Generation Yes

Zuiderzee

The article posted, start of the thread, and the answers to TD Finian McGrath's questions raised an eyebrow

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This treaty is imortant, anything that affects the cosntitution is fundamental.

I think it is very relevant as to who is funding such a prominent pro Lisbon group.

Certainly as important as a group like COIR, or Libertas and their funding.

I haven't go the impression so far in this thread that you are all that concerned about this point.

Zuiderzee

There have been plenty of postings about funding of Libertas and COIR here. You are free to open a new thread on that.
I cant answer those because I have nothing to do with either.

Why not ask about G Y and their apparent connections?

Was Brendan Halligan instrumental in the founding of GY?

Does Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA fund G Y?

Are Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA involved with G Y?

No clear cut answers yet.

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

There have been plenty of postings about funding of Libertas and COIR here. You are free to open a new thread on that.
I cant answer those because I have nothing to do with either.

Why not ask about G Y and their apparent connections?

Was Brendan Halligan instrumental in the founding of GY?

Does Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA fund G Y?

Are Brendan Halligan/IIEA/CIPA involved with G Y?

No clear cut answers yet.

The answers I have read so far seem pretty clear cut to me. Unless you have found out anything interesting in the meantime? As far as I am concerned the burden of proof is with you.

Scofflaw

Now, I'm afraid I'm going to call a halt to this thread until I get an answer from Zuiderzee to a question I regard as non-trivial.

While looking for Brendan Halligan/Generation Yes on Google, I came across this post on politics.ie:

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon the coercive ruling class refused to take No for an answer. Instead they plotted new tactics in how to force a treaty upon us that we did not want. Following the No vote the ruling class noticed something important- the youth were largely against the Lisbon. Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces EU propaganda at the tax payers expense. In 2006 alone the institute for International and European Affairs received over €800,000 in funding from the state. Halligan is also a lobbyist in Brussels who bribes eurocrats to oppose tobacco restrictions. After a meeting with Dick Roche, Halligan was tasked with forming a pro-government youth group that would appear independent. Unsuprisingly the youth don't trust politicians so this group would have to seem completely disconnected from the ruling class. The group would have young ambitous articulate kids at the front but in reality would be controlled by Halligan aged 73. And so Generation Yes was born. A good looking careerist puppet from the Green Party was hand-picked by Halligan as leader. Generation Yes have been known to be collaborating closely with IBEC since the front was established. The leaders of Generation Yes were introduced to Turlough O'Sullivan and other members of the ruling class. Since then IBEC have been kind enough to let Generation YES use their premises for printing propaganda and holding meetings. It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the Institute for International and European Affairs but what is certain is that Generation Yes are in the service of big business and the military industrial complex. Wittingly or unwittingly, it's members are enemies of ordinary decent Irish people and they service the interests of gombeen man.

The thread is titled "Generation Yes: Puppets of the Ruling Class". What bothers me is the near coincidence between that post and Zuiderzee's - there's a rephrase, but the content is the same:

politics.ie wrote:

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon the coercive ruling class refused to take No for an answer.

Zuiderzee wrote:

After the Irish people rejected Lisbon politicians refused to take No for an answer.

and

politics.ie wrote:

Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces EU propaganda at the tax payers expense.

Zuiderzee wrote:

Que the entrance of Brendan Halligan. Halligan is best known for his role as chairman of the institute for International and European Affairs an unashamedly pro-Lisbon body which produces pro EU literature at the tax payers expense.

and

politics.ie wrote:

It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the Institute for International and European Affairs but what is certain is that Generation Yes are in the service of big business and the military industrial complex.

Zuiderzee wrote:

It is hard to say how much funding Generation Yes receive indirectly from the state through the IIEA but what is certain is that Generation Yes are subsidised indirectly and substancially by the state.

Now, that looks to me like two people singing off the same hymn sheet, tailoring the message slightly - the politics.ie one is "stridently left-wing" while Zuiderzee's is more "neutral/objective".

If people are going to use this forum for political messaging, we have a right to know. If it's not transparent, we reserve the right to ban the perpetrator. And this looks like either political messaging, or spam.

Perhaps Zuiderzee would like to explain himself by PM. In the meantime, I'm not happy about this thread, which increasingly looks to me like some form of innuendo campaign - with the addition of the politics.ie material, that seems rather more likely than less.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

OK, have had a satisfactory answer from Zuiderzee, clarifying that the material in common is from the politics.ie post, and derives from the Phoenix article.

Further responses have been made on other threads:

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Firstly - apology due to Scoff, messed up on PM system, and it had not cont through properly. I have clarified the points he has raised with me by PM as best I can.

I do regret the title used in posting at p.ie, I should just have pasted as a new topic.

This forum is the place I posed a question as successive emails to GY and have not been answered, that simple.

And still no clear answer from GY??

storinius wrote:

Been away for a while, had a Gen YES event in Cork last week, which went really well actually.

I thought I had answered the questions about our funding. We raise all our own money, are essentially a volunteer organisation so don't need massive amounts of cash, and can't take money from the government.

As for Brendan Halligan, its weird to see the unhealthy fascination with him here. He didn't set up Generation YES, he hasn't attended any Generation YES meetings, nor are CIPA or the IIEA funding our organisation in any way.

That clear enough?

Given the answer from storinius, I'm not sure how much further the thread can go, since those seem pretty definitive, but the thread is reopened for now. If it turns into a case of making innuendo that the answers given aren't true, it will be closed again.

More generally, if there are questions relating to the funding of campaign groups, it's perfectly acceptable to ask them here, and to engage to some extent in speculation on them - what is not OK is assertions that campaign groups are engaged in breaking the funding laws, because that constitutes libel. Also not OK, if someone from a campaign group has been courteous enough to answer the questions, is continued claims that they haven't answered the questions they have answered.


moderately,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it turns into a case of making innuendo that the answers given aren't true, it will be closed again.

More generally, if there are questions relating to the funding of campaign groups, it's perfectly acceptable to ask them here, and to engage to some extent in speculation on them - what is not OK is assertions that campaign groups are engaged in breaking the funding laws, because that constitutes libel. Also not OK, if someone from a campaign group has been courteous enough to answer the questions, is continued claims that they haven't answered the questions they have answered.

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

It was the case for Libertas - innuendo threads were closed. Nor did we have anyone from Libertas answer the questions...

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

Ok, one more accusation of bias in the moderation of this forum and I will ban you. If you've got a complaint make it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Otherwise I'll interpret any comments pertaining to a perceived bias in this forum as a breach of the above and will act on it accordingly. Complaints about bias go in Help Desk and nowhere else. Clear?

BlitzKrieg

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but why wasn't this the case for Libertas?

Oh, wait, I can guess (anti-lisbon)

tbh

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055447716&highlight=libertas