Sir, - John Lacken (June 17th) misunderstands my point about to the "McKenna judgment". I can see the reason why somebody might take the action, but the result is that the Government is effectively precluded from spelling out why it is introducing a referendum unless it gives equal coverage to the arguments against. The nonsense of this was illustrated in the recent referendum when, apart from people staying away, many took the trouble to return an unmarked voting paper.
Just imagine if this premise were extended to all legislation. Every time the Government introduced a Bill it would have to give equal effort to arguments against it to help the Opposition make up its mind. When the Minister for Finance came up with his Budget he would be obliged to carry on for a further hour or so arguing against his proposed measures. Absurd? Yes. But is it not a logical conclusion based on the premise in the "McKenna judgment"?It seems to me that Ms McKenna's action will result in more "invisible referendums" unless a more pragmatic interpretation can be made. In due course I'm sure a suitable "clarification" will be made. I am going to leave it at that. - Yours, etc.,
W. J. Murphy, Malahide, Co Dublin.