Ireland’s voice on abortion is a lesson to us all

Referendums show the will of the people on a certain issue; how that is carried out is for politicians

The abortion referendum result in Ireland has been widely welcomed here. The Remainers who never stop complaining about our Brexit referendum do not seem to be saying how disgraceful it is that the Irish people were allowed to choose. Their objections to “populism” and allowing people to make up their minds on very difficult subjects do not seem to apply in the case of the Republic.

Personally, I greatly regret the Irish result, because I think that, in matters of life or death, one should try to side with life; but I also think the subject was a fit one for a referendum. It is not – or should not be – a question for party politics. It concerns the country’s constitution. In the 1980s, the Irish electorate voted to put the abortion ban into their constitution. Now they have voted to take it out. That is their right. They are the best people to decide.

The same goes for Brexit. We voted to stay in what was then called the European Economic Community in 1975. We voted to leave the European Union in 2016. In both cases, a referendum was morally necessary because the leaders of the main political parties were all on one side of the argument (pro-“europe”). The alternative view needed to have its chance. Second time round, it won.

There is another similarity between the British and the Irish experiences. It is that the decision in principle does not – indeed, cannot – frame the exact way in which the will of the people will be carried out. The Irish vote gets rid of the article in the constitution: it does not say how much abortion must now be allowed. The Brexit vote mandates us to leave the EU: it does not give orders about exactly when or how. That is for government and Parliament.

However, if, as is technically possible, the result of the Irish referendum changes the constitution but does not bring in any abortion, that will flout the wishes of voters. The same applies to Brexit legislation. MPS have the legal right to vote against it, but if they end up stopping Brexit or permitting it in name only, they will have betrayed the people.

Some British ministers are now campaigning for Northern Ireland to allow abortion too. They should be careful. The government of Northern Ireland is devolved, so Westminster cannot suddenly step in and make its decisions for it – unless we re-impose direct rule, which the Government is at great pains to avoid.

The other error is a more tactical one. To argue that a change in the South demands a change in the North is not clever. The Ulster majority rarely take kindly to the thought. Indeed, their entire existence as a majority depends on the fact that they did not accept what the Republic wanted.

Have you noticed that the private garage has now forsaken its original purpose? Modern cars are so well made that they can start when it is cold, and they rust very little in the rain. They no longer need to be wrapped up warm and put to bed at night as if they were little children. They also do not need the protection from theft that garages afford, since modern cars and so computerised and locked that they are almost impossible to steal. The only motoring advantage of a garage is in a street where there is no parking space. I have never lived in a house with a garage, and it has never occurred to me that I might need one.

Yet garages have not become superfluous. In a country where planning permissions are ever harder, they can be put to many other uses without troubling the authorities too much. Quite often – I notice, but I am not sure the planning officers always do – they become mini-houses. If random garage raids were suddenly ordered, I bet they would turn up a surprising range of little factories, offices, granny annexes and overcrowded homes for unfortunate Romanians. They are best left unraided, though. An Englishman’s garage is his castle. Last week, this column said some nice things about Augustus Frederick, the only Duke of Sussex to precede Prince Harry. I regret to have to report less flattering thoughts from an eyewitness. My attention has been drawn to the diary of my great-greatgreat-great grandfather, Lord Lyttelton. He was a leading light of the Great Reform Bill. In that capacity, in 1831, he dined with the Prime Minister, Lord Grey, the night before a parliamentary debate on the Bill. Lyttelton recorded: “The Duke of Sussex was one of the party. He showed the usual bad taste and faulty principles of his Family in conversation, telling stories that were little short of blasphemous, and uttering profane oaths frequently: and I hear he is very often gross and indecent. His manner to us was half buffoonish, and contrasted strongly with Ld. Grey’s highly gentleman-like demeanour.”

Oh dear. The new Duke will surely display neither bad taste nor faulty principles. But he and the Duchess could confirm this by coming and living among us in the county from which he takes his title. I recommend residence in Hastings, which has been, as it used to say on the postmark, “popular with visitors since 1066”, but could definitely do with the sort of royal boost that the Prince Regent once gave to Brighton.