Mr Kenny told the Dáil today that 'no court had set out specifically the parameters, confines and meaning of the McKenna judgement', according to the Irish Times website report by two of the paper's experienced Dáil reporters Michael O'Regan and Marie O'Halloran. I am assuming their report is accurate.
The claim he makes about no Court setting out the meaning of the McKenna judgment indicates that Mr Kenny believes there is still some lingering doubt about how it was that he and his Government broke their Constitutional duty in the conduct of the referendum. If that is so, we really do have cause to worry. It could not be much simpler.
Four Supreme Court judges in the McKenna case set out exactly what they meant in their own words and using plain English. Their 1995 judgment is here.
And if that was too long, how about reading 500 words? That is the rough length of the Supreme Court ruling of last Thursday. If you missed it, here it is:
'Ruling of the Court delivered on the 8th day of November, 2012 by Denham C.J.
1. This is an appeal by Mark McCrystal, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.) given on the 1st November, 2012.
2. This matter was dealt with as a matter of urgency by the High Court, as it is by this Court, as the appellant has sought declarations, an injunction and consequential orders which have a relevance to the Referendum taking place on the 10th November, 2012.
3. In McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2)  2 I.R. 10, it was held that the Government in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular result in a Referendum process was in breach of the Constitution.
The people adopted the Constitution 75 years ago. The Constitution belongs to the people and may be amended only by the people in a Referendum. It is this democratic process which is protected by the McKenna principles. Public funding should not be used in a Referendum to espouse a particular point of view.
4. The McKenna principles may be found in the several judgments in that case. These principles, which are not in dispute, are consistent with standards recognised both nationally and internationally for a Referendum process, such as the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code for Good Practice on Referendums, adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th Meeting (Venice, 16 December, 2006) and the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16 – 17 March, 2007).
5. At issue in this case is the application of these principles to a booklet and a website, both entitled “Children’s Referendum”, and advertisements, published and disseminated by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, on foot of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, which the appellant submits breach the McKenna principles.
6. The Court is required to give its decision promptly, in view of the pending Referendum to be held on Saturday, 10th November, 2012. The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. The Court will give its ruling today and judgements will be delivered on Tuesday, 11th December, 2012.
7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.
8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.
9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.'
There it is: the public's money must not be used by Government in a campaign to persuade the public to change the Constitution.
That was the rule, and that was what was broken by the Government.
Please do not pay more of our money to consultants, market researchers, lawyers or anyone else in a politically expedient effort to make the simple complex. Just run the next referendum by the rules. That is not a lot to ask of our lawmakers.