Does anyone else think the government is being unbelievably hypocritical over Lisbon?

hatrickpatrick

All this fuss about Libertas funding - regardless of where you stand on the issue, can we all agree that if Libertas had campaigned in favour of the treaty no one would give a damn about their funding? They're only attacking Libertas because their side lost...

Kama

Disagree tbh. I'm fairly tilted to the No side, and I wasn't happy about Libertas; dodgy funding is dodgy funding, it's not entirely a partisan hurrah-boo thing.

If Liberts had been pro-Lisbon, I'm sure you would have seen similar stuff going around of the American military-industial was pro-Lisbon and influencing the election. Indymedia had Libertas links first that I know of, I doubt they would have not posted it.

sovtek

I'm not sure who in the government was saying a few weeks ago that Libertas should have no say on the Lisbon Treaty because they have no democratic mandate...
Hopefully I don't need to point out the glaring lapse in logic there as well as hypocracy. Obviously all the parties that are pro-treaty don't have a democratic mandate either. Hypocracy in the extreme. It's pretty obvious their attitude...vote yes or else.
Oh and I'm no fan of Libertas either.

conceited

Wasn't the bloody rte pushing ther own pro lisbon agenda aswell .

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

Disagree tbh. I'm fairly tilted to the No side, and I wasn't happy about Libertas; dodgy funding is dodgy funding, it's not entirely a partisan hurrah-boo thing.

If Liberts had been pro-Lisbon, I'm sure you would have seen similar stuff going around of the American military-industial was pro-Lisbon and influencing the election. Indymedia had Libertas links first that I know of, I doubt they would have not posted it.

I would agree both with that and with the OP. Had Libertas been on the Yes side, the people asking the questions about their funding would have been different. The refusal by most of the No side to question Libertas' funding is just as hypocritical as the establishment's keen pursuit of the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

All this fuss about Libertas funding - regardless of where you stand on the issue, can we all agree that if Libertas had campaigned in favour of the treaty no one would give a damn about their funding? They're only attacking Libertas because their side lost...

According to Ganley he has contributed to Fianna Fail in the past and no one asked him where his money came from. Total hypocrites alright.

BTW, Ganley was on the Late Late last night. He is a hell of a lot more impressive and believeable than Dick Roche - thats for sure!

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

According to Ganley he has contributed to Fianna Fail in the past and no one asked him where his money came from. Total hypocrites alright.

Did he lend them €200k?

BTW, Ganley was on the Late Late last night. He is a hell of a lot more impressive and believeable than Dick Roche - thats for sure!

Leaving aside the obvious quip about damning with faint praise, what made him believable, apart from the desire to believe him?

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did he lend them €200k?

Don't know what he did. Maybe FF will tell us.

Leaving aside the obvious quip about damning with faint praise, what made him believable, apart from the desire to believe him?

Well, imo, Roche came across as an arogant buffoon (as did Gay Mitchell). To avoid your (false) accusations that I'm somehow a veritas supporter (for the record I have made no paid, unpaid contributions to that organisation), the audience seemed to be well received by the Late Late audience approval and he got a very good clap at the end of his interview. Pat Kenny went fairly lightly on him, probably because he was very unprofessional at the first Lisbon vote when the results were not going 'his way'.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Don't know what he did. Maybe FF will tell us.

So if he gave FF a tenner and "lent" Libertas 200 grand, you don't see a difference? You still think it's hypocrisy?

Well, imo, Roche came across as an arogant buffoon (as did Gay Mitchell).

Par for the course, so far.

To avoid your (false) accusations that I'm somehow a veritas supporter (for the record I have made no paid, unpaid contributions to that organisation)...

No such accusation was forthcoming.

...the audience seemed to be well received by the Late Late audience approval and he got a very good clap at the end of his interview.

OK, but that's a fairly lightweight standard by which to judge credibility. I only watched for a few minutes, but his body language didn't suggest credibility to me - and that's leaving aside the basic stuff like whether or not what he was saying was true.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if he gave FF a tenner and "lent" Libertas 200 grand, you don't see a difference?

I don't know anything about it. I'd like FF to say what, how much he gave and whether it was a loan or a gift or whatever. And then I'd like for Ganley to confirm what they said was true.

OK, but that's a fairly lightweight standard by which to judge credibility. I only watched for a few minutes, but his body language didn't suggest credibility to me - and that's leaving aside the basic stuff like whether or not what he was saying was true.

Fairplay Oscar for giving us another fine example of the arrogance of the 'yes' side. Don't give up the day job as you'd never make it in politics if you ignore the kind of signals that the audience was giving out. Keep this up and Lisbon II will be defeated as well - easily.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Fairplay Oscar for giving us another fine example of the arrogance of the 'yes' side.

Whoah, waitasecond. I'm arrogant because I didn't believe what Declan Ganley was saying on a TV interview? Are we re-defining "arrogant" as well as "bullying"?

Don't give up the day job as you'd never make it in politics if you ignore the kind of signals that the audience was giving out.

I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in politics. It seems to me that the electorate judge their politicians by how convincingly they lie to them, rather than by the veracity of what they say.

Keep this up and Lisbon II will be defeated as well - easily.

I apologise for having the arrogance to express an opinion.

Kama

It seems to me that the electorate judge their politicians by how convincingly they lie to them, rather than by the veracity of what they say.

That's actually the most succinct explication of politics I've seen in a long time...

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whoah, waitasecond. I'm arrogant because I didn't believe what Declan Ganley was saying on a TV interview? Are we re-defining "arrogant" as well as "bullying"? I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in politics. It seems to me that the electorate judge their politicians by how convincingly they lie to them, rather than by the veracity of what they say.

No, Oscar, your comment was arrogant because you dismissed the fairly positive signals (imo) from the audience (i.e., voters) towards Ganley and what he had to say. These voters did not give any indication that they had a problem with his credibility. Surely out of a few hundred people in that audience one or two would want to ask a few hard questions?

I apologise for having the arrogance to express an opinion.

Thanks for the apology Oscar. Next time I'll take your comments more seriously if you actually watch the whole of the interview and the audience reaction at the end.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

...he got a very good clap at the end of his interview.

thehighground wrote: »

No, Oscar, your comment was arrogant because you dismissed the fairly positive signals (imo) from the audience (i.e., voters) towards Ganley and what he had to say.

I didn't realise the outcome of Lisbon II will be decided with one of these.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

I didn't realise the outcome of Lisbon II will be decided with one of these.

Nice to see a bit of humility about the place

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

No, Oscar, your comment was arrogant because you dismissed the fairly positive signals (imo) from the audience (i.e., voters) towards Ganley and what he had to say. These voters did not give any indication that they had a problem with his credibility.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems to me that the electorate judge their politicians by how convincingly they lie to them, rather than by the veracity of what they say.

I'm at a loss as to why I should judge his credibility by the applause he received. When he says things that are actually factually true, with body language that indicates he believes that what he's saying is true, I'll think about considering him credible.

thehighground wrote: »

Surely out of a few hundred people in that audience one or two would want to ask a few hard questions?

Are you implying that because nobody in that particular audience asked hard questions, that there are none that need answering?

Or are you still talking about the meta-discussion about whether the Lisbon debate should be won by whomever the more convincing liar happens to be?

laurak265

Lads i'd be more worried about the budget next week rather than lisbon!

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm at a loss as to why I should judge his credibility by the applause he received. When he says things that are actually factually true, with body language that indicates he believes that what he's saying is true, I'll think about considering him credible.

To avoid confusion here - do you claim he is not credible because of his body language when he is speaking, yet you dismiss the audience approval (clapping, no tough questions, no hecking, only one question over the phone from the Late Late viewership), not to mention not actually watching the whole of the interview ... words fail me

Are you implying that because nobody in that particular audience asked hard questions, that there are none that need answering?

Or are you still talking about the meta-discussion about whether the Lisbon debate should be won by whomever the more convincing liar happens to be?

No, I'm in the camp of I'm sick of hearing accusations with nothing to back them up.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

To avoid confusion here - do you claim he is not credible because of his body language when he is speaking...

That, and saying things that aren't true. It's a potent combination.

...yet you dismiss the audience approval (clapping, no tough questions, no hecking, only one question over the phone from the Late Late viewership), not to mention not actually watching the whole of the interview ... words fail me

If you hadn't had the benefit of a clapping audience to tell you what to think, how would you have judged his credibility?

No, I'm in the camp of I'm sick of hearing accusations with nothing to back them up.

Me too, but he won't stop making them.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

That, and saying things that aren't true. It's a potent combination.

Thought you said you didn't watch it. What did he say that was not true? Then I can try and figure out if whatever he said was true or not is relevant to what way I vote in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

If you hadn't had the benefit of a clapping audience to tell you what to think, how would you have judged his credibility? Me too, but he won't stop making them.

I only mentioned that Ganley was on the Late Late Show in passing because I know there are a few posters here who are obsessed with him. I don't care what Ganley/Veritas think or say because unlike Dick Roche or Gay Mitchell and the rest of them, he doesn't hold a position of public responsibility in Ireland or the EU. As far as I'm concerned, he is irrelevant to the debate. Stop blaming the messenger.

dresden8

djpbarry wrote: »

I didn't realise the outcome of Lisbon II will be decided with one of these.

Why not, how do you think we had ten years of Bertie? It wasn't his economic abilities, vision or oratorical skill.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

I don't care what Ganley/Veritas think or say because unlike Dick Roche or Gay Mitchell and the rest of them, he doesn't hold a position of public responsibility in Ireland...

I would argue that he has bought himself just such a position.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Thought you said you didn't watch it. What did he say that was not true? Then I can try and figure out if whatever he said was true or not is relevant to what way I vote in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.



I only mentioned that Ganley was on the Late Late Show in passing because I know there are a few posters here who are obsessed with him. I don't care what Ganley/Veritas think or say because unlike Dick Roche or Gay Mitchell and the rest of them, he doesn't hold a position of public responsibility in Ireland or the EU. As far as I'm concerned, he is irrelevant to the debate. Stop blaming the messenger.

Curious, though, the way this irrelevant man continues to appear very regularly in the media, and not just to be knocked either. You know Libertas are standing in the Euro elections?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

That will be interesting though. More as a commentary on the main parties.

FF, FG, Labour (and even the PDs as more right wing FFers) have held a monopoly on Irish voters for ever nearly. Is there room for anybody else, even as a protest vote. SF couldn't make it. Can Libertas?

And how will any result be spun?

Libertas get no votes - No vote collapses or Libertas were not an issue in no vote.

Libertas get a reasonable number of votes - country has turned anti-Europe, it's just a protest vote

etc. etc. etc.

May you live in interesting times.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Thought you said you didn't watch it.

There seems to be an ongoing disconnect between the things I write and the things you want to believe I wrote.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Curious, though, the way this irrelevant man continues to appear very regularly in the media, and not just to be knocked either. You know Libertas are standing in the Euro elections?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The reason why he keeps appearing is possibly because people like yourself, Oscar, politicial parties, media who supported a 'yes' vote, are obsessed with him .... no such thing as bad publicity etc. etc.

Why are you worried that they are standing in the Euro elections? Sinn Fein will probably stand a few candidates as well. They also supported a 'no' vote you know.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

There seems to be an ongoing disconnect between the things I write and the things you want to believe I wrote.

I got the impression that you didn't watch the whole programme from something you wrote. You did watch it then! Apologies for taking you up wrong.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

The reason why he keeps appearing is possibly because people like yourself, Oscar, politicial parties, media who supported a 'yes' vote, are obsessed with him .... no such thing as bad publicity etc. etc.

I have to say that last time I looked in the mirror I wasn't Geraldine Kennedy! No, I somehow doubt that explanation - particularly because I'd be perfectly happy to see him drop out of the media. He's keeping himself in there himself, I think.

thehighground wrote: »

Why are you worried that they are standing in the Euro elections? Sinn Fein will probably stand a few candidates as well. They also supported a 'no' vote you know.

I'm (cautiously) pleased they're standing. Shake up the cosy oligopoly of the EP by national parties a bit. As to SF, sure, but so? SF have, what, one MEP? And that's largely based on the eurosceptical vote. If the Libertas campaign comes off they might have 20 MEPs - completely different ballgame from SF, but probably pulling in a lot of the eurosceptical voters.

regards,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say that last time I looked in the mirror I wasn't Geraldine Kennedy! No, I somehow doubt that explanation - particularly because I'd be perfectly happy to see him drop out of the media. He's keeping himself in there himself, I think.

You might not look like Geraldine Kennedy, but you make the same sounds as her newspaper;)

... As to SF, sure, but so? SF have, what, one MEP? And that's largely based on the eurosceptical vote. If the Libertas campaign comes off they might have 20 MEPs - completely different ballgame from SF, but probably pulling in a lot of the eurosceptical voters.

Exactly my point ... voters views on Lisbon might not be reflected by a similar vote for Veritas. When Veritas seek a position of power (i.e., be able to influence the decision making process), then they deserve the same scrutiny as any other politicians.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

You might not look like Geraldine Kennedy, but you make the same sounds as her newspaper;)

Which is remarkable, considering I don't read it!

thehighground wrote: »

Exactly my point ... voters views on Lisbon might not be reflected by a similar vote for Veritas. When Veritas seek a position of power (i.e., be able to influence the decision making process), then they deserve the same scrutiny as any other politicians.

Veritas do cards - Libertas do posters!

No, I disagree, but in a very particular way. I think the SIPO third-party legislation needs tightening, because the aim of it is to provide transparency, and Libertas drove an articulated lorry full of cash through the legislation. Libertas has no "case" to answer, but we do need to know what they did, or at least SIPO does.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6

Going back to the OP on how Ganley's No campaign was funded, at least we know how the Yes campaign was. It was paid for by the taxpayers whether or not they supported the Yes campaign -- and the vote suggests they did not. Perhaps we should be enquiring how come taxpayers money was used in all of the government's PR?

If it's reasonable for tax money to be used to fund the government's campaign, then natural justice suggests that the No campaign should also have been funded publically, then the question would not arise. Oh -- I am missing the point. This is not about democracy, is it?:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

ART6 wrote: »

Going back to the OP on how Ganley's No campaign was funded, at least we know how the Yes campaign was. It was paid for by the taxpayers whether or not they supported the Yes campaign -- and the vote suggests they did not. Perhaps we should be enquiring how come taxpayers money was used in all of the government's PR?

If it's reasonable for tax money to be used to fund the government's campaign, then natural justice suggests that the No campaign should also have been funded publically, then the question would not arise. Oh -- I am missing the point. This is not about democracy, is it?:rolleyes:

The SF campaign was supported by taxpayer's money (as well as EP money). All our political parties receive a sum in proportion to the number of their TDs - so FF spend taxpayer's money campaigning to be elected, including money from taxpayers who hate them with a passion. It's a feature of the system, and removes to some extent their reliance on subsidies from vested interests. It's about democracy, you see.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

The SF campaign was supported by taxpayer's money (as well as EP money). All our political parties receive a sum in proportion to the number of their TDs - so FF spend taxpayer's money campaigning to be elected, including money from taxpayers who hate them with a passion. It's a feature of the system, and removes to some extent their reliance on subsidies from vested interests. It's about democracy, you see.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I realise that Scofflaw, but the point I was making is that the government, who's campaign was funded by the taxpayer, is questioning the funding of Ganley's outfit, which was funded privately. And presumably the investigation and the PR campaign that is accompanying it is also funded by the taxpayer. It just looks to me as if there is a move to discredit the main opposition to Lisbon by doing a little judicious briefing at taxpayer's expense. Get the public suspicious of Ganley and you might just win the next referendum, ignoring the fact that the people have spoken and their decision should be accepted, right or wrong. That in my view is not democracy.

Regards

ART6

Scofflaw

ART6 wrote: »

I realise that Scofflaw, but the point I was making is that the government, who's campaign was funded by the taxpayer, is questioning the funding of Ganley's outfit, which was funded privately. And presumably the investigation and the PR campaign that is accompanying it is also funded by the taxpayer.

Well, no, because there wasn't a government campaign - that's precluded by the McKenna judgement. FF campaigned as a political party.

ART6 wrote: »

It just looks to me as if there is a move to discredit the main opposition to Lisbon by doing a little judicious briefing at taxpayer's expense. Get the public suspicious of Ganley and you might just win the next referendum, ignoring the fact that the people have spoken and their decision should be accepted, right or wrong. That in my view is not democracy.

If the people say No in one referendum, and said Yes in a subsequent referendum, then the people would have overturned the people's earlier decision. It's bizarre to claim that this is undemocratic. Unfair, perhaps, in that the only the government can decide whether there's a referendum or not, but the people reversing their decision can't be undemocratic. "Respecting the people's will" cannot be achieved by attempting to freeze any single decision, because that prevents the people expressing their will on the subject in future, which I think anyone can see is patently the opposite of democratic.

If a second referendum were won by the Yes side on the basis of attacking Libertas, that still isn't undemocratic either. We don't have any "standards in political debate" legislation, more's the pity, any more than we do for the press and media. I'd be perfectly happy to see a law under which politicians and journalists could be sued by individuals for factual inaccuracy or something of that kind ("libelling the intelligence of the public"?), against which the only defence would be the ability to demonstrate the factual basis for one's claims - I suspect such a move would not attract widespread support, though...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, because there wasn't a government campaign - that's precluded by the McKenna judgement. FF campaigned as a political party.

Accepted. I bow to superior knowledge (genuinely -- not being sarchastic). Am I them correct in assuming that FF paid their own costs?

If the people say No in one referendum, and said Yes in a subsequent referendum, then the people would have overturned the people's earlier decision. It's bizarre to claim that this is undemocratic. Unfair, perhaps, in that the only the government can decide whether there's a referendum or not, but the people reversing their decision can't be undemocratic. "Respecting the people's will" cannot be achieved by attempting to freeze any single decision, because that prevents the people expressing their will on the subject in future, which I think anyone can see is patently the opposite of democratic.

Agreed. But to ask the people to vote again should surely suggest that there have been material changes in the original issue, not a little tinkering around the edges. The Lisbon Treaty is, by the admission of several of the EU elite, virtually the same as the EU Constitution that was rejected by France and Holland. They were not given a second change. That is highly undemocratic in my view. So now, an imaginary situation: If we had also voted against the EU Constitution, and then were presented with Lisbon, would that have been considered a material change when the EU elite brazenly confirmed that it was not?



If a second referendum were won by the Yes side on the basis of attacking Libertas, that still isn't undemocratic either. We don't have any "standards in political debate" legislation, more's the pity, any more than we do for the press and media. I'd be perfectly happy to see a law under which politicians and journalists could be sued by individuals for factual inaccuracy or something of that kind ("libelling the intelligence of the public"?), against which the only defence would be the ability to demonstrate the factual basis for one's claims - I suspect such a move would not attract widespread support, though...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Now there I am with you all the way, particularly in respect of politicians. If I as a company director deliberately lied to obtain a material advantage I would be in serious trouble. But then I don't have parliamentary privilage, do I?;)


Regards

ART6