Posted by Mike on May 29, 2004 at 21:38:25:

In Reply to: Re: Referendum. posted by Tuars on May 29, 2004 at 13:18:41:

"If I remember correctly, the government changed the law after the McKenna judgement found that they hadn't given a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against"

Yes the McKenna judgement made it illegal for governments to use taxpayers money to advance only one side of an argument however they could spend money on the referendum commision provided they gave equal time/space to the YES and NO sides

I think their logic was that since they were promoting the referendum they couldn't be seen to come up with arguments against it.
Well as I remember virtually ALL the major parties supported the good grief disagreement most parties supported the Amsterdam treaty as well but the referendum commision still tried to give us both sides.

Once again most parties (albeit with some internal dissent in some of them) support this referendum (and are spending a lot of money albeit most of it their own promoting it) but the referendum commision arent giving us the arguments and the only voices speaking out against the proposal are from the smaller parties, pressure groups and the odd dissenter (with the guts to speak out) from FG and Labour

Follow Ups:

• Re: Referendum. And 18:48:35 31/05/04 (1)
  • Re: Referendum. Indeed 21:50:56 31/05/04 (0)
• Re: Referendum. Miles 09:07:59 31/05/04 (0)

Post a Followup