While the cynical may dismiss it as a Friday night news story on his ardfheis weekend, the Taoiseach's announcement that the Government has decided to hold a children's rights referendum is genuine. Consultation on a wording and timescale with the opposition parties and groups who work in the area is already under way.
Almost everyone is instinctively well-disposed to the concept of giving children greater protection. Turning this instinctive support into a majority Yes vote for a specific constitutional change is an entirely different task. There is a long political road to travel before such a referendum can be assured of success.
There have been previous instances where opinion polls have indicated high levels of public support for constitutional change only for this support to dissipate when an actual amendment is put to the people in a referendum. In the 1980s opinion polls repeatedly showed a large majority in favour of lifting the constitutional ban on divorce, but in 1986 the first referendum proposing such a constitutional change was roundly defeated by 63 per cent to 37 per cent. The second referendum on the topic in 1995, which this time even enjoyed the (tepid) support of Fianna Fáil, was passed, but only by 50.3 per cent to 49.7 per cent.
Similarly, surveys have always shown very high levels of support in Ireland for the general notion of greater European integration. This level of support always fell away somewhat whenever a new European Union treaty was published and fell away a little more once the referendum battle over the precise impact of the proposed treaty text began. Although on all occasions, bar one, the European treaty referendum was passed. The single exception was the defeat of the first Nice referendum in 2001.
Indeed the first Nice referendum defeat should act as a stark warning to anyone who assumes that lining up all the main political parties and leading campaigning groups on the Yes side of an issue will ensure its safe passage in a referendum.
Indeed, there is an extent to which an "establishment" consensus around one side of a referendum can have the impact of unnerving some of the electorate. It also has the consequence of handing the leadership profile on the No side to more extreme elements. This in turn has sometimes led to some of the more evangelical supporters of the Yes vote doing their cause harm by dismissing all on the No side as sharing all the views of the high profile extremists.
The experience of the two Nice referenda campaigns also emphasises that what will be required from the political parties is not just the endorsement of their party leaderships but also the active involvement of their countrywide organisations.
The proposal to give greater constitutional protection to children will be less controversial than proposals for greater European integration or than the introduction of divorce, but its success can still not be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
Getting the wording right will, of itself, be a difficult task because of the nature of the legal issues involved. Politically, however, it is also important that the wording is one which does not lend itself to misrepresentation - deliberate or otherwise - about what it might mean for parental or other rights.
The publication of an opinion poll earlier this week by Barnardos is a useful contribution to the debate. The poll was commissioned from research firm Behaviour and Attitudes and was taken among a representative sample of 1,200 adults in September. When asked whether the Constitution should contain an explicit commitment to children's rights, almost three-quarters of respondents said they would support it. It is striking that support for the proposition is consistently high across both genders and all age groups and is as strong among non-parents as it is among parents. Support is also consistent across the State and holds up, irrespective of the respondent's general political party preference.
Launching the findings, Barnardos' chief executive Fergus Finlay noted that when a sample wording for a constitutional amendment was put to respondents, their support rose to 80 per cent. However, the wording put to those sampled was a very general and positive statement about "safeguarding as a key priority the welfare and protection of children, especially those who are disadvantaged" and ensuring "that the best interests of children will be the priority consideration in all matters concerning them".
When one reads this bald proposition on its own, one is left wondering why one fifth of people would vote against it. Even Barnardos accepts, however, that this simple and direct proposition would not work legally and will not work on its own. This week Barnados also floated a proposed wording for the amendment devised after consulting with a cross-section of legal opinion. Of necessity this wording was a little more turgid than that put before respondents in the September poll and they suggested that the change should be accompanied by another express amendment which would allow that in exceptional cases, where parents fail to protect the welfare of their children, the State shall "take such action as is necessary to ensure such protection".
Particular care will have to be taken in the process now about to begin. The tone set from the start will be important. Some of the groups will have to accept that, if not the legal reality, then the political reality is that the change may not go as far as they might ideally wish. They will have to be prepared to accept a political judgment on where the majority of the electorate may be at, or can be brought to, on this issue.
This constitutional change is not impossible to achieve but it will be more difficult than some suggest. It is because it is a good idea that it should be done carefully.