|
06 August 2009 Ever since the decisive No vote last year, Yes campaigners have been desperately trying to create more favourable conditions for pushing through the Lisbon Treaty. One particular bug bear for outraged politicos was the equal airtime provision necessitated by the 1998 Coughlan judgment. This was outrageous, went the petulant argument of the Yessers, actually allowing opposing sides in a referendum equal time to put forward their views meant the elites might not have it all their own way.
“It’s soooo unfair,” they whined. “We are so much better than the No side. We should be given wayyyy more time.” I’m paraphrasing here, but that’s pretty much what it sounded like.
Even worse, they feared that in a referendum re-run, a repeat of the previous appalling vista could recur: people who had actually read the treaty could inform the electorate as to why it was bad for Ireland, for democracy and for our right to decide our values.
 Something would have to be done. And so up stepped the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to serve their political masters. Their guidelines for the second referendum on Lisbon demolish the need for equal airtime for opposing views – replacing it with an utterly subjective and unquantifiable requirement to be fair. Since the jokers running the country think cutting the minimum wage and forcing the sovereign people to vote again is fair, be in no doubt as to where the new guidelines leave free speech and fair play.
The only reason seemingly offered by the BCI for this volte face was that the majority of the political parties supported the treaty last time, and it was desperately unfair that they needed to share airtime with the common people. The state-appointed body needs a reality check; the people, in a decisive majority, voted against this treaty. If we’re looking at mandates from that perspective then 54% of the airtime should be given to No campaigners.
While the BCI decision is a disgrace however, it is far from a disaster. Outside of the actual campaign timeframe the media gave far more time to supporters of the treaty in any case, and, contrary to their own inflated opinion of themselves they don’t have anything like the power over decision-making they wish to have. .
The referendum result was won last time on the doorsteps. Reports from Cóir’s very successful meetings ongoing around the country tell us that canvassers have, yet again, got their walking shoes ready.
In the meantime, if you’d like to let the BCI know what you think of them, email
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Niamh Uí Bhriain
|
Comments
Unbiased news reporting means that if - say - 1 local resident wants a road closed and 10 want it open then both sides should have their views put across equally.
When it comes to politics if a party with say 90% of the seats gets 90% of allocated airtime that cements them in power:
Still, it's also odd if say an Independent Republic party of Cork with 1 seat gets the same airtime as Fianna fail or Fine Gael.
That brings us to a referendum situation:
Clearly, in a yes/no situation there can be no doubt that both sides should get equal time:
The very fact that it's a referendum means it's been taken out of normal party political context or it would have been settled in the Dail.
As in a court of law, both sides should have an equal opportunity to make their case, it's irrelevant how much institutional backing one or other side has.
As for the how the referendum is portrayed, there's too much of "we must vote yes to stay in Europe"
Hello?
It's a vote about a treaty, not about Ireland leaving the EU.
Personally I believe in European cooperation between independent nations, not the petty interference of the European Commission in how people wish to lead their lives.
Ironically the United States model is a very good one in the sense that a Senate (= democracy by state = Council of Ministers)
can and should provide a counter to a European Parliament (=democracy by population), the Commission should be scrapped, and stronger subsidiarity (local rule) with a net budget EU system would end the matching funds clawback craziness that goes on today
See http://ceolas.net/#eu1x onwards