The double-tongued Eamon Gilmore

pog it

Anyone watching Vincent Browne tonight? Shane Phelan, journalist with the Irish Independent, broke the story (based on wikileaks evidence).

So, basically Eamon Gilmore told blatant lies to the Irish people when he told us after the Lisbon Treaty was rejected that there would not be a second vote and our vote would be respected. Yet at the same time he corresponded with US sources (not sure who exactly- will be in paper in the morning) telling them that there would be a second treaty.

And some people here have accused me of being cynical about Varadkar and Enda Kenny. I'm only at the surface with Gilmore. What a conjob.

Liam Byrne

A second treaty or a second vote?

If he said second treaty then he's right...

Soldie

Gilmore was not in government at the time so he had no say in whether or not another referendum would be called.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Soldie wrote: »

Gilmore was not in government at the time so he had no say in whether or not another referendum would be called.

That is of course true. Its not the issue though. That being that he was telling the Irish public their vote would be respected whilst knowing there would be another referendum.

That is assuming what the OP is saying is correct. I haven't seen any actual confirmation yet.

sensibleken

so an opposition politician said he thought the irish vote should be respected then changed his mind. So?

Its hardly souble speaking consipracy if he quite openly supported a second vote not long after saying that he thought the original should be respected. People, even politicians, are allowed to change their mind.

you may need oxegen if your gonna climb that molehill

Bottle_of_Smoke

sensibleken wrote: »

so an opposition politician said he thought the irish vote should be respected then changed his mind. So?

Its hardly souble speaking consipracy if he quite openly supported a second vote not long after saying that he thought the original should be respected. People, even politicians, are allowed to change their mind.

you may need oxegen if your gonna climb that molehill

The timing is important. I'll wait for confirmation until I comment myself.

The OP has suggested he advised the public the vote would be respected whilst knowing there would most certainly be a second referendum.

I don't think that is as molehillesque as you're implying. As the leader of the biggest centre left party and the most popular political leader at the time, his assurances could have quelled protests and objection to a second vote, giving the government breathing space to plan their second Lisbon campaign

Whilst its not exactly treason, it would put me off Gilmore permanently.

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

so an opposition politician said he thought the irish vote should be respected then changed his mind. So?

Its hardly souble speaking consipracy if he quite openly supported a second vote not long after saying that he thought the original should be respected. People, even politicians, are allowed to change their mind.

you may need oxegen if your gonna climb that molehill

I'm afraid it seems as if it is actually yourself that may need more oxygen as you haven't grasped the point. At the same time, yes that is at.the.same.time. Gilmore was telling us one thing, and telling other US officials the opposite. It wasn't that he 'changed his mind' as you have invented.

Also, nobody but you has used the word 'conspiracy'. Double-speak does not always involve conspiracy. In Gilmore's case here it was just out and out lies and deception.


Sorry, Liam, was tired when I wrote that, he said there would not be a second vote on the treaty.

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

I'm afraid it seems as if it is actually yourself that may need more oxygen as you haven't grasped the point. At the same time, yes that is at.the.same.time. Gilmore was telling us one thing, and telling other US officials the opposite. It wasn't that he 'changed his mind' as you have invented.

Also, nobody but you has used the word 'conspiracy'. Double-speak does not always involve conspiracy. In Gilmore's case here it was just out and out lies and deception.


Sorry, Liam, was tired when I wrote that, he said there would not be a second vote on the treaty.

well what were the actual quotes?

From memory I remember Gilmore saying the day after voting that the vote should be respected. When was Gilmores quote and when was he saying to the Americans the opposite?

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

well what were the actual quotes?

From memory I remember Gilmore saying the day after voting that the vote should be respected. When was Gilmores quote and when was he saying to the Americans the opposite?

I haven't had a chance to see the Indo yet. I'll see it at lunch okay and I'll post up word for word what's in it.

But what I quoted in my original post was what Shane Phelan said last night.

Look, I'm going to be honest and fully upfront here. I believed that Labour would genuinely stand up for people and that they were different from the other parties. I voted for them no.1 and gave my no.2 vote to an independent. Luckily the labour candidate got knocked out and my vote defaulted to the independent candidate. But I was wrong in believing what Labour said pre-election. I can be cynical and question the motives of politicians (and one must at all times) but I believed in Gilmore and Labour which was a huge mistake.
And it's not just this incident. It's their actions since they got into government and I'm sure many others like me are beginning to feel the same way as I do.

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

I haven't had a chance to see the Indo yet. I'll see it at lunch okay and I'll post up word for word what's in it.

But what I quoted in my original post was what Shane Phelan said last night.

Look, I'm going to be honest and fully upfront here. I believed that Labour would genuinely stand up for people and that they were different from the other parties. I voted for them no.1 and gave my no.2 vote to an independent. Luckily the labour candidate got knocked out and my vote defaulted to the independent candidate. But I was wrong in believing what Labour said pre-election. I can be cynical and question the motives of politicians (and one must at all times) but I believed in Gilmore and Labour which was a huge mistake.
And it's not just this incident. It's their actions since they got into government and I'm sure many others like me are beginning to feel the same way as I do.

ok. I'll hold on. But I would be sceptical on the independant being impartial. Im not a labour supporter but probably would be clasified by some of their columnists as a loony lefty (I.e. not a raging arsehole)

Soldie

This seems to be the article in question: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wikileaks/gilmore-took-opposing-views-in-public-and-in-private-2662663.html

<BOARDS.IE EDIT - removed on legal request. Darragh>

Sully

Welcome to the world of politics. What politician hasn't said one thing and then did it anyway? In opposition he was of course going to say it should be upheld etc.

Old news, seeing as he came out and did support it anyway.

sensibleken

Well i'd certainly welcome clarification on it. But from what I see from just that article Gilmore said it shouldnt just be put to the people as-is again. 1 month later he said to the americans he expected and would support a second referendum, though the article doesnt say much else on that as to why, was this in light of surveys that suggested peoples concerns over it were on the whole unfounded. Then a year later after garuntees and more debate and the retaining the commisioner thing, they went with support of it.

Clarification is needed but I don't see it a double speak per se

Nodin

pog it wrote: »

..........

Look, I'm going to be honest and fully upfront here. I believed that Labour would genuinely stand up for people and that they were different from the other parties. ..........

.....you musn't remember the Dickie Spring days.....

pog it

Nodin wrote: »

.....you musn't remember the Dickie Spring days.....

You're right, I don't! I was too young when he was around.

Sully- I knew someone would make the point you did, and of course in general we know that politicians say one thing, do another. That's a cliche... sorry.

However, this is more serious in my opinion as it represents hard evidence of this practice in relation to our now Tánaiste. He used the treaty stance amongst others as a way to decieve voters and win their support. It proves he serves power, not Irish people and based on this we are entitled to not trust a word out of his mouth from here on out.

Essentially, we have proof, evidence, and not hearsay. That is significant for a lot of us- of course not all of us. Others will still be spinning on their hamster wheel.

Nodin

pog it wrote: »

.........You're right, I don't! I was too young when he was around. .............

.

We fatter hairier ones on the left tend to be very, very cynical about labour. Talks the talk these days far better than hitherto, but at its heart its far more to the right than it would have you believe. Which is a shame, it has to be said, for the country and politics generally. They serve as a check, to an extent, on FG, but thats about it.

Soldie

pog it wrote: »

You're right, I don't! I was too young when he was around.

Sully- I knew someone would make the point you did, and of course in general we know that politicians say one thing, do another. That's a cliche... sorry.

However, this is more serious in my opinion as it represents hard evidence of this practice in relation to our now Tánaiste. He used the treaty stance amongst others as a way to decieve voters and win their support. It proves he serves power, not Irish people and based on this we are entitled to not trust a word out of his mouth from here on out.

Essentially, we have proof, evidence, and not hearsay. That is significant for a lot of us- of course not all of us. Others will still be spinning on their hamster wheel.

I think you're overstating the matter somewhat. The article cannot be considered to be "hard evidence"; there are only two two-word-long quotes from Gilmore, and both have been plucked from any context. Perhaps the cable itself is more damning, but until it's released then we can only speculate. My speculation would be that it's not more damning, because if it was then the journalists would have published more than a couple of vague half-quotes to throw at Gilmore.

View

What's the issue here exactly?

Referenda aren't about whether you should have the referenda, they are about the issue to be decided on - i.e. is the issue being voted on something you support or oppose.

The government makes the decisions on whether or not we have referenda, not members of the opposition.

As such, a person could be of the opinion that a referendum shouldn't be held on an issue (as they may not believe it is necessary and/or wrong timing etc), but still support the issue being voted on, as once the referendum is called it is the issue concerned that is actually being voted on by the electorate.

That clearly was the case with Gilmore - his initial reaction was the matter was done. A month later from conversations with members of the government it was probably clear to him that there would be a second referendum.

As such, unless the government had altered the treaty and/or entered into commitments he profoundly disagreed with (e.g. the retain right to nominate a Commissioner or, let's say, join NATO or something), it would have been illogical for him to oppose supporting the Treaty (i.e. the actual issue being voted on) when he had previously supported it.

In case anyone has forgotten it, the objectives of the EU are set out in the EU Treaties as are the commitments of the member states - including Ireland - to them. Lisbon didn't alter those. As such, Ireland remains committed to those goals - irrespective of the results of the Lisbon referenda - until such time as the electorate decide otherwise in a future referendum where the people are asked to reject them.

pog it

Nodin wrote: »

We fatter hairier ones on the left tend to be very, very cynical about labour. Talks the talk these days far better than hitherto, but at its heart its far more to the right than it would have you believe. Which is a shame, it has to be said, for the country and politics generally. They serve as a check, to an extent, on FG, but thats about it.

Thanks Nodin. Since they came into government I have seen a different side to them and a complete change in their behaviour. The treatment of Burton is just one example, there are many more, building up by the day.

I read the book Gilmore wrote: 'Leading lights; People who have inspired me' and coupled with that and his rhetoric and good opposition to FF, I thought he was the best man for the job. I was so wrong and I have no problem admitting that.

Incidentally, what do you think of Joe Higgins? Funnily enough when I went to a ULA talk earlier this year - just to see what they were about- he was heavily critical of Labour and I thought it was too harsh. Now I know why. Personally I respect Joe Higgins but I wish he would stand up more for the average downtrodden Irish person and not just the working class.

As to the double speak by Gilmore it's enough evidence for me personally. Up to others to make their minds up.

Sully

pog it wrote: »

You're right, I don't! I was too young when he was around.

Sully- I knew someone would make the point you did, and of course in general we know that politicians say one thing, do another. That's a cliche... sorry.

However, this is more serious in my opinion as it represents hard evidence of this practice in relation to our now Tánaiste. He used the treaty stance amongst others as a way to decieve voters and win their support. It proves he serves power, not Irish people and based on this we are entitled to not trust a word out of his mouth from here on out.

Essentially, we have proof, evidence, and not hearsay. That is significant for a lot of us- of course not all of us. Others will still be spinning on their hamster wheel.

Did we have an election since the Lisbon treaty vote? We always have proof anyway. Example; Minister for Education re: college fees. Signed a pledge to the USI and is now going back on it.

Nodin

pog it wrote: »

Thanks Nodin. Since they came into government I have seen a different side to them and a complete change in their behaviour. The treatment of Burton is just one example, there are many more, building up by the day.

I read the book Gilmore wrote: 'Leading lights; People who have inspired me' and coupled with that and his rhetoric and good opposition to FF, I thought he was the best man for the job. I was so wrong and I have no problem admitting that.

Incidentally, what do you think of Joe Higgins? Funnily enough when I went to a ULA talk earlier this year - just to see what they were about- he was heavily critical of Labour and I thought it was too harsh. Now I know why. Personally I respect Joe Higgins but I wish he would stand up more for the average downtrodden Irish person and not just the working class.

As to the double speak by Gilmore it's enough evidence for me personally. Up to others to make their minds up.

ULA and Joe - mean well but a bit lacking in realistic policies. They are grassroots left though, which is a good thing. Far too often we have socially liberal centrists masquerading under the same banner.

Anyhoo - we drift from the topic....

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

You're right, I don't! I was too young when he was around.

Sully- I knew someone would make the point you did, and of course in general we know that politicians say one thing, do another. That's a cliche... sorry.

However, this is more serious in my opinion as it represents hard evidence of this practice in relation to our now Tánaiste. He used the treaty stance amongst others as a way to decieve voters and win their support. It proves he serves power, not Irish people and based on this we are entitled to not trust a word out of his mouth from here on out.

Essentially, we have proof, evidence, and not hearsay. That is significant for a lot of us- of course not all of us. Others will still be spinning on their hamster wheel.

How did he do that? by the time the general election came along the Lisbon treaty was done and dusted, his very short lived stance against a re-run was completely out done by the massive campaign his party did in favour of it.

Are you saying some people went 'ah he's a grand man saying we dont have to vote again' but somehow missed the second campaign?

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

Are you saying some people went 'ah he's a grand man saying we dont have to vote again' but somehow missed the second campaign?

I can answer that question with another: Did I say that?

I didn't. I said it was part of the overall impression people got of him. It is a while ago but Gilmore didn't get into government overnight.

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

I can answer that question with another: Did I say that?

I didn't. I said it was part of the overall impression people got of him. It is a while ago but Gilmore didn't get into government overnight.

but you are saying that his short lived stance against a re-run of the treaty somehow gained him support. How?

If people genuinly got the impression he was against teh re-run of the treaty "as is" despite their long and extensive campaign in the lisbon treaty then they were not peying very much attantion.

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

but you are saying that his short lived stance against a re-run of the treaty somehow gained him support. How?

If people genuinly got the impression he was against teh re-run of the treaty "as is" despite their long and extensive campaign in the lisbon treaty then they were not peying very much attantion.

For crying out loud you highlighted my text, you should know what I said.

I said 'his treaty stance amongst others'.

What part of that do you want to try and twist again??

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

For crying out loud you highlighted my text, you should know what I said.

I said 'his treaty stance amongst others'.

What part of that do you want to try and twist again??

and you still havent answered. How did his short lived stance against Lisbon gain him votes?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Nodin wrote: »

.....you musn't remember the Dickie Spring days.....

Who is Dickie Spring?

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

and you still havent answered. How did his short lived stance against Lisbon gain him votes?

I have already answered but Let's try again. I'll copy and paste a former comment for you.

I said it was part of the overall impression people got of him. It is a while ago but Gilmore didn't get into government overnight.

Can't help you any more than that sensibleken!

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

I have already answered but Let's try again. I'll copy and paste a former comment for you.

I said it was part of the overall impression people got of him. It is a while ago but Gilmore didn't get into government overnight.

Can't help you any more than that sensibleken!

That isnt an answer to the question.

People got an overall impression of him as what? As someone who opposed a re-run of the treaty? Despite the fact that labour had a very large campaign for re-running of the treaty.

Is anyone else not getting this arguement?

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

That isnt an answer to the question.



Is anyone else not getting this arguement?

I'm sorry to say this but I think it may be just you. I've done my best to explain it to you but I'll try one last time.

Gilmore - mostly pre-election- made a stand on a lot of issues on behalf of the Irish people. Bit by bit he gained popularity based on these same stands as people thought he was speaking and acting in their interests, and eventually he got into government and became Tánaiste.

sensibleken

pog it wrote: »

I'm sorry to say this but I think it may be just you. I've done my best to explain it to you but I'll try one last time.

Gilmore - mostly pre-election- made a stand on a lot of issues on behalf of the Irish people. Bit by bit he gained popularity based on these same stands as people thought he was speaking and acting in their interests, and eventually he got into government and became Tánaiste.

Your best is terrible, it again avoids the 'how' in relation to lisbon specifically.

Your description is one of any politician. All politicians take stands and if those are popular they get into government. its what a democracy is.

You have shifted the goalposts away from saying he used a stance against a re run of lisbon "as is" (a very important distinction) to gain support and you have failed to reconcile how he managed to profit from that in terms of support against a year long campaign in favour of the treaty.

pog it

sensibleken wrote: »

Your best is terrible, it again avoids the 'how' in relation to lisbon specifically.

Your description is one of any politician. All politicians take stands and if those are popular they get into government. its what a democracy is.

You have shifted the goalposts away from saying he used a stance against a re run of lisbon "as is" (a very important distinction) to gain support and you have failed to reconcile how he managed to profit from that in terms of support against a year long campaign in favour of the treaty.

Well all I can say is I'll leave you to it sensibleken

hatrickpatrick

sensibleken wrote: »

Your description is one of any politician. All politicians take stands and if those are popular they get into government. its what a democracy is.

In order to be a real democracy though, they should be required to make stands and follow them. Not make stands and do the opposite in private.

Son Of A Vidic

OP - I believe nothing that comes from the mouthes of the silver tongued political rats in this country.

Newaglish

pog it wrote: »

You're right, I don't! I was too young when he was around.

Sully- I knew someone would make the point you did, and of course in general we know that politicians say one thing, do another. That's a cliche... sorry.

However, this is more serious in my opinion as it represents hard evidence of this practice in relation to our now Tánaiste. He used the treaty stance amongst others as a way to decieve voters and win their support. It proves he serves power, not Irish people and based on this we are entitled to not trust a word out of his mouth from here on out.

Essentially, we have proof, evidence, and not hearsay. That is significant for a lot of us- of course not all of us. Others will still be spinning on their hamster wheel.

I think the point is though that when he publicly supported the second referendum, people knew he wasn't going to respect the original vote at that stage. People complained about it back then.

I think on the scale of political scandal, it's no more than a 1 or 2.