The return of Declan Ganley

ei.sdraob · 12-09-2009 7:54pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Don't all political parties work that way?

they ALL also put up clear policies and manifestos available for all to see

even SF have them on their site

and can be judged and against their policies

Libertas have no policies, opportunistic liars that they are

StealthRolex · 12-09-2009 9:09pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Libertas have no policies, opportunistic liars that they are

Is that slander or libel?

Mario007 · 12-09-2009 9:12pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is that slander or libel?

thats what most reporters, outside of ireland, are saying about libertas after interviewing ganley...so i guess its the standard

humanji · 12-09-2009 10:54pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is that slander or libel?

They've lied before and they take any opportunity that will benefit them. I'd say it's fairly accurate.

ei.sdraob · 12-09-2009 11:16pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is that slander or libel?

would you care to point us to their policies?

oh wait they dont exist...

FunnyStuff · 12-09-2009 11:46pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

"at least Declan can take no for an answer"

hypocrisy and lying, that pretty much sums up the no campaign

He's campaigning against the treaty, not running for office you illiterate

FunnyStuff · 12-09-2009 11:49pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Libertas are unelected are doing what their military connections are telling them to do

Evidence???????????????

K-9 · 13-09-2009 12:05am

Ganley admitted himself he had no mandate. This from a very Euro sceptic constituency, that elected Dana and Blayney in the past.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 12:13am

K-9 wrote: »

Ganley admitted himself he had no mandate. This from a very Euro sceptic constituency, that elected Dana and Blayney in the past.

Hey! Don't malign the constituency in which I vote. We elected three pro-EU people last time around. Eurosceptics are a minority around here.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 13-09-2009 12:50am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Hey! Don't malign the constituency in which I vote. We elected three pro-EU people last time around. Eurosceptics are a minority around here.

Exactly, despite claims to the contrary Declan Ganley doesn't represent me f*cking anywhere.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 13-09-2009 1:05am

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The guarantees are not credible to me because they are not part of the EU treaties.

You continually call into question the validity of the guarantees, but when pushed you can't name one you're worried about.

Abortion, Neutrality etc.

You might waffle a bit about CCCTB, but you are fully aware that is nothing to do with the guarantees. Eventually you capitulate and admit you're more worried about 'asylum seekers' (the durty beggers eh?) using the charter to tek all ar jaabs...

You call into question the validity of the guarantees for no other purpose than to sow fear in peoples minds.

K-9 · 13-09-2009 1:36am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Hey! Don't malign the constituency in which I vote. We elected three pro-EU people last time around. Eurosceptics are a minority around here.

LOL, I voted in the very same constituency too!

As you know, he picked it for a reason, Dana etc. and he FAILED!

As he said himself, he got no mandate, even from the most Euro sceptic constituency there is.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 1:46am

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You continually call into question the validity of the guarantees, but when pushed you can't name one you're worried about.

Abortion, Neutrality etc.

You might waffle a bit about CCCTB, but you are fully aware that is nothing to do with the guarantees. Eventually you capitulate and admit you're more worried about 'asylum seekers' (the durty beggers eh?) using the charter to tek all ar jaabs...

You call into question the validity of the guarantees for no other purpose than to sow fear in peoples minds.

Paul Anthony McDermott said (Q+A some months back) that the guarantees are "worthless" because when it comes to a case in the ECJ, the ECJ will ask what part of the Treaties you are suing on. We are promised they will be put into Protocols in a future Treaty. But that promise itself is not legally-binding. Once Lisbon goes through (if it does), our leverage on this question is gone.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 1:57am

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Paul Anthony McDermott said (Q+A some months back) that the guarantees are "worthless" ...

And why should we take his word for it?

drkpower · 13-09-2009 2:04am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And why should we take his word for it?

On the legal question of how the Treaty is interpreted by the ECJ his "word" is better than most.

He is correct, to an extent. The protocols could be used by the ECJ as a guide to statutory interpretation (by acting as a tool to determine what the correct interpretation of any piece of the treaty is). But that would only be the case where there is a perceived ambiguity in the text of the Treaty provision itself.

But you dont have to take my word on it either....

FunnyStuff · 13-09-2009 8:17am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And why should we take his word for it?

i may be wrong here, but does he not have some kind of law qualification? In that case he probably would have some kind of idea about it, or maybe you'd like to call into question the quality of his education.

force eleven · 13-09-2009 9:06am

Pffft...why all the hoo ha about Ganley coming back? This Lisbon thing is all about U turns anyway. We had Deputy Gilmore saying the Treaty was 'dead and buried' last year and now he's happy as a pig in muck campaigning again...

At least Ganley will bring some balance as to what has been a total media bias towards Yes....if he is allowed air time....

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 9:49am

FunnyStuff wrote: »

i may be wrong here, but does he not have some kind of law qualification?

Yep.

In that case he probably would have some kind of idea about it, or maybe you'd like to call into question the quality of his education.

"Trust me, I'm a lawyer" doesn't have the gentle irony of "trust me, I'm a doctor". On any issue of public interest you can find a slew of lawyers on either side arguing the legalities with sincere conviction.

13-09-2009 10:03am

force eleven wrote: »

At least Ganley will bring some balance....

Lol would seem to be the appropriate response to that...given that Ganley's partner Mcevaddy was a bank roller of Cóir last time out.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 10:34am

force eleven wrote: »

Pffft...why all the hoo ha about Ganley coming back? This Lisbon thing is all about U turns anyway. We had Deputy Gilmore saying the Treaty was 'dead and buried' last year and now he's happy as a pig in muck campaigning again...

At least Ganley will bring some balance as to what has been a total media bias towards Yes....if he is allowed air time....

Very true although the media probably won't pay him any attention if this morning's radio programmes are anything to go by. There seems to be a strategy of ignoring the side that won last year's referendum. Truly, an elitist agenda from those who think they know best what is right for the Irish people better than they do themselves. Another example of this is the abolition of 50:50 airtime on RTE, which I believe is unconstitutional under the Coughlan and McKenna judgements. When the Irish Constitution starts being ignored, democracy is threatened. Article 40.1 of the Constitution confers equality on Irish citizens, and was the basis for the Coughlan and McKenna judgements. That is not being respected by our elites.

is_that_so · 13-09-2009 11:51am

He had his shot on Marion Finucane and didn't really do anything more than say "Youse are all lying" and shout across the other speakers. If the response to him here is anything to go by he will be challenged at every turn, which is as it should be. IMO Ballagh is even worse and not the type of representative one might want to argue a position.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 11:54am

is_that_so wrote: »

He had his shot on Marion Finucane and didn't really do anything more than say "Youse are all lying" and shout across the other speakers. If the response to him here is anything to go by he will be challenged at every turn, which is as it should be. IMO Ballagh is even worse and not the type of representative one might want to argue a position.

Ganley made an excellent point on Intel's reasons for supporting Lisbon, namely their appeal against the €1.04 billion fine from the European Commission.

is_that_so · 13-09-2009 12:05pm

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ganley made an excellent point on Intel's reasons for supporting Lisbon, namely their appeal against the €1.04 billion fine from the European Commission.

Business is not tied to emotions and in Intel's case a billion is really not going to affect them. It is also something that sounds good but can't actually be proved. An appeal just allows them scope to avoid paying it for as long as possible. He also kept shouting about things that had nothing to do with the treaty. I think this comes under that category and if that's a reason for a No vote then there is something awry in people's thought processes.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 12:05pm

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ganley made an excellent point on Intel's reasons for supporting Lisbon, namely their appeal against the €1.04 billion fine from the European Commission.

He is less ready to discuss how our vote might link to his commercial interests.

patrickthomas · 13-09-2009 12:06pm

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Very true although the media probably won't pay him any attention if this morning's radio programmes are anything to go by. There seems to be a strategy of ignoring the side that won last year's referendum. Truly, an elitist agenda from those who think they know best what is right for the Irish people better than they do themselves. Another example of this is the abolition of 50:50 airtime on RTE, which I believe is unconstitutional under the Coughlan and McKenna judgements. When the Irish Constitution starts being ignored, democracy is threatened. Article 40.1 of the Constitution confers equality on Irish citizens, and was the basis for the Coughlan and McKenna judgements. That is not being respected by our elites.

This move is very disturbing and from watching RTE's coverage they are biased towards the yes side.

is_that_so · 13-09-2009 12:07pm

patrickthomas wrote: »

This move is very disturbing and from watching RTE's coverage they are biased towards the yes side.

Well Sean Whelan did say one day last week - "Nothing to report on the No side because there were no events to cover."

ei.sdraob · 13-09-2009 12:08pm

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ganley made an excellent point on Intel's reasons for supporting Lisbon, namely their appeal against the €1.04 billion fine from the European Commission.

how many people does Intel employ in Ireland compared to Ganley's Empire

please do tell

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 12:10pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how many people does Intel employ in Ireland compared to Ganley's Empire

please do tell

I think Intel employ 4,000 in Ireland. I also think that none of their jobs will be affected by the Lisbon referendum. I don't know how many people Ganley employs in Ireland. But I do know that as a successful international businessman, he understands business and its attitudes to Europe.

ei.sdraob · 13-09-2009 12:16pm

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think Intel employ 4,000 in Ireland. I also think that none of their jobs will be affected by the Lisbon referendum. I don't know how many people Ganley employs in Ireland. But I do know that as a successful international businessman, he understands business and its attitudes to Europe.

Can you please do tell us what does Ganley sell

and to whom

The US military officer in the video on the front page of his company would be a clue

what about the people his involved with and company directors? > http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

* McEvaddy is the CEO of Omega Air, a US defence contractor (they supply cargo planes and inflight refuelling services to the US military).

* Declan Ganley, president of Libertas, also happens to be president of Rivada Networks, a US defence contractor (they supply emergency communications networks to the US intelligence community).

* Lt. General Dennis M. McCarthy (Rivada Director)

* John J. Kelly, Jr. (Director)

* Rear Admiral Robert F. Duncan (Vice President, Business Development and Government Services)

* Admiral James M. Loy (Director)

* James Tackett (Vice president for Homeland Security)

thats some company he surrounds himself with and Ganley has extensive connections to the neo-con Republican administration in the US

does anyone need any short history lessons on how Neo Cons screwed up USA? Declans attitude and "policies" are very neo con, and not to mention his tactics

/

ei.sdraob · 13-09-2009 12:26pm

more on Ganley's "friends" and "partners"

Mr Ganley is to quit his role as chief executive of Rivada and take over as chairman, which will allow him more time to concentrate on the European elections. John Kelly, a former president of Bell Aerospace and a current Rivada director, is to take over the post of chief executive.

All four newcomers to the board are linked to the international defence industry. They include a former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff during the Iraqi invasion, Gen Richard Myers; former chief of the UK defence staff, Lord Charles Guthrie; and two former senior officials in the US department of homeland security, Michael Jackson and George Forseman.

Rivada Networks is a US-based defence contracting firm specialising in the provision of telecommunications systems to the military, police and emergency services in disaster situations and has secured US military contracts worth up to $240million (€190 million). Lord Guthrie, who has served in the SAS, was chief of the UK general staff between 1997 and 2001. He is a cross-bench member of the House of Lords. He was created a life peer after retiring as chief of the defence staff.

Gen Myers is a former four-star general in the United States air force and served as the 15th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

He was the principal military adviser to George Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Mr Jackson is a former deputy secretary of the US department of homeland security. Mr Forseman was the department’s under-secretary for preparedness until 2007.

The appointments are likely to fuel claims by Mr Ganley’s political opponents that his opposition to the Lisbon Treaty reflects his close links with the US military-industrial complex.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0311/1224242664635.html

The return of Declan Ganley

Comments