Labour criticise xenophobic referendum

March 15th, 2004 | by aobaoill |

Pat Rabitte has released an interesting statement on the government’s planned referendum:
Ireland seems to have produced another politician who automatically knows what is good for the Irish people from looking into his own heart. For Minister McDowell to assert that he ‘knows’ something is supposed to be sufficient for everyone to recognise the inherent sagacity of the Minister’s latest whim.

Before his departure for a St. Patrick’s Day visit to South Africa, the Minister announced that the government had decided to hold a referendum on citizenship, although the Taoiseach, as recently as February 17th, had told the Dail that the government had no plans for any referendum in 2004.
Minister McDowell initially gave as his sole reason for embarking on a referendum a meeting at which the Masters of the Dublin Maternity Hospitals had ‘pleaded with me to change the law in relation to this. They didn’t ask for additional resources they were asking me to change the law’.
It has since emerged that the Masters did nothing of the kind and, contrary to the impression given by the Minister, the Masters had been invited by Minister McDowell’s officials to meet him in October 2002. In a statement the two Masters concerned have said that they did not ask the Minister for Justice to change the law or hold a referendum. So what is the Minister playing at? Drs Sean Daly and Michael Geary say that they had given no opinions as to what the government should do about legislative or constitutional changes in relation to the status of non-nationals.
Anybody familiar with the pressures on the Dublin Maternity Hospitals is aware that this sensitive issue requires to be addressed in as calm and rational an environment as is possible. But it undermines confidence in the Minister’s approach when it emerges that he so seriously misrepresents the reason that he has opted for a referendum. If he were to get his way in Cabinet in running such a sensitive referendum in the context of local elections, it will further erode confidence in the Minister’s motivation. Even more important are the questions raised about the implications for the Good Friday Agreement, something that the Minister concedes he has not yet fully worked out.
Given that the present constitutional arrangements, set out in Articles 2 and 3, derive directly from the Good Friday Agreement, which the Government is striving to resuscitate, a very strong argument indeed is required to justify unilateral action that involves a re-writing of the terms of that agreement, without consulting the parties to it and securing their consent.
Particularly when the Government strongly argues that the Good Friday Agreement can only be “reviewed” during the current talks process and that it cannot be amended in any substantial way.
Article 2 of the Constitution now says: “Every person born in the island of Ireland, its islands and its seas, has an entitlement and birthright to be part of the Irish nation”. This provision in the Constitution, which was approved by the people in a referendum on the 22nd May, 1998, gives effect in Irish law to the British-Irish Agreement, part of the Good Friday Agreement. And the “entitlement and birthright” referred to in the new Article 2 translates, in terms of citizenship laws, into an entitlement to be an Irish citizen.
There is a need now for the Taoiseach to say clearly that his government will decouple this issue from the frenzy of elections and allow for an informed and calm debate on an issue that must be handled with sensitivity.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.