I refer to the correspondence (September 2) regarding the Irish No to the EU reform treaty. I agree with Clive Brousson that a referendum is the most democratic way to get approval of any proposal be it a treaty or otherwise. However, there are referenda and referenda. When a referendum is of direct concern to the local people, it would be the best way to judge their opinion. Malta held such a referendum when it asked its people, whether they should join the EU or not.

The Irish people were asked, again through a referendum, whether they approved the introduction of divorce. The people agreed, though through a slim majority, to introduce divorce in their laws. In both these instances, a referendum appeared to be apposite.

Conversely, when a referendum is demanded for the approval of the EU reform treaty or something similar, funny things start to happen. Disparate groups suddenly seem to coalesce. The extreme left with the extreme right. Others will jump on the bandwagon. The gays, the anti-globalisationists, the anti-fur league, etc. Any anti group will find the platform to voice their contempt. Then there are those who wish to give a slight nudge to their government on account of overcrowded hospitals, unpopular ministers, unfinished roads etc. It's like when a G8 conference comes to town!

The weather may play its part too. If it is bright and sunny, people will flock to the countryside or the beaches. If it's muggy and rainy they stay in bed for long hours (I don't know how they manage it!). So you get a distorted result. There is a better chance of balanced and sane arguments in Parliament.

Now I know it is practically impossible for the Irish to amend their constitution if it needs any changes. They have experienced bitter laws from their politicians in the past.

In 1800 the Irish Parliament passed the infamous Act of Union wherein, through bribery and against the wishes of more than 80 per cent of the Irish they integrated with Britain. So the United Kingdom of England and Ireland came into being. Of course in those days only people who owned property could vote. They just voted to maintain and add to their property. This threw their country, for more than a century, to dissent, revolts, division, violence, famine, disease, epidemics, mass migration, etc. Of course, today through universal suffrage no such event can happen.

I cannot answer Derek Bennett. His arguments seem to cause my head to run against a wall!