Does anyone else think the government is being unbelievably hypocritical over Lisbon?

Scofflaw

ART6 wrote: »

Going back to the OP on how Ganley's No campaign was funded, at least we know how the Yes campaign was. It was paid for by the taxpayers whether or not they supported the Yes campaign -- and the vote suggests they did not. Perhaps we should be enquiring how come taxpayers money was used in all of the government's PR?

If it's reasonable for tax money to be used to fund the government's campaign, then natural justice suggests that the No campaign should also have been funded publically, then the question would not arise. Oh -- I am missing the point. This is not about democracy, is it?:rolleyes:

The SF campaign was supported by taxpayer's money (as well as EP money). All our political parties receive a sum in proportion to the number of their TDs - so FF spend taxpayer's money campaigning to be elected, including money from taxpayers who hate them with a passion. It's a feature of the system, and removes to some extent their reliance on subsidies from vested interests. It's about democracy, you see.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

The SF campaign was supported by taxpayer's money (as well as EP money). All our political parties receive a sum in proportion to the number of their TDs - so FF spend taxpayer's money campaigning to be elected, including money from taxpayers who hate them with a passion. It's a feature of the system, and removes to some extent their reliance on subsidies from vested interests. It's about democracy, you see.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I realise that Scofflaw, but the point I was making is that the government, who's campaign was funded by the taxpayer, is questioning the funding of Ganley's outfit, which was funded privately. And presumably the investigation and the PR campaign that is accompanying it is also funded by the taxpayer. It just looks to me as if there is a move to discredit the main opposition to Lisbon by doing a little judicious briefing at taxpayer's expense. Get the public suspicious of Ganley and you might just win the next referendum, ignoring the fact that the people have spoken and their decision should be accepted, right or wrong. That in my view is not democracy.

Regards

ART6

Scofflaw

ART6 wrote: »

I realise that Scofflaw, but the point I was making is that the government, who's campaign was funded by the taxpayer, is questioning the funding of Ganley's outfit, which was funded privately. And presumably the investigation and the PR campaign that is accompanying it is also funded by the taxpayer.

Well, no, because there wasn't a government campaign - that's precluded by the McKenna judgement. FF campaigned as a political party.

ART6 wrote: »

It just looks to me as if there is a move to discredit the main opposition to Lisbon by doing a little judicious briefing at taxpayer's expense. Get the public suspicious of Ganley and you might just win the next referendum, ignoring the fact that the people have spoken and their decision should be accepted, right or wrong. That in my view is not democracy.

If the people say No in one referendum, and said Yes in a subsequent referendum, then the people would have overturned the people's earlier decision. It's bizarre to claim that this is undemocratic. Unfair, perhaps, in that the only the government can decide whether there's a referendum or not, but the people reversing their decision can't be undemocratic. "Respecting the people's will" cannot be achieved by attempting to freeze any single decision, because that prevents the people expressing their will on the subject in future, which I think anyone can see is patently the opposite of democratic.

If a second referendum were won by the Yes side on the basis of attacking Libertas, that still isn't undemocratic either. We don't have any "standards in political debate" legislation, more's the pity, any more than we do for the press and media. I'd be perfectly happy to see a law under which politicians and journalists could be sued by individuals for factual inaccuracy or something of that kind ("libelling the intelligence of the public"?), against which the only defence would be the ability to demonstrate the factual basis for one's claims - I suspect such a move would not attract widespread support, though...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, because there wasn't a government campaign - that's precluded by the McKenna judgement. FF campaigned as a political party.

Accepted. I bow to superior knowledge (genuinely -- not being sarchastic). Am I them correct in assuming that FF paid their own costs?

If the people say No in one referendum, and said Yes in a subsequent referendum, then the people would have overturned the people's earlier decision. It's bizarre to claim that this is undemocratic. Unfair, perhaps, in that the only the government can decide whether there's a referendum or not, but the people reversing their decision can't be undemocratic. "Respecting the people's will" cannot be achieved by attempting to freeze any single decision, because that prevents the people expressing their will on the subject in future, which I think anyone can see is patently the opposite of democratic.

Agreed. But to ask the people to vote again should surely suggest that there have been material changes in the original issue, not a little tinkering around the edges. The Lisbon Treaty is, by the admission of several of the EU elite, virtually the same as the EU Constitution that was rejected by France and Holland. They were not given a second change. That is highly undemocratic in my view. So now, an imaginary situation: If we had also voted against the EU Constitution, and then were presented with Lisbon, would that have been considered a material change when the EU elite brazenly confirmed that it was not?



If a second referendum were won by the Yes side on the basis of attacking Libertas, that still isn't undemocratic either. We don't have any "standards in political debate" legislation, more's the pity, any more than we do for the press and media. I'd be perfectly happy to see a law under which politicians and journalists could be sued by individuals for factual inaccuracy or something of that kind ("libelling the intelligence of the public"?), against which the only defence would be the ability to demonstrate the factual basis for one's claims - I suspect such a move would not attract widespread support, though...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Now there I am with you all the way, particularly in respect of politicians. If I as a company director deliberately lied to obtain a material advantage I would be in serious trouble. But then I don't have parliamentary privilage, do I?;)


Regards

ART6