Was going to make that same point, there is no if. They made a mistake clear and simple, a big one at that.

Everything they do is lie, EVERYTHING!!!!!

I love my children, I would prefer to emigrate than give any more control of my childrens future to these lying bast**d’s…never

Leo also came out against cutting some of the more ridiculous IBRC/Anglo salaries in that same interviw, some pretty … specious … logic: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/11/09/hes-having-one-of-the-great-weeks/

Kinda rich that the govt goes on a rant about everybody should accept the rule of the courts and not breaking the law. Then they prove that none of these things actually mean a toss to them….

Leo is quite correct with his English. If the Government made a mistake then they made a mistake. This simply suggests that the a government doesn’t always make mistakes!
I think too many people got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. Now, if people……….

The government have been proven in a court of law, the Supreme Court to have misleading information that favours a yes vote. They are bias and in-impartial this is FACT or do you want to state…..IF the Supreme Court was right?? I see you may have got out of Leo’s bed this morning…

hahaha Ryan comment of the week!!!

So getting out of the wrong side of the bed this morning makes all this governments cock-up more acceptable. The problem here is they don’t seem to care that they made a mistake, they will press on and do as they wish. This result will be challenged and the government parties should be made pay back the taxpayers the money that was knowingly wasted on this illegal campaign.

No mistake Garry

The are professional LIARS.

The legal system caught them at it. Even the judges are getting tired of the spindustrial revolutions.

I was going to abstain in disgust.
You’ve persuaded me to vote.

Guess which way.

How come it wasn’t a mistake last week in the high court and they were shouting from the roof tops that their position had been upheld, now suddenly its a mistake. IT WAS A LIE ! We now have a government that lies to us to get what it wants.

Voodoo. OFFS

In a situation where anybody admits they made a mistake then the must accept it. Not much room there. The Supreme Court has held there was a breach [ mistake ]. At least , I hope it was only a mistake ! Be a man. Just admit it it.

The government make a mistake?Impossible.

Our Troika, which art in financial heaven, NEVER makes mistakes.

Repeat after me, Let us prey

Our market
Which art in turmoil
Hallowed be thy game

Freedom be thy cloak
Under which we operate
Promoting thus thy growth
Carcinogenic though it be

Sanctify our task
Enhancing thus thine image
Forgiving our adjustments
Give or take a slushfund
Till the coming of thy boom
Let the poor be always with us
But never quite too close
And provide us ever platitudes
That we may mask our actions
In the sacred national interest
Aligning thus our focus
To cover up thy vagaries

Now
And at the hour of liquidation
Till we garner in thy kingdom
Bucks without end
Aye, men.

So lets get the them out…we own the country and our childrens future…not these lying traitors!!!!

@John – so we get rid of this lot, who do you suggest we replace them with?

Its not a ‘who’ question.

Its what structural changes do we need to rebuild a democratic state that has been eroded over decades by white-collar gangsters.

We need to look to Iceland and Scandanavia for new models. It won’t happen in a hurry.

For starters, Dublin on the 24th. Bring guillotines.
Just a non-governmental health-warning, like;
of what THEY are creating.

And i wonder who you would like in their place John??? Really abusive words btw…liars, traitors, you ever used B*****ds above….
Says a lot more about you than the Goverment.

Dictators . This is what is happening , they have no regard for anyone or any thing.

They are only delivery boys.

The government is the Troika.

Mealy-mouth Varadkar, why is he always marched out to sell us the “reasonable” line…I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth, nor do I believe his motives are in any way honest.

Do you remember the other wing of the The Fianna Gaelabour Party saying “fianna fail dont do resignations”. It would seem all wings of the party think the same

Pure arrogance and high handedness.

He’s director of elections for fg on this isn’t he? Not saying he isn’t a tool, mind you, just that he’s a tool in the right box this time.

Leo is the director of elections for this referendum. This guy just is so arrogant that he will not accept he made a deliberate b*lls of it

. http://www.thejournal.ie/childrens-referendum-varadkar-hits-out-at-the-no-side-660859-Nov2012/

He actually blames the attorney general for wrong advice ?
Arrogance .

Why is it arrogant to blame the advice given though? If the government sought the advice of their legal advisor (the AG) on the issue and made their decisions based on that info, is he/she not in some way culpable if that advice subsequently turns out to be wrong? The AG is supposed to be a trusted authority on these subjects, it’s not unreasonable that the government would trust his/her advice.

Because he said “if”. When the Supreme Court tell you that you were wrong, you were wrong. Doesnt matter whose advice you got. Also, no apology for the mess that has now been created, or to refund the misspent money from party funds.

SeanS
Leo said “IF”. That is the point. The highest court in the land tells the Government they are wrong, but the Government still believes they are right. This is not how a democratic Government should act. FG is returning to their Blue Shirt ways of the 1930’s. Next thing you know they will try to limit political oversight of their operations. Hold on a minute they are, they want to get rid of the Seanad Éireann. Michael Collins is turning in his…

….and because the Supreme Court do not agree with his point of view, he is calling them dictators. Cant see through his arrogance that others might have a valid opinion that differes from his. Meglomania.

I accepted the point that his use of “if” was arrogant, but then that wasn’t what I was challenging. My point was aimed at eileen who said “He actually blames the attorney general for wrong advice ?
Arrogance.” As if somehow him lamenting the advice of the AG, which is presumably the advice the government based it’s campaigning on, was somehow arrogant.

Also he didn’t call the supreme court dictators. It was Malachy Steenson that mentioned a dictatorship, although he was talking about the government, not the SC.

Hard to get rid of political oversight that doesn’t exist. What political oversight powers does the Seanad have other than to discuss the legislation to death. All it can do is delay it, meaning, in legislative terms at least, it offers little other than another layer of bureaucracy.

Tell me . What is wrong with Leo saying ‘Sorry , we got it wrong .’ No he said ” If the government made a mistake here in the information booklet we hold up our hands up and we accept that.” NO apology there . They used taxpayers money to promote the Yes vote and no funds for any one who wants the No vote . I believe that people were afraid to object to this referendum because it was promoted so well as a good thing for children , but it is not good . It is an absolute disaster. When I saw Leo was director of election for FG . I said to myself this is going to be a disaster , because Leo can never get it right , not his fault . Just the way he is. I remember saying it that the Gov must not be worried if it is not passed because they put Leo in charge . No political party will come out against the children , they wont risk it politically. So it is up to individuals to decide for themselves and vote NO to protect children from the clutches of the State. Please vote NO. It is not a good referendum for children or families. Leo will be left holding the baby either way . A No vote or a spoiled vote due to the arrogance of doing it wrong in the first place .

JUST VOTE NO!! Simples ;)

Who made the mistake in electing them……but then again…what’s the alternative

The alternative is demonstrated in Iceland.
Then we need to look to Scandinavia where they realised that liberty without a measure of equality can never create anything resembling democracy.

@Paul
The people that wanted “change” and voted for a crowd with the same policies… the mistakenly thought that different faces is a significant difference

Damien,
Please do have a look at Iceland!!! & maybe Argentina as well because they were help up as some kind of example…You ever been to Iceland btw??

Not sure of the point of that question, Declan. My visiting Iceland has no bearing.

I mentioned Iceland because of their commendable political integrity and gumption in evicting the white-collar criminals who colluded in the split-derivative bundled sub-prime ponzi-scam, and refused to kiss the bankers’ rod.

The stable needed cleaning. They didn’t just go in and give it a lick of paint and a change of straw-men.

The people of Greece, Spain and Italy are demanding the same, and it will continue as state repression deepens. We saw over the last half-century in the north how stubborn refusal to allow peaceful evolution will lead to violence. How long do these yes-men gombeens think they can squeeze us before it erupts. But for emigration we would be experiencing our own little spot of Greece.
The planet cannot sustain the current economic model with its parasitic and gluttonous elites. They are like intellectual ticks, fastened on an outdated laissez-faire ideology of competition uber alles neo-conservative nonsense. I’ve been following it for a while. Get a copy of Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine for a succinct overview, if you are not already familiar with it. Michel Chossudovsky’s The Globalisation of Poverty gives a more detailed breakdown of IMFery. No need for boots on the ground, books on the shelf are the route-map.

The constitution is actually quite legible..but the lawyers don’t wan’t you to know that, so they create liturgical arcana to obfuscate and dazzle ..its a form of verbal hypnotism…rhetoric on stilts.
Another prieshood of inside fast-trackers, like all exclusive profe$$ional cabals(just fancy words for golden circles, don’t be intimidated: you are literate, use the dictionary function).

It’s not really Varadkar’s area anyway (in Government he’s Minister for Transport, the Director of Elections role is in Fine Gael), but it seems he can’t resist opening his mouth on whatever topic.

yeah he sorta gets transported…on his own eloquent bubble of self-certitude..lot of it about..wrap up well.

I believe someone in the lab is developing shots to immunise us.

Personally I’m voting get for the only party who haven’t had a go yet!

If they mess it up even more, or ‘forget’ their electoral promises myself and family will emigrate

Turn to your local library and study how the Scandinavians run an egalitarian democracy.

It requires participation, vigilance, commitment and unpaid work. And it will take some time to install.
Your patience and co-operation are requested.

Oh, and much opposition is to be expected.

How do you know it wasn’t a genuine error as opposed to a deliberate one? What motivation have they to deliberately produce information pamphlets they know to be bias, when it’s generally accepted that either way the vote would be a yes vote?

Incompetent maybe, but liars? That’s a different kettle of fish.

The tnhing is Sean that its a habit with them.

Thats how they got in. By pretending they were going to do something like the Icelanders did, and then diving into the remains of the FF/PD broken trough.

I’m not disagreeing with that, I’m saying, that in this instance, there is no real motivation to lie, at least that I can see. So when someone says “THEY LIED AGAIN”, it seems to me that people just twist the information to suit their own opinions.

Is it not more likely that it’s incompetence than a deliberate lie? There’s a world of difference between the two.

No Sean..its not incompetence.

These lads are supremely competent.
And you have point about the lies(although I believe they do and regularly and quite cynically for the simple reason the contradictions in their stances are so blatent they are either habitual liars or clinical schitzophrenics).

The problem is that they are programmed into a failed and outdated economic myopia of ideology as poisonous as the proletarian dictatorship of Stalinism. Theirs is a blind acceptance of the prevailing dictatorship of the global coporatariat which feeds their ego-vanity as surely as the former fed its politburo.
So really what they do is regurgitate the herd-think of a cultivated school of econometricians on the corporate payroll without question.
It is a form of mental lockstep as unbreakable and blinkered as the wehrmacht’s headed for its Moscow appointment.
We have to build outside of it and prepare to clean up again after them..just like ye olde FF/PD axis of virtue..in a fresh blue shirt. That will require self-education(individually and collectively), or it will continue to loop endlessly.

They Lied again because that is what they always do .
I am sick of them .

This referendum is about the rights of children.Read the referendum commissions pamphlet and arguments from the Yes and No side then make an informed decision.People here don’t seem to understand there are is much more information available on the referendum than the pamphlet that the government sent out.The government received legal advice and were told the pamphlet was in accordance with the McKenna principles.Why should they question the legal advice they receive from then Attorney Generals Office?The High Court judge agreed with this whilst the Supreme court didn’t.Different interpretations reached different conclusions.Overall the government should have just let the people read the Referendum commission and ran a normal campaign without producing there own pamphlet and leaving themselves open to legal challenges.Challenges like the one in the Supreme court yesterday are nothing new and the government would have been aware of this.Anyone who plans to vote no in arrogance of an abundance of information that is still out there in regard to the referendum is stupid.Referendums are not about punishing governments, that is what elections are for. If you have time to rant here you have time to read the information that is still available and make a choice.The government had no need to try and ‘lie’ to us.Has no one here ever received advice that turned out be wrong?

Cathal.
The proposed referendum includes the phrase “as far as practicable” a number of times. What does that mean? I’ll tell you exactly what that means. It means multiple legal challenges from both sides of the issue. Each challenge will end up with the Supreme Court deciding because lower courts would have “Different interpretations reached different conclusions”. In other words this amendment is flawed.
By the way “as far as practicable” is another way of saying as long as we have the money to do the job correctly, otherwise we will continue on with the shoddy way we have being doing things for years.
Finally you say “Anyone who plans to vote no in arrogance of an abundance of information that is still out there in regard to the referendum is stupid”. The point that some stupid people fail to realise is some of us have read not only the information but also the proposed amendments, and what we read scares us.
That is why we are voting no and not because we are “stupid”.

Am Colm If you read again what I said, I meant anyone who votes no because of the pamphlet that was biased as a means of punishing the government is stupid. I encouraged everyone to read the referendum commisions leaflet and make an informed decision. I merely stated anyone who is going to vote no because of yesterdays happenings without reading the vast amount of information available is stupid.And am ‘as far as practicable’ is to make sure citizens cannot demand excessive rights from the constitution.This phrase is already contained in the constitution under article 40.3. which deals with vindicating and defending the personal rights of citizens.This has been dealt with restrictively by the superior courts.So maybe you should check that out.The No side is trying to whip up fear that the state for some obscene reason wants to take away their children.

Cathal I think the biggest fear for people who are undecided is that while they might agree with the yes side of the referendum they are not so sure that the state is up to the job…the headline above reads if the government made a mistake etc etc….now even the most fairminded contributors on the site agree that they did make a mistake and heres where the problem lies….what happens if mistakes are made with the children in their care will they admit it then or will it be covered up and to what detrement

‘Stupid’ is a very strong word Cathal and I’m not sure there is any need for its use within these comments. One could argue though that the government was stupid for not trebble checking details with their vast legal teams prior to publishing the ‘clearly biased’ information. The fact that they have such vast legal teams makes me wonder if it really was a ‘mistake’. How dare you say; “Has no one here ever received advice that turned out be wrong.” You have a cheek to even attempt to put this highly unethical and illegal government behavior into the same category as everyday Joe Soap mistakes!!

Oh ya because I was referring to advice received in the pub from your average joe soap!!Obviously I was referring to professional advice i.e. doctors,solicitors,barristers.Also read the context of the way ‘stupid’ was used.I said anyone who just decides to vote NO without consulting information available is stupid and I stand by that.Whether they vote YES or NO after making an informed decision based on information is their democratic choice but voting NO over this pamphlet is ridiculous when an abundance of infomation to make an informed choice with regard to childrens rights is still available. And obviously it was a mistake!Why in the world would they even think of distributing information it they thought would be considered biased by the courts, thus throwing the referendum into controversy, when all along the referendum had support from all parties and childrens groups.It had no need to do that.Legal challenges such as the one that succeeded are nothing new and are always considered a possibility.So dont be getting all righteous with your use of ‘unethical’.They received legal advice that Supreme Court disagreed with.They were not the first and they sure as hell wont be the last person or body that this will happen to.People on the Journal just jump at any chance to jump all over the government.Very fairly in lots of cases but also unfairly in some cases such as this where the government believed on advice given that they had adhered to the McKenna principles as did the High Court but the Supreme Court didnt.Im sure the president of the high court would be considered to have a good grasp of the law but even he failed to see the bias.

Cathal, that statement you made about ‘mistakes’ did have a pretty casual vibe about it, and yes it did seem like you were comparing government legal advice to that a punter might receive in the pub. Regardless of the context in which you meant it, it was a ridiculous thing to say!

In your last comment you are defending the government by saying: “Different interpretations reached different conclusions.Overall the government should have just let the people read the Referendum commission and ran a normal campaign without producing there own pamphlet and leaving themselves open to legal challenges.

That argument doesn’t stand, on the basis that the High Court case should have been a sufficient enough warning sign to stop distributing the relevant publications. Instead they ignored the warning signs. How you can sympathise is beyond me. There was clear ‘the law can’t touch us’ motive behind the madness from government in this case. It’s not logical to lay the blame on legal advisors!! The government made the final decision and knowingly published biased information.

How exactly is it ridiculous?They relied on what is meant to be expert advice.That is not there area of expertise.Thats like saying the doctor recommended I have surgery.Then when it turns out to be poor advice someone says to me sure why would ya listen to someone who has expertise in that area?surely theyd be wrong?would ya stop would ya.And considering they won the high court case why should that have been a warning?Also you would swear this has been the first constitutional challenge against the state.What are they supposed to do just back off once someone pursues litigation against them?especially when advised that in this case they acted in accordance with the McKenna principles.They didnt knowlingly publish biased information.The Supreme court deemed it to be biased.They never inferred that it was knowingly biased.Wait until the judgement is released in December and it will clarify that it wasnt a case of case of ‘ara sure just give them this biased information they wont know any better’.The state know if they publish biased information the courts wont have it so they get advice to make sure it is in accordance.The advice was wrong.Simple as.As much as people might wish Fitzgerald didnt type out the leaflet herself and then have it distributed.The final decision to publish the information was made on the advice received.Is that not simple to understand?

Oh it’s simple alright (in its vegetable theory-esque entirety!) Cathal. Give yourself a pat on the back, keep up the self righteous government spokesmanship. Sure why not go all out and seek commission!?

I will say it again. The government acted ignorantly and unethically, especially considering the very nature of this particular referendum. The so-called mistake alongside the blatant unwillingness to take action following the High Court case is very wrong.

In one of your earlier posts you said: “Overall the government should have just let the people read the Referendum commission and ran a normal campaign without producing there own pamphlet and leaving themselves open to legal challenges.” Now that would have been the rational thing to do eh!

In your most recent comment you said: “And considering they won the high court case why should that have been a warning?”

I find these two statements very contradictory Cathal. Its as if one one hand you can see the blatant corrupt campaign move and on the other you feel obliged to back the government.

The behavior outlined here might be up to your standards, and good for you being so easily pleased and forgiving. It certainly is not up to the standards I would expect from the very government who are asking me to trust them with my son’s best interests!

How is that contradictory?Explain?..Yes that would have been the rational thing to do to avoid any legal conflict or controversy.They could have left it to the referendum commission. But that doesnt change the fact that the legal advice given to them told them the pamphlet wasnt biased.DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING IT?…What i said in know way says that i saw some kind of corrupt campaign.Your point with regard to the high court case makes no sense.Have you never heard of someone litigating against the state on a constitutional matter and not winning?Is the point you are trying to make that if someone litigates against the state then that automatically means pull the plug on whatever they are proposing?Sure there was a challenge to the Stability Treaty as well.As for me government spokesperson ya thats a good one alright.See its I can think logically about a situation rather than a ‘hang them all’ attitude.If you understood the process prior to publishing such a pamphlet you would understand they would require advice to make sure they are in accordance with the McKenna principles.They followed this process and received wrong advice.Why cant you get your head around dat?Maybe the best legal advice would have been that they should just leave it to the referendum commission but that didnt happen.Do yourself a favour and read the judgement when it comes out in december and see where you see the words you use such as ‘corrupt’ ‘knowingly’ appear.I can guarantee you they will not appear.

yeah I was going to just abstain..but now its NO.

The Supreme Court did not injunct the vote as that was not its remiss. It adjudicated on wheter misinformation or biased information was in the information leaflets and websites. It found the government had errored, While the vote goes ahead, the result will certainly be challenged.

The government don’t listen to the people and are obviously not listening to our courts either.
Pushing back the date of voting would be a relativity easy thing to do. Unless there is fear that doing so would allow time for more people to become informed before voting.

The Supreme Court did have the option to injunct. Of course the result will be open to challange but it is very unlike to succeed as it would mean the Court was contradicting itself.

From their statement:

“The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.”

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/1b0757edc371032e802572ea0061450e/6b4d1de136ecb72d80257ab000419d78?OpenDocument

…. anyhow the people’s will from the referendum must prevail. Could we possibly have a court overturn the votes of the electorate because they might have been misled?

If that can be overturned after the vote, can the Fiscal Treaty Referendum be overturned?