Brian Lenihan - Lying to the Irish People

CoalBucket

I watched todays press conferences of the political parties in amazement.

Yesterday Brian Lenihan assured the country that he had the approval of the IMF/ECB to delay a €10bn payment and therefore miss a deadline of the memorandum of agreement of the economic bailout.

“I went to the EU Commission and liaised with the other two institutions and they all agreed to it. The decision would not have been announced without the approval of the three institutions concerned,”

He claims an agreement with the IMF and ECB was made for the sake of the Irish democratic process.

In a statement earlier, the Minister said he had informed the European Commission, the IMF and the ECB of the Government’s view that, because of the democratic process, this issue should be addressed by the incoming government.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0210/1224289432277.html?via=rel

Today under questioning Lenihan decided to revise the statement to say that the decision had the understanding of the IMF/ECB but the decision was made with by the Irish government.

Yesterday, he said the decision had been taken with the approval of those bodies. However, when Fine Gael raised doubts over this yesterday, Mr Lenihan said it had been done with the “understanding” of the bodies.
“I had the complete understanding of the EU and IMF,” he said. “[But] the decision was made by an Irish Government.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0210/breaking54.html

This man is a disgrace and is blatantly lying to the Irish people. Lying is one thing, ineptitude is another, here is a highlight of some budget speech beauties from Lenihan

Brian Lenihan, 14/Oct/2008, Budget Speech

• 'This will instil confidence in those at home and abroad, who want to invest in our economy.'
• 'It will bring order and stability to our public finances.

Brian Lenihan, 9/Dec/2009, Budget Speech

• '... we are now on the road to economic recovery'
• '... the Government’s strategy over the last eighteen months is working and we can now see the first signs of a recovery ...'
• 'But we now have the confidence of knowing that our plan to return this country to prosperity is working.'
• '... the worst is over'
• 'As we begin to emerge from the unrelenting economic gloom of the last eighteen months, we need to rediscover our optimism and our self-belief.'
• 'Our plan is working. We have turned the corner. I commend this budget to the house.'

Brian Lenihan, 7/Dec/2010, Budget Speech

• '... there are clear signs of hope.'
• '... economic activity in this country has stabilised.'
• 'Recovery in the real economy is beginning to take shape.'
• 'We know we can have sustained, balanced, export-led growth in this economy. We had it in the 1990’s ...

The sooner we see the back of this muppet the better.

ilovesleep

Was listening to him this morning on newstalk. My ears were bleeding. Sometimes I wish I was deaf. Had to turn off the radio.

LostinBlanch

Lying . . . . . . treason . . . . . make your choice.

Tragedy

CoalBucket wrote: »

I watched todays press conferences of the political parties in amazement.

Yesterday Brian Lenihan assured the country that he had the approval of the IMF/ECB to delay a €10bn payment and therefore miss a deadline of the memorandum of agreement of the economic bailout.



He claims an agreement with the IMF and ECB was made for the sake of the Irish democratic process.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0210/1224289432277.html?via=rel

Today under questioning Lenihan decided to revise the statement to say that the decision had the understanding of the IMF/ECB but the decision was made with by the Irish government.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0210/breaking54.html

This man is a disgrace and is blatantly lying to the Irish people. Lying is one thing, ineptitude is another, here is a highlight of some budget speech beauties from Lenihan

Eh, he didn't contradict himself once, or revise anything.

"They agreed to it. I wouldn't have announced it without their approval"
"He said he had informed them"
"I had their understanding. It was our decision to make, but I had their understanding making it"

None of that is contradictory, in fact, it's the same thing worded differently.

Where exactly is the lie?

jeepers101

CoalBucket wrote: »

[*]'This will instil confidence in those at home and abroad, who want to invest in our economy.'
[*]'It will bring order and stability to our public finances.

[*]'... we are now on the road to economic recovery'
[*]'... the Government’s strategy over the last eighteen months is working and we can now see the first signs of a recovery ...'
[*]'But we now have the confidence of knowing that our plan to return this country to prosperity is working.'
[*]'... the worst is over'
[*]'As we begin to emerge from the unrelenting economic gloom of the last eighteen months, we need to rediscover our optimism and our self-belief.'
[*]'Our plan is working. We have turned the corner. I commend this budget to the house.'


[*]'... there are clear signs of hope.'
[*]'... economic activity in this country has stabilised.'
[*]'Recovery in the real economy is beginning to take shape.'
[*]'We know we can have sustained, balanced, export-led growth in this economy. We had it in the 1990’s ...

The sooner we see the back of this muppet the better.

In fairness though a budget speech commencing with

"People of Ireland, we're all screwed"

wouldn't have instilled a great amount of confidence either

CoalBucket

Tragedy wrote: »

Eh, he didn't contradict himself once, or revise anything.

"They agreed to it. I wouldn't have announced it without their approval"
"He said he had informed them"
"I had their understanding. It was our decision to make, but I had their understanding making it"

None of that is contradictory, in fact, it's the same thing worded differently.

Where exactly is the lie?

On wednesday it was an agreement between the Irish govenrment, the EU, the ECB and the IMF. An approval on a decision to delay payment from one party to the other three parties concerned is a decision made made in conjunction with all the parties.


On thursday it was a decision made purely by the Irish government. The understanding of the other parties is not the same as agreement or approval.

There is a massive difference. He was attempting to muddy the waters and imply that the decsion to no pay the €10bn was agreed and approved with the IMF/EU/ECB when it clearly was not. That is a lie.

This is the acting Minister for Finance for F*ck Sake. Are you telling me he dosen't know the difference between approved and understood, particularily in an international multi billion bailout scenario :eek:

He was trying to pull a fast one and got caught. Simple as.

Tragedy

CoalBucket wrote: »

On wednesday it was an agreement between the Irish govenrment, the EU, the ECB and the IMF. An agreement on a decision to delay payment from one party to the other three parties concerned is a decision made made in conjunction with all the parties.
On thursday it was a decision made purely by the Irish government. The understanding of the other parties is not the same as agreement.

Excuse me? Understanding can be agreement. It can also not be agreement. It depends.
The Government can make a decision that is purely their decision to make that Europe agrees with. Whether or not someone agrees with a decision you're making doesn't change who gets to make it, which is what you are nonsensically arguing.

There is a massive difference.

No there isn't, you're assuming and jumping to conclusions you want to.
While it may later turn out he did in fact lie, there is nothing to back up your assertion as stands.

This is the acting Minister for Finance for F*ck Sake. Are you telling me he dosen't know the difference between agreed and understood, particularily in an international multi billion bailout scenario :eek:

So far the only person who doesn't know the difference between agreed and understood is you.

"Hi Europe, I'm postponing the next injection of €10billion until the next Government forms. I don't think we should go ahead until then for <insert reason here>"
"Hi Brian, how's tricks. While we would prefer to go ahead with it straight away, we understand why you're doing so and that at the end of the day, it's really your decision to do so. Go ahead with the postponement, g'luck with the cancer and schtuff"

Oh wow, it took me 5 seconds to come up with a hypothetical where all those things you say contradict themselves don't.
That was hard!

RobAMerc

whilst I don't see a huge difference in what he said in both statements, Lenny has been a spoofer and bluffer his entire political career. He comes from a long line of spoofers and bluffers and I think cannot help himself. This lad is the epitome of Irish politicians - know nothing, do nothing just plomas your way into or out of whatever situation you need to.

CoalBucket

First of all, these are articles from the Irish Times so clearly I am not the only person who can tell the difference between understood and agreed and approved. Read the articles.

Wednesday: Not only agreed but approved
Thursday: understood

Understood is not the same as agreed and approved no matter how many hypothetical scenarios you or even Lenihan himself comes up with.

If you don't know the difference between them I suggest you look here
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Feel free to pass the link on to the Minister but I can assure you he knows the difference between them.

Tragedy

CoalBucket wrote: »

First of all, these are articles from the Irish Times so clearly I am not the only person who can tell the difference between understood and agreed and approved. Read the articles.

I looked at the two articles you linked and neither accused him of lying - so sorry, it does appear to be just you.

Understood is not the same as agreed and approved no matter how many hypothetical scenarios you or even Lenihan himself comes up with.

Understood CAN be the same as agreed and approved. It depends on context, and you've failed to deliver any.

If you don't know the difference between them I suggest you look here
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Feel free to pass the link on to the Minister but I can assure you he knows the difference between them.

That's great, but you're still the only one struggling to understand the english language here. Not me, not the Irish Times, not Lenno and not anyone else.

CoalBucket

The statement he made was revised from agreed and approved to understood
Why did he revise the statement under questioning ?

I clearly understand the difference especially when it is an international agreement.

See I didn't say I clearly agree the difference especially when it is an international understanding.

BTW The Irish times did point out the difference

Yesterday, he said the decision had been taken with the approval of those bodies. However, when Fine Gael raised doubts over this yesterday, Mr Lenihan said it had been done with the “understanding” of the bodies.

Do you want to dispute the definition of however in this context as well. This clearly infers a difference between the two.

rainbowz

Lenihan reminds me of arguing with my kid.
For example I ask “did you wash your hands”?
Yes dad.
No you didn’t.
Well I did yesterday.

Leneihan said the IMF/EU deal was non negotiable.
He then went on to claim well it wasn’t negotiable unilaterally.

Lenihan had said the bank bailout was the cheapest bailout.
He then went on to say well I actually said it was the cheapest bailout so far.

Lenihan said the IMF were not giving us a bailout.
He then went on to say well you really can’t tell the truth or it would have really spooked the markets.

Lenihan said the 10bn he didn’t put in the banks this week was approved by the EU.
He then went on to say well it had EU understanding.

CoalBucket

More examples of Lenihan revising statements and even worse denying that he said things at all !!!!!

FINANCE Minister Brian Lenihan suffered an embarrassing slip-up at the launch of Fianna Fáil’s economics manifesto, denying remarks he made in his Budget 2010 speech that "the worst is over". Although these comments are on the Dáil record from December 9, 2009, the minister initially tried to suggest that he did not say this, before being forced to accept that these were, in fact, his words.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/lenihan-slip-up-as-he-denies-he-said-the-worst-is-over-144213.html#ixzz1DdxkCGsj

* Mary Regan (Irish Examiner): "You said in 2009 that the worst was over and in 2008 you said the bank guarantee was the cheapest bailout in the world....

* Brian Lenihan: "Sorry when did I say that the worst was over in 2009? Again these matters develop a life of their own, I find. Could you give me the reference to that please?

* MR: "In the budget speech in 2009".

* Brian Lenihan: "That we turned the corner, that’s what I said. And in relation to the bank bailout, I never said it was the cheapest bailout in the world.

* MR: "Instead of accusing the opposition of having unrealistic policies and questioning their credibility, is it not time for you to say what Micheál Martin said and say sorry for mistakes that were made?"

* Brian Lenihan: "I’m not going to say sorry for things I never said. I explained exactly what I said about the bank bailout. I saw it on several television programmes attributed to me what you said, I never actually used those words. I said ‘so far’... I simply said ‘so far we’ve had the cheapest bailout in the world’...So I’m not going to say sorry for something I didn’t say."

* Justin McCarthy (Today FM): "But minister you did actually say the worst is over on the 9th of December in the Dáil. You used those exact words. Just to clarify that you did say those words."

* Brian Lenihan: "Yes and that was the same as turning the corner. We did stabilise the economy, the worst was over...

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/double-speak-im-not-going-to-say-sorry-for-things-i-never-said-144212.html#ixzz1DdyNBjpG

The man is a spoofer

Liam Byrne

Lenihan pulled this stunt before, claiming that FF actions were "approved" by the EU, when in fact they were - at best - "not disapproved of".

He regularly uses language incorrectly to make a point, and it's impossible to believe that it's not deliberate because the error always paints FF in a better light at that precise moment.

But as my mum used to point out, one lie leads to another to cover it up, that one leads to another, etc.....

In order to be a good liar, you also need a damn good memory, because lies don't sink in to long-term memory you've told them.

county man

Lenihan also denied ever contacting back bench FFTDs about ousting Cowen before the vote of confidence last month when quite clearly he did.
If he cant be straight with members of his own party how can he be trusted to be straight with the Irish people?

gizmo555

rainbowz wrote: »

Leneihan said the IMF/EU deal was non negotiable.
He then went on to claim well it wasn’t negotiable unilaterally.

This repeated Fianna Fáil jumping up and down, by Lenihan and others, to say the bail-out can't be re-negoitated "unilaterally" is the stupidest, lamest statement of the bleedin' obvious that I've come across in many a long year.

By definition, negotiations are not unilateral . . . unless you're negotiating with yourself (which seems to have been what Micheál Martin was doing before deciding today not to take his €90k minsterial severance pay after all.)

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

This repeated Fianna Fáil jumping up and down, by Lenihan and others, to say the bail-out can't be re-negoitated "unilaterally" is the stupidest, lamest statement of the bleedin' obvious that I've come across in many a long year.

By definition, negotiations are not unilateral . . . unless you're negotiating with yourself (which seems to have been what Micheál Martin was doing before deciding today not to take his €90k minsterial severance pay after all.)

To say that you can't negotiate unilaterally might be a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but it seems that most of the parties who are in opposition (for another short while, anyway) seem to need to be reminded of that bleedin' obvious point: they blithely announce that they are going to renegotiate the deal, and seem to regard a successful outcome as a given.

gizmo555

P. Breathnach wrote: »

they blithely announce that they are going to renegotiate the deal, and seem to regard a successful outcome as a given.

Well it's certainly a given, so far as I'm concerned, that they couldn't possibly get a worse deal than Lenihan has already accepted on our behalf.

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well it's certainly a given, so far as I'm concerned...

I didn't have to try very hard to get proof of the point I was making.

PyeContinental

Tragedy wrote: »

Excuse me? Understanding can be agreement. It can also not be agreement. It depends.

Well, exactly! Think about what you just wrote and the implications of it.
Why do you think he would revise what he had already said so as to make it possible to mean - as you point out - either what he appears to have said, or the complete opposite of what he said? To give "wriggle room" perhaps? So that he can later deny that what he said is what he meant? So that he can't later be accused of lying maybe? Why do you think he might feel the need at this time, to build in this kind of wriggle room for the future? What possible reasons could there be? I find it pretty easy to make a logical guess as to the motivations.

With regard to the difference between "understood" and "approved", could you imagine if you were selling some land on which you had applied for planning permission and you were asked by potential buyers whether planning permission had been approved. If you answered that it had been understood, wouldn't it be obvious to any potential buyer who was listening properly that you were being duplicitous? They'd know very well why you were using evasive language too.

If you were told by your HR department that your expenses claim had been "understood" or even "agreed", would you be satisfied that the money would reach your account, or would it make you feel more confident about receiving it if you heard that it had been "approved"?

Tragedy

PyeContinental wrote: »

Well, exactly! Think about what you just wrote and the implications of it.
Why do you think he would revise what he had already said so as to make it possible to mean - as you point out - either what he appears to have said, or the complete opposite of what he said? To give "wriggle room" perhaps? So that he can later deny that what he said is what he meant? So that he can't later be accused of lying maybe? Why do you think he might feel the need at this time, to build in this kind of wriggle room for the future? What possible reasons could there be? I find it pretty easy to make a logical guess as to the motivations.

With regard to the difference between "understood" and "approved", could you imagine if you were selling some land on which you had applied for planning permission and you were asked by potential buyers whether planning permission had been approved. If you answered that it had been understood, wouldn't it be obvious to any potential buyer who was listening properly that you were being duplicitous? They'd know very well why you were using evasive language too.

If you were told by your HR department that your expenses claim had been "understood" or even "agreed", would you be satisfied that the money would reach your account, or would it make you feel more confident about receiving it if you heard that it had been "approved"?

That's fantastic, you're still talking hypotheticals.
I already said it could well turn out that Brian Lenihan had lied, but as of yet there was nothing to suggest that past a couple of users blinkered assumptions and hopes.

So yes, exactly. I have thought on what I wrote and the implications of it, unfortunately you didn't and assumed one possibility out of two(or more).

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To say that you can't negotiate unilaterally might be a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but it seems that most of the parties who are in opposition (for another short while, anyway) seem to need to be reminded of that bleedin' obvious point: they blithely announce that they are going to renegotiate the deal, and seem to regard a successful outcome as a given.

Could you back up the idea that the opposition party think they can negotiate something unilaterally please. Sure they may think they can do a better job than the government (not unreasonable in my opinion) but that is not the same as thinking that they are negotiating something unilaterally.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Could you back up the idea that the opposition party think they can negotiate something unilaterally please....

It's the basis of almost every economic argument made by FG and Labour that they intend to renegotiate the IMF/EU package, and the clear implication that they will come out of it with better terms.

To ask me to back that up is to ask for something that is so much in the public realm that your challenge seems to me to be vexatious.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's the basis of almost every economic argument made by FG and Labour that they intend to renegotiate the IMF/EU package, and the clear implication that they will come out of it with better terms.

To ask me to back that up is to ask for something that is so much in the public realm that your challenge seems to me to be vexatious.

Certainly they think they can do a better job of negotiation than the current government. Although I think they are probably correct in this belief, I respect the right of others to disagree.

What I'm interested in however is the idea that they feel they can do it unilaterally or words to that effect. I think you will agree that the idea that something can be negotiated unilaterally is patently absurd so I would be very interested to see where they have said this or something like this.

femur61

Personally can't see the lie in the statement, definitely lied to people before. The man is going to have his cupputance.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

... I think you will agree that the idea that something can be negotiated unilaterally is patently absurd so I would be very interested to see where they have said this or something like this.

If you set out to deconstruct all figurative language, conversation becomes impracticable.

LookBehindYou

Maybe some day he will use the words : UPON MATURE REFLECTION, words his Father had used, when he was caught out with his memory about ringing the Park.

Liam Byrne

LookBehindYou wrote: »

Maybe some day he will use the words : UPON MATURE REFLECTION, words his Father had used, when he was caught out with his memory about ringing the Park.

That was "on mature recollection" and in political double-speak probably meant that they were going to collect money from us again sometime

Wide Road

I just laugh at the ABFF posters. They started a thread on this same matter a couple of days ago that included the word MANDATE. When it didn't suit, they started this thread, but with a different heading. The word mandate has now disappeared, Why one wonders?

Liam Byrne

Wide Road wrote: »

I just laugh at the ABFF posters. They started a thread on this same matter a couple of days ago that included the word MANDATE. When it didn't suit, they started this thread, but with a different heading. The word mandate has now disappeared, Why one wonders?

What does that question have to do with the fact that every time Lenihan opens his mouth nothing truthful comes out?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you set out to deconstruct all figurative language, conversation becomes impracticable.

That is OK. I did not expect you to be able to back up what he said. What it illustrates is that Lenehan, when he stretches the truth, can be very persuasive even though there's little or no substance behind what he is saying. The problem with individuals like this when they are put into decision making roles is that they themselves start believing their own half-truths and we've seen this with Lenehan's handling of the banking crisis.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

That is OK. I did not expect you to be able to back up what he said. What it illustrates is that Lenehan, when he stretches the truth, can be very persuasive even though there's little or no substance behind what he is saying. The problem with individuals like this when they are put into decision making roles is that they themselves start believing their own half-truths and we've seen this with Lenehan's handling of the banking crisis.

I suspect that you are unaware of the irony in this post: by treating the figurative use of language as literal, you are also stretching the truth.

As I already said, if you set out to deconstruct all figurative language, conversation becomes impracticable.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that you are unaware of the irony in this post: by treating the figurative use of language as literal, you are also stretching the truth.

As I already said, if you set out to deconstruct all figurative language, conversation becomes impracticable.

It wasn't figurative when Lenihan said that the opposition expected to negotiate a better deal unilaterally, the implication being that the other parties weren't open to further negotiation. It was simply untrue.

The only problem as I've pointed out is that Lenihan has a habit of believing and acting upon the stuff he comes out with. This problem is due to be solved thankfully.

femur61

Wide Road wrote: »

I just laugh at the ABFF posters.

And you should laugh because only 16% of the population is laughing with you.