misleading Liberats adverts

ionix5891

Anyone else spot the misleading "We say YES" Libertas google adverts here on boards and other sites (attached)

Im seriously considering enabling adblock again or clicking them ads in order to make money for the sites and google


Is it me or is this complete hypocrisy after the last years Lisbon treaty

mikom

Misleading thread title tbh.

ionix5891

Learned from the best , it was an honest typo but seems it may as well stay now

Scofflaw

It is an extraordinarily dishonest ad. Brussels doesn't decide whether people get referendums or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

It is an extraordinarily dishonest ad. Brussels doesn't decide whether people get referendums or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah now Scofflaw, what use have we for inconvenient facts such as this!? :pac:

evercloserunion

That is one of their milder sins.

djpbarry

FACT: Brussels is taking away your freedom without giving you a vote.

Despite voters saying NO to giving Brussels any more power, the unelected bureaucrats are trying to pull off the biggest power grab in history by creating a new, unelected European President. Sign the petition to demand that every country must hold a referendum on any new European Treaty.

http://libertas.eu/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&chronoformname=emailcamp001&l=en&s=gb&template=blank

Brussels is (apparently) taking away our freedom, so we should react by telling Brussels to force everyone else to do what we want?

Rb

djpbarry wrote: »

Brussels is (apparently) taking away our freedom, so we should react by telling Brussels to force everyone else to do what we want?

Lol that's such a pathetically weak argument but I'm so glad to see the pro-lisbon side still rolling it out.

It really does prove a lot.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

Lol that's such a pathetically weak argument but I'm so glad to see the pro-lisbon side still rolling it out.

It really does prove a lot.

What - that you don't actually understand what was said there?

laughing - at you, not with you,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

"smug" doesn't even begin to describe it.

accurate
factual
honest

would do

Lol that's such a pathetically weak argument but I'm so glad to see the pro-lisbon side still rolling it out.

So aside from pointing out that it is such a weak argument are you going to try and explain why it is such a weak argument to point out that the notion of the EU institutions forcing its member states to change their political systems to suit one specific political structure is undemocratic.

I mean ignoring the sheer arrogence of it its also sets a very bad precedent. I mean lets force all the EU states to change their laws and political systems so they all have to have referendums on all future treaties.

Oh wait, if we can do that why do we need treaties to start with, if we can from the EU force states to change how they govern themselves we wont need to work out a complicated treaty system that they can all agree on, we can just change the laws to suit whatever we desire.

the old saying the end does not justify the means really rings true here.

djpbarry

Rb wrote: »

Lol that's such a pathetically weak argument but I'm so glad to see the pro-lisbon side still rolling it out.

How would you interpret the text I copied from Libertas' website?

molloyjh

Rb wrote: »

Lol that's such a pathetically weak argument but I'm so glad to see the pro-lisbon side still rolling it out.

It really does prove a lot.

Weak argument? Libertas say that the EU should not decide how we do things here, but that it should decide for all other member states how they do things. That (assuming my definition of the word is correct) is total and blatant hypocracy, as well as being completely unrealistic and, as Blitzkrieg said, incrediblt arrogant. That's a pretty strong argument against Libertas in my book. What is it you find so weak about it?

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Brussels is (apparently) taking away our freedom, so we should react by telling Brussels to force everyone else to do what we want?

That's not what was meant. It's not about forcing everyone else to do what we want. It's about forcing the EU institutions to behave in a certain way before any more power is transferred to them from the member states.

There is a massive difference between saying that someone "should" do something and saying that someone "can do something but only on the condition that..." In the case the someone is the EU, not the member states. What Libertas are saying, and it's something I fully agree with, is that any further transfer of power to the EU should only happen with the consent of the electorates of those member states. The EU can continue down the road to a federal Europe but only the condition that it has the popular consent of the member states. It's about enshrining the same principle of consent into EU law that is already enshrined in our law and that determines the future status of the six counties.

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

That's not what was meant. It's not about forcing everyone else to do what we want. It's about forcing the EU institutions to behave in a certain way before any more power is transferred to them from the member states.

There is a massive difference between saying that someone "should" do something and saying that someone "can do something but only on the condition that..." In the case the someone is the EU, not the member states. What Libertas are saying, and it's something I fully agree with, is that any further transfer of power to the EU should only happen with the consent of the electorates of those member states. The EU can continue down the road to a federal Europe but only the condition that it has the popular consent of the member states. It's about enshrining the same principle of consent into EU law that is already enshrined in our law and that determines the future status of the six counties.

It is apparent then that you do not understand how the EU works I'm afraid.

The EU is a group of countries, not a state-like entity that has to go to the electorate in the way that the member states Governments would have to. As a result of this it is up to each nation to define how it interacts with the EU itself. Each member state has mechanisms by which their Governments are directly elected and their representatives on the European Parliament are directly elected. They also have the legal mechanisms to bring about change in how the member state interacts with the EU (see Crottys case in the 80's that led to our EU referendums).

As a result of all of this it is up to the member states and their people to decide for themselves how to, for example, ratify EU treaties. The EU cannot place conditions on those democratically chosen methods. It is neither the EU's place nor their right to do anything like that, hence it doesn't. And just like the EU and other member states have to respect our right to referendum, we and the EU have to respect other member states right to not have a referendum. To do otherwise is hypocritical and undemocratic.

Just because you feel like every member state should have a referendum doesn't mean that they do. What you are talking about in your post is forcing your belief system on the entire EU. And yet you also insist that our methods and decisions must be respected. Let the other countries figure out their own way. If you don't like it, well that's just tough. It's not really your business anyway. But don't blame the EU for it either, it's not their call.

Your cries of "Make it more democratic the way I want it" are reminiscent (sp?) to Animal Farms "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" in it's absurdity.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

In the case the someone is the EU, not the member states.

Eh, the EU is the member states.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not about forcing everyone else to do what we want. It's about forcing the EU institutions to behave in a certain way before any more power is transferred to them from the member states.
…
It's about enshrining the same principle of consent into EU law that is already enshrined in our law...

In other words, you want the EU (and all its constituent members) to do things the way we do. That’s not your decision (or Ganley’s) to make. The EU operates according to the wishes of the member states. We have no business dictating to the EU as a whole how things should be done. “Forcing the EU institutions to behave in a certain way” would involve forcing the member states to acquiesce to your wishes, as it is the member states who decide how the EU institutions should “behave”.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Eh, the EU is the member states.

When I talk about the EU I'm not talking about the member states collectively. I'm talking about the institutions of the EU.

djpbarry wrote:

In other words, you want the EU (and all its constituent members) to do things the way we do.

Exactly. I think the principle of consent is a good principle by which to operate. Don't you?

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

Exactly. I think the principle of consent is a good principle by which to operate. Don't you?

I would generally tend to agree. Not that it matters beyond our own borders. If the other 26 member states (and the majority of their people) disagreed with us should the EU be able to stop us holding referenda?

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

Exactly. I think the principle of consent is a good principle by which to operate. Don't you?

I do. However what you are talking about is allowing, nay asking the EU to interfere in the internal democratic structures of member states.

The EU has as much right to demand Lithuania has a Referendum as they do to demand Ireland not have one. i.e. (to spell it out) none!

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I do. However what you are talking about is allowing, nay asking the EU to interfere in the internal democratic structures of member states.

The EU has as much right to demand Lithuania has a Referendum as they do to demand Ireland not have one. i.e. (to spell it out) none!

<insert any institution> has as much right to demand that people of Dublin drink as much buckfast as they do to demand people of Galway not drink any.

see your argument makes no sense

PopeBuckfastXVI

ionix5891 wrote: »

see your argument makes no sense

Sense: your post makes none!

You disagree with me why?

Perhaps I'm not being clear:

Claim: The EU should force every country to have a referendum

I am saying that if you think that the EU should have the right to force a country to have a referendum (A), by the same token, they also should have the right to ban a country from having a referendum(B).

A and B are roughly equivalent statements and positions.

I am refuting B, which is the notion that the EU should force Ireland to pass treaties without holding referenda. I don't think many people, pro or anti Lisbon would consider this to be a good thing.

So if we are all agreed that B is a bad thing, then it follows because of the equivalence that A is also bad.

Therefore if someone who is anti Lisbon thinks that the EU have no right to force Lisbon through in Ireland without a referendum, they should also think that the EU have no right to block implementation of Lisbon in another country without a referendum. If they want to be consistent that is.

To spell it out, stating that the EU should force referenda is as offensive and wrong as stating that the EU should ban referenda.

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I am refuting B, which is the notion that the EU should force Ireland to pass treaties without holding referenda.

a strawman :cool:

your logic is flawed young spock

where exactly did this "notion" came out of? who proposed it??

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Sense: your post makes none!

exactly neither does your post above my reply, i just swapped few words around with something more familiar to show how little sense that post of yours made

PopeBuckfastXVI

ionix:

Post #7 in this very thread linked and quoted the Libertas material from
http://libertas.eu/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&chronoformname=emailcamp001&l=en&s=gb&template=blank

Despite voters saying NO to giving Brussels any more power, the unelected bureaucrats are trying to pull off the biggest power grab in history by creating a new, unelected European President. Sign the petition to demand that every country must hold a referendum on any new European Treaty.

I added the bolding.

Edit:
I am saying that this statement
'demand that every country must hold a referendum on any new European Treaty'

is just as bad and offensive as this one
'demand that every country must not hold a referendum on any new European Treaty'

Therefore the Original Libertas statement/petition is an outrageous call for an infringement of the national sovereignty of all 27 member states of the EU.

Clear as mud!?

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

ionix:

Post #7 in this very thread linked and quoted the Libertas material from
http://libertas.eu/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&chronoformname=emailcamp001&l=en&s=gb&template=blank



I added the bolding.

ok that is pathetic from them but has anyone actually said anywhere

'demand that every country must not hold a referendum on any new European Treaty'

PopeBuckfastXVI

ionix5891 wrote: »

ok that is pathetic from them but has anyone actually said anywhere

'demand that every country must not hold a referendum on any new European Treaty'

Yes I did. I'm using it as an equivalent statement in order to illustrate how Libertas' statement is outrageous.

I am making that statement (must not hold), and asking people to agree that it is outrageous (which any Libertas supporter surely would?). And then asking them to examine the equivalent Libertas statement (must hold) and agree that it is also outrageous. It's an effort to prove that Libertas are hypocrites.

How are you not getting this!?

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes I did. I'm using it as an equivalent statement in order to illustrate how Libertas' statement is outrageous.

I am making that statement (must not hold), and asking people to agree that it is outrageous (which any Libertas supporter surely would?). And then asking them to examine the equivalent Libertas statement (must hold) and agree that it is also outrageous. It's an effort to prove that Libertas are hypocrites.

How are you not getting this!?

I understand you! However, I think the example suffers from the problem that people would see it as a denial of democracy (setting off various reactions), rather than being simply a reversal of Libertas' proposition to demonstrate the inherent lack of democracy in their proposal.

How about "demand that the EU require every country to ratify any new European Treaty via an electoral college"?

It's sillier - obviously - but perhaps the obvious silliness is helpful? The reaction might be more along the lines of "eh? why should Libertas call for the EU to dictate how we ratify treaties?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

John_C

Libertas wrote:

Despite voters saying NO to giving Brussels any more power, the unelected bureaucrats are trying to pull off the biggest power grab in history by creating a new, unelected European President.

I'm not sure if this forum operates to Godwin's law but I can think of at least one historical power grab which was bigger.

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes I did. I'm using it as an equivalent statement in order to illustrate how Libertas' statement is outrageous.

I am making that statement (must not hold), and asking people to agree that it is outrageous (which any Libertas supporter surely would?). And then asking them to examine the equivalent Libertas statement (must hold) and agree that it is also outrageous. It's an effort to prove that Libertas are hypocrites.

How are you not getting this!?

sorry i was being a bit slow late last night, i taught you were setting up a straw man only to burn it down in order to show some pro libertas viewpoint, i think no more buckfast for me

djpbarry

On the subject of misleading Libertas advertising, I'm guessing I'm not the only one to receive one of these (attached) through my letter box?

I'm wondering how much negativity they can throw in the direction of other politicians before said politicians are within their rights to initiate legal proceedings on the grounds of defamation?

ionix5891

djpbarry wrote: »

On the subject of misleading Libertas advertising, I'm guessing I'm not the only one to receive one of these (attached) through my letter box?

I'm wondering how much negativity they can throw in the direction of other politicians before said politicians are within their rights to initiate legal proceedings on the grounds of defamation?

ill see if i can dig up the one i threw in the bin where they were rubbishing some other meps here in galway

very slimy

turgon

"Dublin Mep's cost taxpayers 8.4 million." How on ereth is caroline simmons going to be any cheaper? Is she just going to refuse her wages?

"Fine Gael voted to abolish Irelands Corporate Tax rate"

Gees, last I heard we still had our own rate. But I suppose Deco knows best.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

"Dublin Mep's cost taxpayers 8.4 million." How on ereth is caroline simmons going to be any cheaper? Is she just going to refuse her wages?

MEP expenses and salaries are already being reformed, and Irish MEP salaries will fall in the new term anyway - perhaps that's what she means? Plus, of course, there will only be 12 of them, which is something of a saving...

Oh alright, not really - she's just slinging mud in the hopes that when everyone is covered in it, the others will be indistinguishable from her. It's her only hope, I think.

They're not badly paid, of course - €93.5K/year plus expenses. 13 of them for a five year term is €6,076,900, which is most of the €8.4 million. If those figures are right, they claimed €35,740 annually in expenses each. That's about 26 flights to Brussels per year the way things are currently done.

Hmm...why do I get the feeling the figure was plucked out of the air?

turgon wrote: »

"Fine Gael voted to abolish Irelands Corporate Tax rate"

Gees, last I heard we still had our own rate. But I suppose Deco knows best.

Sure - and Simmons wants to abolish freedom of movement. Sadly, I'm still not sure whether the farcical elements of the Libertas "program" will overwhelm their campaign or give it greater appeal. I do know that a campaign failure for them would bolster my faith in the Irish electorate.

cordially,
Scofflaw