Lisbon postcard to be sent to households: Martin

[ibis]

The whole thread is getting side-tracked into a debate on 1) whether the statements in the postcard are true (this is a question for the thread on guarantees) and 2) whether it's OK for the government to tell people the truth.

Regarding 2) above, I hope everyone can see I'm not challenging that point.

What I am raising is a different point: that the government should not be free to spend public money influencing a referendum to change the constitution.

By, amongst other things, telling people the truth. Isn't that the rather thorny problem at issue? That if the government knows X to be true, where X is a fact that will influence the outcome of a referendum debate, does the government have:

1. the duty to make that information known, even if it influences voters

2. the duty to release that information upon request only, even if it influences voters

3. the duty to keep that information to itself, in case it influences voters

My problem, I suppose, is that while I can see your point about the spending of public money to influence the vote, I would also very strongly favour option (1). I don't, therefore, have a problem with the government using public money to disseminate facts, even if those facts influence the debate - because the facts should influence the debate.

That's a logical extension of my view on this in other areas - the government is spending public money to get those facts in the first place, and therefore has a duty to make them known. It likewise has a duty to make those facts known if they don't favour the government position.

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]And on that narrow point, I think it's irrelevant whether the material used to influence the voting public is factual and honest or not. (Obviously, it’s preferable that any influencing is done truthfully, but it doesn’t answer the question of whether the influencing – using public money – should be allowed.)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]The point I am raising is hardly novel. It is at the core of the McKenna judgment. And I’d hope that all good democrats can see the danger in the government of the day spending large amounts of public money to support that government’s proposed changes to the constitution.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]Clearly, holding this position does not mean that the government or departments of state are forced into silence (“concealing/suppressing the truth”) once a referendum is apparent. That would be an unreasonable interpretation of the principle that public money should not be spent promoting one side of the vote. So you don't have to worry about the apparatus of state staying quiet about the dangers of cynaide.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]But I think that once someone supports the principle, they must oppose a tactic like the distribution of this postcard. True and all as the content might be, the postcard is clearly designed not just to inform, as if no vote was coming up, but also to persuade people to vote a certain way in the referendum. That's why it can't simply be looked on as communicating facts, and excused on that basis.[/FONT][/FONT]

I think you're arguing there that the intent of the card is to persuade, whereas I wouldn't consider that as important as the content of the card. I have no objection to seeking to persuade with facts - I wish there was more of it, rather than less.

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]I agree that they would tend to be the best placed to inform the public on this matter.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]But are you saying that they should be the only state-funded source of information on the issue?[/FONT][/FONT]

Absolutely not.

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]Is it not preferable to have the Referendum Commission inform the public by summarising conflicting opinions from the Yes and No sides and referencing the sources of those opinions?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]Remember that in future referenda, the government-approved 'experts' of the day may be no more qualified than, say, disagreeable university academics (this is not hard to imagine on matters economic, for example). I think they should just be one voice, albeit an authorative one, in the publicly-funded debate.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]The Referendum Commission can be funded by the state but independent from government.[/FONT][/FONT]

I'd agree with all of that - even in the case of this postcard, I would prefer to see it channelled through an officially neutral body.

[Celtic Raven]

Likewise in this campaign, the government is focussing on those who voted No on the basis of things they thought were in the Treaty, but aren't (i.e abortion, loss of neutrality

Err, loss of neutrality is in the Treaty (as is abortion for Northern Ireland).

[CookieMonster]

Again you fail to answer, which part of INTERNATIONAL LAW do you not understand?

Even, Better. Best. Question. Asked. On. P.ie. Ever.

[petervalhala]

He is correct actually. The postcard had lies about neutrality and enthuasia in it. (And abortion if you consider that "Ireland" extends to the six counties.)

No he's not, precisely where are the so called lies?

"Ireland" extending to 6 countries - talk about clutching at straws. The 19th Amendment of the Constitution changed Article 2 back in 1998, plus Article 3.1 now states "Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution."

[Libero]

Libero - the point I'm making is that so long as this "postcard" contains nothing but fact (maybe the truth would be a better word, because a limited number of facts can twist the truth?????) then all the postcard would be is an information dump. The McKenna judgement relates to bias and pushing an agenda, if I'm not mistaken, which is a different thing entirely. I would very much disagree with the Government using public funds to push their agenda, even if in this case it matches my own.

I'm glad to hear you agree with that principle but it seems you don't recognise it being breached in practice.

Ask yourself this: if there was no referendum coming up, would the postcard be circulated the way it is now, at considerable expense?

And while I don't disagree that it contains entirely factual information, do you think that proposition would be accepted as such by everyone on both sides of the debate? Even if it is accepted as truthful and factual, does the selection and circulation of that information tend to help one side over the other?

On the basis of my answers to those questions, I don't accept that this postcard is simply part of a straightforward information campaign, unconnected to the forthcoming referendum. And I don't accept that it is just information that favours nobody's arguments over another's.
Sure, it's not propaganda in the normal sense of the word, but I think it pretty obviously is public money being spent to try and influence the outcome of a referendum.

[ibis]

I'm glad to hear you agree with that principle but it seems you don't recognise it being breached in practice.

Ask yourself this: if there was no referendum coming up, would the postcard be circulated the way it is now, at considerable expense?

And while I don't disagree that it contains entirely factual information, do you think that proposition would be accepted as such by everyone on both sides of the debate? Even if it is accepted as truthful and factual, does the selection and circulation of that information tend to help one side over the other?

On the basis of my answers to those questions, I don't accept that this postcard is simply part of a straightforward information campaign, unconnected to the forthcoming referendum. And I don't accept that it is just information that favours nobody's arguments over another's.
Sure, it's not propaganda in the normal sense of the word, but I think it pretty obviously is public money being spent to try and influence the outcome of a referendum.

That last sentence is the essential one. I just can't bring myself to have a problem with public money being spent to influence the outcome of the referendum by introducing facts into the debate. I accept the principle behind McKenna, but don't accept that it should apply to factual material, whether that information favours one side or the other. I accept, also, that the government can use the release of factual information for its own purposes, but I don't see that as more important than making the facts as widely available as possible - it is the facts that are influencing the debate, and that, to me at least, is as it should be.

[zeleneye]

Err, loss of neutrality is in the Treaty (as is abortion for Northern Ireland).

Oh come on, not again. Do you really, truly believe this?

Man, every time I convince myself there might be merits to voting 'no' (which I am doing more frequently since the Barroso shoo-in débacle) I come on here and see posts like this and realise there is no way I could possibly contemplate exercising my franchise in the same way as posters like you. All the rational arguments for opposing Lisbon are blown out of the water by wing nut statements like this.

[Celtic Raven]

No he's not, precisely where are the so called lies?

"Ireland" extending to 6 countries - talk about clutching at straws.

Lies:
Irish neutrality will not be affected - no conscription, no defence alliances.

Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion.


Lisbon Treaty:
TEU 11.2. The Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.

TEU 28A.3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council.

TEEC Article 2D.3 states: `The Union may take initiatives to ensure co-ordination of Member States' social policies.'

[molloyjh]

I'm glad to hear you agree with that principle but it seems you don't recognise it being breached in practice.

Ask yourself this: if there was no referendum coming up, would the postcard be circulated the way it is now, at considerable expense?

And while I don't disagree that it contains entirely factual information, do you think that proposition would be accepted as such by everyone on both sides of the debate? Even if it is accepted as truthful and factual, does the selection and circulation of that information tend to help one side over the other?

On the basis of my answers to those questions, I don't accept that this postcard is simply part of a straightforward information campaign, unconnected to the forthcoming referendum. And I don't accept that it is just information that favours nobody's arguments over another's.
Sure, it's not propaganda in the normal sense of the word, but I think it pretty obviously is public money being spent to try and influence the outcome of a referendum.

Ok this whole post I have to take serious issue with.

For starters if there was no referendum coming up there would be no need to inform the people of the details of the guarantees as it wouldn't matter if they knew or not.

Secondly you seem to think that in the event of the truth favouring the Government they shouldn't be allowed publish it at all, not even for informative purposes. That's just downright daft. If they publish the truth all they are doing is informing. If it so happens that this truth supports their position then it vindicates them.

How would you then propose a non-biased information campaign be launched? The Government can't do it. The Referendum Commission don't seem to be acceptable to a lot of people either, being seen as a Government puppet. Where could it come from?

And if they are spending public money spreading the truth how could that possibly be anything but morally and ethically sound? The truth doesn't have "sides", it just is. If it so happens to back up the Yes campaign then that is happy coincidence for them (Or is it? Maybe, in that scenario, the Yes campaign would just be right????).

This "You can't tell the truth, it backs up what you say" notion is a bit daft after all.

[The OD]

Look, its a typical marketing ploy used by cynical, ethically challenged marketeers, an example being the way cheese or milk is advertised as being full of calcium.

Indeed they are, cheese however is full of fat and cholesterol, sugar is 100% fat free, lard is 100% sugar free, cyanide contains no artifical colours, flavours or preservatives and arsenic contains no added sugar.

All factually correct, but without the necessary information to put the claim into context.

A postcard which doesnt expound the negatives of Lisbon cannot be legally paid for by the tax payer and I hope Ms McKenna does take up the gauntlet on this, I would love to see the testosterone challenged Michael Martin trying to shrilly explain this one away.