Seamus Brennan . . . of whom it must at least be said that he's not afraid of being unpopular . . . wants to make pensions compulsory. This is in the hope that the 'grey euro' will still be in circulation in another few decades, but among its many unsavoury repercussions (which are being thrashed out everywhere) would be the obligation to participate in the stock markets whether you liked it or not.

Almost half of Ireland's two million-strong workforce has no pension. Some of them are being otherwise resourceful . . .

buying land or art or property. But if you're able to afford land or art or property now, you're not all that likely ever to be a burden on the state in any case.

Could it be that it's the lowpaid who would be forced to contribute part of their income to the blubbery profits of pension funds, just in the hope of keeping their two-bar heaters on in later life? What are they paying PRSI for?

As it happens, big business is against it, which is a death sentence for most government policies. Big business appears instead to favour "incentivising the rollover of SSIAs". (You have to laugh: it helps prevent nausea. ) So it may be that beginning a concerted resistance to mandatory pensions now would be premature and reactionary. Still, there's no harm in being ready, especially as there's undoubtedly a slippery slope around here somewhere that leads to the abolition of the state pension.

So, does anyone feel a constitutional challenge coming on? Can't you see it now, some wide-eyed firebrand giving heartfelt if slightly frightened interviews outside the Four Courts, surrounded by a murder of billowing lawyers, and maybe ending up with a seat in the European parliament?

After all, we'll get nowhere waiting around for some legal crow to issue advice on de Valera's Little Blue Book. Frivolous, amateur constitutionreading is highly recommended, whatever it lacks in judicial merit.

It might be a stretch, but there's always article 40.6.1. iii, the right of citizens to form associations and unions. With a bit of imagination this might extend to the right not to form associations with fund managers. Unfortunately there's a sort of rider after it saying that laws can be enacted to control the exercise of that right, but we could see how we got on.

This one is a bit weak too, but how about article 45.2. i, which guarantees us the right to find the means of making reasonable provision for our domestic needs?

Could we infer from that any personal sovereignty in the manner in which we provide for our needs?

There's article 43, which deals with the right to private ownership. We might say that allows us to insist on personal ownership of the fruits of our own labours. Mind you, we might also claim that as an argument against income tax, which would get us absolutely nowhere.

Article 44.2.1 is promising:

"freedom of conscience is guaranteed to every citizen".

That might afford citizens the freedom not to own shares in anything they scorn as a matter of conscience, no matter what their individual moral peculiarities . . . big oil, big banking, big tobacco (probably goes without saying), armaments, genetics, property development, stem cell research, nuclear power, computers (why not? Some people just don't like them).

As it happens, the constitution is being failed daily anyway. For example, article 45 continues that ownership or control of essential commodities should not be allowed to be concentrated in a few individuals to the common detriment. One word:

Eircom.

The last resort must be article 45.4.1, in which the state pledges to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan and the aged.

There it is, you see. We've committed ourselves to looking after one another (or at least we did in our 1937 incarnation); we'll just have to find a way to do it.