Wikileaks: Gilmore against Lisbon II in public but for it privately (Scofflaw.....)

hatrickpatrick

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wikileaks/gilmore-took-opposing-views-in-public-and-in-private-2662663.html

Now scofflaw do you see why I support full transparency in government discussions? Had I known this, I would not have voted for Eamonn Gilmore. I gave him my number #2, as it turned out.

This is one example of how secrecy in government distorts democracy. How can a voter make an informed decision on who to vote for if those candidates are allowed to lie about their policies?

Ideally someone should face being thrown out of office for this type of public deceit.

In a candid disclosure that will prove embarrassing for the Labour Party leader, a leaked US Embassy cable says he admitted a "public posture" of opposition to a second referendum because it was "politically necessary".

Translation: "I'm all for it but I don't want to lose popularity by admitting that."

Utterly disgusting. How can you possibly defend such behavior?

I am pie

Damning for Gilmore but he is probably unlucky that he has been clearly exposed as guilty of adpoting political expedient positions. Same standards should apply to FF when they stood telling us no IMF / EU bailout was necessary whilst they clearly knew this would be the case. I think the current crop could be accused of publically stating the terms of the bailouts will be adhered to whilst privately negotiating for a change in terms.

serfboard

His get-out-of-jail on this one is quite easy:

Eamon Gilmore wrote:

That is why there can be no question of going back to the people for a simple re-run of the Lisbon treaty

He can argue that it wasn't a simple re-run ... it was a re-run with conditions attached.

meglome

The reason I don't vote for Labour very often is they have a habit of telling their core voters what they want to hear. Not much better than Sinn Fein in that regard. What I'm surprised about is that people who voted Labour didn't notice this previously.

hatrickpatrick

You mean like the conditions about tax sovereignty which the same French president is now trying to take from us? :rolleyes:

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You mean like the conditions about tax sovereignty which the same French president is now trying to take from us? :rolleyes:

I'm sure we all take great notice of what Sarkozy has to say but has no power to do anything about. I stay awake some nights with the worry.

hatrickpatrick

IT's actually irrelevant anyway, Gilmore can't use that as an excuse. This explicitly states that he knew then he would privately support it even while he was telling the people he wouldn't.
This man has no business being our Tainiste or even sitting in our parliament.

And I say that as somebody who voted for him.

humanji

I can't access the link. Can someone tell me what Gilmore said?

Sand

US Ambassador Thomas Foley reported to his government:

"Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as 'politically necessary' for the time being," the Ambassador said in a 'confidential' dispatch sent to his colleagues in Washington and across the EU.

Basically, Gilmore says what he thinks people want to hear.

I dont think this is especially surprising - we are seeing more of it lately with Gilmore & Co denouncing both Bruton and Varadkar for being honest. A good rule of thumb when evaluating political positions is that if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

KINGVictor

Sand wrote: »

US Ambassador Thomas Foley reported to his government:



Basically, Gilmore says what he thinks people want to hear.

I dont think this is especially surprising - we are seeing more of it lately with Gilmore & Co denouncing both Bruton and Varadkar for being honest. A good rule of thumb when evaluating political positions is that if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

The report by the American ambassador is damning and goes further to show that some politicians are not entirely honest in their dealings with the electorate.

However, I am wary that this sort of disclosures in public domain could have serious ramifications in terms of mutual exchanges between trusted partners. Unless, we are naive, we ought to realise that in politics and even in the corporate environment, a lot of silent discussions goes on relating to policy decisions, inclinations and differences that are essentially kept out of the public domain.

The majority of folks out there do not understand the complex intrincacies of day-to-day decisions/policies that affect their lives, hence the reason why they vote in representatives to act on their behalf.

I do not support or make excuses for Gilmore and I support freedom of information act simply because every citizen should have access to information and data about governmental decisions and the subsequent implications. But, I do question the current urge for constant updates and information in the mode of twitter/ wikileaks/facebook because this could actually be a counter-productive and destructive mechanism.

There are some issues that are quite sensitive, which is why the US/ UK etc would not include Nuclear power sites or codes in FOI documents.

Icepick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is one example of how secrecy in government distorts democracy. How can a voter make an informed decision on who to vote for if those candidates are allowed to lie about their policies?

You can now make a more informed democratic decision.

...or don't vote for socialists in the first place.

hatrickpatrick

Icepick wrote: »

You can now make a more informed democratic decision.

Bit late for that now isn't it? There should be some sort of impeachment procedure for politicians who are caught red handed lying through their teeth. Dishonesty makes a farce of democracy.

...or don't vote for socialists in the first place.

Not all socialists are liars.

hallelujajordan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now scofflaw do you see why I support full transparency in government discussions? Had I known this, I would not have voted for Eamonn Gilmore. I gave him my number #2, as it turned out.

This is one example of how secrecy in government distorts democracy. How can a voter make an informed decision on who to vote for if those candidates are allowed to lie about their policies?

Ideally someone should face being thrown out of office for this type of public deceit.

I'm shocked that you consider this a revelation about Eamonn Gilmore. Any analysis of hid flip-flopping policies over the past couple of years would lead you to conclude that he was a populist mouthpiece who adopted whatever political position was required by the audience of the moment. And there were plenty of us making this point about him prior to the election.

I am pie wrote: »

Damning for Gilmore but he is probably unlucky that he has been clearly exposed as guilty of adpoting political expedient positions. Same standards should apply to FF when they stood telling us no IMF / EU bailout was necessary whilst they clearly knew this would be the case. I think the current crop could be accused of publically stating the terms of the bailouts will be adhered to whilst privately negotiating for a change in terms.

It's gas that we cannot have a debate about one politician / party without this constant reference back to FF. The difference then (and now) is that you could argue that the government of the day were putting forward a different public message to the private messages because it was (and is) the economically prudent thing to do.

sensibleken

So a week after the election he says he opposed a simple re-run of the treaty.
A month later he tells the americans that he would expect and support a re-run.
A year later they support the Yes campaign. After the garuntees have been secured and the concerns about the commisioner addressed

Dont really see the big deal, a lot happened including a lot of further debate between the first week after the treaty and a month after. Seems to me the Indo is spinning this out of proportion as usual.

hallelujajordan

sensibleken wrote: »

So a week after the election he says he opposed a simple re-run of the treaty.
A month later he tells the americans that he would expect and support a re-run.
A year later they support the Yes campaign. After the garuntees have been secured and the concerns about the commisioner addressed

Dont really see the big deal, a lot happened including a lot of further debate between the first week after the treaty and a month after. Seems to me the Indo is spinning this out of proportion as usual.

Did your read the cable ?

"Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as 'politically necessary' for the time being," the Ambassador said in a 'confidential' dispatch sent to his colleagues in Washington and across the EU.

It wasn't a change of opinion or position from one month to the next . . He was clearly (as he so often does) speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

sensibleken

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Did your read the cable ?



It wasn't a change of opinion or position from one month to the next . . He was clearly (as he so often does) speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

no i read the article. Do you have the full cable?

Scofflaw

I'm not sure why this is a revelation? Gilmore's public position was always unrealistic and populist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

I would not call it a revelation, but there is an indication here that Eamon Gilmore deliberately lied to the Dail. He made a statement to the Dail in which he said

Therefore I ask whether he accepts, and if he will ask his European colleagues to accept, that based on that decision, the ratification of the Lisbon treaty now cannot be completed by the 27 member states as was required ...

Does the Taoiseach accept that the decision was made last Thursday and it is not possible to put the same proposition to the people a second time? When he addresses his colleagues on Friday, what answer will he give them to those questions?

A short time later Eamon Gilmore was telling staff at the American embassy in Dublin that his opposition was merely politically necessary for the time being. The timing here is important because as yet, the additional assurances had not yet come about. The treaty whose opposition Eamon Gilmore felt was politically necessary for the time being was still as it was at the time of the Lisbon 1 Campaign. Those assurances were not actually drawn up and endorsed until about a year after Eamon Gilmore spoke to staff at the American embassy.

I find it pretty surprising actually that there are no calls for Eamon Gilmore to explain what appears to be a strong indication that he deliberately lied to the Dail.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

I would not call it a revelation, but there is an indication here that Eamon Gilmore deliberately lied to the Dail. He made a statement to the Dail in which he said



A short time later Eamon Gilmore was telling staff at the American embassy in Dublin that his opposition was merely politically necessary for the time being. The timing here is important because as yet, the additional assurances had not yet come about. The treaty whose opposition Eamon Gilmore felt was politically necessary for the time being was still as it was at the time of the Lisbon 1 Campaign. Those assurances were not actually drawn up and endorsed until about a year after Eamon Gilmore spoke to staff at the American embassy.

I find it pretty surprising actually that there are no calls for Eamon Gilmore to explain what appears to be a strong indication that he deliberately lied to the Dail.

I would presume, alas, that the Dáil knew full well they were being lied to - if one calls it being lied to when someone tells you something publicly that you both know full well is false. Someone was being lied to, but not, I think, the Dáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wikileaks/gilmore-took-opposing-views-in-public-and-in-private-2662663.html

Now scofflaw do you see why I support full transparency in government discussions? Had I known this, I would not have voted for Eamonn Gilmore. I gave him my number #2, as it turned out.

This is one example of how secrecy in government distorts democracy. How can a voter make an informed decision on who to vote for if those candidates are allowed to lie about their policies?

Ideally someone should face being thrown out of office for this type of public deceit.



Translation: "I'm all for it but I don't want to lose popularity by admitting that."

Utterly disgusting. How can you possibly defend such behavior?

I don't think there's any point at which I have defended such behaviour. Gilmore's actions here don't remotely approach the kind of government discussions which I have suggested can be better conducted out of public view - his failure to adopt the same position in public as he privately held was no more than political expedience on his part.

I have to point out, though, that the question of government transparency fails even to arise in this case, since Gilmore was not in government at the time.

What you would need, if you wanted to eliminate this kind of thing, is presumably full political transparency, applying to all elected or potentially elected members as well as all grades of the civil service at all times, whether their discussions are formal or informal. Presumably, all conversations would have to be monitored at all times, since even if we had a scribe following each and every politician and civil servant during working hours, it would be easy enough for them either to engage in informal contacts outside those hours, or for them to use the services of a go-between (a family member, friend, or other trusted third-party) to transmit the kind of message Gilmore sent to the Americans here.

Finally, I'm perfectly happy with Wikileaks, and have donated. Again, no idea why you think I'm opposed to them - unless at some point I suggested something complicated which is here being taken up in black and white? It does happen pretty regularly...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote:

In the past, you have opposed leaks of private government conversations and proposals that all minutes should be published, etc. You have also opposed measures proposed to punish politicians who are caught red handed lying to the electorate, so I was merely wondering whether you would extend that to defending Gilmore's behavior here.

Obviously not, and such measures would not in any case have applied here.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Secondly, does this leak illustrate to you exactly why secrecy is bad for democracy? How can voters make an informed decision unless they have all the facts? I would not have voted for Gilmore had I known of this remark. That's but one example of how Wikileaks is, in fact, good for democracy. No?

Personally, I have to say that I assume this kind of behaviour in politicians. In Gilmore's case, as I said earlier, this isn't any kind of revelation - his public position was always at odds with what would eventually happen, and was therefore always likely to be purely posturing. Mind you, I gave Labour a second preference anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

...if one calls it being lied to when someone tells you something publicly that you both know full well is false.

Well, yes actually. It is still very much a lie.

However in speaking to the Dail, Mr Gilmore was also addressing the public, on the record, in his direct capacity as their public representative. I think that is the important point one makes when pointing out that a politician has lied to the Dail.

Accusations of having deliberately misled the Dail have, in recent times fallen upon such luminaries as Michael Lowry, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen. Regardless of what side of the political fence any of us sit on, I think we have to accept that the Dail is one forum in which deliberate lies which aim to mislead the public would be dismissed at our peril.

I don't think that showing some basic respect to the public whom Mr Gilmore represents, or the house to which he has enjoyed election for many years, is too much to ask. His explanation of the cable is itself not credible; his entire stance on this issue is an affront to his supporters' intelligence.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

Well, yes actually. It is still very much a lie.

Indubitably - but, as I said, one can hardly say that the Dáil is being lied to. A lie is being told in the Dáil, but the Dáil is not itself being deceived. Instead, rather worse, it is being used cynically as a vehicle for conveying a lie with additional gravitas, something that I imagine was equally cynically accepted by the Dáil.

later10 wrote: »

However in speaking to the Dail, Mr Gilmore was also addressing the public, on the record, in his direct capacity as their public representative. I think that is the important point one makes when pointing out that a politician has lied to the Dail.

Accusations of having deliberately misled the Dail have, in recent times fallen upon such luminaries as Michael Lowry, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen. Regardless of what side of the political fence any of us sit on, I think we have to accept that the Dail is one forum in which deliberate lies which aim to mislead the public would be dismissed at our peril.

Oddly enough, that isn't in any way the origin of the seriousness of lying to the Dáil, since it applies to any public pronouncement. It's no less serious, in that sense, to lie to the public via the media than to do it via the Dáil. The point about lying to the Dáil has its origins in the somewhat court-like nature of the British Parliament - it's contempt of court or perjury rather the public nature of the statement which gives its gravity.

later10 wrote: »

I don't think that showing some basic respect to the public whom Mr Gilmore represents, or the house to which he has enjoyed election for many years, is too much to ask. His explanation of the cable is itself not credible; his entire stance on this issue is an affront to his supporters' intelligence.

True, but it's a natural adjunct of representative politics. Most politicians have a public and private stance on any given issue, with the former more populist and less nuanced than the latter - and, frankly, most people do too. Gilmore's positions here are just particularly contrasted.

More particularly, Gilmore's dishonesty here simply reflects that of the Irish public. The majority wish to be told that there is something special, something grand and ineffable, something final about a referendum - the people have SPOKEN, and that's that. But they'd also like to be able to change their minds, thanks. So Eamon Gilmore says in public what everyone wants to hear - the people have spoken - and in private says what everybody expects to be the case - that there'll be another vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but it's a natural adjunct of representative politics. Most politicians have a public and private stance on any given issue, with the former more populist and less nuanced than the latter - and, frankly, most people do too.

Of course.

But deliberately misleading the voter with regard to some future policy (that being the Labour party's policy) is quite a different issue to simply holding a private opinion at variance with one's public position and keeping schtum, or else not acting on it.

I don't particularly care about Enda Kenny's or Micheal Martin's or Eamon Gilmore's personally held positions on abortion, or global warming, or the budgetary deficit, or cornflakes vs weetabix.

What I do find hypocritical and unacceptable is when their publicly expressed intentions on matters of public interest are shown on the Dail record to have belied their true intentions with respect to that public interest.

More particularly, Gilmore's dishonesty here simply reflects that of the Irish public. The majority wish to be told that there is something special, something grand and ineffable, something final about a referendum - the people have SPOKEN, and that's that. But they'd also like to be able to change their minds, thanks.

Yes any free people probably would like those options within reason. But what this cable insinuates, and as you have yourself suggested above, is that everybody knew that there would be a second referendum when Gilmore spoke to the Dail.

That was a long time - over a year - before the assurances were made with respect to Lisbon 1. The people had no alternative Lisbon to change their minds, and already it seems that Mr Gilmore's intention was that they would have to. There was no alternative at the time of Mr Gilmore's remarks. He simply advocated a re run of the referendum because he didn't like the outcome.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

Of course.

But deliberately misleading the voter with regard to some future policy (that being the Labour party's policy) is quite a different issue to simply holding a private opinion at variance with one's public position and keeping schtum, or else not acting on it.

I don't particularly care about Enda Kenny's or Micheal Martin's or Eamon Gilmore's personally held positions on abortion, or global warming, or the budgetary deficit, or cornflakes vs weetabix.

What I do find hypocritical and unacceptable is when their publicly expressed intentions on matters of public interest are shown on the Dail record to have belied their true intentions with respect to that public interest.

Sure - I just find it odd that anyone is surprised when politicians act this way. I don't regard it as in any sense acceptable, but that's not to say it isn't both normal and easily understandable.

later10 wrote: »

Yes any free people probably would like those options within reason. But what this cable insinuates, and as you have yourself suggested above, is that everybody knew that there would be a second referendum when Gilmore spoke to the Dail.

That was a long time - over a year - before the assurances were made with respect to Lisbon 1. The people had no alternative Lisbon to change their minds, and already it seems that Mr Gilmore's intention was that they would have to. There was no alternative at the time of Mr Gilmore's remarks. He simply advocated a re run of the referendum because he didn't like the outcome.

I certainly don't see why it would be in any sense surprising that there would be a second referendum. There was a direct parallel with Nice, and with previous referendums on contentious issues. What strikes me as hypocritical here is not the private expression of what was on the cards, but the public pretence - and, as I've indicated above, the necessity for the public pretence - that what was obviously going to happen was in fact unthinkable and totally off the cards.

A second referendum was visibly on the horizon at Nice I - so much so that a fair number of people voted No simply on the basis that while we had no objection to the Treaty itself, we wanted the government to be forced to actually demonstrate that it took the matter seriously. Yet at Nice we had to go through exactly the same song and dance for something that's both entirely legal and completely democratic - there's no such thing as an undemocratic plebiscite in the sense that some people like to pretend Nice II and Lisbon II were.

But then, of course, it doesn't do for the government to get into the habit of thinking it can do re-runs casually, so the song and dance (including the ritualistic objections of the winners of the first round) is a necessary part of the process too. Funny old business, politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

later10 wrote: »

I would not call it a revelation, but there is an indication here that Eamon Gilmore deliberately lied to the Dail. He made a statement to the Dail in which he said...

If you note, he appears to be asking a question - specifically he was asking Cowen what Cowen's view was. Hence as Gilmore does not appear to be making a statement to the Dail, he is not lying to it. You might say it is misleading and that's fair but that is large a result of people making assumptions that it was a statement (of belief).

Einhard

I find it strange that some people are so shocked at this revelation, as if they expect total honesty from politicians at all times. Politicians, of all stripes, tell us exactly what we want to hear- no more, and no less. IMO, those on the Left, Sinn Fein, Labour, and particularly those to even their left, do it more than anyone else. And people lap it up. Because most people would rather be told a palatable lie than an unpalatable truth.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Neither has any other party to be fair. It's pretty standard politics to quote the party line out of one side of your mouth while privately acknowledging reality out of the other.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Neither has any other party to be fair. It's pretty standard politics to quote the party line out of one side of your mouth while privately acknowledging reality out of the other.

To be a little unkind, I think Fianna Fáil had got to the stage of quoting the party line in public while privately denying reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

If you note, he appears to be asking a question

It's the other way around - he is asking questions, he just appears to be stating a position, which it turns out he knew was a false position.

There is no way you can say that was a lie. He just put on a performance. Lots of what goes on in the Dail is just a performance.

blackdog2

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure why this is a revelation? Gilmore's public position was always unrealistic and populist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Which is precisely why we are where we are. I think this kind of behaviour will easily offend, no matter what the actual circumstances are.

Sand

I think its important to note that whilst I dont think its surprising Gilmore is all talk and no substance, I do think its important that hes called up on it and expected to explain himself.

If we think our politicians should be honest in their publicly taken positions (so that we can know who we should vote for, based on their positions) then Gilmore has to be made an example of. The behavior of our politicians isnt going to improve spontaneously.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agreed. I found this particular picture floating around facebook a few weeks back...

Killer Pigeon

Well in fairness, a party leader is kinda regarded as the vox populi of his/her party - if Gilmore had said otherwise in relation to Lisbon II publicly a lot of his party members could have rallied against him.

Killer Pigeon

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Agreed. I found this particular picture floating around facebook a few weeks back...

It's ... erm ... just a Third Position populist stance that's all.

(By the way, Labour Youth have frequently vocally opposed the position of the main party. One example lately would be the opposition to a FG/Labour coalition - it was opposed in the latest LY policy document)

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It's ... erm ... just a Third Position populist stance that's all.

(By the way, Labour Youth have frequently vocally opposed the position of the main party. One example lately would be the opposition to a FG/Labour coalition - it was opposed in the latest LY policy document)

Thats true, and I'd commend LY for some of their stances which are opposed to the party leadership.

later12

View wrote: »

If you note, he appears to be asking a question - specifically he was asking Cowen what Cowen's view was. Hence as Gilmore does not appear to be making a statement to the Dail, he is not lying to it. You might say it is misleading and that's fair but that is large a result of people making assumptions that it was a statement (of belief).

No offence but that is a pretty pathetic excuse.. I picked out a random quote that I thought would have portrayed his opinion quite clearly, but seeing as you seem to think otherwise, how about what he went on to say - ”the Lisbon Treaty is dead”.

Was that a question?

View

later10 wrote: »

No offence but that is a pretty pathetic excuse..

It isn't an excuse - it is a correction.

later10 wrote: »

I picked out a random quote that I thought would have portrayed his opinion quite clearly, but seeing as you seem to think otherwise, how about what he went on to say - ”the Lisbon Treaty is dead”.

Was that a question?

That isn't part of the quotation that you provided and claimed was a lie.

As it was, it was up to the government to decide whether or not the Lisbon Treaty was dead, not Gilmore. Gilmore didn't have the numbers in the Oireachtas - nor I suspect within the Labour Parliamentary Party - to block the referendum even if he had wanted to.

As such, it would certainly be fair to accuse him of shooting his mouth off and/or of being mistaken in his claim/opinion but it is simply wrong to portray the comments of Gilmore or any other opposition politician at the time as being definitive when he (or they) are the minority in the Oireachtas.

later12

View wrote: »

That isn't part of the quotation that you provided and claimed was a lie.

Like I said, I presumed that would have been enough, and that most people would have understand the position on Gilmore from what I posted. I hope that has now been clarified, his comments were not dubious. He explicitly said that Lisbon was dead.

As it was, it was up to the government to decide whether or not the Lisbon Treaty was dead, not Gilmore.

That really, really is not relevant to Eamon Gilmore and his position on Lisbon. Nobody is suggesting that Gilmore was the big cheese.

RandomName2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wikileaks/gilmore-took-opposing-views-in-public-and-in-private-2662663.html

Now scofflaw do you see why I support full transparency in government discussions? Had I known this, I would not have voted for Eamonn Gilmore. I gave him my number #2, as it turned out.

This is one example of how secrecy in government distorts democracy. How can a voter make an informed decision on who to vote for if those candidates are allowed to lie about their policies?

Ideally someone should face being thrown out of office for this type of public deceit.



Translation: "I'm all for it but I don't want to lose popularity by admitting that."

Utterly disgusting. How can you possibly defend such behavior?

Surely his actions spoke louder than his words? Never mind Gilmore, the actions of almost all the political proponents of the treaty (and by extension the EU Constitution Treaty) behaved hypocritically in this case. Both sides outdid themselves in lies; but in this case the proponents had greater opportunity to make good their ulterior motives, if only due to the natural authority granted by their governmental positions.

Although Gilmore was not part of the Fianna Fail government, his vote in the Dail for the Treaty, and the vote of his party, was that of amendment to the constitution of the republic. The fact that he thought it was expedient to just outright lie concerning the official position of himself and his party on such a grave issue should make one think seriously about the relationship between the public and their TDs.

Min

The Labour party was playing the populist game for a long time before the election.
They lacked policies so they couldn't be tied down

Their only real policy was to tell the nation what they wanted to hear, they are in power now so Eamon and Co will have found that hard decisions have to be made and not all will be popular.

The Labour party could end up being like the PDs or the Greens, not wiped out but paying the price.

What Eamon said after the Lisbon treaty is consistent with trying to win votes by not being truthful with the public, so to gain popularity by saying what he believed labour voters wanted to hear.

Noreen1

Pretty despicable behaviour by Eamonn Gilmore imo.
Sadly, it's not surprising, though - nor is it limited to the Labour party.

The question is - what can we, the public, do, to ensure that our Politicians are more honest?

I can't be the only Irish voter who is heartily sick of lies and half-truths from Politicians. How can we make them tell the truth, though?

We, the electorate, shouldn't have to second-guess which of our politicians utterances are half-truths, and which are downright lies - but we do.

What's even worse is - we expect it, and even take it for granted!!!

View

later10 wrote: »

Like I said, I presumed that would have been enough, and that most people would have understand the position on Gilmore from what I posted. I hope that has now been clarified, his comments were not dubious. He explicitly said that Lisbon was dead.

As I recall it he stated this on the day of the results of the Lisbon I referendum. The wikileak claim as I understand it is that a month later he had realised that no Lisbon wasn't (and then only after asking questions about it in the Dail). This is called recognising reality - in real life, as opposed to on internet fora, people do it all the time.

later10 wrote: »

That really, really is not relevant to Eamon Gilmore and his position on Lisbon. Nobody is suggesting that Gilmore was the big cheese.

It is pretty much fundamental. The decision as to whether Lisbon was dead or not rested with the government. Even if Gilmore believed there should not have been a second referendum, he wasn't in a position to block it (and the referendum question the voters would face was not going to be "Should we have a second referendum?").

Gilmore could have kept on insisting that Lisbon was dead but he'd have looked pretty foolish when the electorate turned out to vote on the Lisbon II referendum day, wouldn't he?

later12

View wrote: »

The wikileak claim as I understand it is that a month later he had realised that no Lisbon wasn't (and then only after asking questions about it in the Dail).

What do you mean "then only after asking questions about it in the Dail"? What are you basing that on, and what answers changed his mind, please?

It is pretty much fundamental. The decision as to whether Lisbon was dead or not rested with the government.

Sure. Nobody is suggesting that Gilmore mattered in terms of a rerun of Lisbon. The point is that he was misleading, or lying about his party's intention in terms of respecting the outcome of the first Lisbon Treaty.

What he said in public:

"The Irish people have now decided in a referendum that they do not wish to have it ratified therefore Ireland cannot ratify the Lisbon Treaty and therefore the Lisbon Treaty falls" - Eamon Gilmore the day after the June 2008 referendum on RTE SixOne News, 13/6/08 RTÉ.ie: Lisbon result poses question for EU

“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people” - Eamon Gilmore, RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08 RTÉ.ie: Lisbon result poses question for EU

“People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels” - Eamon Gilmore RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08 RTÉ.ie: Lisbon result poses question for EU

What he said in private about his intentions:

a leaked US Embassy cable says he admitted a "public posture" of opposition to a second referendum because it was "politically necessary".

---

Even if Gilmore believed there should not have been a second referendum, he wasn't in a position to block it

Again - irrelevant. the point is that he privately admitted that he misled the people in relation to his political position on Lisbon.

View

later10 wrote: »

What do you mean "then only after asking questions about it in the Dail"? What are you basing that on, and what answers changed his mind, please?

I haven't read the Oireachtas record in relation to the questions and answers I readily admit. I was basing my comment on posters (such as your post #18 on this thread) who referred to it.

I am also making the assumption that Cowen wasn't stupid enough to respond to any such Dail questions with an emphatic statement that the government had no intention of holding a second referendum.

In the absence of a clear statement to that effect from Cowen, most politicians could probably figure out that the government was leaving its options open.

Remember the conversation referred to in Wikileaks is supposed to have happened a month after the referendum, so that is plenty of time for the politicians (of all parties) to discuss options.

later10 wrote: »

Sure. Nobody is suggesting that Gilmore mattered in terms of a rerun of Lisbon. The point is that he was misleading, or lying about his party's intention in terms of respecting the outcome of the first Lisbon Treaty.

If you note, nowhere in the statements that you quote does he refer to the Labour party's position. The Parliamentary Party (and/or wider party) makes the decisions on what the party's position will be - not Gilmore on his own - and in two of the statements you quote Gilmore clearly refers to "I".

Given that the statements were all made on the day of the referendum results, it is most likely they were his immediate personal reactions. He probably figured out over the next few weeks that his initial reaction was wrong and realised it would be "politically necessary" to change his "public posture" only - in order to save face over his initial reaction - maybe not immediately.

Politicians - if you note - rarely tend to say "I got it wrong" rather it tends to be "After a period of reflection, I have realised that it would be better were we to...." some time later.

hatrickpatrick

Noreen1 wrote: »

Pretty despicable behaviour by Eamonn Gilmore imo.
Sadly, it's not surprising, though - nor is it limited to the Labour party.

The question is - what can we, the public, do, to ensure that our Politicians are more honest?

I can't be the only Irish voter who is heartily sick of lies and half-truths from Politicians. How can we make them tell the truth, though?

We, the electorate, shouldn't have to second-guess which of our politicians utterances are half-truths, and which are downright lies - but we do.

What's even worse is - we expect it, and even take it for granted!!!

I've proposed solutions to this before and they have been laughed off as "naive". Apparently dishonesty is something which has to happen.

My suggestion is that any time actual proof in solid evidence like these cables exposes a politician as having two faces, there should be an immediate bye election in his or her constituency. If the people decide they can forgive the lies then they can vote him or her back in. But the essence is the same - press statements should be made under oath, lying to the press should carry an automatic penalty of losing your seat pending a "Referendum" of sorts, of confidence in you. And I mean a vote of confidence from the people, not from the "Representatives" who are all complicit in this type of outrageous crap.

In other words: Politicians should be legally required to tell the truth as far as they know it in all media statements, with serious consequences for anyone found to have knowingly mislead the electorate.

ei.sdraob

meglome wrote: »

I'm sure we all take great notice of what Sarkozy has to say but has no power to do anything about. I stay awake some nights with the worry.

So has that bailout loan rate been reduced yet :rolleyes:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My suggestion is that any time actual proof in solid evidence like these cables exposes a politician as having two faces, there should be an immediate bye election in his or her constituency. If the people decide they can forgive the lies then they can vote him or her back in.

A right of recall is definitely to make a democracy fully-functioning.

later12

View wrote: »

I haven't read the Oireachtas record in relation to the questions and answers I readily admit. I was basing my comment on posters (such as your post #18 on this thread) who referred to it.

I am also making the assumption that Cowen wasn't stupid enough to respond to any such Dail questions with an emphatic statement that the government had no intention of holding a second referendum.

In the absence of a clear statement to that effect from Cowen, most politicians could probably figure out that the government was leaving its options open.

Sorry, but no. That still does not explain how you reached the conclusion that "he had realised that no Lisbon wasn't [dead] (and then only after asking questions about it in the Dail)." Certainly, nothing I have posted here has indicated that Dail questions were a turning point in Eamon Gilmore's stance on Lisbon, and such a suggestion would seem to run contrary to the wikileaks cable on Gilmore... so I am curious as to how on earth you could come out with a statement so definitive on Gilmore's change-of-mind as the one quoted. I am sure your next response will clarify that.

Remember the conversation referred to in Wikileaks is supposed to have happened a month after the referendum, so that is plenty of time for the politicians (of all parties) to discuss options.

You seem to be ignoring the content of the cable altogether. The cable mentions nothing about a bona fide change of understanding - it refers to a deliberate and "politically necessary opposition" to a second vote on Lisbon. For most people, this is pretty clear.

If you note, nowhere in the statements that you quote does he refer to the Labour party's position.

Both in the Dail chamber and on the 6.01 news Gilmore was invited to speak in light of his position as leader of the Labour party. In my opinion it is reasonable to infer that he was answering in that professional context, and not as "Eamon Gilmore, punter from Shankill". However I have no problem in discussing this in the context of Gimore's own personal political position instead, and that's fine.