overtly partisan activity.
This is a sensible and constitutionally-correct approach, for a variety of reasons. Not least among these is that the public purse is deeper than the pockets of most private individuals, and government funds could therefore be used to buy up a huge proportion of the available advertising space in the State, possibly for a considerable period leading up to a referendum, thus drowning out dissenting voices.
Furthermore, no one would suggest that a government is entitled to devote money from the exchequer in a direct manner in the course of a general election to secure its re-election. If public funds may not be used to effect a change in our government, then surely they must equally not be used to effect a change in our system of governance – in the form of an amendment of our Constitution. Basic fair play demands that such inequality of arms not be permitted. – Yours, etc,
CATHAL MALONE, BCL,
Rathdown Park,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
A chara, – Your heading “Gilmore makes direct appeal to workers over treaty” (Front page, Tuesday 24th) clearly shows that the Labour Party and the Government are running scared that the Irish people are becoming disillusioned with the ongoing austerity and will voice their feelings at the ballot box on May 31st.
No less a person than economist Paul Krugman (Business, April 17th) clearly outlined why austerity is not working, and it is up to this Government to come to its senses and chart another course other than austerity. The Government has now less than six weeks to do that. For the record this writer will be voting No. – Is mise,
PAUL DORAN,
Monastery Walk,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.