cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

It's not exactly a 'secret plan', though, now is it? More like a wide-ranging examination of all options

That was the Telegraph Ibis - I said I thought that was rubbish several posts back.

But not a wide ranging examination of all options, more like provisional arrangements. As I already said, it could be argued that it would have been negligent not to engage in them.

It would certainly have been negligent not to look at what the options were. To claim they were (or are) 'provisional arrangements' is to take several steps beyond the evidence.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

It's not exactly a 'secret plan', though, now is it? More like a wide-ranging examination of all options

That was the Telegraph Ibis - I said I thought that was rubbish several posts back.

But not a wide ranging examination of all options, more like provisional arrangements. As I already said, it could be argued that it would have been negligent not to engage in them.

It would certainly have been negligent not to look at what the options were. To claim they were (or are) 'provisional arrangements' is to take several steps beyond the evidence.

It is definitely speculation... I expect if we asked, we would get a non-commital answer. That would be good enough for me.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

It's not exactly a 'secret plan', though, now is it? More like a wide-ranging examination of all options

That was the Telegraph Ibis - I said I thought that was rubbish several posts back.

But not a wide ranging examination of all options, more like provisional arrangements. As I already said, it could be argued that it would have been negligent not to engage in them.

It would certainly have been negligent not to look at what the options were. To claim they were (or are) 'provisional arrangements' is to take several steps beyond the evidence.

It is definitely speculation... I expect if we asked, we would get a non-commital answer. That would be good enough for me.

That, me dear, is because you are naturally suspicious...

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

It's not exactly a 'secret plan', though, now is it? More like a wide-ranging examination of all options

That was the Telegraph Ibis - I said I thought that was rubbish several posts back.

But not a wide ranging examination of all options, more like provisional arrangements. As I already said, it could be argued that it would have been negligent not to engage in them.

It would certainly have been negligent not to look at what the options were. To claim they were (or are) 'provisional arrangements' is to take several steps beyond the evidence.

It is definitely speculation... I expect if we asked, we would get a non-commital answer. That would be good enough for me.

That, me dear, is because you are naturally suspicious...

Suspicion born of experience.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

It's not exactly a 'secret plan', though, now is it? More like a wide-ranging examination of all options

That was the Telegraph Ibis - I said I thought that was rubbish several posts back.

But not a wide ranging examination of all options, more like provisional arrangements. As I already said, it could be argued that it would have been negligent not to engage in them.

It would certainly have been negligent not to look at what the options were. To claim they were (or are) 'provisional arrangements' is to take several steps beyond the evidence.

It is definitely speculation... I expect if we asked, we would get a non-commital answer. That would be good enough for me.

That, me dear, is because you are naturally suspicious...

Suspicion born of experience.

And experience born of suspicion...

One thing that I found depressing today listening to Saturday View was hearing Sinn Féin trotting out the same lies. SF told the most amazing amount of whoppers during the first referendum. I do not think a day went past that they did not tell blatent lies about the treaty. One example of the many concerned a wild claim Libertas had made (did Libertas make any claims that were not wild???). The European Commission issued a very detailed statement in response, with because it was on a technical legal point it being drafted in enormous detail through contacts between Dublin, Brussels and the WTO talks where Mandelson (about whom the state was) was. The highly technical line-by-line rebuttal was issued.

SF, who had echoed Libertas's wild claim, went silent, while Libertas as usual tried to change the issue when their lie had been caught out. SF waited for a week to 10 days, then issued a statement in the name of a politician condemning the commission for not answering the original Libertas claim. They sent that to the news desks. They knew that the original story had been dealt with by specialist journalists and the new press release issued late in the night would not be read by someone who had read the detailed commission response. The result: stories in the papers of SF posing as the defenders of Ireland condemning the Commission's dodging of the issue. Of course in reality SF were lying through their teeth - they had received the commission reply and knew all about it - but timed a dishonest press release so that anyone who knew about the commission's reply over a week earlier would not spot it. With so much treaty stuff newspapers effectively were simply churning out press releases received and didn't spot the blatantly dishonest ones.

Today Mary Lou was back pedding more SF dishonesty. She claimed that Ireland has a veto over any reduction in the size of the commission under Nice. She deliberately framed it to imply that while Nice talked about a reduction in the commission's size, all Ireland had to do was veto the reduction and bingo, we keep a twenty-seven member commission. Mary Lou is intelligent. She knows, and I know, and anyone else who had read the relevant article knows, she is speaking complete cobblers. Nice in Article 4 of one of the protocols lays down two rules, not one, on commission size:

i. when the EU hits 27 members (which it did last year) the commission "shall" be less than 1 commissioner per country. It is mandatory. There is no veto. None. Nada. Zitch. The reduction is automatic.

ii. What we do have is a veto on the size of the reduction, not existence of the reduction. The commission can be anything from 1 member to 26 (ie the total membership of the union minus 1). There must be unanimity to agree on the new number. BUT failure to agree a commission size reduction does not de facto leave the commission at 27. Under Nice there can never ever be a commission based on one member per country. So either (i) if a commission size is not agreed a new commission cannot be formed, or (ii) the default number is the highest number possible, namely 26. So if the countries cannot agree on a number, either no new commission can be formed or the commission must be 26. But 27 is legally impossible.

Mary Lou knows that. SF knows that. Libertas knows that. Joe Higgins knows that. Yet watch as they repeated lie through their teeth about it, pretending a commission of 27 is possible under Nice. Mary Lou was at it blatently today on Saturday View. SF and Libertas got away with telling porkies all through the last campaign. At least this time Micheal Martin stood up to her and explicitly said her claims were a lie. The yes side need to do that much more often next time. They let the No side tell the most amazing lies in the last campaign. They need to shoot down each and every lie being told by the No side. It isn't hard. All they have to do is tell people where to look for verification. Thousands of people have internet access and can check for themselves and see for themselves that the No side are lying through their teeth.

Papal Knight wrote:

Mary Lou knows that. SF knows that. Libertas knows that. Joe Higgins knows that. Yet watch as they repeated lie through their teeth about it, pretending a commission of 27 is possible under Nice. Mary Lou was at it blatently today on Saturday View. SF and Libertas got away with telling porkies all through the last campaign. At least this time Micheal Martin stood up to her and explicitly said her claims were a lie. The yes side need to do that much more often next time. They let the No side tell the most amazing lies in the last campaign. They need to shoot down each and every lie being told by the No side. It isn't hard. All they have to do is tell people where to look for verification. Thousands of people have internet access and can check for themselves and see for themselves that the No side are lying through their teeth.

Papal Knight - While not advocating the Yes side just allows the No side to lie though their teeth, I believe a fundamental mistake in Lisbon I was that the Yes side got bogged down in responding to the wild claims of the No side on a point-by-point basis - in many cases, the Yes side were repeatedly responding to the exact same claims from the No side (which were repeated ad nauseum). The sad truth of most news reporting seems to be that the "Headline" and the initial story (even if totally wrong) gets most coverage and readership - the earnest correction, the next day, is usually buried on page 7 in a small paragraph which is skipped over because it is "boring" or yesterday's news by all but the most dedicated (it makes it into the quality newspapers but is dropped in favour of a Hollywood sex scandal story in the tabloids).Instead of getting bogged down responding to the No side, I believe that the Yes side, should spend its time selling the positives changes contained in Lisbon at each and every opportunity. Leave it up to the No side to spend their time responding to these changes - let them do the arguing as to why the changes are "bad". Even when they come back with nonsense - as they will - the default response to this should be to ignore the nonsense in favour of getting a positive message across to people. Most of the electorate are favourably disposed to the EU. They were - I believe - looking for positive reasons to vote Yes. They didn't hear them last time. Next time it needs to be different.

This is all very interesting stuff - about the numbers of commissioners etc.

But this is going the exact same way the first debate went. Folks are being called liars, non-issues are becoming focal points and reasoned debate is not to be had. I'm not having a go at posters here, afterall, this is a public forum, where folks should discuss exactly what's on their minds. I'm getting at the media and the politicians. Despite this (the media and the politicians), I think the voting public made their own minds up the last time out. And I don't think the media or the politicians are honest enough to say why. Trust. Folks are sick of being lied to, they're sick of the propaganda. Most folks that I've spoken to about Lisbon and who voted no the last time, voted 'no' because it was a good way to show their contempt for the powers that be. If anything, they're more pissed off now than ever.

Last time out, with very few exceptions (our own Ibis being the most notable exception in my view), the pro-Lisbon crowd simply focussed on the stuff fielded by the loons. It was all about making the whole of the 'no' side look like conspiracy theorists and lunatics. Libertas, for example, was promoted by the 'yes' side to being in charge of the 'no' campaign. Libertas has little or no support from the left (who for the most part voted 'no'). It was a strategy that backfired horribly. Eventhough it kept real issues from being discussed and kept literate campaigners from TV screens, the men and women on the street saw right through it.

And now we're doing it again.

This stuff about the number of commissioners - eye wash. Virtually nobody on the left gives a hoot. We don't see any of our commissioners, past or present as being representative to begin with and couldn't give a toss if their gravy train was terminated. To confuse the issue beyond comprehension, regardless as to whether commissioner reduction is a fact of life or not, didn't the bould Cowen bring the following back, as one of his guarantees from Europe?

Cowen wrote:

On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that
the Treaties currently in force require that the number of
Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that
provided the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, a decision will be taken,
in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that
the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member
State.

Hermes wrote:

Virtually nobody on the left gives a hoot. We don't see any of our commissioners, past or present as being representative to begin with and couldn't give a toss if their gravy train was terminated.

That is half the point. They are not meant to be. They are agents of the Community not the State.

johnfás wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Virtually nobody on the left gives a hoot. We don't see any of our commissioners, past or present as being representative to begin with and couldn't give a toss if their gravy train was terminated.

That is half the point. They are not meant to be. They are agents of the Community not the State.

But that in itself is my point. It is being promoted that they are representative and that their loss would be something to give a toss about.

Quote :

One thing that I found depressing today listening to Saturday View was hearing Sinn Féin trotting out the same lies. SF told the most amazing amount of whoppers during the first referendum. I do not think a day went past that they did not tell blatent lies about the treaty. One example of the many concerned a wild claim Libertas had made (did Libertas make any claims that were not wild???). The European Commission issued a very detailed statement in response, with because it was on a technical legal point it being drafted in enormous detail through contacts between Dublin, Brussels and the WTO talks where Mandelson (about whom the state was) was. The highly technical line-by-line rebuttal was issued.

SF, who had echoed Libertas's wild claim, went silent, while Libertas as usual tried to change the issue when their lie had been caught out. SF waited for a week to 10 days, then issued a statement in the name of a politician condemning the commission for not answering the original Libertas claim. They sent that to the news desks. They knew that the original story had been dealt with by specialist journalists and the new press release issued late in the night would not be read by someone who had read the detailed commission response. The result: stories in the papers of SF posing as the defenders of Ireland condemning the Commission's dodging of the issue. Of course in reality SF were lying through their teeth - they had received the commission reply and knew all about it - but timed a dishonest press release so that anyone who knew about the commission's reply over a week earlier would not spot it. With so much treaty stuff newspapers effectively were simply churning out press releases received and didn't spot the blatantly dishonest ones.

What issue was that, Papal Knight? And how can you be so sure that SF had the reply before they sent out the press release?

Hermes wrote:

This is all very interesting stuff - about the numbers of commissioners etc.

But this is going the exact same way the first debate went. Folks are being called liars, non-issues are becoming focal points and reasoned debate is not to be had. I'm not having a go at posters here, afterall, this is a public forum, where folks should discuss exactly what's on their minds. I'm getting at the media and the politicians. Despite this (the media and the politicians), I think the voting public made their own minds up the last time out. And I don't think the media or the politicians are honest enough to say why. Trust. Folks are sick of being lied to, they're sick of the propaganda. Most folks that I've spoken to about Lisbon and who voted no the last time, voted 'no' because it was a good way to show their contempt for the powers that be. If anything, they're more pissed off now than ever.

Last time out, with very few exceptions (our own Ibis being the most notable exception in my view), the pro-Lisbon crowd simply focussed on the stuff fielded by the loons. It was all about making the whole of the 'no' side look like conspiracy theorists and lunatics. Libertas, for example, was promoted by the 'yes' side to being in charge of the 'no' campaign. Libertas has little or no support from the left (who for the most part voted 'no'). It was a strategy that backfired horribly. Eventhough it kept real issues from being discussed and kept literate campaigners from TV screens, the men and women on the street saw right through it.

And now we're doing it again.

This stuff about the number of commissioners - eye wash. Virtually nobody on the left gives a hoot. We don't see any of our commissioners, past or present as being representative to begin with and couldn't give a toss if their gravy train was terminated. To confuse the issue beyond comprehension, regardless as to whether commissioner reduction is a fact of life or not, didn't the bould Cowen bring the following back, as one of his guarantees from Europe?

Cowen wrote:

On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that
the Treaties currently in force require that the number of
Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that
provided the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, a decision will be taken,
in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that
the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member
State.

I think the Press promoted Libertas, and Libertas promoted themselves by ready availability, at least as much as government did. The Left in my view did not do enough to oppose Ganley publically and make their separation clear to the public.

I hear what you're saying Cactus.

The left couldn't divorce themselves publically in a way that the opposition wouldn't have capitalised on. We have possibly some breathing room now, so it might happen methinks.

Allow me to start the ball rolling. It's always been my opinion, that Libertas took up this campaign for two reasons. Unlike Chekov and some others, I've never postulated that the yanks put them up to it. It's always been my opinion, that if the yanks had honestly wanted a 'no' vote, they'd have told our leaders that we were to vote 'no.' And that would have been that.

The two reasons I think Libertas pushed for a 'no' vote:

i. It allowed Ganley to establish a political profile. He intends to fill the vaccuum left in the wake of the PD's. It was easy to see that the PD's were dead in the water, a long time before they themselves realised it.

ii. It was obvious from the Nice fiasco, that it's entirely possible to make a complete dog's dinner of a referendum campaign in this country. Particularly the first time round. Imo, Libertas was the safeguard in this. Libertas is the strawman leader of the 'no' campaign who will be set alight sometime before the next vote.

It becomes a matter of some importance that the left properly divorce themselves from this crowd, before the bonfire is stoked. I honestly don't know if that can be fully accomplished. The media are our weak point, they always have been.

However, in the bigger scheme of things, I'm not so sure all of this amounts to more than a hill of beans. The public really are pissed. And I'm not so sure that any side is having any influence of consequence. That's bad news for the 'yes' promoters. But it's a very mixed message for us on the left. I'm not convinced that we have people capable of harnessing or making use of it.

Quote :

It becomes a matter of some importance that the left properly divorce themselves from this crowd, before the bonfire is stoked. I honestly don't know if that can be fully accomplished. The media are our weak point, they always have been.

Which is more comforting of course than believing that the left is its own worst enemy.

[quote="Hermes"]I hear what you're saying Cactus.

Quote :

The left couldn't divorce themselves publically in a way that the opposition wouldn't have capitalised on. We have possibly some breathing room now, so it might happen methinks.

How could that have happened? If the left had said that "we are voting no for different reasons and we have a vision for a completely different Europe to this person" - how could that have been damaging ? Failure to take on Ganley from the left allowed him to take the credit for the campaign and the vote.

Quote :

Allow me to start the ball rolling. It's always been my opinion, that Libertas took up this campaign for two reasons. Unlike Chekov and some others, I've never postulated that the yanks put them up to it. It's always been my opinion, that if the yanks had honestly wanted a 'no' vote, they'd have told our leaders that we were to vote 'no.' And that would have been that.

Did you know that USAID funded a campaign against the EU Constitution? I posted about it recently here. The US, or at least some of its agencies, opposes the Treaty. However I don't think an exclusive focus on Ganley's background, and avoidance of his politics, is in anyway helpful.

Quote :

The two reasons I think Libertas pushed for a 'no' vote:

i. It allowed Ganley to establish a political profile. He intends to fill the vaccuum left in the wake of the PD's. It was easy to see that the PD's were dead in the water, a long time before they themselves realised it.

ii. It was obvious from the Nice fiasco, that it's entirely possible to make a complete dog's dinner of a referendum campaign in this country. Particularly the first time round. Imo, Libertas was the safeguard in this. Libertas is the strawman leader of the 'no' campaign who will be set alight sometime before the next vote.

It appears there might be some support for a right wing party in Ireland, although the PDs had less than 2% of the vote, and died as a party. Libertas has a european-wide ambition though, and may not be that bothered either about the Lisbon Treaty or Ireland.

Quote :

Quote :

It becomes a matter of some importance that the left properly divorce themselves from this crowd, before the bonfire is stoked. I honestly don't know if that can be fully accomplished. The media are our weak point, they always have been.

However, in the bigger scheme of things, I'm not so sure all of this amounts to more than a hill of beans. The public really are pissed. And I'm not so sure that any side is having any influence of consequence. That's bad news for the 'yes' promoters. But it's a very mixed message for us on the left. I'm not convinced that we have people capable of harnessing or making use of it.

I don't know how big the Left in Ireland is, but they did not seize the opportunity for communicating with the wider Public over Lisbon. Who is the Left in Ireland? I have the impression that people like Patricia McKenna and Boyd Barrett have very unclear politics, and don't seem to mind association with the far right - am I wrong about that?

Who would be the parties in Ireland that are putting forward a left alternative for Europe?

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

It becomes a matter of some importance that the left properly divorce themselves from this crowd, before the bonfire is stoked. I honestly don't know if that can be fully accomplished. The media are our weak point, they always have been.

Which is more comforting of course than believing that the left is its own worst enemy.

It's not a case of believing one to the exclusion of the other. One stems from the other to a large degree. The left is a very diverse grouping. It is the consideration that these folks all possess the same political outlook, that, in and of itself, is responsible for a lot of the friction. Political maturity is something that everyone must go through and arrive at independently. With those who are not on the right, this certainty is further complexified by the actions of the media and hence the many fallings out etc.

The media (generally) do not allude to the genuine diversity to be found. They rather look at the spats and use them to promote the idea that nobody who believes differently has anything useful or important to say. I'm very far from promoting a 'poor me' attitude. I'm simply pointing to reality and saying that I'm going to get on with things regardless. The ability to make headway is not down to idealistic spats, it's mostly down to the media propagandising these things to sell commercial crap and so that they may continue to do so.

[quote="cactus flower"]

Hermes wrote:

I hear what you're saying Cactus.

Quote :

The left couldn't divorce themselves publically in a way that the opposition wouldn't have capitalised on. We have possibly some breathing room now, so it might happen methinks.

How could that have happened? If the left had said that "we are voting no for different reasons and we have a vision for a completely different Europe to this person" - how could that have been damaging ? Failure to take on Ganley from the left allowed him to take the credit for the campaign and the vote.

Quote :

Allow me to start the ball rolling. It's always been my opinion, that Libertas took up this campaign for two reasons. Unlike Chekov and some others, I've never postulated that the yanks put them up to it. It's always been my opinion, that if the yanks had honestly wanted a 'no' vote, they'd have told our leaders that we were to vote 'no.' And that would have been that.

Did you know that USAID funded a campaign against the EU Constitution? I posted about it recently here. The US, or at least some of its agencies, opposes the Treaty. However I don't think an exclusive focus on Ganley's background, and avoidance of his politics, is in anyway helpful.

Quote :

The two reasons I think Libertas pushed for a 'no' vote:

i. It allowed Ganley to establish a political profile. He intends to fill the vaccuum left in the wake of the PD's. It was easy to see that the PD's were dead in the water, a long time before they themselves realised it.

ii. It was obvious from the Nice fiasco, that it's entirely possible to make a complete dog's dinner of a referendum campaign in this country. Particularly the first time round. Imo, Libertas was the safeguard in this. Libertas is the strawman leader of the 'no' campaign who will be set alight sometime before the next vote.

It appears there might be some support for a right wing party in Ireland, although the PDs had less than 2% of the vote, and died as a party. Libertas has a european-wide ambition though, and may not be that bothered either about the Lisbon Treaty or Ireland.

Quote :

Quote :

It becomes a matter of some importance that the left properly divorce themselves from this crowd, before the bonfire is stoked. I honestly don't know if that can be fully accomplished. The media are our weak point, they always have been.

However, in the bigger scheme of things, I'm not so sure all of this amounts to more than a hill of beans. The public really are pissed. And I'm not so sure that any side is having any influence of consequence. That's bad news for the 'yes' promoters. But it's a very mixed message for us on the left. I'm not convinced that we have people capable of harnessing or making use of it.

I don't know how big the Left in Ireland is, but they did not seize the opportunity for communicating with the wider Public over Lisbon. Who is the Left in Ireland? I have the impression that people like Patricia McKenna and Boyd Barrett have very unclear politics, and don't seem to mind association with the far right - am I wrong about that?

Who would be the parties in Ireland that are putting forward a left alternative for Europe?

There are no easy answers to those questions Cactus.

I've alluded to what I'm going to say in my last post. The left is not a single group. It's many groups and many individuals. In fairness, many of these groups and individuals (the majority of them) never had anything to do with Ganley and Libertas to begin with. For many, pointing out areas of disagreement would have meant not focussing on promoting the no campaign and as I said, would have been propagandisied as being another 'leftie spat.'

I would agree with what you said about McKenna and Barrett. They're into mainstream politics, so it's hard to be unkind about them associating with others who practice the same game. I don't espouse or support mainstream politics and would have no such political associations. However, I've lots of friends from all sides of the political spectrum and have no problem in associating with them. I don't make deals and confine myself to swapping philosophy and sharing meals etc. We've got to live with each other at the end of the day. Yet I never find myself in a position where I'm unable to offer criticism because of loyalties.

The leftist parties question you asked is possibly the most difficult to answer. There are no leftist parties espousing a full alternative view on Europe. Joe Higgins and his folks come the closest in my opinion. The WSM, though not a political party, come the closest to offering a complete picture of an alternative view. They are a very small organisation imo and lack political maturity and testing. Though I do feel that they offer promise, moreso I feel, than anyone else. Having said that, I'll not be joining up anytime soon. They're the horse to watch in this race nonetheless. They might be the seed that grows into something special. Alternatively, I could answer with my own unadulterated viewpoint: Screw the EU, we should be in reverse at full speed. This unmanageable behemoth is going to die horribly no matter who it screws to stay alive, I say we get as far as is possible out from under it before its sorry carcass hits the dirt.

I just started a thread on the CAEUC (baaad acronym ...) but it doesn't seem to include the WSM.

cactus flower wrote:

I just started a thread on the CAEUC (baaad acronym ...) but it doesn't seem to include the WSM.

The WSM wouldn't join. They, like myself, promote not voting (though they seemed to set this aside for the Lisbon job, in that they encouraged a 'no' vote). It might be fair to suggest that the CAEUC would have lost a degree of credibility if the anarchists had stepped aboard, or rather it would have been promoted that they had.

Libertas were not invited to join CAEUC and were not included in any of their ventures. CAEUC were probably the real leaders of the 'no' campaign and thus very few remember them, if indeed they ever heard of them to begin with.

Define real and how they constituted this if, as you say, it is likely that none of us had ever heard of them. Seems like saying myself and my friends meeting over coffee were the real leaders of the yes campaign.

johnfás wrote:

Define real and how they constituted this if, as you say, it is likely that none of us had ever heard of them. Seems like saying myself and my friends meeting over coffee were the real leaders of the yes campaign.

My definition of 'real' (in the context that I used it in): those who fought tirelessly without recognition and those who came up with the arguments that the 'yes' side actively chose to ignore.

You and your friends couldn't have done a lesser job. Indeed, folks like yourself and Ibis offered the only credible arguments that were to be heard during the whole ordeal. Never underestimate the power of the individual, or indeed - coffee

Check out Joe Higgins' arguments HERE.

I was disappointed that not a single person from either side knocked on my door during the whole saga - shows how good a campaign was fought by everyone.

I see that Auditor #9 is putting up the Lisbon stuff on the portal. I remember there is a consolidated version with the changes marked up - was it Coughlan's ?
Does someone have a link to it somewhere?

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

One thing that I found depressing today listening to Saturday View was hearing Sinn Féin trotting out the same lies. SF told the most amazing amount of whoppers during the first referendum. I do not think a day went past that they did not tell blatent lies about the treaty. One example of the many concerned a wild claim Libertas had made (did Libertas make any claims that were not wild???). The European Commission issued a very detailed statement in response, with because it was on a technical legal point it being drafted in enormous detail through contacts between Dublin, Brussels and the WTO talks where Mandelson (about whom the state was) was. The highly technical line-by-line rebuttal was issued.

SF, who had echoed Libertas's wild claim, went silent, while Libertas as usual tried to change the issue when their lie had been caught out. SF waited for a week to 10 days, then issued a statement in the name of a politician condemning the commission for not answering the original Libertas claim. They sent that to the news desks. They knew that the original story had been dealt with by specialist journalists and the new press release issued late in the night would not be read by someone who had read the detailed commission response. The result: stories in the papers of SF posing as the defenders of Ireland condemning the Commission's dodging of the issue. Of course in reality SF were lying through their teeth - they had received the commission reply and knew all about it - but timed a dishonest press release so that anyone who knew about the commission's reply over a week earlier would not spot it. With so much treaty stuff newspapers effectively were simply churning out press releases received and didn't spot the blatantly dishonest ones.

What issue was that, Papal Knight? And how can you be so sure that SF had the reply before they sent out the press release?

Because they referred to the press release in debates at the time it was issued, then conveniently 'forgot' it a week later (even though it was not something they were likely to forget. Given that they had repeatedly tried to pick a fight with the commission on the issue, there is about as much chance of they forgetting about the press release as there was of Hitler in early 1945 forgetting he was fighting the USSR!) and 'demanded' the commission reply to Libertas's ridiculous claims even though the commission in a very long press release had already done so and SF knew full well they had.

Hermes wrote:

To confuse the issue beyond comprehension, regardless as to whether commissioner reduction is a fact of life or not, didn't the bould Cowen bring the following back, as one of his guarantees from Europe?

Cowen wrote:

On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that
the Treaties currently in force require that the number of
Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that
provided the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, a decision will be taken,
in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that
the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member
State.

There is nothing confusing about it not withstanding the lies told by the No side to try to confuse people.

- Under Nice as originally signed there was one commissioner per country.

- Under Nice as originally signed, once the EU hit 27 members, the next commission formed would have to have less than 1 commissioner per country. The precise number would be agreed at a European Council. But it would have to be a minimum of one less than the size of the EU. That kicks in in the commission formed on 1st November 2008. In a design flaw in Nice (one of many, which is why it has to be replaced) once a reduced number is agreed it cannot be changed, even if new members join later.

- Under Lisbon, the commission is reduced to two-thirds of the membership of the EU. But the Council can at any stage change that number. Cowen has got its agreement to change the number back up to the full membership.

Put simply:

Under Nice, Ireland will lose a commissioner, guaranteed.

Under Lisbon, Ireland will keep a commissioner, guaranteed.

Vote No to Lisbon, and Nice stays in place, and that means Ireland loses a commissioner. QED.

But true to form, from day 1 of the campaign, SF are trying to muddy the waters and mislead people. Plus ca change.