Head over to our T
Just a few little facts on Lisbon..
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty 
While I work on a bigger post here’s just a few little facts on how the run-up to the next Lisbon Treaty referendum is played:
- The Irish government removes legislation that made for equal airtime for both sides of the debate.
- The Irish government enters into a contract with a PR firm to handle publicity for the “Yes” campaign without going through the required public tender process.
- “No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
- Bill Cullen can just refuse to disclose financial details of his campaign in support of a “Yes” vote. Remember, Declan Ganley got raked over hot coals on his campaigns finances…
- Green party suggest postponing vote on NAMA until after Lisbon referendum
- Sinn Fein is still the “Yes” campaigners strongest argument.
- Intel can make public statements and run a campaign promoting a “Yes” vote without accusations of it “not being a legitimate political party”.
- And the biggest fact: we already voted on this and it hasn’t changed. NO MEANS NO
I think you may need to look-up the meaning of the word ‘fact’.
@Niall, OK which one of those statements is not fact?
The PR firm piece is incorrect, the tender process did happen. There was a tender for PR before the first referendum. In this tender the winner would be awarded PR for the Lisbon referendum, and any following referendum for the same treaty. So your report is not correct.
NO MEANS NO! Well if that was the case we wouldn’t have divorce in this country, as we voted no on that too, but then yes.
Equal airtime, this made little sense and would have been change for the children rights referendum, which will be held in the future. Imagine the nut jobs you would have to give airtime to against children’s rights. Similar to Lisbon, many on the No side lied in previous election, and huge amount of airtime was wasted based on this, the Yes side needing to answer questions which aren’t even in the treaty.
Also we are not voting on the Lisbon Treaty, the reason we have to vote is due to an Irish Supreme Court ruling in 1987, saying that any major amendment to an EU treaty entails an amendment to the Irish constitution.
Just as an example: “Sinn Fein is still the “Yes” campaigners strongest argument.”
This is quite plainly an opinion, not a fact.
Niall, you got me there
Evert.
I’ve covered a few points that are not fact too.
I’m more worried about the many lies from the No side again, than the Yes side. Almost all points raised by the No side last year were not true.
Joe,
1) Source: http://bit.ly/2aId3y Can you provide evidence that the initial tender mentioned: “and any following referendum for the same treaty”? I doubt it somehow.
2) Precedence doesn’t make it right. How far apart were the referenda on divorce?
3) Your statement in regard to this is full of bias. This type of bias is exactly why we need equal airtime. RTE is de-facto towing the FF line so we now have a national TV broadcaster highlighting one side of the debate. I know of a few dictatorial regimes where this is also the case.
4) Yes, we *are* voting on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Ratification of this requires a constitutional referendum, something that will dissapear if Lisbon is ratified.
Evert.
There’s something of a difference between the BCI and “the government” changing broadcasting rules. Your comment points to party political interference – the reality is indicative of an independent state body making a reasonable call.
What they now require is fairness, which is significantly more sensible than equal coverage.
Pidge,
The BCI’s announcement on this matter was prompted by a change in legislation slipped through by the government several months ago…
Evert.
As quoted from the IT regarding tender: “option to retain the same communications consultant if a further referendum took place within three years”
RTÉ have been overly critical of the Yes side, and don’t know the facts to challenge the nonsense of the No side. Towing the FF line, have you listened to RTÉ over the past 18 months, I think not. They have been anything but towing the line.
Bias in relation to this, I can’t remember how many times I heard or posters I saw from the No side misleading the public about abortion, EU army, conscription, loss of commissioner (we would lose it anyway under Nice Treaty), rights to tax. All made up and not in the treaty. RTÉ interviewers were not up to speed on the treaty to be able to question these statements.
Divorce was 10 years apart, if FG were in power, it may have happened sooner. We passed it by voting on it a second time, that’s the point.
We are not voting on the actual Treaty, the treaty changes some points in our Constitution, and it is these changes that need to be ratified by a referendum by the people.
Declan Ganley, I think Colm Keena of the IT was the only person who did some background checks on him.
I assume from your previous posts you are anti Lisbon Treaty, this appears clear from reading your posts and comments.
Joe,
1) Fair enough, I will concede on this. For transparency sake they should have put it out to public tender though.
2) I was not in particular referring to RTE’s previous coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, however “occurences” such as Cow ‘n Gate clearly show that they bend to the governments will.
3)No of the points you mentioned there were any of the reasons why I oppose the Lisbon Treaty and the same goes for most “no-voters” that I’ve spoken to. Just because you only choose to quote the loonies (as does the government) does not mean it’s representative.
4) 2 referenda on the same topic but 10 years apart is significantly different from two run in the same year.
5) Nit-picking & immaterial.
6) And your point is? By stepping back after the EU elections Ganley made himself the only Irish politician who kept a promise in years.
7) No really?! And here’s me trying to pretend to be pro-Lisbon. Good thing you outed me…
Evert.
Evert, if No meant No the we wouldn’t be members of the EU as we asked to join a couple of times before we were accepted.
While I work on a bigger post here’s just a few little facts on how the run-up to the next Lisbon Treaty referendum is played:
* The Irish government removes legislation that made for equal airtime for both sides of the debate.
Yet, FT here on this blog has refuted the notion of equal time being given amongst the sides.
* The Irish government enters into a contract with a PR firm to handle publicity for the “Yes” campaign without going through the required public tender process.
You’re argument in favour of this point, is that you doubt it? Not that you have any proof either way?
* “No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
How is likening an approach the same as likening people? What is compared in that article is the approach that is used by people to select those facts that fit only their worldview, terrorists do it, Reagan staffs did it, Hilary Clinton supporters did it last year, that does not mean the people themselves are being compared only their approach to the situation.
* Bill Cullen can just refuse to disclose financial details of his campaign in support of a “Yes” vote. Remember, Declan Ganley got raked over hot coals on his campaigns finances…
Is Bill running a campaign or simply attending events organised by one?
* Green party suggest postponing vote on NAMA until after Lisbon referendum
Suggest is not necessarily do, and what has this to do with Lisbon?
* Sinn Fein is still the “Yes” campaigners strongest argument.
As pointed out already, this is opinion not fact. And more correctly SF are the Yes side’s strongest argument against SF. SF opposed our entry to the EEC and have opposed every treaty since. Yet some ill defined while after each treaty has been accepted, SF come to accept them as the basis for attacking the next treaty. So the question for SF is, when long will it take for them to change their minds on Lisbon?
* Intel can make public statements and run a campaign promoting a “Yes” vote without accusations of it “not being a legitimate political party”.
People can spend their own money on lots of things. I’m not aware that there area spending limits on total accumulative spending in either side of the argument for referendum. Perhaps someone can find the relevant sector of SIPO on it.
* And the biggest fact: we already voted on this and it hasn’t changed. NO MEANS NO!
NO means No in that the sense you can’t proceed in the face of a No, that does not mean you can’t ever ask again. How many relations won’t exist if we never asked again.
Evert,
Firstly “While I work on a bigger post here’s just a few little facts on how the run-up to the next Lisbon Treaty referendum is played:” what does does sentence mean? It is neither in the present nor future sense…
Secondly, The BCI has nothing to do with RTÉ. RTÉ is regulated by the RTÉ Authority and the rules there remain the same as they were during the first referendum, as far as I am aware (though on I’m open to correction if anyone can link me to the changed legislation – I’m 99% sure though). The BCI regulates commercial broadcasters. Regards the article in the IT and the Bill Cullen thing, I cannot comment on the article as I’m working in there at the minute but wasn’t Ganley slightly more prominent and active than Bill Cullen? Not to mention their completely incomparable pasts and levels of spending.
Thirdly, the PR firm was hired for the first campaign. Despite what politics.ie might tell you, it’s quite common for a clause to be inserted in EU procurement contracts that if a similar contract arises within a limited time period a tender process does not have to be gone through and the second contract goes to the winner of the first. It’s not a conspiracy theory.
Fourthly, The Greens postponing a referendum on NAMA is relative why? They have already voted to support the treaty. All postponing a vote on NAMA does is allow they devote their time to Lisbon, which is what they have voted to do. Both parties (now including their members) in coalition are officially pro-Lisbon so what’s wrong with them arranging their schedule to achieve their goals? Even if the grassroots Greens don’t want NAMA to pass they do want Lisbon to pass, so what’s the issue?
Fifthly, “Sinn Fein is still the Yes campaigners strongest argument”? What are you inferring? That Sinn Fein are somehow pro-Lisbon and only campaigning to undermine the No side? Also, as stated, this is not at all fact as you claim in your headline.
Sixth, Matt Cooper challenged the head of Intel on this matter on The Last Word. I know there are a few others looking into via SIPO at the minute also, unfortunately they’re usually shit-slow to reply to mainstream media, be assured there will be a response, if I have to get it for you myself.
Seventh, I’m fine with the “NO Means No” argument by it needs explaining. One sentence does not suffice. The point of this place is for informed debate and reasoned argument. I have requested in the past that people writing on Lisbon cite the reasons they hold their opinions, preferably directly to the Treaty and I do so again here. The standard of debate elsewhere, including in the media, and definitely including politics.ie, is not the standard we’re looking to achieve here – we can link, we’re aiming higher. Please keep this in mind for the longer post you mention.
Eighth, quality tune.
Evert, can you please link to the legislation that changed the rules on equal airtime? Section and Act please.
Mark,
1) It means that I am getting a moire substantial article together but decided that it might be a good idea to point certain issues out.
2) I didn’t drag the BCI into the discussions. What I am referring to is an announcement made (however briefly) that the Dail had made changes to legislation removing the need for equal representation. I will see if I can dig up some references but I am certain of the fact.
3) Cullen is only getting started. Either way execution has nothing to do with principles. No matter how big or small their prominence the same rules should apply.
4) OK, I conceded that point in a previous comment. However it is my opinion that there should have been a 2nd tender process.
5) It’s deferring a very pressing issue (more important that Lisbon in my opinion) to increase the chances of a “yes” vote for Lisbon.
6) Time will tell…
7) By “No means No” I mean that there has already been a very recent referendum on this issue and nothing has changed warranting a 2nd referendum. As stated in my previous posts I see this as clear disregard for democratic process and unacceptable.
8 ) It is indeed.
Evert.
Aoife,
Will search for it and post it here…
Evert.
Yeah, Evert, I’m fairly sure that you won’t find any Act or Section changing the rules on equal airtime because those rules came from the McKenna judgment and not from legislation. And the changes you refer to were probably the announcement made by the BCI (not the Government, not any member of the Dail) that it was re-interpreting the McKenna judgment and the impact that it would have on equal airtime during the same broadcasts. The only reason the Dail came into that discussion was that the head of the BCI gave evidence to one of the Dail committees on this issue.
By all means set out the facts about Lisbon, but try to actually stick to the facts and not what you believe them to be.
Aoife,
No I am not referring to the BCI’s statement (even though everyone seesm to want me to).
This was based on a very brief item in the press made at least 2-3 months ago.
I will look for a reference and post it here.
No need to get condescending just because you don’t agree..
Evert.
“3) Cullen is only getting started. Either way execution has nothing to do with principles. No matter how big or small their prominence the same rules should apply.”
So when can we expect to see your financial background? After all according to the standard you have now set it matters not what size of prominence one has just that one is involved.
Daniel,
You miss my point. What I am trying to make clear is that it’s typical when there is a high profile private sector “NO” campaigner like Ganley gets crucified over his finances how come someone like Cullen gets away with just refusing to give any disclosure.
Personally I think neither should have to disclose anything.
However we have certain rules for this in Ireland, enforced by SIPO so if I should disclose my finances under these rules please let me know.
Evert.
I’m lost as to who has asked Cullen to make a disclosure that he has refused? I thought your complaint was that he wasn’t being asked, now it’s that he is refusing.
Daniel,
It was mentioned in an article in the last issue of the Sunday Times.
I will see if I can find it online.
My point was that there shouldn’t be two different standards applied.
Evert.
Any update on finding that legislation that removes equal airtime?