Yes side to outspend no side by 10:1 (using mostly taxpayer's money)

[CookieMonster]

The Irish edition of the Sunday Times reported that supporters of the Lisbon Treaty are set to out-spend the No side by 10 to 1 in the referendum campaign. An estimate of the budgets for the Yes side indicates it will spend at least €2.4m, compared with the No campaigners' €270,000.

Yes to Lisbon groups will outspend No side - Times Online

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

The Irish edition of the Sunday Times reported that supporters of the Lisbon Treaty are set to out-spend the No side by 10 to 1 in the referendum campaign. An estimate of the budgets for the Yes side indicates it will spend at least €2.4m, compared with the No campaigners' €270,000.

Yes to Lisbon groups will outspend No side - Times Online

Good news... the recession at least seems to be over

Those figures are startling!

[TommyO'Brien]

The Irish edition of the Sunday Times reported that supporters of the Lisbon Treaty are set to out-spend the No side by 10 to 1 in the referendum campaign. An estimate of the budgets for the Yes side indicates it will spend at least €2.4m, compared with the No campaigners' €270,000.

Yes to Lisbon groups will outspend No side - Times Online

Do you honestly believe a single thing the Sunday Times writes, Cookie? (Seriously!)

Oh and BTW parties spend their own money, not the taxpayer's. Saying that the taxpayer is spending it is dodgy spin - by that argument the No side are spending taxpayers' money because SF TDs are get public money. But I never would put a spin out that because they receive state salaries they are spending taxpayers' money.

[ang]

Are all political parties in agreement with this? We can't afford this, more especially foolish spending on something we don't even need.

[Destiny's Soldier]

Well the Media Consultants for the Ref Commission handpicked by the Dep of Foreign Affairs are spending at least €4 million. They are totally biased to the Yes side as has been explained by Papanian.

[lapsedmethodist]

Rupert. No not the bear, the other one. And his crappy meja empire...

QUOTE: For anyone relying on the Sunday Times for information on its continuing coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, they would do well to ask themselves those two questions. For over three years, I worked for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, which, like other British newspapers the Sun, News of the World and the Times, plus Sky television, is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International. During my three years with the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, I was only vaguely aware that it was a distant outpost of Murdoch's empire.

We seemed to be like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings. The Eye of the evil Lord Sauron was rarely fixed on our petty domestic issues and we got on with the business of political and social opinion without any comment from Wapping. Except for Lisbon.

Some months before the date for the referendum was announced, I told Irish editor, Frank Fitzgibbon, that I was eager to write a piece in favour of Lisbon. At the time, we seemed to be in agreement on the political imperative that the treaty be passed, though it's possible I misunderstood his views. We also discussed the fact that Murdoch's well known pro-US-hawkish views would obviously be the opposite, but we shrugged our shoulders.

Time passed, the date was set and I staked my claim to the pro-treaty column. But something had changed. Fitzgibbon told me that not only would I not be writing a pro-treaty column, but no other writer anywhere in the paper would either. This was not a matter for Sarah's precious little ego, but a cover-to-cover ban on any pro-treaty comment. Apparently since our first conversation, Fitzgibbon had looked into his heart and discovered the democratic deficit. From seemingly being in favour of Lisbon, he was now cheerfully banning all opinion favourable to Lisbon from the paper. UNQUOTE

Stopped buying it after Harold Evans left.

[Magror14]

Well I don't know what they are spending it on. I have seen very little evidence of a Yes campaign, apart from a few newspaper ads.

[CookieMonster]

Do you honestly believe a single thing the Sunday Times writes, Cookie? (Seriously!)

Oh and BTW parties spend their own money, not the taxpayer's. Saying that the taxpayer is spending it is dodgy spin - by that argument the No side are spending taxpayers' money because SF TDs are get public money. But I never would put a spin out that because they receive state salaries they are spending taxpayers' money.

Why do you even bother? Does Enda make you do this? You should tell him it's not working.

I said, as can clearly be seen, Yes side to outspend no side by 10:1 (using mostly taxpayer's money).

Thet vast majority if the money spent by the Yes side will come directly or indeed indirectly from the tax payers or Ireland and indeed no dount the rest of Europe... and Intel HQ California.

As for the SF TD salary bit... well, you're a smart man, Tommy, but some times you're a hell of an idiot.

[The Mayor of Casterbridge]

Rupert. No not the bear, the other one. And his crappy meja empire...

QUOTE: For anyone relying on the Sunday Times for information on its continuing coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, they would do well to ask themselves those two questions. For over three years, I worked for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, which, like other British newspapers the Sun, News of the World and the Times, plus Sky television, is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International. During my three years with the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, I was only vaguely aware that it was a distant outpost of Murdoch's empire.

We seemed to be like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings. The Eye of the evil Lord Sauron was rarely fixed on our petty domestic issues and we got on with the business of political and social opinion without any comment from Wapping. Except for Lisbon.

Some months before the date for the referendum was announced, I told Irish editor, Frank Fitzgibbon, that I was eager to write a piece in favour of Lisbon. At the time, we seemed to be in agreement on the political imperative that the treaty be passed, though it's possible I misunderstood his views. We also discussed the fact that Murdoch's well known pro-US-hawkish views would obviously be the opposite, but we shrugged our shoulders.

Time passed, the date was set and I staked my claim to the pro-treaty column. But something had changed. Fitzgibbon told me that not only would I not be writing a pro-treaty column, but no other writer anywhere in the paper would either. This was not a matter for Sarah's precious little ego, but a cover-to-cover ban on any pro-treaty comment. Apparently since our first conversation, Fitzgibbon had looked into his heart and discovered the democratic deficit. From seemingly being in favour of Lisbon, he was now cheerfully banning all opinion favourable to Lisbon from the paper. UNQUOTE

Stopped buying it after Harold Evans left.

Ms Carey, i genuinely like much of your output but i find your view of the lisbon treaty to be a bit silly.
Some time ago you wrote in your IT colomn that the women of Ireland owe their lives to the EU, the implication being that if it was left to the thicko Irish males then domestic abuse and female subserviance would still be the order of the day.
Give us guys some credit.
Also i felt that FFitzgibbons response in the letters page was a bit of a slam dunk.
The lisbon treaty is not just a bad option for women, for men, for the left, for the right......
Its a bad deal for everyone who wants to see an efficent workable EU

[He3]

Well I don't know what they are spending it on. I have seen very little evidence of a Yes campaign, apart from a few newspaper ads.

Not long to wait now.