Libertas - a call for evidence

Scofflaw

He will turn his pressure group, Libertas, into a party with just one policy: to fight the Lisbon Treaty, which many see as the rejected European Constitution by the back door.

"We will tell people that Libertas is the box you put your X in if you want to vote 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty. It's clear, it's simple," he said.

So, what will they do for the remaining 5 years of their term if they're elected? The man is certainly doing a good job of using Lisbon as a springboard.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, what will they do for the remaining 5 years of their term if they're elected? The man is certainly doing a good job of using Lisbon as a springboard.

cordially,
Scofflaw

All political parties or movements have to start somewhere, and many started out on the back of one issue. Indeed, it would be incredible for any political movement or party to start off from day one with a complex series of policies on multiple issues. Your apparent scorn (if that is what it is) belies your prejudice because you disagree on this one issue, perhaps?

is_that_so

And many a single issue candidate has disappeared once that issue has no further traction. If you knew your Irish political history you'd also know how many have come and gone as well.
As I commented earlier they are confusing their support in a referendum with a perception that people's might actually vote for them. Elections and referenda are very different animals. There is also the matter of their strong Euroscepticism, however much Ganley bleats that he loves Europe and the fact that they would align with the virulently bigoted Jim Allister, hardly vote-getting material, in my view. And finally there is the dubious credibility of his "mini-treaty". Apart from being laughable it is also highly misleading.

auerillo

is_that_so wrote: »

And many a single issue candidate has disappeared once that issue has no further traction. If you knew your Irish political history you'd also know how many have come and gone as well.
As I commented earlier they are confusing their support in a referendum with a perception that people's might actually vote for them. Elections and referenda are very different animals. There is also the matter of their strong Euroscepticism, however much Ganley bleats that he loves Europe and the fact that they would align with the virulently bigoted Jim Allister, hardly vote-getting material, in my view. And finally there is the dubious credibility of his "mini-treaty". Apart from being laughable it is also highly misleading.

Are you saying that, because I said that most political parties usually start off as single issue causes, that you conclude form that I don't know my Irish history? It seems an unusual conclusion and one not based on evidence, and to suggest that I didn't know that many single issue groups have "come and gone as well" says more about your ability to leap to conclusions based on little or no evidence, than on my knowledge.

I am not "confusing" anything as I have no views on who may or may not support them should they wish to become a political party, and respectfully suggest that you are leaping to conclusions with little or no evidence, and in the above post quite aggressively too. Was that your intention, or was that not intended?

is_that_so

auerillo wrote: »

Are you saying that, because I said that most political parties usually start off as single issue causes, that you conclude form that I don't know my Irish history? It seems an unusual conclusion and one not based on evidence.

I am not "confusing" anything as I have no views on who may or may not support them should they wish to become a political party, and respectfully suggest that you are leaping to conclusions with little or no evidence.

No. Please read my post properly.

lostexpectation

and now he doing speeches at the crazy heritage foundations telling the americans how he defeated the ref singlehandedly

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

So, what will they do for the remaining 5 years of their term if they're elected? The man is certainly doing a good job of using Lisbon as a springboard.

All political parties or movements have to start somewhere, and many started out on the back of one issue. Indeed, it would be incredible for any political movement or party to start off from day one with a complex series of policies on multiple issues. Your apparent scorn (if that is what it is) belies your prejudice because you disagree on this one issue, perhaps?

Hmm. If I were scornful of Libertas (I'm not, although I don't like their methods, or their politics particularly), why would it be prejudice? Why would I have pre-judged them, as opposed to judged them on the basis of what I've seen of them? Indeed, on what other basis would I be judging them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

What do libertas get out of all of this?

is_that_so

A platform to becoming a more relevant force. Their method of doing so is not typical. Most organisations or individuals start off at council or even national level in order to build a profile. I don't think they will become a party as they are showing considerable disdain for national politics of any form at this moment. Mind you there is not as much fun debating a right of way at a local council meeting as "threats to our democracy".

This suggests to me that they are more interested in exploiting the "protest vote" that "exists" in the EU and garner enough votes to lobby and becoming a high-powered lobby group. Beyond that I can't see them being anything more than a political footnote.

MSTRKRFT

axer wrote: »

What do libertas get out of all of this?

The question is what did the people behind Libertas get out of all this, which was blocking a treaty which would have advanced the political integration of the EU. If you look at the people behind Libertas and their close links to US military, intelligence and security agencies it is only natural they would wish to continue negotiating with (on military/business/intelligence levels) with individual EU states over an EU "superpower" so to speak.

Tim Robbins

MSTRKRFT wrote: »

The question is what did the people behind Libertas get out of all this, which was blocking a treaty which would have advanced the political integration of the EU. If you look at the people behind Libertas and their close links to US military, intelligence and security agencies it is only natural they would wish to continue negotiating with (on military/business/intelligence levels) with individual EU states over an EU "superpower" so to speak.

The Lisbon treaty had something in it where the EU could make foreign policy statements. This would mean they could condem (or threathen to condem) American foreign policy with quite a lot of gravitas, which of course would make it harder for their own government to win over popular support.

I think Libertas was a puppet regime for American neo - cons.

However, when Ganley was interviewed on Dunphy, he was quite critical of the neo - cons. Maybe it's all part of the game.

utick

lol weather europe becomes a super power or not, americans dont give a damn what europeans think about them, i know that amercians are hated in europe but they take no notice

dresden8

Here we go again.

There is only one group in Ireland in thrall to the American government which does what it's told and promotes the American governments's agenda in Ireland and the world beyond, such as rendition flights through Shannon.

It's called "The Irish Government"

For these people to turn around and criticise Libertas's support of American government policy is surely the height of hypocrisy. Does Bush know that Cowen thinks he's a despot hell bent on destruction of democracy? I think not.

I particularly love the "Where does Libertas get it's money" arguements. We've been trying to find out for ten years where Fianna Fail gets it's money and we're no closer to finding that out.

Two worst jobs in Ireland

1. Fianna Fail money man. - Bound to end up dead before the case gets to court. The mafia isn't that efficient in cleaning up it's loose ends.

2. Fianna Fail leading politician. Your brain is bound to fall out of your ass before you get to court. They must force feed them aluminium and arsenic in FF headquarters to get them to that level of mental impairment at retirement time.

In any normal country (except Italy) this sort of crap would be laughed out of the court.

Flamed Diving

dresden8 wrote: »

Here we go again.

There is only one group in Ireland in thrall to the American government which does what it's told and promotes the American governments's agenda in Ireland and the world beyond, such as rendition flights through Shannon.

It's called "The Irish Government"

For these people to turn around and criticise Libertas's support of American government policy is surely the height of hypocrisy. Does Bush know that Cowen thinks he's a despot hell bent on destruction of democracy? I think not.

I particularly love the "Where does Libertas get it's money" arguements. We've been trying to find out for ten years where Fianna Fail gets it's money and we're no closer to finding that out.

Two worst jobs in Ireland

1. Fianna Fail money man. - Bound to end up dead before the case gets to court. The mafia isn't that efficient in cleaning up it's loose ends.

2. Fianna Fail leading politician. Your brain is bound to fall out of your ass before you get to court. They must force feed them aluminium and arsenic in FF headquarters to get them to that level of mental impairment at retirement time.

In any normal country (except Italy) this sort of crap would be laughed out of the court.

This may sound a bit outlandish, so feel free to stop me at any time...

But...

Is it not possible to be suspicious and opposed to FF and Libertas?

Just thought I'd toss that wacky thought out there.

:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This may sound a bit outlandish, so feel free to stop me at any time...

But...

Is it not possible to be suspicious and opposed to FF and Libertas?

Just thought I'd toss that wacky thought out there.

:rolleyes:

What? Are you suggesting that the answer to dresden8's dilemma is that people are actually just treating Libertas with the same amount of suspicion as any other Irish political group? Outrageous.

outrageously (apparently),
Scofflaw

dresden8

Exactly, they're all a bunch of tossers. It's possible to hate FF, FG, SF, the PD's and Libertas all at the same time.

And that's why the answer was no when the politicians said "trust us".

It's the bare faced hypocrisy that gets me.

Peanut

I had a strong suspicion that Libertas reeked of duplicity the moment I heard their carefully crafted spin-doctored name...

Mehh

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The no vote was bought by the US military, just face up to that. The pens people used to vote no may as well have been filled with Iraqi blood.

There's no doubt Libertas did spread alot of horse**** and not releasing info on their funding sources obviously means they've something to hide, but US Military? We're getting into conspiracy theories now

Scofflaw

Mehh wrote: »

There's no doubt Libertas did spread alot of horse**** and not releasing info on their funding sources obviously means they've something to hide, but US Military? We're getting into conspiracy theories now

More likely they're hiding the fact that the funding doesn't match the claim to be a grassroots movement. Having said that, the two principals, Ganley and McEvaddy, certainly have strong US 'homeland security'/Republican links - it would be interesting to what extent their donors represent Irish companies with similar links, which in turn could simply indicate a part of the business community that feels its particular interests are not promoted by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Of course "hey, we represent the part of the establishment that doesn't like Lisbon for our own business reasons" isn't much of a rallying cry, although it does represent a much greater danger to the government's EU plans than the grassroots movement Libertas pretends to be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Surely the fact that the majority of those who voted voted "no" means that a number must support the thrust of libertas, even if the nature of their support is only technical.

It seems to smell slightly of being a bad loser to claim they were not truthful or that their funding sources are suspect, or even that they must be suspect because their organiser has business interests in the USA. Politics is not the art of the truth, it is the art of the possible, and truth is always a casualty in the pursuit of what one thinks of as the right outcome. If one looks for purity and truth in politics, then one is bound to be constantly disappointed. What matters in politics is to win, and it has always been a dirty business. FF didn't tell the "truth" during the last election campaign, but they won and thats all that matters.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

Surely the fact that the majority of those who voted voted "no" means that a number must support the thrust of libertas, even if the nature of their support is only technical.

While there almost certainly is some support for Libertas, one can't draw any such conclusion from the fact that people voted the same way as them, given that there were only two options.

auerillo wrote: »

It seems to smell slightly of being a bad loser to claim they were not truthful

They weren't truthful. If one is in favour of democracy, one cannot be in favour of people lying to the electorate. Libertas' claims were often contradictory, and in several cases extremely easy to prove as false (especially the "keep the Commissioner" claim).

auerillo wrote: »

or that their funding sources are suspect,

Again, their funding sources are 'suspect'. They claimed to be a grassroots organisation, supported by grassroots donations - yet they had an expensive media strategy planned from the start. If they were genuinely dependent on donations, that would not have been possible - so what they say about their funding doesn't match the reality.

auerillo wrote: »

or even that they must be suspect because their organiser has business interests in the USA.

Well, it's more the nature of the interests. Still, one can take that one or leave it.

auerillo wrote: »

Politics is not the art of the truth, it is the art of the possible, and truth is always a casualty in the pursuit of what one thinks of as the right outcome. If one looks for purity and truth in politics, then one is bound to be constantly disappointed. What matters in politics is to win, and it has always been a dirty business. FF didn't tell the "truth" during the last election campaign, but they won and thats all that matters.

No. That isn't actually the case. It does matter that organisations lie - and in the case of parties like FF, who regularly stand for election, lies will come back to haunt them. In the case of a group like Libertas, there is no comeback if they're found to be liars - they've done what they set out to do, by deception. That damages democracy, damages trust in democracy, weakens the mandate of the people, and promotes further dishonesty in public life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

While there almost certainly is some support for Libertas, one can't draw any such conclusion from the fact that people voted the same way as them, given that there were only two options.



They weren't truthful. If one is in favour of democracy, one cannot be in favour of people lying to the electorate. Libertas' claims were often contradictory, and in several cases extremely easy to prove as false (especially the "keep the Commissioner" claim).



Again, their funding sources are 'suspect'. They claimed to be a grassroots organisation, supported by grassroots donations - yet they had an expensive media strategy planned from the start. If they were genuinely dependent on donations, that would not have been possible - so what they say about their funding doesn't match the reality.

I agree with much of what you say but don't know the details of their funding or, in fact, don't know about the funding of any of the parties campaigning for the referendum. I imagine most of the parties campaigning had their strategies planned from the start, and it might appear naive to suppose any parties strategy was not planned from the start and made up as they went along.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It does matter that organisations lie - and in the case of parties like FF, who regularly stand for election, lies will come back to haunt them. In the case of a group like Libertas, there is no comeback if they're found to be liars - they've done what they set out to do, by deception. That damages democracy, damages trust in democracy, weakens the mandate of the people, and promotes further dishonesty in public life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's a good point, that lies should come back to haunt those electioneering. of course there will be comeback for Libertas, and others, if the can be proved to be liars. There was plenty of time for others to demonstrate that Libertas, and others, were not truthful before the referendum, if that was the case.

Trust in democracy is a cornerstone of our system, and perhaps that trust has been eroded, in a general sense, in recent years. Just as trust in the RC church has been eroded, perhars trust in our politicians, and the political system, has been eroded in recent years, by events. That is a shame, but it is also a fact. If Libertas was untruthful, why could that not be demonstrated before the referendum, rather than afterwards?

In these boards, as in life, much time is spent on shoring up our own positions at the expense of learning and developing our understanding. Perhpas Libertas were wrong and the correct path was to support the referendum. But that doesn't explain the unease, in Ireland and across Europe, for the direction in which the EU is porgressing. Perhaps that direction is right and proper and for all our benefit, but that unease is still there and, for the rest of europe, there was no mechanism to express it, as they were all denied the opportunity to vote on it, which is a shame.

I wish I could be confident that the people of the EU were behind the progression, as detailed in the Lisbon treaty, of the EU. Even if it is good for all of us, we still need the democratic support of the people. By not allowing all of us a vote on it, that suggests there is a lack of confidence by the politicians, and others, that we have the democratic support of the people.

Peanut

auerillo wrote: »

By not allowing all of us a vote on it, that suggests there is a lack of confidence by the politicians, and others, that we have the democratic support of the people.

Having not been in the country during the voting, I wasn't able to follow it entirely, however I don't think I noticed anyone describe the consequences of having a treaty that needs a unanimous "YES" in each country, and allowing each country to vote on it.

Basic maths, but if only one country decides to put it to referendum, and we guess that the average ratio of yes:no votes is 1:1, then there is a 50% chance the treaty will be passed.

For two countries, there is a 25% chance that they will both vote YES.
Now if we increase to 4 countries having a referendum on it, there is only a 6.25% chance that all countries will vote YES and pass it.

If we allow all 26 countries to vote there is a 2 ^ 26 = 1 in 67108864, or a 0.00000149% chance of the treaty passing, again assuming a 50:50 split between yes and no votes in each country.

I assume though, if it was thought that the treaty would have been put to the poll in more countries, the unaniminity requirement would have been modified.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

I agree with much of what you say but don't know the details of their funding or, in fact, don't know about the funding of any of the parties campaigning for the referendum. I imagine most of the parties campaigning had their strategies planned from the start, and it might appear naive to suppose any parties strategy was not planned from the start and made up as they went along.

I would agree that the major parties undoubtedly did have their strategies planned out in advance - indeed, a part of the problem with the government's strategy was that it was planned in advance, and wasn't changed to meet the realities on the ground.

The difference, however, is that parties like FF have warchests - existing, accounted for. FF has money in the bank well before any given election, because it has been in existence for decades.

Libertas, on the other hand, appeared around December, springing into life with a fully formed strategy that required massive expenditure (outspending FF, FG, and Labour together, by all accounts). Advertising space was bought up on and offline from early in the year - advertising space which requires a minimum advance period of a couple of months.

The People's Movement, on the other hand, which was also created "for the campaign", set out immediately on fund-raising pub quizzes, and by the end of the referendum had achieved virtually nothing in the way of paid-for publicity - having raised, a couple of months in, about €10,000 (according to their website at one point).

So when Libertas claim (or are claimed) to be a "grassroots" campaign, the word "astroturf" springs inexorably to my mind - and damned high quality astroturf at that.

auerillo wrote: »

That's a good point, that lies should come back to haunt those electioneering. of course there will be comeback for Libertas, and others, if the can be proved to be liars. There was plenty of time for others to demonstrate that Libertas, and others, were not truthful before the referendum, if that was the case.

It was pointed out at the time, but the discipline of the No side was good, even though many No campaigners visibly had doubts about Libertas and their arguments.

As to it coming back to bite them - so what? That's the problem - they're not a political party, they won't be taking the electoral test year in year out.

auerillo wrote: »

Trust in democracy is a cornerstone of our system, and perhaps that trust has been eroded, in a general sense, in recent years. Just as trust in the RC church has been eroded, perhars trust in our politicians, and the political system, has been eroded in recent years, by events. That is a shame, but it is also a fact. If Libertas was untruthful, why could that not be demonstrated before the referendum, rather than afterwards?

In these boards, as in life, much time is spent on shoring up our own positions at the expense of learning and developing our understanding. Perhpas Libertas were wrong and the correct path was to support the referendum. But that doesn't explain the unease, in Ireland and across Europe, for the direction in which the EU is porgressing. Perhaps that direction is right and proper and for all our benefit, but that unease is still there and, for the rest of europe, there was no mechanism to express it, as they were all denied the opportunity to vote on it, which is a shame.

I wish I could be confident that the people of the EU were behind the progression, as detailed in the Lisbon treaty, of the EU. Even if it is good for all of us, we still need the democratic support of the people. By not allowing all of us a vote on it, that suggests there is a lack of confidence by the politicians, and others, that we have the democratic support of the people.

See Peanut's very engaging little post. Looking at it (and the maths is entirely correct), one can see why the No camp favours the idea of across-the-board referendums. To give a treaty a 50% chance of being ratified overall, there would need to be a 97.5% chance of the referendum passing in each single state - even with a 90% chance in every state there's only a 6% chance of a treaty eventually being ratified. Probability maths - it's strange stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

It seems to smell slightly of being a bad loser to claim they were not truthful or that their funding sources are suspect

But they weren't truthful and their funding sources are suspect. This matters because they were a major force in the campaign and likely had major impact on the outcome. Surely we shouldn't be deciding the direction our country and the EU should be taking on lies where we can help it?

auerillo wrote: »

Politics is not the art of the truth, it is the art of the possible, and truth is always a casualty in the pursuit of what one thinks of as the right outcome. If one looks for purity and truth in politics, then one is bound to be constantly disappointed. What matters in politics is to win, and it has always been a dirty business. FF didn't tell the "truth" during the last election campaign, but they won and thats all that matters.

I would have to strongly disagree with this point (something I seem to do quite well!!! ). While we are always going to be lied to by people with vested interests we should always strive to resist that and punish it were possible. Just because it happens (and will always happen) doesn't mean we should for one instant accept it. The same way murder or drink driving are a reality to life, and the same way we try to prevent these things happeneing or failing that punish those responsible, we should also refuse to accept this kind of behaviour within our political system. Society would probably not have made it very far if the attitude had always been "Ah sure leave it be, sure isn't it the way of things.". In fact we probably wouldn't have democracy if that was the way people always thought.

It has been shown time and again on this site that Libertas either lied or greatly misrepresented the truth of Lisbon. Fair enough, the official Yes campaign did not do enough to combat that, but if the result is indeed found to be based on lies would it not be fair to the Irish people to expose these lies and get them to vote on the truth? Even if that means we get the same result? At least then we'd know what the view of the Irish people was on the Treaty, and not on the campaigning. After all we (supposedly) voted for or against Lisbon on the day, not for Libertas or FF or FG, and certainly not for their campaigning ability.

I'm all for supporting the result of the referendum, even if it goes against what I wanted. But I refuse to allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes. If that is the case, then I adamantly believe we owe it to ourselves to ensure we get to the truth and have our say on that, rather than anything else. Otherwise democracy is not working for us, its working for the vested interests, which just defeats the whole point......IMO :P

auerillo

molloyjh wrote: »

I would have to strongly disagree with this point (something I seem to do quite well!!! ). While we are always going to be lied to by people with vested interests we should always strive to resist that and punish it were possible. Just because it happens (and will always happen) doesn't mean we should for one instant accept it.

I compeltely agree! And I look forward to all politicians who have lied or stolen or have not paid their taxes to be prosecuted. However, I am not holding my breath as , in this country, we seem to not only turn a blind eye to deception, lying and greed on behalf of our politician, but we generally vote them in again at the next available opportunity with a huge majority.

Unfortunately, the truth (about such treaties as Lisbon) is rarely pure or simple. It was, on purpose, created to confuse and be an almost impossible document to read or understand. That is a disgrace in itself, as the need to have it interpreted opened the door for anyone to mislead, either knowingly or otherwise.

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

I compeltely agree! And I look forward to all politicians who have lied or stolen or have not paid their taxes to be prosecuted. However, I am not holding my breath as , in this country, we seem to not only turn a blind eye to deception, lying and greed on behalf of our politician, but we generally vote them in again at the next available opportunity with a huge majority.

Tell me about it! Its getting very depressing and tiresome at this stage.

auerillo wrote: »

Unfortunately, the truth (about such treaties as Lisbon) is rarely pure or simple. It was, on purpose, created to confuse and be an almost impossible document to read or understand. That is a disgrace in itself, as the need to have it interpreted opened the door for anyone to mislead, either knowingly or otherwise.

I'm not so sure about that, it seems to be a line trotted from time to time, but the more I've looked at the history of the Treaty the less I'm inclined to agree with it. The Constitution was designed to consolidate all existing Treaties plus the new reforms into one document that was easy to read. When that was rejected one of the initial plans was to just repackage it and represent it as a Constitution again.

However one of the main reasons the French rejected the Constitution was their fear of a loss of sovereignty. The very term Constitution was enough to put the frighteners up them on that front (given the political and social upset in the country at the time the scare-mongerers held more sway than normal). So the EU were advised to drop the idea of a Constitution completely and just revert back to the existing Treaty method that was already in place. The problem with Treaties though is that they are, by nature, complex and difficult to decipher. A Constitution is a document aimed at the people, written with the people in mind, a Treaty is aimed at Governments and written without the people in mind.

So the original proposal had been to consolidate everything, including the reforms, into a single easy to read text. After that failed they were left with very few options and in the end decided to just implement the reforms as a seperate Treaty because this was deemed the least offensive way of doing it. However this then needed to reference all the other treaties which made it the pain in the @rse it is today. But if the EU agenda really was to confuse us all then they never would have tried to run with the Constitution in the first place.

I don't disagree that the thing is a mess, but I'm not sure what other options the EU had (being a layman observer probably doesn't help). And while it may have made it easier for certain groups to mislead people we are now in a position where we can ascertain whether that played a significant factor and actually put it right. I think we should do that. And I also think legislation should be put in place to prevent this from being an issue again - some sort of false advertising type legislation that prevents and/or punishes misleading campaigning.

But then I also think that political parties should be prevented from getting any form of campaign or party donations and that taxes should be increased by a small amount and the extra revenue used to pay for electoral campaigns. But thats a whole other issue and just goes to show that I think a lot of things, but at the end of the day the thoughts are nothing more than just that. :pac:

sink

molloyjh wrote: »

And I also think legislation should be put in place to prevent this from being an issue again - some sort of false advertising type legislation that prevents and/or punishes misleading campaigning.

While I agree with the sentiment I can't think of how it would be put into practice without opening up every single political campaign to frivolous lawsuits. I would be extremely difficult to word it in such a way that it would not impact say FF's last election campaign.

molloyjh wrote: »

But then I also think that political parties should be prevented from getting any form of campaign or party donations and that taxes should be increased by a small amount and the extra revenue used to pay for electoral campaigns. But thats a whole other issue and just goes to show that I think a lot of things, but at the end of the day the thoughts are nothing more than just that. :pac:

I'm not so sure this would work either. I certainly don't want the Socialist Workers Party being funded out of my pocket. How would funds be divided up fairly?

molloyjh

sink wrote: »

While I agree with the sentiment I can't think of how it would be put into practice without opening up every single political campaign to frivolous lawsuits. I would be extremely difficult to word it in such a way that it would not impact say FF's last election campaign.

True. Perhaps excluding GEs would make sense given the nature of them, i.e. there's a lot of speculation etc involved that cannot readily be proven to have been true or false at the time. Something like the Lisbon Treaty tends to be more fact than opinion. Referenda in general tend to have quite obvious and proveable results, e.g. abortion or divorce. You can show what the actual legislation means and if approved it is exactly what you will get.

sink wrote: »

I'm not so sure this would work either. I certainly don't want the Socialist Workers Party being funded out of my pocket. How would funds be divided up fairly?

Well thats the difficult part. However I'm sure if we went through it we could find a solution (OT I know!). Some form of proportional division based on support levels and number of candidates with a slight weighting for the smaller parties possibly? I would much rather some of my taxes went to the Socialist Party and the main parties didn't have their "contributions" as they do now than the current set up to be honest. But thats just me.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

It was, on purpose, created to confuse and be an almost impossible document to read or understand.

Evidence, please, and a well-known selective misquote from Giscard d'Estaing doesn't count.