Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI

Zuiderzee

Berliosconi said recently it was wrong for state media to criticize the Government- this is the same type of mentality.
It was the same with the Bush administrations way of dealing with unpopular questions, reporters asking uncomfortable questions were sidelined, moved or fired.

As usual, many Yes posters here like PopeB, meglome et al seem to glory in what to me is a very disturbing development.

Freedom of the press is important, but the press is a private business.
Editorial policy is set by the owners.

Equally the overt Yes bias here is not something I am impressed with - its why I dont post here so much anymore, its my choice, like not buying the Sun or Mirror. But it is a private venture. Moderation, control, ethos and bias reflect the owner - much as politics.ie reflects the No campaign.

However, the impartiality of the state broadcaster and open debate are vital parts of our political progress.
RTE is the primary source of news and information for many people.
Sky, BBC et al will never give the same coverage or depth.

Being part of a democratic process means at times you need to listen to and debate those who dissent.
Regardless of what you think of their opinions, there needs to be debate.

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose RTE put together another "Questions & Answers" style programme prior to the second referendum

No chance, its too risky for the Government and the Yes campaign.

This is hardly surprising when Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the new EU assurances were worthless.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This is hardly surprising when Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the new EU assurances were worthless.

Do you understand, and can you explain why they are 'worthless'?

Zuiderzee

Go to RTE, use google to search their website and watch Q&A.

This thread is about fairness with the national broadcaster, equal time for both sides of the issue.
His comments are a different debate.

The point is I feel after the loss of the first vote, the Yes side do not want to take the risk of a debate or Q&A style program where someone of his caliber does not tow the line.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I hate manufactured 'balance'.
It's the sort of entitlement rubbish that leads to 'controversy' over Global Warming and Evolution. Bury it fully I say.

I think it might be a good idea to involve McDermott in a balanced open debate on the Lisbon II treaty, but maybe in your book he is a crank, after all, he disagrees with you.

BlitzKrieg

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Go to RTE, use google to search their website and watch Q&A.

http://www.rte.ie/search.html?query=Dr.+Paul+Anthony+McDermott&branch=&sort=true

hmm according to the directions you gave, the last Q+A DcDermott gave to Q+A was back in 2008

any chance of a more specific direction?

I'll keep looking anyway

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Go to RTE, use google to search their website and watch Q&A.

This thread is about fairness with the national broadcaster, equal time for both sides of the issue.
His comments are a different debate.

The point is I feel after the loss of the first vote, the Yes side do not want to take the risk of a debate or Q&A style program where someone of his caliber does not tow the line.



I think it might be a good idea to involve McDermott in a balanced open debate on the Lisbon II treaty, but maybe in your book he is a crank, after all, he disagrees with you.

I'll repeat the question, do you understand and can you explain why the guarantees are worthless?

You brought it up, after all.

Zuiderzee

My advice is that you see what McDermott had to say, for an explaination of what he meant, ask him - he's the expert.

Any chance of staying on point about balance and fairness??

PopeBuckfastXVI

You brought him, and his opinions into this discussion.

I'm disinclined to search out the programme for myself, but I suspect that I would agree with his analysis of the 'worthlessness' of the guarantee's, it's the reason why they are worthless that's important.

Perhaps you shouldn't parrot positions you don't understand, and aren't prepared to discuss, in future.

BlitzKrieg

Zuiderzee wrote: »

My advice is that you see what McDermott had to say, for an explaination of what he meant, ask him - he's the expert.

Any chance of staying on point about balance and fairness??

you misunderstand.

You said:

Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the new EU assurances were worthless.

A search of RTE website shows up that he has not been on Q&A since 2008 (novemebr to be specific) here's the section http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1117/qanda_av.html?2450381,null,230


Of course the issue here is that this is months before the assurances were even released, so how can he have said what you believe him to have said?

Not only that but I cant find a quote of him saying what you associate with him.

Zuiderzee

Its all in the blog - citizensimon.blogspot.com

McDermott on assurances when they were 'leaked'- June 15 2009
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0615/qanda_av.html?2563057,null,230

Also worth seeing McDermott on a second referendum - November 17 2008
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1117/qanda_av.html?2450381,null,230

Hope those links work for you - Realtime I'm afraid

Now can we get back to the point - i.e. equal time for opinions regarding our constitution, if that matters any more???

gnxx

At this point, I would be surprised if the government even bother putting a "NO" option on the ballot papers.

Zuiderzee

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You brought him, and his opinions into this discussion.

I'm disinclined to search out the programme for myself, but I suspect that I would agree with his analysis of the 'worthlessness' of the guarantee's, it's the reason why they are worthless that's important.

Perhaps you shouldn't parrot positions you don't understand, and aren't prepared to discuss, in future.

Well the searching is done for you - and I'm disinclined to be pulled further off topic.
But seriously, Your not from Ardrahan by any chance are you?

BlitzKrieg

Zuiderzee wrote: »

McDermott on assurances when they were 'leaked'- June 15 2009
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0615/qanda_av.html?2563057,null,230

thank you, sorry if it seemd anal, but far too often quotes are thrown around without being backed up.

He was not listed being on that epsiode, hence the RTE search didnt link to it.

again thank you.

Zuiderzee

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

He was not listed being on that epsiode, hence the RTE search didnt link to it.

Interesting RTE omission that one

K-9

gnxx wrote: »

At this point, I would be surprised if the government even bother putting a "NO" option on the ballot papers.

Maybe, but the Govt. can't do that!

There are plenty willing to vote No just on this one single point and it is allowed! LOL

PopeBuckfastXVI

OK, his point can be distilled as follows, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting:

He says the guarantees are meaningless because they are effectively 'back of the envelope' scribblings with no legal bearing, along with claiming that abortion is a non issue when compared to jobs and the economy.

To be fair to him, he is talking about the leaked draft, before the legal framework of the guarantees had been nailed down. Since then it has come to light that the guarantees will take the form of separate, but equally legally binding, international agreements to the Lisbon treaty. They will have as much legal force as the Belfast Agreement, which I think we can agree is enforceable, even if it's not rewritten into the Lisbon treaty?

I had incorrectly assumed he would be talking about the guarantees as 'worthless' as they are merely guaranteeing things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty, aren't in the Lisbon treaty, which I would agree with.

His analysis is out of date, and incorrect in light of more recent information.

Also, apologies for being less than polite earlier.

worldrepublic

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well the searching is done for you - and I'm disinclined to be pulled further off topic

Well in fairness I watched it as well and he did put a number of strong arguments forward as to the worthlessness of the guarantees.

However, I think we should concentrate on the Lisbon Treaty itself and not these so called guarantees. The fact is it is a good treaty and we need to start thinking like Europeans, with a wider perspective, and moving forward with all the issues.

Zuiderzee

Although I disagree that his comments are out of date, I think this is a separate issue and we should get back on thread - the BCI decision to over-ride protocall and give airtime on party as opposed to issue basis.

i.e. should a Doctor of Constitutional Law be given equal time as a Social Worker who happened to be a TD's daughter to discuss the Lisbon treaty itself

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's my opinion that the balance of any broadcast factual discussion should (but not be legally obliged to) reflect the balance of expert opinion in the area under discussion.

Obviously this opinion disagrees with the requirement to give 50/50 coverage on all issues.

worldrepublic

"the guarantees as 'worthless' as they are merely guaranteeing things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty"

The above statement, or comments to the same effect, appears repeatedly in the various threads. It might be worth isolating it into a single thread for future discussion. Needless to say, it (the quoted point) is misleading insofar as, when it is injected into a discussion without some expansion on the issue, the suggestion is that it is a "cut and dry" matter. The argument also exists that the guarantees have no legal value, which complicates the issue. It the various parties claim that a)the guarantees are irrelevant to the Treaty or b)that they are worthless anyway then why not just leave them out of the wider debate? It seems to be a separate and distinct debate, used by both sides to muddy the waters.

Zuiderzee

I did state earlier the assurances were a different issue.

But with the recent split from protocall by the BCI whats fair then, 40/60 - 30/70 - 20/80 ?????

Who do we listen to, or give more time to - unelected experts like McDermott or elected amatuers like Coughlan - or unelected amatuers like O Donahue or Richard Waghorn?

We have Judges telling us it is the very same treaty we rejected.

‘Since the referendum on the treaty in June of last year, the treaty itself has not changed’. Judge Frank Clarke, Chairman of the Referendum Commission in Irish Times. July 30th.

We have assurances - of debated legal value - some subject to accession treaties that may be rejected - for example in the event of Turkey attempting to join.

This is a very complex decision, a very very complex body of law.

The constitution, the contract between the elected and the electorate, and referenda on that contract are the cornerstone of our democracy.

Just because the result is not to your liking, or the Governments liking does not give anyone the right to suppress debate and dissent.
Reduction or restriction on airtime by the states broadcaster is supresson of debate.

Never in the history of the state has an attempted change on - according to legal experts - has the same question been pushed through in such a short time.

Never in the history of the state has opposition to a referendum issue being stifled.

I dont like many of our laws on abortion, gay marriage, blasphemy, the trinity being called upon in the constitution etc. but I accept the collective decision. The Government does not.

We either have a free, fair, open and equal debate about this question and democracy or we dont. In my opinion its that simple.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We have assurances - of debated legal value - some subject to accession treaties that may be rejected - for example in the event of Turkey attempting to join.

Out of curiosity, which of the guarantees worries you the most, if it turned out they weren't legally binding? Abortion? Conscription?

FutureTaoiseach

The guarantees are as reassuring as "Peace in our Time". :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The guarantees are as reassuring as "Peace in our Time". :rolleyes:

OK, which one are you the most worried about?

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

OK, which one are you the most worried about?

The taxation guarantee makes no mention of CCCTB/Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is Commissioner Laslo Kovacs pet project, for which he claimed the support of 2-thirds of member states. He has stated publicly he intends using Enhanced Cooperation to try to get around our veto. CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions. The workers' rights guarantee is not legally-binding, and this has been acknowledged even by the IIEA on their website.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The taxation guarantee makes no mention of CCCTB/Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is Commissioner Laslo Kovacs pet project, for which he claimed the support of 2-thirds of member states. He has stated publicly he intends using Enhanced Cooperation to try to get around our veto. CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions. The workers' rights guarantee is not legally-binding, and this has been acknowledged even by the IIEA on their website.

If the guarantee is not legally binding, why do you care what it says or doesn't say about CCCTB?

I'll ask again, if it turned out that the guarantees, which are claimed to be legally binding, in fact, aren't, which one worries you the most?

You have an admirable ability to answer questions that weren't asked, by the way.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If the guarantee is not legally binding, why do you care what it says or doesn't say about CCCTB?

I'll ask again, if it turned out that the guarantees, which are claimed to be legally binding, in fact, aren't, which one worries you the most?

The taxation guarantee is in the Council decision, so it may be legally-binding unless the ECJ rules it violates the Treaties in which case it would be annulled. Tbh, my reasons for voting no largely revolve around the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I believe will increase ECJ interference in our affairs.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions.

Could, or will?

The moon could fall out of the sky, I guess...

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The taxation guarantee is in the Council decision, so it may be legally-binding unless the ECJ rules it violates the Treaties in which case it would be annulled. Tbh, my reasons for voting no largely revolve around the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I believe will increase ECJ interference in our affairs.

So why do you mention the legal status of the guarantees, is it merely, as I suspect, to muddy the waters, and sow fear and uncertainty?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The taxation guarantee makes no mention of CCCTB/Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is Commissioner Laslo Kovacs pet project, for which he claimed the support of 2-thirds of member states. He has stated publicly he intends using Enhanced Cooperation to try to get around our veto. CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions. The workers' rights guarantee is not legally-binding, and this has been acknowledged even by the IIEA on their website.

It's not an issue that is relevant to Lisbon:

SECTION B: TAXATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

From the guarantees - and it means that your scenario above is ruled out. What is possible in respect of taxation after Lisbon is exactly the same as before Lisbon.

correctively,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Can we do the assurances thing on a different thread ?