Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI

FutureTaoiseach

In a move many on the no side will find outrageous and unconstitutional, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) has announced that the obligation for broadcasters to grant equal airtime to both sides in the Lisbon referendum is to be abolished, effective Friday. The move raises serious questions of constitutionality, particularly in the light of the Coughlan judgement 1998 which requires RTE to grant equal airtime to yes and no sides, and the McKenna judgement which prevents the Government using taxpayers' money to benefit one side over the other in a referendum campaign.

In my opinion the Government are driving a coach and horses through the Constitution. Democracy depends, among other things, on a media that is prepared to hold them to account - whether that media wants to do so or not. In part, McKenna and Coughlan were based on the Constitution's grant of equal treatment (Article 40.1) to all citizens. A vote for a politician is very different from a uniform adherance to all the views of that politician. Were it not the case, we would have no need for a referendum provision in the Constitution.

molloyjh

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In a move many on the no side will find outrageous and unconstitutional, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) has announced that the obligation for broadcasters to grant equal airtime to both sides in the Lisbon referendum is to be abolished, effective Friday. The move raises serious questions of constitutionality, particularly in the light of the Coughlan judgement 1998 which requires RTE to grant equal airtime to yes and no sides, and the McKenna judgement which prevents the Government using taxpayers' money to benefit one side over the other in a referendum campaign.

In my opinion the Government are driving a coach and horses through the Constitution. Democracy depends, among other things, on a media that is prepared to hold them to account - whether that media wants to do so or not. In part, McKenna and Coughlan were based on the Constitution's grant of equal treatment (Article 40.1) to all citizens. A vote for a politician is very different from a uniform adherance to all the views of that politician. Were it not the case, we would have no need for a referendum provision in the Constitution.

All that regulation does is ensure that all parties, be they political or third parties, get equal airtime.

Of course if you feel some should get more than others you are entitled to that opinion, just don't be surprised if people call you on the flaws in that idea.

FutureTaoiseach

molloyjh wrote: »

All that regulation does is ensure that all parties, be they political or third parties, get equal airtime.

Of course if you feel some should get more than others you are entitled to that opinion, just don't be surprised if people call you on the flaws in that idea.

If the parties were representative of the Irish people on Lisbon the people wouldn't have rejected their advice last year. The McKenna/Coughlan judgements were largely based on Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution which grants equal treatment under the law. This equality is not confined to political-parties, unlike under this outrage from the BCI.

Article 40.1 wrote:

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

"Citizens" - not just "parties".

ei.sdraob

good we wouldn't have to listen to Declan G and M Lou as much :P

marco_polo

BCI wrote:

BCI ISSUES REFERENDUM GUIDELINES IN ADVANCE OF LISBON TREATY VOTE


5th August 2009



The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) has today (Wednesday 5th August) issued its guidelines for commercial, community, institutional and temporary broadcasters, in advance of the forthcoming Treaty of Lisbon Referendum. The guidelines take effect from this Friday, 7th August 2009.


Two changes have been made to the guidelines, in comparison with those issued for previous referenda. These changes were implemented following consideration of the guidelines by the BCI Board and they are intended to clarify the means by which broadcasters allocate airtime during the period when the guidelines are in operation.

Firstly, the guidelines clarify that there is no requirement to allocate an absolute equality of airtime to opposing sides of the Referendum debate during editorial coverage. The guidelines require broadcasters to ensure that the proportion of airtime allocated to opposing sides must be fair to all interests and undertaken in a transparent manner. Secondly, the guidelines clarify the requirement to ensure that the total time allocated to political party broadcasts will result in equal airtime being afforded to parties that support the Referendum proposals and those that oppose them. While broadcasters are under no obligation to carry political party broadcasts, those that do must comply with the guidelines.


In line with BCI policy, a moratorium on coverage of the Referendum will come into effect from 12.01am on the morning of the 1st October until close of polls on 2nd October. During this period broadcast output must not include material which relates directly to the content of the Treaty of Lisbon and/or the constitutional amendments associated with the Treaty. This includes material pertaining to the merits or de-merits of the Treaty and/or the constitutional amendments.




Speaking about the guidelines, Michael O’Keeffe, Chief Executive of the BCI said
“The objective of the BCI guidelines is to ensure fair, impartial and objective coverage of events and issues related to the Referendum and the clarifications included in the guidelines are intended to support this objective.”




A copy of the BCI Treaty of Lisbon Referendum Guidelines is available on the Commission’s web-site or on request from the Commission at 01 6441200.



To access a copy of the BCI Treaty of Lisbon Referendum Guidelines please choose from one of the links below:

Full guidelines here

http://www.bci.ie/documents/ref_guide_09_eng.pdf

PopeBuckfastXVI

I hate manufactured 'balance'.

It's the sort of entitlement rubbish that leads to 'controversy' over Global Warming and Evolution.

Bury it fully I say.

meglome

woo hoo hopefully I won't have to listen to the no side lying about the treaty.

BluntGuy

meglome wrote: »

woo hoo hopefully I won't have to listen to the no side lying about the treaty.

Indeed, it must be far more satisfying hearing the "yes" side do it instead.

meglome

BluntGuy wrote: »

Indeed, it must be far more satisfying hearing the "yes" side do it instead.

The no campaign ran a stormer the last time around and looks like doing so again but in all honesty most of what they were saying was either not in the treaty or made up. I see far less downright lying on the yes side, the treaty isn't that bad so they don't need to.

x MarK x

meglome wrote: »

woo hoo hopefully I won't have to listen to the no side lying about the treaty.

You fully "deserve" all the negitive aspects that lisbon will bring.

BluntGuy

meglome wrote: »

The no campaign ran a stormer the last time around and looks like doing so again but in all honesty most of what they were saying was either not in the treaty or made up. I see far less downright lying on the yes side, the treaty isn't that bad so they don't need to.

That's true the "no" side rambled on about non-issues like abortion when they should've been tackling actually issues like the loss of our influence in EU affairs, a less democratic, more federalised EU, less transparency, the possibility of more having to take a more militant role in the EU (not conscription)...

The yes side are frustrating me though. People are getting won over with idiotic arguments like "we have to remain at the heart of Europe" - complete fallacy, since we were never at the heart of Europe and never will be, the economic downturn has also been falsely used as a scare tactic, despite the fact that after Spain ratified the treaty their unemployment soared (it has nothing to do with the treaty, it's just that there is NO correlelation between not ratifiying and poor economic performance) and this false sense of "owing" it to the EU to vote yes.

Nearly all the newspapers unequivocally support a "yes", so this move by the broadcasting commission comes as a major blow to people on the "no" side as it will further serve to stifle debate and make sure that only one point of view is aired to the Irish people.

oscarBravo

BluntGuy wrote: »

...the "no" side rambled on about non-issues like abortion when they should've been tackling actually issues like ... the possibility of more having to take a more militant role in the EU (not conscription)

You do realise that you just mentioned something that's every bit as much of a non-issue as abortion?

K-9

BluntGuy wrote: »

The yes side are frustrating me though. People are getting won over with idiotic arguments like "we have to remain at the heart of Europe" - complete fallacy, since we were never at the heart of Europe and never will be, the economic downturn has also been falsely used as a scare tactic, despite the fact that after Spain ratified the treaty their unemployment soared (it has nothing to do with the treaty, it's just that there is NO correlelation between not ratifiying and poor economic performance) and this false sense of "owing" it to the EU to vote yes.

Nearly all the newspapers unequivocally support a "yes", so this move by the broadcasting commission comes as a major blow to people on the "no" side as it will further serve to stifle debate and make sure that only one point of view is aired to the Irish people.

I'm still lost on how Spain voting yes to a treaty that never came into existence, contributed to more unemployment.

Anyway, it seems a lot of the No side think the media aren't balanced anyway, so I don't think this will have a major effect.

Martin 2

BluntGuy wrote: »

The yes side are frustrating me though. People are getting won over with idiotic arguments like "we have to remain at the heart of Europe" - complete fallacy, since we were never at the heart of Europe and never will be, the economic downturn has also been falsely used as a scare tactic, despite the fact that after Spain ratified the treaty their unemployment soared (it has nothing to do with the treaty, it's just that there is NO correlelation between not ratifiying and poor economic performance) and this false sense of "owing" it to the EU to vote yes.

You'll actually find that very few yes supporters blame the current downturn on last years No vote (provide sources if you disagree) certainly not me, but what the recession has highlighted very strongly is the volatility of the economy and that it could decline very rapidly something I believe many voters were not aware of the first time round. Also I believe the government's decision to have a second referendum has given us a stay of execution in the eyes of the international business community. This time round the economy will be uppermost in many people's minds and and the question is not which will save the Irish economy but which is better for the economy, a Yes or a No. As a yes supporter I believe on the balance of probabilities a Yes is better than a No, I have presented this argument in previous posts (please check) but I don't want to present it here as it's slightly off topic and might incur the wrath of the readers

Nearly all the newspapers unequivocally support a "yes", so this move by the broadcasting commission comes as a major blow to people on the "no" side as it will further serve to stifle debate and make sure that only one point of view is aired to the Irish people.

Well you could always read the Irish based British media, such as the the Irish Daily mail and the Irish Sun (Sunday Times????), they tend to be quite Eurosceptic and anti-Lisbon.

ei.sdraob

NO big loss I say

this will only add more fuel to the conspiracy theory brigade


I still remember a friend of a friend from last year telling me how shes voting no as she doesnt want a new world order

she said before i rofled -
"Haven't you seen Zeitgeist? 'Them elites' want a common currency and to control us all, The EU is becoming like USSR"



Mind you this person is studying for a science degree so it makes me question her state of mind or education to fall so blindly for a loopie internet film

djpbarry

BluntGuy wrote: »

That's true the "no" side rambled on about non-issues like abortion when they should've been tackling actually issues like the loss of our influence in EU affairs, a less democratic, more federalised EU, less transparency, the possibility of more having to take a more militant role in the EU (not conscription)...

No, I’m pretty sure all those non-issues were covered too.

meglome

x MarK x wrote: »

You fully "deserve" all the negitive aspects that lisbon will bring.

I've no problem being responsible for my actions. However you'll forgive me for not being too worried given that nearly all of the No side arguments don't seem to have anything to do with the actual treaty.

Libertyed

Oddily to think, that the Irish people are again ask to vote for something that was voted on

The Irish people where duped by the current waster's & dossiers who sit in power, about the economy for the past 3 years :mad:

Now why do ya believe these clowns, who want a yes vote passed ? Well it certainly not for the benifits of the irish economy or the people, Nope !

So, Wake up ! The "Yes vote" is been pushed down your throats, because it's good for the "Fat cats" of the Dail & Brussels...


Amazing, why Brittain is not voting on the Lisbon treaty? there where the cute ones, and stayed away from the Euro currency, to stick with Sterling...

The citizens of Ireland, need to be more intuned with Irish politics, so they can make educated discissions at the ballot box, and not just listen to
buffoons, who call themselves servants of the people of Ireland...

The more power we offer Brussels, the less power and rights the people have?

meglome

BluntGuy wrote: »

That's true the "no" side rambled on about non-issues like abortion when they should've been tackling actually issues like the loss of our influence in EU affairs, a less democratic, more federalised EU, less transparency, the possibility of more having to take a more militant role in the EU (not conscription)...

Irrelevant, untrue, not in the treaty. Was your intention to make my point or what?

BluntGuy wrote: »

The yes side are frustrating me though. People are getting won over with idiotic arguments like "we have to remain at the heart of Europe" - complete fallacy, since we were never at the heart of Europe and never will be, the economic downturn has also been falsely used as a scare tactic, despite the fact that after Spain ratified the treaty their unemployment soared (it has nothing to do with the treaty, it's just that there is NO correlelation between not ratifiying and poor economic performance) and this false sense of "owing" it to the EU to vote yes.

This makes me smile. As I've said previously the No campaign played a stormer the last time out but they told a lot of porkies to do it. 'At the heart of Europe' may be a typical stupid sound-bite but there nothing terribly wrong about it, the EU has been very good for us, very good indeed.

You should possibly imagine how the Yes side feel when each and every day they have to counteract the complete fabrications from the No side. I really love the 'Voting No will get FF our of office' crap, give me a ****ing break.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Nearly all the newspapers unequivocally support a "yes", so this move by the broadcasting commission comes as a major blow to people on the "no" side as it will further serve to stifle debate and make sure that only one point of view is aired to the Irish people.

Do you wonder why basically all our political parties, all our newspapers, most academics etc etc support the treaty? It must be a NWO plot there's no other explanation. :rolleyes:

meglome

Libertyed wrote: »

Oddily to think, that the Irish people are again ask to vote for something that was voted on

Gosh we've never voted more than once on anything ever. :rolleyes: I'm not a fan of these reruns but given that the government did ask people why they voted No and got guarantees on those things I don't see why not.

Libertyed wrote: »

The Irish people where duped by the current waster's & dossiers who sit in power, about the economy for the past 3 years :mad:

Does voting in a bunch of wasters, repeatedly, have anything to do with Lisbon? (that's a no in case you were wondering)

Libertyed wrote: »

Now why do ya believe these clowns, who want a yes vote passed ? Well it certainly not for the benifits of the irish economy or the people, Nope !

So, Wake up ! The "Yes vote" is been pushed down your throats, because it's good for the "Fat cats" of the Dail & Brussels...

Yes I mean the EU has been terrible for Ireland, all those billions they handed us, those bastards. And nothing is being pushed down anyone's throat, anyone can go and vote no for all the wrong reasons just like they did the last time.

Libertyed wrote: »

Amazing, why Brittain is not voting on the Lisbon treaty? there where the cute ones, and stayed away from the Euro currency, to stick with Sterling...

How the British vote is up to the British. It almost seems like we've got democracy in Europe and countries can do whatever they themselves believe is correct.
And one things for sure I'm glad you didn't have any say in us joining Euro. Because right now we'd be likely doing an Iceland if we still had the punt.

Libertyed wrote: »

The citizens of Ireland, need to be more intuned with Irish politics, so they can make educated discissions at the ballot box, and not just listen to
buffoons, who call themselves servants of the people of Ireland...

I totally agree, Is this why I don't want to listen to you?

Libertyed wrote: »

The more power we offer Brussels, the less power and rights the people have?

Since we're not handing our power away this is irrelevant.

BluntGuy

meglome wrote: »

Irrelevant, untrue, not in the treaty. Was your intention to make my point or what?

Just because you disagree doesn't make what I've said "irrelevant, untrue, not in the treaty". That's just your opinion.

This makes me smile. As I've said previously the No campaign played a stormer the last time out but they told a lot of porkies to do it. 'At the heart of Europe' may be a typical stupid sound-bite but there nothing terribly wrong about it, the EU has been very good for us, very good indeed.

I never said it hadn't. But that's past tense. You can't base your vote simply on the fact that EU has been good for us before, you have to ask whether this treaty will allow the EU to continue being good for us or not. I do not feel it will, it doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the good it has done for us in the past. I want to see us remain part of Europe, but not a more centralised, semi-federalised one.

And the sound-bite is terribly wrong in the fact that: we are going to have less influence in the EU if and when Lisbon is ratified and to say that we'll be put at "the heart of Europe" is deeply untrue. It's as bad as some of the sillier arguments put across by the "no" side.

You should possibly imagine how the Yes side feel when each and every day they have to counteract the complete fabrications from the No side. I really love the 'Voting No will get FF our of office' crap, give me a ****ing break.

I don't think the Lisbon Treaty should be used as a referendum on the government. That's idiotic. People should vote based on what they think of the treaty, and whether or not they think it represents Irish and European interests.

Do you wonder why basically all our political parties, all our newspapers, most academics etc etc support the treaty? It must be a NWO plot there's no other explanation. :rolleyes:

The fact that all our political parties and most of our newspapers support the treaty is immaterial. It isn't up for them to decide what our opinion on matters such as this is. They all supported it the last time round and we still voted "no".

djpbarry

Libertyed wrote: »

...educated discissions ...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

meglome

BluntGuy wrote: »

Just because you disagree doesn't make what I've said "irrelevant, untrue, not in the treaty". That's just your opinion.

It's not about me disagreeing as such, it's about what's in the treaty and what's not. You seem, judging by your posts, to be saying that Lisbon is going to lead somewhere else, a place you don't want Ireland to go. Now seeing as we the Irish people can call stop at any point this idea that Lisbon leads us somewhere bad is pretty irrelevant. You're also saying things which I can't find in the treaty as they are not in the treaty.

BluntGuy wrote: »

I never said it hadn't. But that's past tense. You can't base your vote simply on the fact that EU has been good for us before, you have to ask whether this treaty will allow the EU to continue being good for us or not. I do not feel it will, it doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the good it has done for us in the past. I want to see us remain part of Europe, but not a more centralised, semi-federalised one.

Maybe you can point out these federalist parts of the treaty just so I know?

BluntGuy wrote: »

And the sound-bite is terribly wrong in the fact that: we are going to have less influence in the EU if and when Lisbon is ratified and to say that we'll be put at "the heart of Europe" is deeply untrue. It's as bad as some of the sillier arguments put across by the "no" side.

Have I missed something, don't we basically have the same influence as we had before? And per head of population more that the larger countries, right?

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't think the Lisbon Treaty should be used as a referendum on the government. That's idiotic. People should vote based on what they think of the treaty, and whether or not they think it represents Irish and European interests.

We agree then. Which is why I've gone from a potential No voter (didn't know enough so didn't vote) to a Yes voter.

BluntGuy wrote: »

The fact that all our political parties and most of our newspapers support the treaty is immaterial. It isn't up for them to decide what our opinion on matters such as this is. They all supported it the last time round and we still voted "no".

I'm not suggesting they decide anyone's opinion for them. I'm saying that isn't it interesting that all these people support a yes vote. Could it be that it's advantageous to Ireland to vote Yes.

jhegarty

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I hate manufactured 'balance'.

It's the sort of entitlement rubbish that leads to 'controversy' over Global Warming and Evolution.

Bury it fully I say.

And the opposite that leads to the Fuhrer ordering book burnings.

We need "artificial" the balance, so not the only the established parties get their say.

Given over 50% vote no last time , then I can't see why the no side doesn't warrant 50% of the coverage.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yeah, jhegarty, somehow advocating less government interference in the free press is a stepping stone to Nazi book burnings, genius...

BluntGuy

jhegarty wrote: »

And the opposite that leads to the Fuhrer ordering book burnings.

We need "artificial" the balance, so not the only the established parties get their say.

Given over 50% vote no last time , then I can't see why the no side doesn't warrant 50% of the coverage.

I agree.

Though, in this case, it isn't about the parties. It's simply about giving equal time to both sides of the debate. It is not just the political parties debating this issue.

jhegarty

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yeah, jhegarty, somehow advocating less government interference in the free press is a stepping stone to Nazi book burnings, genius...

It's not government interference , it's from the constitution. Governments come and go , the obligation for equal time should be eternal.

PopeBuckfastXVI

jhegarty wrote: »

It's not government interference , it's from the constitution. Governments come and go , the obligation for equal time should be eternal.

Why?

If someone stands up and says that Evolution is bunkum and that the world was created 6000 years ago, should they be legally guaranteed equal time with a biological scientist on a technology, or natural history, programme?

jhegarty

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Why?

If someone stands up and says that Evolution is bunkum and that the world was created 6000 years ago, should they be legally guaranteed equal time with a biological scientist on a technology, or natural history, programme?

If we are having a referendum on the topic in October , then yes.

I don't like tea, but I am not going to demand time on RTE to debate it as there is no referendum on topic due.

Equal air time for both sites on a referendum , equal time for each candidate/party during an election.

PopeBuckfastXVI

And how do you select who represents each side?

I'd like to sign up to represent the 'no' side, if you know what I mean...

Sometimes there is no real debate, and it's merely manufactured (I'm not talking about Lisbon btw).

We had a referendum on joining the ICC before, Refcom found it so difficult to make up arguments against it that they ended up having to change from providing 'both sides' of the debate, to just providing the facts.

Really should they have to dig up some crank who opposed the ICC and give them a national profile?

jhegarty

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

And how do you select who represents each side?

I'd like to sign up to represent the 'no' side, if you know what I mean...

Sometimes there is no real debate, and it's merely manufactured (I'm not talking about Lisbon btw).

We had a referendum on joining the ICC before, Refcom found it so difficult to make up arguments against it that they ended up having to change from providing 'both sides' of the debate, to just providing the facts.

Really should they have to dig up some crank who opposed the ICC and give them a national profile?

Who are you, me or the government to decide who is a crank.

There is nothing ever wrong with a debate between two sides. If one side really is a crowd of cranks then the other side should have nothing to fear.

PopeBuckfastXVI

jhegarty wrote: »

Who are you, me or the government to decide who is a crank.

There is nothing ever wrong with a debate between two sides. If one side really is a crowd of cranks then the other side should have nothing to fear.

Maybe we should allot air time by votes then... oh no, can't do that, then SF would be the only advocates for a 'No' on Lisbon, and get only a single digit percentage of the time?

Who is anyone to stand up and represent a 'side', and appoint themselves unelected spokesperson. I'm thinking of the likes of Justin Barrett and Declan Ganley.

You would think that people could figure it out, but I'd point you in the direction of the Global Warming/Evolution 'debate' as evidence that often they can't...

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

Who are you, me or the government to decide who is a crank.

There is nothing ever wrong with a debate between two sides. If one side really is a crowd of cranks then the other side should have nothing to fear.

That is a very long way from true, as is easily proven by the public debates on acid rain, the ozone layer, tobacco, asbestos, climate change, creationism, vaccination, drugs policy, prohibition, the Iraq war - in fact, virtually any public debate. If people made rational decisions based on all the evidence, we wouldn't have the current government.

amused,
Scofflaw

Libertyed

What? Must be a F.F. supporter aye?

djpbarry

jhegarty wrote: »

There is nothing ever wrong with a debate between two sides. If one side really is a crowd of cranks then the other side should have nothing to fear.

A crowd of cranks tried to convince the country that Lisbon would:

• have us all conscripted in an EU army
• allow the EU to meddle with our tax affairs
• allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia

Only about 120,000 voters believed them.

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

A crowd of cranks tried to convince the country that Lisbon would:

• have us all conscripted in an EU army
• allow the EU to meddle with our tax affairs
• allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia

Only about 120,000 voters believed them.

scary ain't it? and they wonder how someone like Hitler got voted in

Riskymove

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Maybe we should allot air time by votes then... oh no, can't do that, then SF would be the only advocates for a 'No' on Lisbon, and get only a single digit percentage of the time?

Who is anyone to stand up and represent a 'side', and appoint themselves unelected spokesperson. I'm thinking of the likes of Justin Barrett and Declan Ganley.

You would think that people could figure it out, but I'd point you in the direction of the Global Warming/Evolution 'debate' as evidence that often they can't...

I presume its even air time on the topic......i.e. same time for someone supporting yes and someone supporting no

it shouldn't matter "who" is actually doing it

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

have us all conscripted in an EU army

Who tried to convince us that a yes to Lisbon would lead to conscription into an EU army?

jhegarty

ei.sdraob wrote: »

scary ain't it? and they wonder how someone like Hitler got voted in

Hitler was elected in '33 because of the Reichstag Fire Decree (a result of them burning the Reichstag and blaming the communists) , which allowed hitler to have the leaders of other parties arrested.

A lack of a free debate and campaigning before the election was the reason he was elected.

ei.sdraob

O'Morris wrote: »

Who tried to convince us that a yes to Lisbon would lead to conscription into an EU army?

http://mis.ucd.ie/Members/cbrugha/pubs/Why%20Ireland%20Rejected%20Lisbon%20JPA.pdf

Where there was a canvass it was generally against Lisbon, raising fears about threats to Irish
neutrality, and of conscription, as well as about abortion, taxation, and the loss of an Irish Commissioner. While 51% of men voted in favour because of the perceived economic benefits, 56% of women voted against because of the perceived risks associated with a more powerful Europe

A ‘No’ canvass needed to
raise a fear on one issue. To succeed a ‘Yes’
canvass needed to re-assure a voter on about
five issues, such as neutrality, conscription,
abortion, taxation and the Irish Commissioner,
and then discuss the positive reasons for
supporting Lisbon: energy security, crossborder
policing, etc.

A cynical allegation about the threat of
conscription to fight in Iraq, which people
circulated by phone in the last days of the
campaign, caused a surge towards the No side.

While circulating
a threat of conscription was a crude ply,
it resonated with a real fear and swung Yes
votes to No amongst women.

Lies were told about conscription, abortion,
neutrality.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Who tried to convince us that a yes to Lisbon would lead to conscription into an EU army?

I don't think anyone explicitly claimed it in public media, with the probable exception of the NWO crowd, although it was certainly said on the doorsteps. What they claimed - across the board, from Sinn Fein to the Daily Telegraph - was that Lisbon would create an EU army, just as they claimed for Nice, and for Maastricht. They claimed - and the claims are all around these forums and others - that Lisbon would create a militarised and imperialistic superstate. People filled in the blanks, and no attempt was made in any way to dispel the false conclusion by those peddling the original falsehood. One need not use the word 'paedophile' to accuse someone of being one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Lorraine Mullally of Open Europe, writing in the London Times, May 25th 2008 (~2 weeks before the referendum), under the headline:

Lorraine Mullally: If Ireland votes yes, it will be conscripted into an EU army

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4028016.ece

A letter to the Irish Independent on 28 January 2008:

In reality, what this means is that, at some point in the future, should the EU declare war on anybody, they might decide to conscript your children into a European army -- and you can't say 'no' because you supported it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/will-our-children-die-for-europe-1275872.html

Another letter to the Independent on 26th January 2008

Let there be no doubt, in 10 to 20 years time there will be calls for conscription in some future European army and our children will be asked to help. Do we want that?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/thirst-for-scandal-cabinet-standards-treaty-vote-1274689.html

Report of No Campaigners using Conscription from Kim Bielenberg in the Independent, May 31 2008

On my travels I heard other No campaigners warn that our young folk would be conscripted into a European Army if we voted Yes.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/are-you-lisbon-literate-1393010.html

It may not have been the #1 issue, but let's not pretend it wasn't an issue at all.

ei.sdraob

jhegarty wrote: »

Hitler was elected in '33 because of the Reichstag Fire Decree (a result of them burning the Reichstag and blaming the communists) , which allowed hitler to have the leaders of other parties arrested.

A lack of a free debate and campaigning before the election was the reason he was elected.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Q8L42KtTrw0C&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76

"... the parties program remained vague, and it was above all Hitler's personal party. It was in all probability the figure of the Fuhrer himself, promising strong and charismatic leadership, that caused people to freely give their vote to the Nazis ..."

why does reading the above make me think of Declan G and Libertas?


oh yes how can one forget Caroline Simons famous quote

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0602/1224247881520.html

It concerned a fire at the party’s office on Dublin’s Baggot Street. “The cause is unknown,” said the breathless release, which quoted the party’s Dublin candidate Caroline Simons as “shocked that something like this would happen. The basement of our office building is on fire. I hope that this is not the action of some political crank. I know the political establishment are against us, but this is highly unusual. If this fire is found to be the action of an opposing political party – we will seek prosecutions. Fires are dangerous things.”

Libertyed

Lies, lies, about the No Vote, go ahead and Vote yes, and then get ready for the new fascist goverment that's at the power of Brussels. We were blinded and duped into going into the EEC in the first hand. The ordianry people of Ireland got nothing out of the millions of pounds that came into Ireland. But the powers who held goverment at the time, thats were the money went to. What did the goverment do with all the money, please show me ?

Our fisherman have lost the fishing livinghood around this island, ask them if they got any money from the EEC...

There are several thousands employed in the department of fishery, when the commercial fishing industry is almost gone from these shores. Why do we have a minister of fishery in the first place? costing the country money. Wake up?

Lets get real, the present goverment here, are no more than message boys and girls for
the wasteful dossiers of Brussels. They give no account on there expences, so why do you want the irish people vote yes? For what?

It's a fact, the people don't trust who's in power today, and why these dossiers, want the people to vote yes, amazes the heck out of me.

Where are the articles of the Lisbon treaty, why have they not been published in all newspapers. Why are the people of Ireland not been showing what the benifits, and cons of this treaty. Again our goverment wants to hide the real issues that are at hand, of not publishing the pro's and con's, like they did in the last several years of the downturn in the economy of the country...

The people vote No, cause they have no trust, and they did not believe the goverment,
thats why?

The party is over Boys,

Wake up !

djpbarry

Libertyed wrote: »

It's a fact, the people don't trust who's in power today…

So we should leave the EU and place the country’s future solely in the hands of the Irish government? Who the people apparently don’t trust? Hmm, makes sense.

Libertyed wrote: »

Where are the articles of the Lisbon treaty, why have they not been published in all newspapers. Why are the people of Ireland not been showing what the benifits, and cons of this treaty. Again our goverment wants to hide the real issues that are at hand…

I presume by ‘hide’ you mean ‘publish a white paper’?

ei.sdraob

Libertyed wrote: »

Lies, lies, about the No Vote, go ahead and Vote yes, and then get ready for the new fascist goverment that's at the power of Brussels. We were blinded and duped into going into the EEC in the first hand. The ordianry people of Ireland got nothing out of the millions of pounds that came into Ireland. But the powers who held goverment at the time, thats were the money went to. What did the goverment do with all the money, please show me ?

Our fisherman have lost the fishing livinghood around this island, ask them if they got any money from the EEC...

There are several thousands employed in the department of fishery, when the commercial fishing industry is almost gone from these shores. Why do we have a minister of fishery in the first place? costing the country money. Wake up?

Lets get real, the present goverment here, are no more than message boys and girls for
the wasteful dossiers of Brussels. They give no account on there expences, so why do you want the irish people vote yes? For what?

It's a fact, the people don't trust who's in power today, and why these dossiers, want the people to vote yes, amazes the heck out of me.

Where are the articles of the Lisbon treaty, why have they not been published in all newspapers. Why are the people of Ireland not been showing what the benifits, and cons of this treaty. Again our goverment wants to hide the real issues that are at hand, of not publishing the pro's and con's, like they did in the last several years of the downturn in the economy of the country...

The people vote No, cause they have no trust, and they did not believe the goverment,
thats why?

The party is over Boys,

Wake up !

thank god we dont have to give equal airtime here on boards

the above poster just confirmed and highlighted the arguments made in this thread

all while managing to blurb out a bunch of "lies" that have nothing to do with Lisbon

now im gonna go have a shower, i feel dirty after reading the above post :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thank god we dont have to give equal airtime here on boards

the above poster just confirmed and highlighted the arguments made in this thread

all while managing to blurb out a bunch of "lies" that have nothing to do with Lisbon

now im gonna go have a shower, i feel dirty after reading the above post :rolleyes:

Taking it slightly more seriously - would most people say that the view above deserves to be treated exactly the same as any other view on Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BluntGuy

The majority of people are probably going into this voting "yes" based on how "good" Europe has been for us before.

Let me also remind you, that a large segment of society also voted this government back in, based on how "good" things were going for us before.

I don't think people truly know the implications of what they're getting into (a "fascist state" though???! - not with this treaty anyway!).

I'm pro-Europe, and indeed there are good elements of the Lisbon Treaty nobody could argue with, but there are elements of it I really dislike, the centralisation of power being one of them.

Whatever happens though, the world isn't going to end, our economy will still be crap, and Europe won't abandon us... so, getting back to the topic-in-hand... considering all the newspapers etc. seem to advocate a "yes", it's only fair that the broadcast national media that we ALL pay for, presents us both sides of the debate in equal measure.

djpbarry

BluntGuy wrote: »

so, getting back to the topic-in-hand... considering all the newspapers etc. seem to advocate a "yes", it's only fair that the broadcast national media that we ALL pay for, presents us both sides of the debate in equal measure.

Suppose RTE put together another "Questions & Answers" style programme prior to the second referendum. Suppose that the programme will feature contributions from an equal number of 'Yes' and 'No' campaigners. Who do you think should present the 'No' argument?

ei.sdraob

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm pro-Europe, and indeed there are good elements of the Lisbon Treaty nobody could argue with, but there are elements of it I really dislike, the centralisation of power being one of them.
.

Can you delve a little bit deeper into the "centralization of power article", i want to know more and we can have a lively debate

BluntGuy wrote: »

The majority of people are probably going into this voting "yes" based on how "good" Europe has been for us before.

as opposed to a people who voted No out of fear of conscription (see my post earlier in thread for reference)

BluntGuy wrote: »

Whatever happens though, the world isn't going to end, our economy will still be crap, and Europe won't abandon us... so, getting back to the topic-in-hand... considering all the newspapers etc. seem to advocate a "yes", it's only fair that the broadcast national media that we ALL pay for, presents us both sides of the debate in equal measure.

Media are product/service if you dont like Fox news does it mean you are forced to watch it? Theres plenty of debate on Lisbon on the internet (media) which caters for a wide spectrum of opinions from tinfoil hatters to more refined debates like we have here on boards

btw I dont like paying TV license either, but i do, despite my personal objections to the Airtime being given to religious matters (Angelus etc)

BluntGuy

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose RTE put together another "Questions & Answers" style programme prior to the second referendum. Suppose that the programme will feature contributions from an equal number of 'Yes' and 'No' campaigners. Who do you think should present the 'No' argument?

Joe Higgins, Arthur Morgan and possibly Vincent Browne would probably be the most likely choices. I'm not particularly impressed with any of the "no" side campaigners, they're doing a poor job getting the message across.

I don't approve of the "no" side scare tactics any more than I approve of the "yes" side's.