Generation Yes

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

This time round, though, it seems that people like COIR are going to be the mainstay of the No campaigns, which means that they'll be getting the air time and page space. That may change between here and October, but it seems that way to me so far.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, its what was done with Justin Barrett in the Nice II treaty. A very minor, unelected part of the No campaign became the centre of media attention, when elected groups on the No Side like the Greens (pre Government/with morals aledgedly) and SF got very little.

By associating the No vote with a lunatic fringe, and pumping money into groups like Generation Yes via the Dept of foreign affairs, its an attempt to force the issue in October.

Back to the FUD - guilt by association

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, its what was done with Justin Barrett in the Nice II treaty. A very minor, unelected part of the No campaign became the centre of media attention, when elected groups on the No Side like the Greens (pre Government/with morals aledgedly) and SF got very little.

SF gets plenty, and got plenty in the last referendum, although Libertas got more - and it's worth bearing in mind that there are plenty of people for whom SF were and are anathema. If the main thrust of the opposition is going to come from COIR et al, then that's going to be reflected in the coverage - and so far there doesn't seem to be anyone else making the same amount of noise. As for Justin Barrett, he didn't have any difficulty staying out of the spotlight last time.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

By associating the No vote with a lunatic fringe, and pumping money into groups like Generation Yes via the Dept of foreign affairs, its an attempt to force the issue in October.

Back to the FUD - guilt by association

Presumably you'll be able to offer some evidence that the DFA funds Generation Yes? As opposed to FUD, and guilt by association?

regards,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presumably you'll be able to offer some evidence that the DFA funds Generation Yes?

The funding was reported in the Pheonix mag, May or June.
Not something I lug around with me, but I will try to get a reference, on leave next week so will have a hunt when I'm back in Ireland - unless someone else has it.
Basically an article taking the piss that the funds from DFA issued to some geezer whose beyond retirement age to manage generation yes - hope it rings a bell for someone who can look it up

storinius

Just to let you know, I am involved in Generation YES, and I can categorically say that we receive no money from DFA. Nor could we under the law.

But why would the Phoenix let the facts get in the way of a good story...?!

Zuiderzee

If you are that sure then sue them, simple.

As a matter of interest, where does your funding come from?

storinius

Not going to sue them, there are only 2 months to the referendum, and we are pretty busy!!

Our money comes from donations. To be honest, most of the stuff that we do is run by volunteers so it isn't that expensive a campaign.

Zuiderzee

Sorry, I stand corrected, apparently the funding for Generation Yes from DFA (and other publicly funded bodies) is indirect, and is rated as a membership fee.

======

From the Phoenix

THE Svengali behind the team coalescing to front the YES to Lisbon Mark II campaign is headed by Brendan Halligan (73) chairman of the Institute for International and European Affairs (IIEA), which receives thousands of Euro from nearly every government department and state funded body yearly.

Following the disastrous effort of the Irish Alliance for Europe, headed by Ruairi Quinn, in the first referendum (the one that came up with the wrong result) it was determined that the next effort would keep politicians in the background and that personalities from civic life — youth, women etc — would front the campaign.

However, following efforts to unearth such interesting celebs, the Eurocrats realised that many such people were usually unable to answer half-serious questions about the EU or the Lisbon Treaty.

As a result, four rather tired Euro political hacks have formed the new team to lead the campaign with former president of the European Parliament Pat Cox the main ‘personality’, UCD Professor Brigid Laffan the academic, former Fianna Fail general secretary Martin Mackin (now with PR company Q4) the organisational brains, and Halligan the master strategist.

This team plus other YES campaigners met the minister for Europe Dick Roche and officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at Iveagh House last Tuesday to plan their campaign.

Also present were members of Generation Yes, a youth group set up by Halligan (73), which involves young FFers, Labour and Green Party members.

At least one of Halligan’s employees at his consultancy CIPA (main activity, lobbying against restrictions on tobacco in Europe down the years) helped to set up this group.

Halligan would be well known to the DFA, which has been funding his IIEA for over 15 years — last recorded contribution, €32,626 for 2007.

Halligan’s financial MO is to secure ‘membership’ subscriptions of €6,000 pa from nearly all government departments and state agencies.

It does not publish accounts and only parliamentary questions from Independent TD Finian McGrath elicited information from each government department earlier this year about the extent of their largesse.

In total, the IIEA received over €820,000 in 2006 with much of this coming from public funds.

The IIEA used to publish detailed accounts but ceased doing so after Goldhawk published a series of articles 8 about the extent to which the Institute was funded by the public (see The Phoenix, 27/9/02 and passim).
The IIEA is unashamedly pro-Lisbon and has produced literature and propaganda in favour of all European treaties (although Halligan began political life as an opponent of the European Community in the early 70s).

In April of last year, the Institute was reported as saying it could not take sides in the Lisbon referendum as it was a charitable institution in receipt of public money — the McKenna judgment forbids the use of such funds.
Thus, Halligan’s Herculean efforts for Lisbon are purely voluntary and unselfish.

:cool:

Zuiderzee

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon politicians refused to take No for an answer.

Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces pro EU literature at the tax payers expense.

In 2006 alone the institute for International and European Affairs received over €800,000 in funding from the state.

Halligan is also a lobbyist in Brussels who opposes tobacco restrictions.

After a meeting with Dick Roche, Halligan was tasked with forming a pro-government youth group that would appear independent.

Unsuprisingly this group would have to seem completely disconnected from the politicians.

The group would have young ambitous articulate kids at the front but in reality would be controlled by Halligan aged 73.

And so Generation Yes was born.

Generation Yes have been known to be collaborating closely with IIEA since the front was established.

Since then IBEC have been kind enough to let Generation YES use their premises for printing literature and holding meetings.

It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the IIEA but what is certain is that Generation Yes are subsidised indirectly and substancially by the state.

================

First the Laval/Irish Ferries issues - now professional lobbiests steering the political agenda.
Its seems more and more we are heading in the direction of the mess that the US is trying to get away from

storinius

Is this a Phoenix quote? Hilarious if it is.

DFA and the IIEA are not members of Gen YES. And we don't actually have a membership fee, for individuals or any other body.

djpbarry

Zuiderzee wrote: »

First the Laval/Irish Ferries issues - now professional lobbiests steering the political agenda.

Next we’ll be having people attempting to portray two completely unrelated subjects as successive links in a chain of events that ultimately leads to Ireland descending into some sort of dystopian society, in an attempt to foster resentment towards the EU.

Zuiderzee

So Brendan Halligan I take it from you replies is not running or funding G Y in any way?

IIEA have a membership fee, and according to the article - manage and run G Y!

BTW - Could mods please split the thread on G Y funding?

Sorry it has gone so far off track

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So Brendan Halligan I take it from you replies is not running or funding G Y in any way?

IIEA have a membership fee, and according to the article - manage and run G Y!

So the extent of the evidence is a Phoenix article...

Zuiderzee wrote: »

BTW - Could mods please split the thread on G Y funding?

Sorry it has gone so far off track

I'm not quite convinced it's worth it, given the only 'evidence' is a Phoenix article! Still, there's no need for this one to go further off-topic. The Phoenix has spoken, and Generation Yes appear to have responded by laughing heartily. Is there anything more to say?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Is there anything more to say?

Well, an answer on the question of Brendan Halligan's relationship with GY would be good.

Is he or his IIEA running or funding G Y in any way?

Are they using funds given to them by the state to fund, promote, print material for or provide assistance to GY?

I'm curious

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, an answer on the question of Brendan Halligan's relationship with GY would be good.

Is he or his IIEA running or funding G Y in any way?

Are they using funds given to them by the state to fund, promote, print material for or provide assistance to GY?

I'm curious

Well, storinius can feel free to answer those questions, although I think you'll find he's answering them again. If the state funded Generation Yes, that would be a breach of the McKenna judgement and would be a very serious matter. Be careful what you claim here please - the Phoenix is happy enough to take on libel cases, but boards.ie isn't. In particular, if you're going to imply that an organisation like the IIEA is funding Generation Yes outside the legally allowed limits, don't, because that's an allegation that the IIEA is breaking the law, which would be libellous.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, storinius can feel free to answer those questions, although I think you'll find he's answering them again. If the state funded Generation Yes, that would be a breach of the McKenna judgement and would be a very serious matter. Be careful what you claim here please - the Phoenix is happy enough to take on libel cases, but boards.ie isn't. In particular, if you're going to imply that an organisation like the IIEA is funding Generation Yes outside the legally allowed limits, don't, because that's an allegation that the IIEA is breaking the law, which would be libellous.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well, apparently as long as the money goes from membership subscriptions of €6,000 pa from nearly all government departments and state agencies through the IIEA and CIPA its perfectly legal.

I guess once the tax payers money has been given to the IIEA as a membership subscription, its theirs and they can do what they like with it.

Alledgedly the IIEA used to publish detailed accounts but ceased doing so after the Phoenix published a series of articles, 27/9/02 about the extent to which the Institute was funded by the public.

Only parliamentary questions from Independent TD Finian McGrath elicited information from each government department earlier this year about the extent of their largesse.

In total, the IIEA received over €820,000 in 2006 with much of this coming from public funds.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, apparently as long as the money goes from membership subscriptions of €6,000 pa from nearly all government departments and state agencies through the IIEA and CIPA its perfectly legal.

I guess once the tax payers money has been given to the IIEA as a membership subscription, its theirs and they can do what they like with it.

Alledgedly the IIEA used to publish detailed accounts but ceased doing so after the Phoenix published a series of articles, 27/9/02 about the extent to which the Institute was funded by the public.

Only parliamentary questions from Independent TD Finian McGrath elicited information from each government department earlier this year about the extent of their largesse.

In total, the IIEA received over €820,000 in 2006 with much of this coming from public funds.

And that's all very interesting. Not really anything to do with Lisbon, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

This treaty is imortant, anything that affects the cosntitution is fundamental.

I think it is very relevant as to who is funding such a prominent pro Lisbon group.

Certainly as important as a group like COIR, or Libertas and their funding.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This treaty is imortant, anything that affects the cosntitution is fundamental.

I think it is very relevant as to who is funding such a prominent pro Lisbon group.

Certainly as important as a group like COIR, or Libertas and their funding.

Your post shows some evidence that the IIEA gets state funding, which I don't find at all unlikely - as far as I'm aware they also get EU funding. That's interesting, but irrelevant to Lisbon, because the IIEA doesn't take a stand on Lisbon, because of those very things.

What your post doesn't demonstrate, but you appear to have adopted as a truth on the strength of your faith in the accuracy of Phoenix magazine's journalism, is that the IIEA has funded Generation Yes even up to the limits allowed by SIPO - which would be relevant to Lisbon.

COIR's funding certainly would make for an interesting discussion - Bible Belt US, SPUC UK? They certainly have plenty of it - they ran a poster campaign down in Cork that must have cost a pretty penny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Well is the article correct?
Did the IIEA found GY?

Did Dick Roche task Mr.Halligan/IIEA/CIPA with forming a pro-government youth group that would appear independent?

Does the IIEA or CIPA fund or partially fund G Y?

I must say, when it comes to expenditure, the tshirts and website and events etc. for G Y do not come for free.

I would also like to see COIRs funding, or indeed an answer on the allegations of Libertas funding.

And again, I feel I need to say that I am not a supporter of either of the above.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well is the article correct?
Did the IIEA found GY?

Did Dick Roche task Mr.Halligan/IIEA/CIPA with forming a pro-government youth group that would appear independent?

Does the IIEA or CIPA fund or partially fund G Y?

I must say, when it comes to expenditure, the tshirts and website and events etc. for G Y do not come for free.

I would also like to see COIRs funding, or indeed an answer on the allegations of Libertas funding.

And again, I feel I need to say that I am not a supporter of either of the above.

You asked the original question already, and a member of Generation Yes has answered it - no, the IIEA didn't found Generation Yes, they receive no meaningful funding from the IIEA or the government, and the Phoenix allegations are inaccurate.

Short of constituting ourselves as a tribunal of enquiry, and launching an investigation into the funding of Lisbon campaign groups ourselves, we're not going to answer that question in this forum more definitively than storinius (and PHB) have already done.

What I would suggest is that you feel free to do some investigation, and report what you find here. Repeatedly asking a question that has been answered and is unlikely to get a more detailed answer rapidly moves out of the realm of discussion towards soapboxing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Storinius answer was in relation to direct DFA funding.

It would be nice to see his, or another G Y person give a clear answer to the question of indirect funding such as any IIEA/CIPA funding or involvement in the youth movement by Brendan Halligan.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Storinius answer was in relation to direct DFA funding.

It would be nice to see his, or another G Y person give a clear answer to the question of indirect funding such as any IIEA/CIPA funding or involvement in the youth movement by Brendan Halligan.

Have you considered phoning them? Tell you what - you phone them, and I'll phone them!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Bit tricky considering I'm about 300 Natical miles from the nearest affordable phone - but will do at some stage.

Anyway, prefer the banter and open debate here as opposed to he said she said!

K-9

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Bit tricky considering I'm about 300 Natical miles from the nearest affordable phone - but will do at some stage.

Anyway, prefer the banter and open debate here as opposed to he said she said!

I like Phoenix myself, buy it now and again for a bit of scandal, similar to the Sunday World really!

I wouldn't just rely on it as proof though.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Bit tricky considering I'm about 300 Natical miles from the nearest affordable phone - but will do at some stage.

Anyway, prefer the banter and open debate here as opposed to he said she said!

Are you offshore? Dutch sector?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

storinius wrote: »

Is this a Phoenix quote? Hilarious if it is.

DFA and the IIEA are not members of Gen YES. And we don't actually have a membership fee, for individuals or any other body.

it didn't say anything about membership

ixtlan

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well is the article correct?
Did the IIEA found GY?

Actually the article does not say that it does. It's just implying that the money is leaking from one organisation to the other, but not saying so, so they can't really be sued over it. If they actually said this they would be accusing someone of breaking the law, and indeed logically they would have to present their evidence eto the guards, but to just imply makes suing much more difficult, and they know no one will sue.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Did Dick Roche task Mr.Halligan/IIEA/CIPA with forming a pro-government youth group that would appear independent?

The article doesn't say this either. It again implies that the while campaign is being organised by Dick Roche which I'm sure must be annoying to pat Cox who I'm sure is plenty capable of running his own campaign. It's not unreasonable for the Yes groups to have a meeting with the minister for EU affairs.

I'm not a member of any group... yet. I was thinking I might volunteer for something. And I will contribute some money.

Ix.

Zuiderzee

ixtlan wrote: »

It's not unreasonable for the Yes groups to have a meeting with the minister for EU affairs.

I never said that, or asked that question. If GY meet the minister - thats one thing, I have no problem with that, it is the Fianna Fail agenda to push a Yes vote.

The question was, and is did Brendan Halligan meet Minister Roche about founding or funding G Y?

Was Brendan Halligan instrumental in the founding of GY?

Does Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA fund G Y?

Are Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA involved with G Y?

Bear in mind that IIEA are funded with tax-payers money, an awful lot of tax payers money.
In times when there are meant to be public service cutbacks like in hospitals, when we are borrowing 50m per day according to Morning Ireland this morning, one has to look at the financial set-up at IIEA

Repeated demands for scrutiny of the institute’s finances are normally met with a blank silence.

But recently TD Finian McGrath, demanded answers in a series of parliamentary questions to all fifteen government departments that have been funding the institute for nearly 20 years.

In the early 90's, government departments to become corporate members of the IIEA, in most cases donating an annual sum of £1,000.
Inflation would account only partially for the 500% circa increase in this stipend by 2008.
According to twelve of the departments that responded to McGrath, each now donates an annual sum of €6.000 to the IIEA.

The IIEA is a registered independent charity ie, it pays no taxes

In January 2008 the Dept. of Arts, Sport and Tourism, under Seamus Brennan,decided not to renew membership “as part of an effort to reduce the department’s administrative costs”.

The Department of Foreign Affairs more than compensated for this shortsighted, bureaucratic decision by donating €32,626 (over five times the corporate membership) to the institute in 2007.

This was made up of €3,000 under the Communicating Europe Initiative and €23,626 for consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty.

McGrath’s question about how much “taxpayers’ money” was given to the IIEA was in the context of the lead-up to the second referendum.

In April 2008, the institute was reported as saying that it could not take sides in the Lisbon Treaty referendum as it was a charitable organisation, ie, it could not use taxpayers’ money to push its decidedly pro-Lisbon agenda.

Then there are the plethora of tax funded government entities such as the Higher Education Authority, the local Government Management Services Board, the NESC and dozens of other taxpayer-funded organisations.

Just why the DPP, the Attorney General and the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas should be funding Halligan’s super quango is beyond me.

And subscribers to the VHI may be equally curious to know why it is listed as an ongoing contributor to the institute.

Since the Lisbon defeat, the IIEA has been busy preparing arguments in favour of
a) a second referendum and
b) the need for a YES vote this time round.

In a lengthy tome sent to all Oireachtas members and hundreds of other decision makers (157 pages costing €20 a copy, courtesy of the taxpayer), the institute warns of catastrophe should Ireland fail to ratify the Lisbon Treaty next time round.

If the government did not decide to seek ratification, the document argues, “the damage would be irreparable” for Europe itself, while the implications for Ireland “range from the disastrous to the catastrophic”.

According to the IIEA if the electorate votes NO a second time, then Ireland might have to leave the EU; Irish farmers would lose out on CAP funding; we would lose all regional and any other EU funding; we might have to leave the euro currency and all foreign investment would be threatened — among other disasters.

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

...The question was, and is did Brendan Halligan meet Minister Roche about founding or funding G Y?

Was Brendan Halligan instrumental in the founding of GY?

Does Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA fund G Y?

Are Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA involved with G Y?...

You are conflating two things here.
1. Brendan Halligan works for a body that receives public funding. That body is precluded from certain types of political activity.
2. Brendan Halligan has some connection with a grouping that has a political purpose.

From those two things, you construct a scenario that Halligan is channeling funds improperly from one body to another. I think you need a little more prima facie evidence before making that case, even by innuendo. You should bear in mind that Halligan has an entitlement to be politically active and it is not in the least surprising that he might wish to be.

Zuiderzee

I'm not conflating anything! I would just like clarification on what appears to be a scooby doobious situation.

The IIEA received over €820,000 in 2006, a great deal of this coming from public funds - and that was tax free as they are a charity.
Now it seems they are involved in founding a Pro Lisbon grouping.

Makes me very, very, very curious

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

... Now it seems they are involved in founding a Pro Lisbon grouping...

What is your basis for making that claim?

Zuiderzee

The article posted, start of the thread, and the answers to TD Finian McGrath's questions raised an eyebrow

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This treaty is imortant, anything that affects the cosntitution is fundamental.

I think it is very relevant as to who is funding such a prominent pro Lisbon group.

Certainly as important as a group like COIR, or Libertas and their funding.

I haven't go the impression so far in this thread that you are all that concerned about this point.

Zuiderzee

There have been plenty of postings about funding of Libertas and COIR here. You are free to open a new thread on that.
I cant answer those because I have nothing to do with either.

Why not ask about G Y and their apparent connections?

Was Brendan Halligan instrumental in the founding of GY?

Does Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA fund G Y?

Are Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA involved with G Y?

No clear cut answers yet.

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

There have been plenty of postings about funding of Libertas and COIR here. You are free to open a new thread on that.
I cant answer those because I have nothing to do with either.

Why not ask about G Y and their apparent connections?

Was Brendan Halligan instrumental in the founding of GY?

Does Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA fund G Y?

Are Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA involved with G Y?

No clear cut answers yet.

The answers I have read so far seem pretty clear cut to me. Unless you have found out anything interesting in the meantime? As far as I am concerned the burden of proof is with you.

Scofflaw

Now, I'm afraid I'm going to call a halt to this thread until I get an answer from Zuiderzee to a question I regard as non-trivial.

While looking for Brendan Halligan/Generation Yes on Google, I came across this post on politics.ie:

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon the coercive ruling class refused to take No for an answer. Instead they plotted new tactics in how to force a treaty upon us that we did not want. Following the No vote the ruling class noticed something important- the youth were largely against the Lisbon. Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces EU propaganda at the tax payers expense. In 2006 alone the institute for International and European Affairs received over €800,000 in funding from the state. Halligan is also a lobbyist in Brussels who bribes eurocrats to oppose tobacco restrictions. After a meeting with Dick Roche, Halligan was tasked with forming a pro-government youth group that would appear independent. Unsuprisingly the youth don't trust politicians so this group would have to seem completely disconnected from the ruling class. The group would have young ambitous articulate kids at the front but in reality would be controlled by Halligan aged 73. And so Generation Yes was born. A good looking careerist puppet from the Green Party was hand-picked by Halligan as leader. Generation Yes have been known to be collaborating closely with IBEC since the front was established. The leaders of Generation Yes were introduced to Turlough O'Sullivan and other members of the ruling class. Since then IBEC have been kind enough to let Generation YES use their premises for printing propaganda and holding meetings. It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the Institute for International and European Affairs but what is certain is that Generation Yes are in the service of big business and the military industrial complex. Wittingly or unwittingly, it's members are enemies of ordinary decent Irish people and they service the interests of gombeen man.

The thread is titled "Generation Yes: Puppets of the Ruling Class". What bothers me is the near coincidence between that post and Zuiderzee's - there's a rephrase, but the content is the same:

politics.ie wrote:

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon the coercive ruling class refused to take No for an answer.

Zuiderzee wrote:

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon politicians refused to take No for an answer.

and

politics.ie wrote:

Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces EU propaganda at the tax payers expense.

Zuiderzee wrote:

Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces pro EU literature at the tax payers expense.

and

politics.ie wrote:

It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the Institute for International and European Affairs but what is certain is that Generation Yes are in the service of big business and the military industrial complex.

Zuiderzee wrote:

It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the IIEA but what is certain is that Generation Yes are subsidised indirectly and substancially by the state.

Now, that looks to me like two people singing off the same hymn sheet, tailoring the message slightly - the politics.ie one is "stridently left-wing" while Zuiderzee's is more "neutral/objective".

If people are going to use this forum for political messaging, we have a right to know. If it's not transparent, we reserve the right to ban the perpetrator. And this looks like either political messaging, or spam.

Perhaps Zuiderzee would like to explain himself by PM. In the meantime, I'm not happy about this thread, which increasingly looks to me like some form of innuendo campaign - with the addition of the politics.ie material, that seems rather more likely than less.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

OK, have had a satisfactory answer from Zuiderzee, clarifying that the material in common is from the politics.ie post, and derives from the Phoenix article.

Further responses have been made on other threads:

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Firstly - apology due to Scoff, messed up on PM system, and it had not cont through properly. I have clarified the points he has raised with me by PM as best I can.

I do regret the title used in posting at p.ie, I should just have pasted as a new topic.

This forum is the place I posed a question as successive emails to GY and have not been answered, that simple.

And still no clear answer from GY??

storinius wrote:

Been away for a while, had a Gen YES event in Cork last week, which went really well actually.

I thought I had answered the questions about our funding. We raise all our own money, are essentially a volunteer organisation so don't need massive amounts of cash, and can't take money from the government.

As for Brendan Halligan, its weird to see the unhealthy fascination with him here. He didn't set up Generation YES, he hasn't attended any Generation YES meetings, nor are CIPA or the IIEA funding our organisation in any way.

That clear enough?

Given the answer from storinius, I'm not sure how much further the thread can go, since those seem pretty definitive, but the thread is reopened for now. If it turns into a case of making innuendo that the answers given aren't true, it will be closed again.

More generally, if there are questions relating to the funding of campaign groups, it's perfectly acceptable to ask them here, and to engage to some extent in speculation on them - what is not OK is assertions that campaign groups are engaged in breaking the funding laws, because that constitutes libel. Also not OK, if someone from a campaign group has been courteous enough to answer the questions, is continued claims that they haven't answered the questions they have answered.


moderately,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it turns into a case of making innuendo that the answers given aren't true, it will be closed again.

More generally, if there are questions relating to the funding of campaign groups, it's perfectly acceptable to ask them here, and to engage to some extent in speculation on them - what is not OK is assertions that campaign groups are engaged in breaking the funding laws, because that constitutes libel. Also not OK, if someone from a campaign group has been courteous enough to answer the questions, is continued claims that they haven't answered the questions they have answered.

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

It was the case for Libertas - innuendo threads were closed. Nor did we have anyone from Libertas answer the questions...

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

Ok, one more accusation of bias in the moderation of this forum and I will ban you. If you've got a complaint make it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Otherwise I'll interpret any comments pertaining to a perceived bias in this forum as a breach of the above and will act on it accordingly. Complaints about bias go in Help Desk and nowhere else. Clear?

BlitzKrieg

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

tbh

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055447716&highlight=libertas