Will the State have to pay for the Sinn Fein leaflet reprints?

dixiefly

There was a pathetic effort on Morning Ireland this morning from a Sinn Fein representative trying to justify their leaflet on the referendum in which they misquoted a number of economists.

Even though they say they were right they are now suddenly bringing out a new set of leaflets?

Who is going to pay for these? Will it be paid for by the State?

Also, will O'Snodaigh get the contract for the leaflets?

Fenian Army

lol.

Strictly speaking it wasn't a misquote... the economists did say those things. So even those right wing govt supporting economists think there are serious flaws with the austerity treaty.

Although it was a complete feck up by someone who didn't do their job properly - a genuine mistake I'm sure.

And finally.... the leaflets have, by and large, all been given out already, a separate batch is being done up.

puzzle factory

they have no ink

later12

I don't know about the other economists, but whilst Karl Whelan issued a clarification of his views on the treaty, he did stress that he had no problem in being quoted as he was by Sinn Fein.

Whilst I disagree with the manner in which SF have approached the TSCG, I think it ought to be recognized that their criticisms of the treaty are not as unrealistic and as far fetched as has been sometimes portrayed in the media in recent weeks. I think the issue here is that they were quoting the opinions of economists taking into account their opinions based on economic theory, without taking into account their opinions based on a political reality... make of that what you will.

StupidLikeAFox

Fenian Army wrote: »

lol.

Strictly speaking it wasn't a misquote... the economists did say those things. So even those right wing govt supporting economists think there are serious flaws with the austerity treaty.

Although it was a complete feck up by someone who didn't do their job properly - a genuine mistake I'm sure.

And finally.... the leaflets have, by and large, all been given out already, a separate batch is being done up.

Ah come on now, the quotes were taken out of context and completely misrepresented the economists opinions. They were all in favour of a yes vote but Sinn Féin implied they were in favour of a no vote.

You have to hand it to them though, Sinn Fein can justify anything they like. I mean, they can say they took a direct quote even though they deliberately misrepresented the economists opinions. Another classic was "we didnt fleece expenses for the printer ink, if the local authorities were doing their jobs we wouldnt have to spend this much informing the ordinary people". Dodged the issue, deflected the question and muddied the waters in one sentence

A genuine mistake indeed :pac:

Fenian Army

ColHol wrote: »

Ah come on now, the quotes were taken out of context and completely misrepresented the economists opinions. They were all in favour of a yes vote but Sinn Féin implied they were in favour of a no vote.

You have to hand it to them though, Sinn Fein can justify anything they like. I mean, they can say they took a direct quote even though they deliberately misrepresented the economists opinions. Another classic was "we didnt fleece expenses for the printer ink, if the local authorities were doing their jobs we wouldnt have to spend this much informing the ordinary people". Dodged the issue, deflected the question and muddied the waters in one sentence

A genuine mistake indeed :pac:

Of course it was a genuine mistake, it was obvious people would figure it out seen as they are delivering these things all over the country - the party would much rather the didnt have this "controversy".

I'm sure it was just a genuine mistake. That won't be admitted in quite that way I'm sure.

Fenian Army

later12 wrote: »

I don't know about the other economists, but whilst Karl Whelan issued a clarification of his views on the treaty, he did stress that he had no problem in being quoted as he was by Sinn Fein.

Whilst I disagree with the manner in which SF have approached the TSCG, I think it ought to be recognized that their criticisms of the treaty are not as unrealistic and as far fetched as has been sometimes portrayed in the media in recent weeks. I think the issue here is that they were quoting the opinions of economists taking into account their opinions based on economic theory, without taking into account their opinions based on a political reality... make of that what you will.

You've read too much into it I think.

I reckon they just asked someone to throw in a few quotes from economists against the treaty at the end and a google or whatever led them to the ones they ended up with.

StupidLikeAFox

"Well lads, treaty coming up, how will we represent ourselves?"

"Ah sure throw in a bit about it being an austerity treaty, get john the intern to google a few economists for quotes, be grand sure"

Come off it, everything that went into the leaflet was very deliberate, its a public communication from the party, they don't leave these things to chance!

Pride Fighter

dixiefly wrote: »

Will it be paid for by the State?

Simple answer, yes.

All the parties that break 2% of the votes at a general election gets funded from the state. But obviously SF will have other income sources such as party memberships, their TD's and Senators giving portions of their salary and expenses to their party and donations. So a lot of SF's money is from the Irish exchequer.

Fenian Army

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Simple answer, yes.

All the parties that break 2% of the votes at a general election gets funded from the state. But obviously SF will have other income sources such as party memberships, their TD's and Senators giving portions of their salary and expenses to their party and donations. So a lot of SF's money is from the Irish exchequer.

More leaflets would have been paid for anyway, because as I said, the leaflets in question have almost all been distributed already.

nuac

ColHol wrote: »

Ah come on now, the quotes were taken out of context and completely misrepresented the economists opinions. They were all in favour of a yes vote but Sinn Féin implied they were in favour of a no vote.

You have to hand it to them though, Sinn Fein can justify anything they like. I mean, they can say they took a direct quote even though they deliberately misrepresented the economists opinions. Another classic was "we didnt fleece expenses for the printer ink, if the local authorities were doing their jobs we wouldnt have to spend this much informing the ordinary people". Dodged the issue, deflected the question and muddied the waters in one sentence

A genuine mistake indeed :pac:

Do SF go on courses re debating on those boards?

They seem to follow a pattern - whataboutery, thread derailment, insulting opposition, etc etc.

If all else fails, you are deemed to be affecting the peace process

meglome

later12 wrote: »

I don't know about the other economists, but whilst Karl Whelan issued a clarification of his views on the treaty, he did stress that he had no problem in being quoted as he was by Sinn Fein.

Whilst I disagree with the manner in which SF have approached the TSCG, I think it ought to be recognized that their criticisms of the treaty are not as unrealistic and as far fetched as has been sometimes portrayed in the media in recent weeks. I think the issue here is that they were quoting the opinions of economists taking into account their opinions based on economic theory, without taking into account their opinions based on a political reality... make of that what you will.

Today in Selective Quotations: Sinn Fein Fiscal Treaty Edition
Posted on April 19, 2012

Someone has just shown me a leaflet distributed by Sinn Fein promoting the case for a No vote on the Fiscal Compact treaty. The back page contains quotes titled “What the Experts Said”.

One of the quotes is from me. It says:

… the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible …

Did I say that? Well, yes, I uttered those words at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. Here‘s what I said without the dots

All that said, although I think the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible, on balance, the arguments favour Ireland’s signing up to it.

The two other economists quoted are Colm (“Voting No is a Leap in the Dark that We Can’t Afford“) McCarthy and Seamus (“there is little to be gained from rejecting the Treaty“) Coffey.

The other expert cited is Jack O’Connor, President of SIPTU.

I’ll leave it there.
http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?p=359

Am I missing something, doesn't sound like he's okay with Sinn Fein selectively quoting him at all.

meglome

Fenian Army wrote: »

lol.

Strictly speaking it wasn't a misquote... the economists did say those things. So even those right wing govt supporting economists think there are serious flaws with the austerity treaty.

Although it was a complete feck up by someone who didn't do their job properly - a genuine mistake I'm sure.

And finally.... the leaflets have, by and large, all been given out already, a separate batch is being done up.

What oscarBravo said...

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sinn Fein's website says:

Sinn Fein is an Irish Republican party. Its objective is ... British rule in Ireland.

I may be selectively quoting it, but those words are definitely on their site.

I'm sure you'd agree that it's dishonest to take some of what somebody says and use it to claim that they believe something different from what they actually believe.

Lawrence1895

Yawn...Sinn Fein can do what they want, and there will always be some bashing. What's next? A Sinn Fein TD, buying a pack of Barry's Tea, instead of Lyon's Tea?

Seriously, other parties are wasting tax payer's money as well.

Sully

Lars1916 wrote: »

Yawn...Sinn Fein can do what they want, and there will always be some bashing. What's next? A Sinn Fein TD, buying a pack of Barry's Tea, instead of Lyon's Tea?

Seriously, other parties are wasting tax payer's money as well.

I think its just because Sinn Fein make themselves out to be the perfect party, against all these fancy expenses and big wages, and representatives of the ordinary hard working people. They are anti everything and complain all the time. Nothing anybody does pleases them.

So when the egg is on their face and when people get to point out the lies they spout and the money they waste - expect people to point it out.

Here, Sinn Fein were trying to mislead the people. Yes the economist said those things, but they also said they support the treat even with the negatives considered. Sinn Fein didn't want to show the full story of what was said, and wanted to mislead the people into think the economists were not supporting the treaty and were backing Sinn Feins No Vote.

nuac

Lars1916 wrote: »

Yawn...Sinn Fein can do what they want, and there will always be some bashing. What's next? A Sinn Fein TD, buying a pack of Barry's Tea, instead of Lyon's Tea?

Seriously, other parties are wasting tax payer's money as well.

Yes, but other parties do not make much of claims to be on the average industrial wage etc etc.

SF swiping of Leinster House ink shows them to be as venal as others and perhaps more so

Sand

I'm no fan of Sinn Fein but lets clarify that Karl Whelan, qualified economist, believes that the treaty makes no economic sense. But Karl Whelan, unqualified political analyst and otherwise unknown fortune teller believes the treaty makes political sense. So, in the area Karl Whelan is qualified to comment he cant find any reason to endorse the treaty. But he endorses it anyway, on the basis of sheer hope.

Thats fine, and Id agree its ignorant of SF to misrepresent Karl Whelan as an opponent of the treaty when hes at best a reluctant non-protester (interesting that a treaty of such universal benefit to Ireland can find no enthusiastic Irish supporters...) but its worth noting that the entire Irish policy since 2008 has been:

1 - Agree to some crappy deal against the interests of Ireland
2 - Presume the EU will reciprocate by bailing us out later by some gas wheeze or trick

Irish policy to date has simply been hope, sheer blind hope that something, anything will "come up" and rescue us from the jaws of reality.

Id seriously, seriously hope that no one presumes that the ECB, the EU and the Germans in particular are anything other than *deadly* serious about the Irish people paying back every single cent of every single euro borrowed, plus interest. The inflexiability of the EU over the entirely piffling matter of the promissory notes ought to signal very clearly that the EU and the ECB say what they mean, and they mean what they say.

If we sign up to the fiscal compact, there wont be any mercy or leniency for Ireland so the "Makes no economic sense but vote for it anyway" argument is pretty much dead wrong. If we sign up to a deal that Karl Whelan believes makes no economic sense, then thats exactly what we are doing - we are subordinating Irish economic policy to terms that make no economic sense. Do not sleepwalk into that sort of bad economic planning in the same way that we sleepwalked into the Euro without realizing the consequences.

later12

meglome wrote: »

Am I missing something, doesn't sound like he's okay with Sinn Fein selectively quoting him at all.

I was speaking about his contribution to The Late Debate on the night of my post; in that debate, Whelan basically clarified that the treaty is economically unsound from his perspective, but that its ratificatiion is (in his opinion) a political necessity.

This programme is available via the RTE website, I am quite sure.

Good loser

Sand wrote: »

I'm no fan of Sinn Fein but lets clarify that Karl Whelan, qualified economist, believes that the treaty makes no economic sense. But Karl Whelan, unqualified political analyst and otherwise unknown fortune teller believes the treaty makes political sense. So, in the area Karl Whelan is qualified to comment he cant find any reason to endorse the treaty. But he endorses it anyway, on the basis of sheer hope.

Thats fine, and Id agree its ignorant of SF to misrepresent Karl Whelan as an opponent of the treaty when hes at best a reluctant non-protester (interesting that a treaty of such universal benefit to Ireland can find no enthusiastic Irish supporters...) but its worth noting that the entire Irish policy since 2008 has been:

1 - Agree to some crappy deal against the interests of Ireland
2 - Presume the EU will reciprocate by bailing us out later by some gas wheeze or trick

Irish policy to date has simply been hope, sheer blind hope that something, anything will "come up" and rescue us from the jaws of reality.

Id seriously, seriously hope that no one presumes that the ECB, the EU and the Germans in particular are anything other than *deadly* serious about the Irish people paying back every single cent of every single euro borrowed, plus interest. The inflexiability of the EU over the entirely piffling matter of the promissory notes ought to signal very clearly that the EU and the ECB say what they mean, and they mean what they say.

If we sign up to the fiscal compact, there wont be any mercy or leniency for Ireland so the "Makes no economic sense but vote for it anyway" argument is pretty much dead wrong. If we sign up to a deal that Karl Whelan believes makes no economic sense, then thats exactly what we are doing - we are subordinating Irish economic policy to terms that make no economic sense. Do not sleepwalk into that sort of bad economic planning in the same way that we sleepwalked into the Euro without realizing the consequences.

How does one become a 'qualified political analyst'?

Should voting or vote advocating be confined to qpa's?

Perhaps in this instance the qualified economist is wrong in his economic opinions and correct in his political advice.

IMO this referendum is a total waste of money induced by flawed court decisions and timid advice from the AG.

We are where we are now and should definitely vote yes and get the damn thing out of the way as quickly as possible. I cannot see a yes vote having the slightest negative impact on the country. To my mind it's an exercise in optics. The EURO is facing huge turbulance in the months and years ahead; lets not add to the burdens weighing it down.