Libertas - a call for evidence

pgroarke

Hi,
While analysing the reasons for the No vote on 12th June I started uncovering evidence of some pretty disturbing tactics used by the group which calls itself "Libertas".

Payed employees and company resources does not add up to a "voluntary organization".
This is already known and documented elsewhere:
http://www.irishelection.com/05/libertas-rivada/

The several million Libertas spent was declared on items they could not hide (advertising / printing etc).
However, there was huge resources spent on their web campaign which put Obamas campaign in the ha'penny place (website design / facebook / youtube etc)
www.libertas.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertas/7454491540
http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertasDotOrg

This was not done by enthusiastic volunteers.

Another thing which struck me as strange was that a friend of mine attempted to join Libertas as a volunteer several weeks before the referendum.
They never even responded to him.

The thing that disturbed me most however was something I noticed when I analysed some of the newspaper "leave a comment" forums.
Many of the No posts have identical text / relocated text and appear to be coming from the same sources.

Doesn't this have implications for democracy in this country ?

I am currently collecting evidence of Libertas practices during the Lisbon campaign so I would be grateful for any material any of you have.
When collated I will publish on my website.
www.europeanhome.ie
Thanks
Peter

FX Meister

boring. But well done

pgroarke wrote: »

Hi,
While analysing the reasons for the No vote on 12th June I started uncovering evidence of some pretty disturbing tactics used by the group which calls itself "Libertas".

Payed employees and company resources does not add up to a "voluntary organization".
This is already known and documented elsewhere:
http://www.irishelection.com/05/libertas-rivada/

The several million Libertas spent was declared on items they could not hide (advertising / printing etc).
However, there was huge resources spent on their web campaign which put Obamas campaign in the ha'penny place (website design / facebook / youtube etc)
ttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertas/7454491540
http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertasDotOrg

This was certainly was not done by enthusiastic volunteers.

The thing that disturbed me most however was something I noticed when I analysed some of the newspaper "leave a comment" forums.
Many of the No posts have identical text / relocated text and appear to be coming from the same sources.

I am currently collecting evidence of Libertas practices during the Lisbon campaign and when collated I will publish on my website.
www.europeanhome.ie
Thanks
Peter

auerillo

pgroarke wrote: »

Hi,
While analysing the reasons for the No vote on 12th June I started uncovering evidence of some pretty disturbing tactics used by the group which calls itself "Libertas".

Payed employees and company resources does not add up to a "voluntary organization".
This is already known and documented elsewhere:
http://www.irishelection.com/05/libertas-rivada/

The several million Libertas spent was declared on items they could not hide (advertising / printing etc).
However, there was huge resources spent on their web campaign which put Obamas campaign in the ha'penny place (website design / facebook / youtube etc)
www.libertas.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertas/7454491540
http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertasDotOrg

This was not done by enthusiastic volunteers.

Another thing which struck me as strange was that a friend of mine attempted to join Libertas as a volunteer several weeks before the referendum.
They never even responded to him.

The thing that disturbed me most however was something I noticed when I analysed some of the newspaper "leave a comment" forums.
Many of the No posts have identical text / relocated text and appear to be coming from the same sources.

Doesn't this have implications for democracy in this country ?

I am currently collecting evidence of Libertas practices during the Lisbon campaign so I would be grateful for any material any of you have.
When collated I will publish on my website.
www.europeanhome.ie
Thanks
Peter

My experience is that I did phone libertas, they followed up and I was, in the end , unable to help them in their campaign. They contacted me a number of times by both phone and email to see if I could help with meetings and putting up posters and other activities.

From what you have said here, you seem to have a specific agenda in trying to prove that libertas has behaved illegally or, at least, unethically. You give the impression that you have already made up your mind, and now you are searching for "evidence" to back up your view. What will you do with any evidence to the contrary? It doesn't give the impression that your results are likely to be either balanced or fair.

Wouldn't it be a more balanced, fair and accurate position to gather the evidence and examine it before you make up your mind?

Edward de Bono has some useful things to say about this phenomenon, which he calls the intelligence trap, which can be found here http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/blog/2005/12/05/edward-de-bono-intelligence-trap

lostexpectation

reading his website apparently ganley wants to reverse equal pay or something...

auerillo

lostexpectation wrote: »

reading his website apparently ganley wants to reverse equal pay or something...

Actually, I heard he wants to revert to dancing at the crossroads, making sure no married women are allowed to work, and resurrecting the holy relics of John Charles McQuaid in front of which every irish person must bow down and genuflect while taking an oath of allegiance.

I think its more likely to be "or something" than "wants to reverse equal pay"

LOL

thebman

auerillo wrote: »

My experience is that I did phone libertas, they followed up and I was, in the end , unable to help them in their campaign. They contacted me a number of times by both phone and email to see if I could help with meetings and putting up posters and other activities.

From what you have said here, you seem to have a specific agenda in trying to prove that libertas has behaved illegally or, at least, unethically. You give the impression that you have already made up your mind, and now you are searching for "evidence" to back up your view. What will you do with any evidence to the contrary? It doesn't give the impression that your results are likely to be either balanced or fair.

Wouldn't it be a more balanced, fair and accurate position to gather the evidence and examine it before you make up your mind?

Edward de Bono has some useful things to say about this phenomenon, which he calls the intelligence trap, which can be found here http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/blog/2005/12/05/edward-de-bono-intelligence-trap

Ok, a question I have to ask is why would anyone want to volunteer to help an organisation that is clearly lying through its teeth and may have funding from some very dodgy sources?

And there is plenty of facts that something is rotten in the state of Libertas. Just look at the ads they had with lies in them up and down the country!

Tim Robbins

brim4brim wrote: »

Ok, a question I have to ask is why would anyone want to volunteer to help an organisation that is clearly lying through its teeth and may have funding from some very dodgy sources?

And there is plenty of facts that something is rotten in the state of Libertas. Just look at the ads they had with lies in them up and down the country!

I would suspect they got some US legal experts to go through Lisbon and make up arguments and play defense lawyer.

Hitman Actual

Bizarre statement by Declan Ganley on TodayFM just now: he believes any new Treaty should be just 25 pages long. Surely that's impossible?

Grudaire

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Bizarre statement by Declan Ganley on TodayFM just now: he believes any new Treaty should be just 25 pages long. Surely that's impossible?

Did you try reading the last one?

"Replace respect with be nice to in Article 2299998 of...."

"Rename Article 12 as Article 13"

Blah blah blah

Now back to the thread, Your site stinks of the same half arsed information that was provided during the election. You complain of Mud flinging by Libertas, or Lie-bertas as you call them, how can I have an ounce of respect for you? To be fair I have sweet FA trust in many people who preach to me, You, Libertas, most Politicians....

oscarBravo

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Bizarre statement by Declan Ganley on TodayFM just now: he believes any new Treaty should be just 25 pages long. Surely that's impossible?

Yes, it is, and he knows it.

Flamed Diving

The no vote was bought by the US military, just face up to that. The pens people used to vote no may as well have been filled with Iraqi blood.

BrandonBlock

He probably has vested business interests which the 'No' vote will be advantageous to. You didn't need to set up a whole website to tell people that.

Scofflaw

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Bizarre statement by Declan Ganley on TodayFM just now: he believes any new Treaty should be just 25 pages long. Surely that's impossible?

I would think so...what would the advantage of that be? Other than to tie the EU up for years in lawyers determining what the pity phrases mean? Or to allow Libertas to be dissatisfied with any renegotiated Treaty?

curiously,
Scofflaw

mike65

Maybe he wants a treaty that somehow works for its crisp clarity and not as a forrest clearing scheme.

Mike.

oscarBravo

mike65 wrote: »

Maybe he wants a treaty that somehow works for its crisp clarity and not as a forrest clearing scheme.

Maybe I want a flying car with zero emissions. If he's so convinced such a treaty is possible, why doesn't he knock up a draft?

It's only an international treaty with twenty-seven signatory countries. How hard could it be?

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe I want a flying car with zero emissions. If he's so convinced such a treaty is possible, why doesn't he knock up a draft?

It's only an international treaty with twenty-seven signatory countries. How hard could it be?

Indeed. Brilliant post.

Don't hold your breath for Ganley, SF or many No voters.

They'd prefer to knock, knock and knock.

Bit easier to do that!

PrivateEye

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

Fantastic article, written by a No campaigner, on Ganley and Co. Very good research on Riveda, Ganley and his past business ventures.

I voted No and believe Libertas were perhaps the most annoying thing about the whole Lisbon Treaty debate. For Ganley to be hailed as some sort of 'hero of democracy' now is a sham, I Truly believe he held very little influence over the whole thing. Most of the No voters were ordinary people who would normally vote FF,FG or whoever else- and I really think Ganley could be embarresed at the Euro elections if he does run. For a man who's been involved with several right-wing think tanks in his time, and who's own company lists Lt. Generals and Admirals among its directors- he seemed very concerned about our neutrality :rolleyes:

K-9

PrivateEye wrote: »

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

Fantastic article, written by a No campaigner, on Ganley and Co. Very good research on Riveda, Ganley and his past business ventures.

I voted No and believe Libertas were perhaps the most annoying thing about the whole Lisbon Treaty debate. For Ganley to be hailed as some sort of 'hero of democracy' now is a sham, I Truly believe he held very little influence over the whole thing. Most of the No voters were ordinary people who would normally vote FF,FG or whoever else- and I really think Ganley could be embarresed at the Euro elections if he does run. For a man who's been involved with several right-wing think tanks in his time, and who's own company lists Lt. Generals and Admirals among its directors- he seemed very concerned about our neutrality :rolleyes:

I really hope you are right and I do think you are. Jaysus Sarkozy is a kitten compared to him!

Hitman Actual

Cliste wrote: »

Did you try reading the last one?

"Replace respect with be nice to in Article 2299998 of...."

"Rename Article 12 as Article 13"

There's no question that the text for Lisbon was complex, but it is a legal document referencing earlier Treaties. Not being an expert in the drafting of such documents, I have no idea how the wording could be improved for "the common man". Or even if it should be (like I said, it's a legal document).

But a 25 page Treaty? Do you agree with Ganley's suggestion that that's the way forward?

is_that_so

Not really convinced but agree that Lisbon is extremely complex. Most work contracts run to 6-8 pages on their own, mortgages are not a lot different.

Well with preamble and a page listing for signatories his "treaty" might be a bit smaller.
TBH there's a touch of Monty Python's Bruces sketch about this.


Preamble

Page 5-22 All the things that are wrong with the EU
Page 23 All the things the EU will now be allowed to do
Page 24 What will happen the EU if it doesn't do as we tell them

Signatures



I also suspect that Ganley has grossly overestimated what this referendum means for the organisation. He managed to tap into a mood very successfully. Voters do separate elections from other types of campaigns and
I would rightly expect voters to be suspicious of any organisation who opposes part of the organisation they are attempting to get elected to. He would also be up against the "real" election machines of the main parties, as against the limp attempts at campaigning during Lisbon. What slogans could they use: "EU bad , Libertas in EU good" or "Libertas your voice in a corrupt EU"?

Hitman Actual

PrivateEye wrote: »

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

Fantastic article, written by a No campaigner, on Ganley and Co. Very good research on Riveda, Ganley and his past business ventures.

I voted No and believe Libertas were perhaps the most annoying thing about the whole Lisbon Treaty debate. For Ganley to be hailed as some sort of 'hero of democracy' now is a sham, I Truly believe he held very little influence over the whole thing. Most of the No voters were ordinary people who would normally vote FF,FG or whoever else- and I really think Ganley could be embarresed at the Euro elections if he does run. For a man who's been involved with several right-wing think tanks in his time, and who's own company lists Lt. Generals and Admirals among its directors- he seemed very concerned about our neutrality :rolleyes:

Your opinion (as a No voter) on Libertas is interesting, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of the No voters on here didn't get taken in by their dubious (but excellent, it has to be said) campaigning.

Here's the IT link on their possible plan to run candidates for the elections next year. I don't think it's a bad thing if they do get involved at this level. Hopefully it would mean that their scope for misinformation and lies would be seriously limited, so they would be on a level-playing field with everyone else. Which should also mean that their funding would have to be more transparent.

But I also think that they would have to deal with a certain level of mistrust as well, from the No side as well as the Yes. There's always going to be a cloud hanging over them regarding their true motives (even in that IT link, Ganley was at the euroskeptic Heritage Foundation in Washintown, although he did try to distance himself from their stance). Like PrivateEye says, they could be routed in the elections.

And who knows, if their motives are actually genuine, maybe they might actually offer something positive.

Edit: After reading the link in post 24, I'd like to retract my last comment there!

Agent Smith

Cliste wrote: »

Did you try reading the last one?

"Replace respect with be nice to in Article 2299998 of...."

"Rename Article 12 as Article 13"

Blah blah blah

heaven forbid a legal document be wrote in legal terms!

oscarBravo

is_that_so wrote: »

Most work contracts run to 6-8 pages on their own, mortgages are not a lot different.

I checked in with the gf earlier - she used to work for GE and one of its spinoffs, and negotiated several contracts with Fortune 500 companies. One in particular (with a large UK retail chain) ran to over 40 pages. And that was a commercial agreement between two companies.

How is it realistic to expect a treaty, which is designed to shape the future of 27 countries (plus new members), to be less than 25 pages long?

I wonder how many of Ganley's business plans are less than 25 pages long?

Flamed Diving

T'interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2435927/Irish-No-vote-architect-plans-Europe-wide-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

oscarBravo

A Europe-wide single-issue Euroskeptic party, eh? This should be interesting.

molloyjh

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Bizarre statement by Declan Ganley on TodayFM just now: he believes any new Treaty should be just 25 pages long. Surely that's impossible?

Absolutely....I worked as a BA for some of the banks for a few years and anything I worked on in that role was small stuff by comparison to an international treaty between 27 countries. And a 25 page document is pretty small by those standards. None of the documents I would have written would have been legal documents either. Any contracts that I saw in those few years were huge. If Ganley really believes that the Treaty should have been 25 pages then I would seriously question the guys sanity and/or knowledge of what he's on about. It seems more likely though that this is another cynical sound-byte attempting to muddy the issue and win favour even though it has no basis in reality.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

T'interesting



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2435927/Irish-No-vote-architect-plans-Europe-wide-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

Oh that was both interesting and scary....

A devout Catholic and teetotaller

who is

a defence contractor with offices in Ireland and America, which supplies emergency response equipment to the military

You don't lend it to politicians to give away to someone who never has to ask you for a vote

I'm not sure who this would be given that we elect the Ministers that sit on the Council and the MEPs that sit on the Parliament. The Commission are the only ones we don't directly elect, but they are put forward by our Governments who we do direclty elect....



Not to mention the thought that a single issue party would be a total waste. If they are advertising as a single issue party, does that mean that they would abstain from voting over anything other than Lisbon? If not are they going to campaign on other issues? Wouldn't that prevent them from being a single issue party? If they are not going to partake in other areas then surely any seats they win seats area total waste?

pgroarke

>For Ganley to be hailed as some sort of 'hero of democracy' now is a sham, I Truly believe he held very little influence over the whole thing.

PrivateEye,
I disagree that he had very little influence over the whole thing.
The exit poll analysis indicated otherwise.

Young people and women voted No by a large majority.
Libertas seem to have been the only campaigner that made serious use of social networking sites and youtube. They also had a pretty slick website.
How many teenagers do you know that read the Irish Times or the Indo ?
Obama's campaign has truly ushered in a new order.
In terms of message content Libertas' "Dont be bullied !" poster was directed at the young vote.

Regarding mna na heireann, psychologists profile women as more risk averse by nature than men.
Don't know if you remember Libertas' election slogans:
You will Lose a commissioner
You will lose voting power.
(and the moronic) EU will lose.

Look back at tapes of Ganley "debating". Instead of answering questions substantively he concentrated on repeating buzz words like Lose and bully.

I believe that Libertas had major professional input into their campaign - at the very least on the web side and in terms of psychological profiling.

Yourself and other No voters on this site seem to at least have done some research but you are not representative of the huge numbers of No voters who according to the exit polls had no idea what Lisbon was about.
P

Tim Robbins

pgroarke wrote: »

I believe that Libertas had major professional input into their campaign - at the very least on the web side and in terms of psychological profiling.
P

You're definetly right there.
Ganley was using all sorts of jargon and legalease anytime he was interviewed. So much so, to the average person, who nevers a newspaper he actually came across as someone who knew what he was talking about.

He was obviously getting these arguments from legal experts who decided to engage in a little bit of sophistry.

dresden8

Is this not a case of "Politician is untrustworthy with his own agenda" shock horror.

How could such a thing happen?

kevteljeur

oscarBravo wrote: »

A Europe-wide single-issue Euroskeptic party, eh? This should be interesting.

I wouldn't hold your breath; this is likely to be some bed-fellows of the attempted Europe-wide link-up of Far Right parties. The notion that xenophobes from different countries could work together to keep each other apart turned out to be as ridiculous in practice as in theory.

kevteljeur

pgroarke wrote: »

>For Ganley to be hailed as some sort of 'hero of democracy' now is a sham, I Truly believe he held very little influence over the whole thing.

PrivateEye,
I disagree that he had very little influence over the whole thing.
The exit poll analysis indicated otherwise.

<snip />

Look back at tapes of Ganley "debating". Instead of answering questions substantively he concentrated on repeating buzz words like Lose and bully.

I believe that Libertas had major professional input into their campaign - at the very least on the web side and in terms of psychological profiling.

Yourself and other No voters on this site seem to at least have done some research but you are not representative of the huge numbers of No voters who according to the exit polls had no idea what Lisbon was about.
P

Although I voted 'yes' and would again, I felt at the time that Libertas ran (by Irish standards) a sophisticated disruptive campaign. A lot of their campaign was not about actively selling the 'no' vote, but about making the 'yes' campaign indistinct and unclear. Not that they needed much help there. Can anyone remember the 'No' posters in the same colours and style as the 'yes' campaign posters, posted directly underneath? And how they avoided bringing personalities into it? Meanwhile, the main parties ran it like a traditional election; an easy, predicatable target to campaign against (Look up Leo Varadkar's enraged comments after the result to see some enlightening views on that aspect).

As I've said all along, we've been well trained since youth to say 'no' when in doubt. I think that Libertas did a good job of increasing doubt for that campaign. That meant they could use the main parties weight against themselves.