In two separate referendums, the majority of the voters, even those with differing political perspectives, voted No largely, demonstrating their practicality. Most individuals who voted No and those who were misguided to vote Yes towards extremely flawed proposals are moderate, rational and respectable citizens who do not support political radicalism or unrealistic politics. Currently, no political party in the Dáil is accurately and justly representing them, as proven undeniably by the results of the family and care referendums.
Voters have displayed disapproval towards a group for squandering energy and resources on issues that are not of central significance to the general public. If our citizens are not provided with sufficient housing and elementary healthcare, this disapproval will reinforce.
Una Mullally made a claim stating “The vote was nuanced”. She attributed intentions and subtleties to two straightforward choices, which requires some humility. Mullally, an active partaker in a previous referendum, seems infer she has a capability to introspect and discern what the Irish people genuinely desired. The irony is that de Valera’s spirit truly continues!
Three of Mullally’s “lessons” focus on messaging, strategy, and campaign practice. Yet, this oversimplification overlooks the main point and alienates voter intellect. The message was comprehended, it was just not deemed acceptable. Strategy and campaigns could not alter this.
Perhaps it is time for some to bring out the old car sticker, “Don’t blame me, I live in Dún Laoghaire”. Mullally also states “the vote was nuanced”. This may be true in Dún Laoghaire. However, in Donegal it’s a clear-cut situation, with No receiving 80 per cent and 84 per cent of votes.
Gentlemen, – It’s unjust for the Opposition to entirely attribute the failure of the recent constitutional amendments about family and care to the governing Coalition. Since the inception, these suggestions were ambiguous and baffling, featuring yet-to-be-defined phrases.
The public’s apprehension and caution was a natural response to this ambiguity, steadily recognizing the significant duty of dealing with the Constitution meticulously. Even though the Opposition acknowledged the blatant flaws, they urged the citizens to support these unclear proposals and uncertain implications. Was there a concern that if they didn’t back the amendments, the Opposition would be perceived as being allied with fringe, extremist groups? Similarly, did many of us who voted ‘No’ keep our plans to ourselves?
One silver lining from this voting exercise has been the increased consciousness regarding the requirement to assist carers and those with additional needs. Providing substantial welfare benefits doesn’t necessarily translate to services and systems. It would indeed be redemptive if politicians went beyond simply endorsing various charters, instead focusing on introducing practical laws that would tangibly improve the lives of those facing extra hurdles. – Yours sincerely,
KATE GLEESON,
Dublin 9.
Chaps, – I believe the referendums were initiated due to the pressure exerted by NGOs on the government to modify the Constitution. The failure of the reforms clearly indicates that NGOs represent a minuscule faction of voters and are noticeably disconnected with the majority’s sentiment. Kudos to the majority who demonstrated independent thinking and courageously voted against the changes. – Yours sincerely,
MARTIN CROTTY,
Blackrock,
Co Louth.
Sirs, – Post the hasty justifications provided by journalists and politicians whose recommendations were disregarded, the people of Ireland demand transparency regarding the cost of this fiasco. This encompasses the briefing sessions, the documentation, closure of schools, management of related meetings, and the expenditure on Saturday’s count. – Yours sincerely,
CARMEL BEDFORD,
Clonbur,
Co Galway.
“Dear Editor,
At the count of the Sligo-Leitrim constituency results, one could hardly spot any current or potential politicians, who commonly flock to even an “envelope-opening” ceremony, for a photo-op. With the Fall of each ‘No’ ballot from the boxes, they made themselves scarce long before the revelation of the 76.52 per cent and 71.89 per cent ‘No’ votes in the care and family referendums. Much like the country’s overall response, the Sligo-Leitrim voters unequivocally expressed, ‘Record our ‘No’ and move on.’
Best regards,
Sinéad Tracey,
Leitrim.
Dear Editor,
Are citizen assemblies in harmony with our democratic processes? These assemblies comprise a group of unelected individuals whose opinions hold significant sway. It seems like elected governments are under moral obligation to listen and face public disapproval when they don’t follow their advice to the letter. The key decision-making task lies with our TDs, and should not be outsourced to entities like citizens’ assemblies. Also, certain societal groups, represented by NGOs and publicly funded, are given ‘council’ titles, implying authority that they don’t have. They’re also unelected, hence there is no standard of accurately representing their supposed constituents’ views.
This challenges the authorised democratic system established by our constitution. Perhaps the message the voters want to communicate is for elected representatives to fulfil their responsibilities by making tough decisions within the Parliament.
Best regards,
Denis Murphy,
Dunboyne,
Co Meath.
Dear Editor,
Now is the right time for the government to invest efforts in fortifying the institution of marriage, rather than undermining it.
Best regards,
George Morrison,
Kill,
Co Kildare.
Dear Editor,
The selection of phrasing in the care referendum was ill-advised. However, the bitter truth is that the state is currently under-performing in upholding several other rights as well. It’s high time this behaviour was renounced by the masses.
Best regards,
Ultan Ó Broin,
Blackrock.
Co Dublin.”
Dear Sir,
Reflecting upon the outcomes of the recent referendums, one is compelled to ponder why our government representatives, particularly those in positions of power, seem so misaligned with public sentiment. In my estimation, several factors may be contributing to this disconnect.
Firstly, the longer a political figure remains in authority, the easier it becomes for them to drift away from the people they serve. A clear example at hand – Fine Gael’s uninterrupted reign since 2011. Leaders of the Green Party and Fianna Fáil have also held their respective positions in the government for considerable lengths of time.
Secondly, the undue weight that politicians give to public opinion polls is problematic. These polls, generally indicative of transient concerns, offer a fleeting, momentary view and are infamous for being unreliable predictors of election results.
Thirdly, the army of political advisors, some of whom bear partisan interests from the NGOs they represent, is troublesome. These individuals, often remaining out of public view, lack the discipline of Civil Service and are not answerable to the citizenry. However, their behind-the-scenes influence is often considerable. Lastly, dissent and alternate viewpoints are not well-tolerated within the structure of the government. Though it is the duty of civil servants to implement government resolutions, they should also be offering honest, unbiased counsel to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, it seems to be more common these days for civil servants to ponder what the government wants to hear before tailoring their advice accordingly.
Yours sincerely,
Felix M Larkin,
Dublin 18.