Thus far, Joan Burton has been a major let-down as minister for social protection. By Vincent Browne.

Joan Burton was disappointed not to have been given a senior finance position in the Fine Gael-Labour government last March, according to media reports at the time, which she did not deny subsequently.

If she was disappointed, it was understandable, for she had achieved an expertise in the financial and economic crisis that no one else in the government parties had achieved, with the possible exception of Richard Bruton. Certainly, she had much more expertise than either of the two people appointed to finance posts, Michael Noonan and Brendan Howlin.

In my opinion, she would also have been more capable in dealing with the EU and ECB on the debt colossus than Noonan has been, with less cuteness and more strategy.

The timeframe to build significant political pressure to force them to hold a referendum is short, but it needs to be done. By Paul Murphy.

Leo Varadkar’s comments about referendums being undemocratic raises a question about the government’s understanding of democracy. Presumably getting elected on the basis of not giving “another red cent” to the Anglo bondholders - and then proceeding to hand over billions to them - is more democratic than allowing the people to decide on a vital question like joining an Austerity Club.

The fact that the Government is striving might and main to avoid a referendum on this treaty adds insult to injury because the treaty itself involves a fundamental attack on basic democratic rights. The Government is eager to avoid debate on this, with Varadkar complaining about extraneous issues being dragged into a referendum debate for example. However, it is the Left that has attempted to debate the content and meaning of the actual treaty so far, which the government has studiously avoided. We want to have that debate in front of the mass of people and for the people to decide whether we sign up to this treaty.

With the collapse of the Celtic tiger, there was a chance for Labour to change minds radically by arguing for a society fired by social solidarity rather than profit and narrow self-interest - but the party flunked it. By Vincent Browne.

On RTÉ Radio 1's Liveline programme last week, a woman was excitedly demanding that everyone should share the pain of the budgetary adjustment, and that complaints about the reduction in the First Communion allowance were absurd.

She said it was ridiculous to insist that social welfare should not be cut. Host Joe Duffy intervened to characterise the woman's arguments as "equality of pain" which, on the face of it, sounded fair enough. The late Brian Lenihan was of a similar view; he thought it was essential to social solidarity that everyone should share the pain. For that reason, he thought the universal social charge was a great idea, encompassing people previously considered too poor to pay income tax.

If the Taoiseach does not understand his own contribution to this crash, we are in greater trouble than we think. By Vincent Browne.

In a few years’ time, when asked how the Celtic Crash occurred and how Ireland, once a nation, became a province once again, a future taoiseach may reflect that the fiscal treaty of 2012 was a turning point.

A turning point not in the Celtic Crash, for that occurred much earlier, but in the surrender of sovereignty for an indefinite period that consigned Ireland to being a province once again. Yes, elements of that surrender were in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Yes, also, in the European Stability Fund Treaty, which, incidentally, has yet to be ratified by the Dáil. But the surrender has been made complete with this fiscal treaty, and I hope to return to that theme in these columns over the coming months.

I want to deal here with the Celtic Crash and Enda Kenny. For if our Taoiseach does not understand what caused the crash and, by the way, his own handsome contribution to it, then we are in even more trouble than we appreciated.

Fine Gael made a commitment before the election to at least attempt to renegotiate the debt, but last week Enda Kenny told us "We have never looked for a debt writedown". By Vincent Browne.

A comment that Taoiseach Enda Kenny made in the Dáil last Tuesday was even more stunning than the airhead "people went mad borrowing" remark, which he made in front of the masters of the universe at Davos.

He told the Dáil: "We will not have 'defaulter' written on our foreheads. We will pay our way. We have never looked for a debt writedown, although we want an extension of flexibility from these facilities to help our taxpayers and in dealing with our deficit, and to help repay our debts in a more realistic fashion."

Never looked for a debt writedown? Having made promise after promise during the election campaign a year ago that he would do precisely that? On the basis of that promise, his party got its largest number of seats ever in our parliament.

Members of Government are resorting to invention to justify their capitulation to ECB blackmail. By Vincent Browne.

On Sunday evening Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar, on RTÉ’s The Week in Politics programme, was asked why the State was paying unguaranteed Anglo bondholders and in particular the €1.2 billion it is paying today. He said the Government had to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of doing this and the advantages were almost non-existent, for the €1.2 billion was not money we could retrieve in the short term, whereas the disadvantages were considerable.

Among the disadvantages he cited was that, as a consequence of defaulting on the bond payments, interest rates for semi-State firms here would increase, leading to higher electricity and gas charges for households.

Explaining this, he said: “We can look at Denmark. Denmark put one of the banks into resolution [ie default] last year and as a result of this the cost of borrowing for the Danish state and for Danish semi-states increased.”

Constitutional reform is a valuable opportunity for public debate on the sort of society and values citizens aspire to. By Peader Kirby and Mary P. Murphy.

The March 2011 Programme for Government promised a constitutional convention “to consider comprehensive constitutional reform” and to report within 12 months. Yet the virtual silence on the idea in the intervening period sends signals that rewriting our Constitution is seen as being of little importance to government and opposition alike.

A recent announcement that the Government would consult with opposition parties about the convention at last promises some action. Debate is therefore urgently needed to ensure wide input into the process and that the lessons from elsewhere are fully considered.

Recent examples from other countries show that the process of how constitutions were rewritten has proven to be a valuable opportunity for widespread public debate on the sort of values and society citizens aspire to and want reflected in their constitution. A key lesson therefore is that the process helps determine what sort of constitution emerges.

For all their talk of reform, Labour and Fine Gael are as committed as their Fianna Fáil predecessors to maintaining the Dáil as an tool of the government of the day, accountable to no one. By Vincent Browne.

The Dáil met at 10.30am on Friday last with the usual affront to those who do not share a Christian belief, in the form of the “Paidir”, and, immediately, Éamon Ó Cuív sought to raise an issue to do with misleading information that had been given to the Dáil before a vote was taken on the Water Services (Amendment) Bill.

Leas-Cheann Comhairle Michael Kitt would not permit this, saying the only matter to be discussed that day was private business. The Government Chief Whip, Paul Keogh, intervened to say: “Deputy Ó Cuív had his chance yesterday. Throw him out.” After a few more exchanges the Dáil sitting was suspended for five minutes, and on resumption Ó Cuív sought to resume his point, claiming the House had been lied to on Thursday.