Before this Bill passes its Final Stage I should like to remove a misapprehension which seems to have been created in the minds of some people who will have to deal with this Bill when it leaves this House. I heard one Deputy suggest that, if the Bill becomes an Act, its terms may be applied to Acts which have already passed the Oireachtas. A great railwayman said some time ago that the only exercise that some people take is jumping to conclusions. I am afraid that that would apply to the grotesque apprehension which has been created in this particular respect. Reference to the Bill will show that no Bill can be submitted to referendum unless a written request in respect to it is presented to the President of the Executive Council not later than seven days from the day on which the Bill shall be so passed or deemed to have been so passed. Quite obviously, therefore, the terms of this Bill could not apply to any Bills which have now become Acts. In any case, I could not imagine any person professing to be a democrat having any objection to any Bill, even one which had become an Act, being submitted to the judgment of the people.
I should like also to emphasise the fact that this people is devoid of Party association. I, for one, would not have anything to do with the Bill or help its passage into law if I thought it had any tinge of Party politics. I have associated myself with the Bill because of the fact that I think it is a necessary safeguard for democracy. It is a good Bill in itself. I support it because I opposed as vigorously as I could the deletion of the referendum provisions from the original Constitution. I hope that elsewhere, all Parties will see the wisdom of treating this Bill in a non-Party way and of discussing it on its merits solely. I think that if they look at the experience we have gathered since this State was formed they will agree that this measure is necessary in the interests of us all. A constitution is a contract made with the people, all the people, and not merely a majority of them. It should have more stability than an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas which can be altered by a decision of a bare majority of the elected representatives in the Dáil. Many things have been done by majorities, bare majorities in some cases, who are flushed with victory or inflamed with passion, which are not just or right according to the laws of God or man. We know that there was a definite majority for the Crucifixion of Christ but that did not render the act right in itself. There should, in the long run, be some haven of refuge to which a minority who are oppressed by the majority should be able to retire and therein find security. The Constitution, which should represent the fundamental principles upon which our State is formed and upon which all Parties may agree irrespective of detailed differences regarding general legislation, should, in my opinion, form such a haven of security. If the Constitution can be altered from year to year and from month to month, without any reference whatever to the people with whom the contract was made, then it becomes a mere delusion and a snare.
We are told that adult suffrage and five-yearly elections are the best possible safeguard. They are a safeguard to a certain degree, but they are certainly not an adequate safeguard for many reasons. One reason is that, in regard to constitutional law any more than general law, you cannot rely upon any single Party in the country "staying put", so to speak, during a period of five years. An Opposition, that represent themselves as the unbiased and pure-souled advocates of the best type of democracy, can very quietly and very easily shed their democratic tendencies after a short time of office. Even the most reactionary government, when hurled from power, becomes an advocate of both constitutional and individual liberty the moment it becomes the Opposition. We have numerous instances of that for our own use and benefit. The late Government proceeded to knock out of the Constitution anything that tended to delay or impede their progress or to interfere with Party policy without even giving these Articles of the Constitution a fair trial as trials go in national affairs. They now protest vigorously against a similar tendency on the part of their successors. They eliminated the Referendum from the Constitution, but they are now apparently agreeable to its reinstatement although they professed to look upon it as an eyesore and a hindrance to liberty. The Fianna Fáil Party violently opposed the removal of the Referendum, but since they were returned to power they have given no indication whatever of their desire to reinstate it. Naturally, they desired to avail themselves of the same freedom which they denounced the late Government for seeking to secure for themselves.
The Cosgrave Government sponsored a Public Safety Act amending the Constitution, and it was declared by the then Opposition to be the most ruthless and unjustifiable invasion of public and private liberty in the history of parliaments. Yet, on being returned to power, they not only failed to repeal that Act but gladly seized upon it as a dandy weapon against the very same people by whom they said the Act was inspired.
