Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

The next claim is that a constitutional referendum is very complex and that we got it wrong in the past and must live with the consequences. When did that happen? The Constitution has been in existence for less than 70 years. During that time it has been amended on no less than 22 occasions. Regarding 21 of those there was not a scintilla of controversy or criticism. The only amendment to the Constitution which brought criticism in its wake was the amendment incorporating the right to life of the unborn, and the only reason for confusion or controversy arising from that amendment arose because people who advocated it and persuaded the Government of the day to run it saw the Supreme Court interpreting it in a way which they did not like and which they did not anticipate. Ironically, when the people were called upon subsequently to pass judgment on the Supreme Court decision, they decided the Supreme Court was right and that its interpretation of what that article meant should not be diluted in any way. If we argue that we should not amend the Constitution because nobody can foresee at the time the ink is dry on the amendment how the Supreme Court will interpret it at any indefinite time in the future, we should put an end to all future constitutional amendments. If the argument were to be taken to its ludicrous and logical conclusion, we should abolish the Constitution altogether because we can never know how the Supreme Court will interpret any individual aspect of it.

The most risible suggestion put forward in defence of this so-called sincere argument is that Article 9 would be in conflict with Article 2 and therefore the whole thing would fall. This argument is put forward despite the fact that the Constitution is replete with examples of untrammelled rights which are subsequently qualified even within the articles. Not only the Irish but all other constitutions with which I am familiar are written in the same way. Deputy Rabbitte who advanced this as one of the pillars of his argument should consult the American constitution.

Is the confusion real or is it a smokescreen for something else? Deputy Rabbitte seems to have changed, at least in tone in recent times, particularly since this matter came to be debated. At the outset of his leadership he chose to behave like the political version of an ambulance-chasing lawyer. Now he gives the impression of a man who is cut to the quick, torn apart, even physically stricken by the chicanery, deceit and treachery he sees all around him.

See this speech in context