€10,000 reward for info on Libertas Funding!

studiorat

The Village magazine relaunched this week offers a €10,000 reward to find the source of Libertas' funding for the Lisbon decision.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1128/1227825379911.html

It is not the first time Mr Smith or Village contributor Colm MacEochaidh have made such a proposition. In 1995, they offered a reward for information that eventually led to the instigation of the Flood/Mahon tribunal.

dlofnep

Who cares where their funding comes from? I'm more worried about our Government trying to erode democracy within Ireland by forcing us to vote on something we have already voted on.

The yes-side are just trying to divert attention elsewhere.

cooperguy

Bull.

It was only voted against because of a huge amount of lies being peddled by a large amount of the no side. Why wouldnt you want to know who is behind that.

J.S. Pill

Good to see that the Village actually has 10 grand to splash around...

yoyo

Where did the village gets its funding :pac:

Nick

dlofnep

cooperguy wrote: »

Bull.

It was only voted against because of a huge amount of lies being peddled by a large amount of the no side. Why wouldnt you want to know who is behind that.

Wrong. It was voted against because people didn't want to give their power away to people that they did not and could not vote for.

The mere fact that central power within the EU has put pressure on the Irish government to re-run the referendum, which has already been dismissed by the Irish people - is proof that the EU wishes to become a centralised power, which limits the power of the voting public within each EU state.

The people had concerns about the power being shifted from Ireland to a few nobends in Brussels. The people's concerns were 100% proved to be correct, with the likes or Sarky-cozy trying to dictate what happens in OUR country.

So no, I couldn't give a monkeys about where Declan Ganley got his funds. I didn't vote no based on what Declan Ganley had to say. I don't care about Declan Ganley. If he has rich friends that want to offer financial support to one of his campaigns, who cares? Unless he's taking our tax-paying money from FÁS funds for haircuts, then to be honest - I couldn't care less about where he gets his money. Do we ask where FF or FG got their money for their campaigns? You don't think that they have wealthy friends in their circles too? You're having a laugh.

jhegarty

Unless the money came from the FAS budget , then who cares.

Declan Ganley is not running for public office , and until he does none of this matters. If he does ever run for public office then I presume he will have to follow the same rules as everyone else.


And for the record, I voted no because I don't like the way Europe is going. Their reaction to the no vote has confirmed everything I feared. I will be voting no again this time , and the next ,and the next and......

who cares who funds them !

we should not be voting on something we voted on already, its that simple.

democracy my a*se:mad:

studiorat

dlofnep wrote: »

Who cares where their funding comes from? I'm more worried about our Government trying to erode democracy within Ireland by forcing us to vote on something we have already voted on.

The yes-side are just trying to divert attention elsewhere.

Who forced you to vote yes? I presume you voted no...

Most of the people voted no 'cause they couldn't be bothered to find out what the Lisbon treaty actually was.

dlofnep

studiorat wrote: »

Who forced you to vote yes? I presume you voted no...

Yes, I voted no. And they should respect my vote. If everyone voted yes, do you think the no side could force a re-run of the Lisbon treaty because people didn't know enough about it? Absolutely not.

studiorat wrote: »

Most of the people voted no 'cause they couldn't be bothered to find out what the Lisbon treaty actually was.

Oh I see. You were out talking to them were you? I leafletted for the no campaign and out of the hundreds of people I spoke to, the majority of them didn't want to vote yes because they didn't want Europe to dictate Irish affairs.

And it's categorically clear, that right now - given a forced re-run of the referendum - Europe IS dictating Irish affairs.

Have a nice day.

ergo

I am just going to quote a letter to the Irish Times (1st August) from Joe Costello TD, Labour Party Spokesperson on Europe, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.

*************************************************

"Declan Ganley's Libertas's spend of €912,753 on the No campaign was greater than the total spend on the Yes campaign which included all the main political parties.

Mr Ganley refuses to reveal the sources of finance for his campaign. At the same time each of the political parties must reveal their sources.

Indeed the whole purpose of our ethics code is to ensure that public representatives are not in the pockets of wealthy business people who may have an agenda which is not in the country's interest.

It is unacceptable that a single wealthy individual whose business interests are largely based outside this country should be able to use his wealth to influence the outcome of a constitutional referendum in Ireland and at the same time not have to disclose the source of his funding."

****************************************************

I think the above letter makes some very valid points, as the US election shows, spending on campaign certainly can buy votes, not particularly the recent election but all of them have a big focus on the "treasure chests", in this day and age, money and the media exposure it brings certainly can buy votes

I think they should ban all the ridiculous lamp-post posters and let people make an informed decision by actually reading what it's about rather than the hysterical "vote no or lose jobs/tax bla blah/vote yes because I'm your TD" rubbish

studiorat

Dictate Irish affairs? Nice rhetoric.
I suppose you them the speil about abortion on tap and conscription into the European army and the European elites? Or was it the one about Padraig Pearse rolling in his grave?

jhegarty

ergo wrote: »

Indeed the whole purpose of our ethics code is to ensure that public representatives are not in the pockets of wealthy business people who may have an agenda which is not in the country's interest.

But he isn't a public representative....

mp3guy

Surely Libertas have nothing to hide :rolleyes:

dlofnep

studiorat wrote: »

Dictate Irish affairs? Nice rhetoric.

Nice rhetoric? The Irish people voted no to the treaty. Sarkozy came over and put a stern word in with the Irish government. And now, they are going to re-run the referendum again. If you cannot see the reality of Europe dictating Irish affairs in this scenario, then you are seriously deluded.

studiorat wrote: »

I suppose you them about abortion on tap and conscription into the European army and the European elites? Or was it the one about Padraig Pearse rolling in his grave?

No I didn't. I didn't want Irish affairs to be dictated by Europe.

Back on topic - Who really gives a rats arse about where Ganley got his money from? So long as it's not our tax, he doesn't have to answer to the Irish public. By law, he is not allowed to disclose who assisted him in funding his campaign.. It the bigger picture, it's totally irrelevant.

dubscribe

dlofnep wrote: »

Who cares where their funding comes from? I'm more worried about our Government trying to erode democracy within Ireland by forcing us to vote on something we have already voted on.

The yes-side are just trying to divert attention elsewhere.

Anybody see the PRIME TIME TV show on RTE the other night about Declan Ganley.

Ouch, what a hatchet job - mind you it did raise some questions in my mind about how "up front" Ganley is? He did seem a wee bit shifty to me sometimes.

BUT, I love that he stuck it to the Government
How DARE they treat us like ejits!!!! :mad:

BlitzKrieg

Yes, I voted no. And they should respect my vote. If everyone voted yes, do you think the no side could force a re-run of the Lisbon treaty because people didn't know enough about it? Absolutely not.

Well obviously they cant because aside from voting No on european affairs it seems the majority dont seem to want them to have anything to do with irish politics.

Not accusing anyone of being stupid or smart or right or wrong. But the fundemental flaw is the parties that get elected into government support european policy.

Of course they are fully in their right to put to referendum the changes to the constitution that are required to accept the lisbon treaty as many times as they want because they are our elected representatives (and thats democracy)

Just as its fully in the right of politic parties on the *no* campaign to if elected request a referendum to undo the changes by any treaty put forward by the EU.

Really this is happening because these elements show up just for one election, they have great success and then it all just breaks up and disapears.

Is it the fault of the campaign that it does not seem to develope a platform for continueing politics.

Or is it the fault of the irish people that we only seem to care about the EU when there is a referendum and then ignore it until the next referendum.

What do you expect the government in power to do? They are at odds with their electorate. They could just hold another general election in the hope that a new government would match up with what the electorate wants.

But there has been no increased support in any substantial way to any parties on the no campaign that could reach office. So it will again be a yes campaign party in power

So of course they are gonna look at trying the treaty again.

studiorat

dlofnep wrote: »

No I didn't. I didn't want Irish affairs to be dictated by Europe.

"Irish Affairs" are pretty much "dictated " by Europe already either in the EU of out of it period.
Whether you would like to be part of that decision making is up to you.

dlofnep

studiorat wrote: »

"Irish Affairs" are pretty much "dictated " by Europe already either in the EU of out of it period.
Whether you would like to be part of that decision making is up to you.

Whether I would like to be apart of it? You make it as if there is no choice, other THAN to go along with everything that Europe throws at us, without saying a word. That sir, is not democracy. That is bending over for the political elite and letting them dictate Ireland's place in Europe.

By the people, for the people.

BlitzKrieg

Whether I would like to be apart of it? You make it as if there is no choice, other THAN to go along with everything that Europe throws at us, without saying a word. That sir, is not democracy. That is bending over for the political elite and letting them dictate Ireland's place in Europe.

There's upcoming european elections. To the EU parliment (which if Lisbon had passed would have had even more influence)

The European council is made up of the head of states of the governments the european people have elected nationally

and the commission is formed by a combination of these two bodies.


yeaaaah

you have no control over EU policy.

its just you directly vote in the formation of two of the three bodies of the EU.

Its about the same amount of control you have electing the government of ireland.

and by you I mean the people, not you directly, because obviously the EU has a much bigger population so naturally a vote in irish elections is substantially more then a vote in EU elections. Though with so little turnout to EU elections in comparison to Irish elections, your vote could actually be worth more...

studiorat

dlofnep wrote: »

Whether I would like to be apart of it? You make it as if there is no choice, other THAN to go along with everything that Europe throws at us, without saying a word. That sir, is not democracy. That is bending over for the political elite and letting them dictate Ireland's place in Europe.

By the people, for the people.

Everything that's been thrown at us since 1973?
The decision was made in 1993 and has been developing since.
Ireland's place in Europe is equal to everybody else. It would seem to me the No side would think Ireland is something special and are bringing something serious to the table. Considering we have about the same population as Madrid I think we are already doing pretty well in the scheme of things.

podge79

ergo wrote: »

I think they should ban all the ridiculous lamp-post posters and let people make an informed decision by actually reading what it's about rather than the hysterical "vote no or lose jobs/tax bla blah/vote yes because I'm your TD" rubbish

defo... ban them or else they have to be relevant and accurate none of the lies of the No ones or the Yes ones that were very much geared towards the european elections with the "vote yes to lisbon" as an afterthought

back on topic - as for the funding although all sides should show how they funded their campaigns would there have been such an uproar had the treaty been ratified

if anything it should prompt a serious review of the current legislation in this regard and to make the necessary proper adjustments - but if ganley has in essence complied with the current legislation theres no real point in anyone whingeing about who his companies have contracts with

I apologise I do not know what the current legislation in this regard is - I would presume that any political donations etc have to come from persons resident in the state

The Raven.

dlofnep wrote: »

Nice rhetoric? The Irish people voted no to the treaty. Sarkozy came over and put a stern word in with the Irish government. And now, they are going to re-run the referendum again. If you cannot see the reality of Europe dictating Irish affairs in this scenario, then you are seriously deluded.

Agreed.

dlofnep wrote: »

By law, he is not allowed to disclose who assisted him in funding his campaign..

Is this true? I haven't found any info on this so far. Do you have a link? I would like to know more about Ganley, especially who funded his campaign, in the interests of transparency and accountability. I know these are words usually reserved for politicians, but given the circumstances in relation to the Lisbon Treaty and the possibility of a new political role for Ganley, the source of these donations could provide significant information.

Hagar

They got it in a brown envelope in a car park. No, wait a minute that was...

Traumadoc

Maybe he got it in a tent at the Gaway races, won it on a horse on a race in scotland, or asked his friends for a digout.

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, I voted no. And they should respect my vote. If everyone voted yes, do you think the no side could force a re-run of the Lisbon treaty because people didn't know enough about it? Absolutely not.

If the parties or people representing the No side were in power, then yes of course they could force a re-run. But they aren't.


+1 to the idea of banning lampost posters. The Lisbon treaty is far too complicated to convey even the basics on a single poster.

Scofflaw

The Raven. wrote: »

Agreed.


Is this true? I haven't found any info on this so far. Do you have a link? I would like to know more about Ganley, especially who funded his campaign, in the interests of transparency and accountability. I know these are words usually reserved for politicians, but given the circumstances in relation to the Lisbon Treaty and the possibility of a new political role for Ganley, the source of these donations could provide significant information.

There's nothing in SIPO legislation that precludes people from announcing the identity of their donors, but that's not even relevant. I suspect people would be satisfied with knowing just how much of it came from Ganley in the form of loans (we know it's at least €200K), how much from proper donations, and whether any came from other sources.

The problem is that the way Libertas appears to be structured (as a company) means that very little of its funding falls under SIPO rules at all. Only donations during a campaign are counted, not money that an organisation already has in its coffers when it the campaign starts - and from this perspective, that's when the referendum is announced.

In this case, it seems increasingly likely that Ganley loaned money to a company of his - Libertas - before the referendum was announced. That money is not under SIPO rules, but under normal business rules. In theory, there's nothing to prevent him winding up Libertas and taking the loss - that would certainly be acceptable under ordinary business rules, and as far as I can see, there's nothing in the SIPO rules that would preclude it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rigel

Wouldn't it be ironic if they won it on the EuroMillions.

javaboy

I mentioned this idea on another thread on the same topic. If Libertas' funding comes from legitimate sources, why doesn't Ganley claim the €10,000 himself and make a publicity stunt out of it?

Scofflaw

javaboy wrote: »

I mentioned this idea on another thread on the same topic. If Libertas' funding comes from legitimate sources, why doesn't Ganley claim the €10,000 himself and make a publicity stunt out of it?

Perhaps because it blows his carefully constructed PR out of the water.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Raven.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's nothing in SIPO legislation that precludes people from announcing the identity of their donors, but that's not even relevant. I suspect people would be satisfied with knowing just how much of it came from Ganley in the form of loans (we know it's at least €200K), how much from proper donations, and whether any came from other sources.

The problem is that the way Libertas appears to be structured (as a company) means that very little of its funding falls under SIPO rules at all. Only donations during a campaign are counted, not money that an organisation already has in its coffers when it the campaign starts - and from this perspective, that's when the referendum is announced.

In this case, it seems increasingly likely that Ganley loaned money to a company of his - Libertas - before the referendum was announced. That money is not under SIPO rules, but under normal business rules. In theory, there's nothing to prevent him winding up Libertas and taking the loss - that would certainly be acceptable under ordinary business rules, and as far as I can see, there's nothing in the SIPO rules that would preclude it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you, Scofflaw, for taking the time to give a serious reply. I think the identy of the donors might be interesting though, depending on what their interests are. I'm curious to know why Ganley is not telling us.

asdasd

This sounds like a left wing and Establishment witchhunt. I voted no because I don't agree with the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. Which I have read. Libertas had no input into my decision.

Regardless how much money Libertas had, against the No vote were: the Catholic church, most other religions, all political parties, the business groups, all trade unions, the State and most of the Newpapers. This shows just how unbalanced the thing was and, yet, still the YES vote lost - as they would have lost in most other countries had it been put to a vote.

The fact that controlled puppets, who did what they were told by the Establishment to do, now have to audacity to turn around and accuse those of us who made independent decisions of being influenced ( and by the tiny player that is libertas) shows the extent of their controlled minds.

And we voted NO for a reason. Ask again and we will vote NO again. And lets ask the UK to vote too shall we, in this brilliant "democracy" that is the EU. And all other countries.

As for Primetime and its sinister claptrap about the funding of a civic body which has chosen to campaign against a referendum - which we would asume would be a democratic right - I look forward to an investigation on the funding of the Stickies who dominated the Primetime ( Today Tonight as was ) roster in the early eighties.

Who? Whom?

The Raven.

asdasd wrote: »

This sounds like a left wing and Establishment witchhunt. I voted no because I don't agree with the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. Which I have read. Libertas had no input into my decision.

Regardless how much money Libertas had, against the No vote were: the Catholic church, most other religions, all political parties, the business groups, all trade unions, the State and most of the Newpapers. This shows just how unbalanced the thing was and, yet, still the YES vote lost - as they would have lost in most other countries had it been put to a vote.

I agree with this. I am still puzzled as to why it wasn't put to a vote in the other countries. Maybe someone could explain to me why this is the case.

The fact that controlled puppets, who did what they were told by the Establishment to do, now have to audacity to turn around and accuse those of us who made independent decisions of being influenced ( and by the tiny player that is libertas) shows the extent of their controlled minds.

And we voted NO for a reason. Ask again and we will vote NO again. And lets ask the UK to vote too shall we, in this brilliant "democracy" that is the EU. And all other countries.

I'm would imagine that a large percentage of the Yes voters were influenced by the Establishment, but I think one must give the benefit of the doubt to others, who made up their own minds.

As for Primetime and its sinister claptrap about the funding of a civic body which has chosen to campaign against a referendum - which we would asume would be a democratic right - I look forward to an investigation on the funding of the Stickies who dominated the Primetime ( Today Tonight as was ) roster in the early eighties.

Who? Whom?

Sadly a lot of their funding came out of our pockets.

What's with the 'Who? Whom?' ?

javaboy

The Raven. wrote: »

I agree with this. I am still puzzled as to why it wasn't put to a vote in the other countries. Maybe someone could explain to me why this is the case.

Because it didn't need to be put to a vote according to their law. Just like so many decisions in Ireland don't need to be put to a public vote. Most decisions are made by elected public representatives.

Bob Z

The Raven. wrote: »

I agree with this. I am still puzzled as to why it wasn't put to a vote in the other countries. Maybe someone could explain to me why this is the case.

Yea as javaboy said above You cant change the Irish Constitution without having a referendum.

turgon

asdasd wrote: »

Libertas had no input into my decision.

You are probably one of a small group. I saw past there shìt too, but Id imagine a lot of other people didnt.

asdasd wrote: »

all political parties

Except Sinn Fein which probably got a good few working class No votes, because "de treeties bad fer de green ile".

asdasd wrote: »

This shows just how unbalanced the thing was and, yet, still the YES vote lost - as they would have lost in most other countries had it been put to a vote.

Mere speculation.

asdasd wrote: »

And we voted NO for a reason. Ask again and we will vote NO again.

They probably said that after Nice too. Nothing like a recession to make us savor the EU. There will be another vote, and it will more than likely be Yes. At the end of the day its not that huge a deal that our lives will be changed hugely either way. The way some people talk youd think the result of the vote could spell and apocalypse.

The Raven.

javaboy wrote: »

Because it didn't need to be put to a vote according to their law. Just like so many decisions in Ireland don't need to be put to a public vote. Most decisions are made by elected public representatives.

Bob Z wrote: »

Yea as javaboy said above You cant change the Irish Constitution without having a referendum.

Thanks, Javaboy and Bob. I'm aware of these facts, but I'm looking for more information as to how it is that Ireland seems to have a more democratic approach compared to other EU countries. This could change if Enda Kenny has his way, although I could be mistaken. I know there is another thread on this.

I'm reading an interesting article in relation to the issue and I will get back to this later.

Bob Z

The Raven. wrote: »

Thanks, Javaboy and Bob. I'm aware of these facts, but I'm looking for more information as to how it is that Ireland seems to have a more democratic approach compared to other EU countries. This could change if Enda Kenny has his way, although I could be mistaken. I know there is another thread on this.

I'm reading an interesting article in relation to the issue and I will get back to this later.

Its not just issues to do with Europe Things like divorce had to be decided by Referendum. I think there other things like the bail laws and proportional representation that cannot be changed by legislation and have be decied by referendum.

The politicians dont hold referendums because they want to give people the choice but because they have to

turgon

The Raven. wrote: »

Thanks, Javaboy and Bob. I'm aware of these facts, but I'm looking for more information as to how it is that Ireland seems to have a more democratic approach compared to other EU countries.

A number of years ago a man called Raymond Crotty took a case to the Irish Supreme Court arguing that the Single European Act impacted on Irish sovereignty, and thus was in a way incompatible with the Irish Constitution. The Court held that because of this that any European treaty would have to be ratified with an amendment to the Constitution directly permitting it. Thereby becoming compatible and overriding any other inconsistencies. As we all know, an amendment to the Constitution is only permitted by a nationwide referendum.

I thinks thats how it went, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach

If you can understand legal terminology, or have a good grasp of English, you could wade through the court decision on the case at - http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1987/4.html

Also helps to have the Constitution open when reading it - http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng).htm

melekalikimaka

dlofnep wrote: »

Oh I see. You were out talking to them were you? I leafletted for the no campaign and out of the hundreds of people I spoke to, the majority of them didn't want to vote yes because they didn't want Europe to dictate Irish affairs.

.

i would disagree from personal experience... but sure what would i know, i voted yes based on informed knowledge, i'm sure no folk were all in the same boat yeah :rolleyes:

turgon

Further to the reasons Ireland hold refernda, the last judge made a good statement summarizing it at the end -

J Hederman, Irish Supreme Court wrote:

The State's organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution. They are the guardians of these powers -not the disposers of them. For the reasons already stated I would allow the appeal.

SO they Irish people must give permission for governmental power to be given out side the national government.

ShooterSF

javaboy wrote: »

I mentioned this idea on another thread on the same topic. If Libertas' funding comes from legitimate sources, why doesn't Ganley claim the €10,000 himself and make a publicity stunt out of it?

I guess all the free publicity he's still getting would be worth more than 10k.

Oh and another +1 on banning posters, not one from either side was informative at all.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Further to the reasons Ireland hold refernda, the last judge made a good statement summarizing it at the end -

SO they Irish people must give permission for governmental power to be given out side the national government.

Hmm - no, I'm afraid not, primarily because our dealings with the EU do not involve handing over sovereignty from the national government to someone else. They involve the Irish government negotiating joint solutions with other governments according to Irish interests - something which is the case in every international treaty, which you'll notice we don't have referendums on.

The specific piece of sovereignty that formed the basis of the Crotty judgement was the agreement in the SEA that Ireland would consider the interests of the other member states as well as its own in deciding Irish foreign policy. That is a constraint on policy formation and Irish sovereignty which is simply not found elsewhere.

You have to bear in mind that while Crotty put forward 5 reasons why he felt Irish sovereignty was abridged by the SEA, only that one was accepted by the court. The others were dismissed, with a reservation that movement of issues from unanimity to QMV might in future form the basis of another such judgement - almost certainly foreign policy issues.

I'm sure this will surprise some people, but sovereignty is a legally definable concept, not simply a synonym for acting unilaterally in every aspect of government.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Bob Z

turgon wrote: »

Further to the reasons Ireland hold refernda, the last judge made a good statement summarizing it at the end -

SO they Irish people must give permission for governmental power to be given out side the national government.

Certain aspects of Irish Law can only be changed by referendum. . It doesn't matter if these laws are devised in from Europe or not. The Irish constitution was drafted year before the EU was even thought of

asdasd

What's with the 'Who? Whom?' ?

Who benefits. To whom are they subject.

etc. Bascially a Cui Bono. i couldv'e left that out, it was silly.

ShooterSF

turgon wrote: »

Originally Posted by asdasd
Libertas had no input into my decision.

You are probably one of a small group. I saw past there shìt too, but Id imagine a lot of other people didnt.

People are influenced, not all but there's always some. Why else would business pay fortunes for advertisting?

However what I always notice here is that Libertas Choir and SF influenced people into voting no but no one seems to consider that FF FG and Labour influenced people with their warnings that we'd be left out in the cold or that the EU was always good to us so we should just sign it into voting yes.

I'd suggest that plenty of yes and no voters were influenced by their respective sides while others made up their minds themselves.

I don't like the suggestion that only the no side was influenced by the parties involved.

John_C

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't like the suggestion that only the no side was influenced by the parties involved.

Is there any real suggestion of that? The various parties and groups are allowed to try to influence people, that's what free speech is all about. The only question is whether any of them broke the rules in doing so.

If Libertas are found to have acted wrongly it won't be the first time funny money made its way into Irish politics. They can only stall the ethics committee for so long so we'll find out soon enough whether every thing's above board.

ShooterSF

John_C wrote: »

Is there any real suggestion of that? The various parties and groups are allowed to try to influence people, that's what free speech is all about. The only question is whether any of them broke the rules in doing so.

If Libertas are found to have acted wrongly it won't be the first time funny money made its way into Irish politics. They can only stall the ethics committee for so long so we'll find out soon enough whether every thing's above board.

Can anyone tell me what the rules were at the time for a company to spend money trying to influence the decision then?

Edit: Maybe I've read it wrong but I've felt from other's posts that they felt only the no side were influenced by parties not the yes side. I may have misread them though.

kmick

If Ganleys theories on Lisbon are lies and propaganda then why are the political establishment gunning for him so badly? Is it just that they can deflect their own incompetence in explaining the unwieldy mess that is Lisbon. In no way could the government of the time be seen to have provided the pros and cons - it was yes all the way - no plan b. In fact plan b was run it again sam.

asdasd

If libertas is a civil group, not a party, why cant it spend all and every cent it has on anything it likes?

John_C

ShooterSF wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the rules were at the time for a company to spend money trying to influence the decision then?

I'm no expert but I think that any company can donate 5,000 old pounds per year to a political campaign.

asdasd wrote: »

If libertas is a civil group, not a party, why cant it spend all and every cent it has on anything it likes?

The short answer is because the law says otherwise. No person or company can donate more than £5,000 to a political campaign, this is to stop the rich from having a bigger say in politics than the rest of us.

Whether we agree with the law or not, I think it's fair to expect all the different groups campaigning to operate within it.