Labour Party on Libertas/CIA CT.

dresden8

For my part I want to see where exactly the money came from and (honestly) why he was getting involved. For some crusader for transparency etc his funding and motives are far from transparent. Additionally where was he for the GE last year when a potential crook was going for re-election? And why did he feel the need to peddle lies in search of openess and transparency? Surely that is the very definition of hypocracy.

Agreed. He's an odious tosser. But then lots of rich people who lobby, fund and do secret backroom deals with our politicians are. No change there. For those politicians to then come out with this sort of stuff is sickening.

Few people are making actual allegations other than one like you own, i.e. that he's a bit dodgy. The whole point is that nbeither he nor his campaign were either open or transparent. That is obviously going to breed distrust.

That's the thing though. They're not making allegations, it's a nod and a wink, style of politics and non-verbal mudslinging.

As OB pointed out the CIA thing at least is a red herring. There has been a lot of discussion re the military element though. I'm not sure I fully get it myself, something akin to the fact that a stronger EU means more competition for the US and ultimately may mean the EU supplanting the US as the centre of the economic world, which would obviously be bad news for the American military. I can't see myself how this would affect Ganley personally given that even if it were to happen it would take decades........

The EU is the least of America's problems.

Ok, I'll throw this one out. If it can be shown that the Yes people for a second vote have been throwing out red-herrings to confuse and "lie" to the people, should a subsequent yes vote be discarded?

I think I already know the answer to that one but let's play anyway.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Agreed. He's an odious tosser. But then lots of rich people who lobby, fund and do secret backroom deals with our politicians are. No change there. For those politicians to then come out with this sort of stuff is sickening.

Who has funded and done secret backroom deals with the Labour Party?

They're not making allegations...

No, they're asking questions. I'm not sure why you feel those questions shouldn't be asked.

Ok, I'll throw this one out. If it can be shown that the Yes people for a second vote have been throwing out red-herrings to confuse and "lie" to the people, should a subsequent yes vote be discarded?

Would "whether the answer is yes or no, it will have no bearing" be a good answer here?

dresden8

Who has funded and done secret backroom deals with the Labour Party?

I don't know, they're secret.

No, they're asking questions. I'm not sure why you feel those questions shouldn't be asked.

Ask away, whatever those questions might be. He'll have to know the questions before he can give the answers. It's the hypocrisy of major parties questioning others funding and secret motives that gets me.

Would "whether the answer is yes or no, it will have no bearing" be a good answer here?

That gets back to a point I made on several threads about Lisbon. "Electorate are lied to" Shock. You'd be re-running votes on everything.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't know, they're secret.

But you are alleging that secret backroom deals have been done by rich people with the Labour Party? Specific allegations, please. We wouldn't want you mud-slinging with nod/wink style innuendo.

Ask away, whatever those questions might be. He'll have to know the questions before he can give the answers. It's the hypocrisy of major parties questioning others funding and secret motives that gets me.

The questions are being asked. You seem offended that transparency should be asked of any party.

dresden8

Oh Oscar. I give up.

But are we agreed though that whatever the result of Lisbon 2 is we'll have to re-run the vote because the electorate have been mis-led?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

But are we agreed though that whatever the result of Lisbon 2 is we'll have to re-run the vote because the electorate have been mis-led?

We may have to re-run the vote because it's in the country's best interests to do so. I and others believed it was in our best interests to ratify the treaty the first time round. We can only live in hope that next time that will be clearer to more people.

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

But are we agreed though that whatever the result of Lisbon 2 is we'll have to re-run the vote because the electorate have been mis-led?

The electorate weren't led at all IMO. It was complicancy on the Govnt's behalf that got us into this pickle.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

We may have to re-run the vote because it's in the country's best interests to do so. I and others believed it was in our best interests to ratify the treaty the first time round. We can only live in hope that next time that will be clearer to more people.

Whichever way the vote turns out?

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

Whichever way the vote turns out?

No, we need the yes vote!

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Whichever way the vote turns out?

I really don't think there was anything unclear in what I posted.

dresden8

studiorat wrote: »

The electorate weren't led at all IMO. It was complicancy on the Govnt's behalf that got us into this pickle.

It wasn't really complacency. FF couldn't go to the electorate and say "trust us" when Bertie was obviously talking cr@p. Their campaign got off the ground when he was on the way out.

Oddly enough, on questions about where his funding came from. Oh, the bittersweet irony!

dresden8

But are we agreed though that whatever the result of Lisbon 2 is we'll have to re-run the vote because the electorate have been mis-led?

oscarBravo wrote: »

We may have to re-run the vote because it's in the country's best interests to do so. I and others believed it was in our best interests to ratify the treaty the first time round. We can only live in hope that next time that will be clearer to more people.

Whichever way the vote turns out?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really don't think there was anything unclear in what I posted.

Closed question Oscar. That means it's a Yes or No answer. Just like a referendum.

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

It wasn't really complacency. FF couldn't go to the electorate and say "trust us" when Bertie was obviously talking cr@p. Their campaign got off the ground when he was on the way out.

Good point.

Never thought of looking this up, seems to be a bit of craic here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley

who'd a thunk there was a wiki page...

dresden8

Declan Ganley’s anti-Lisbon Treaty group were supporting a letter-writing campaign to Irish citizens by an Austrian political group with far-right support

Now we've got Austrian Nazis in the mix. Next thing you know the illuminati or the New World Order will be pulled into this.

The truth is out there people.

studiorat

^
he-he
stopped into cern to recharge his batteries.

studiorat

http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?fiscal_year=&company_name=Rivada+Pacific&sortby=r&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&detail=3&submit=GO

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/09/us_military_ties_to_the_lisbon.cfm

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Closed question Oscar. That means it's a Yes or No answer. Just like a referendum.

I misunderstood your question: you're suggesting that whatever the result of a second referendum, we'll have to have a third? Either your straw man factory is working overtime, or you haven't the first idea of realpolitik.

If we have a second referendum and vote to ratify the treaty, then we ratify the treaty, which would go some way towards restoring the status quo ante in terms of the EU's progression and our role in it. If we have a second referendum and vote not to ratify the treaty, then everything changes. The EU has some hard decisions to make, and 26 members have no obligation whatsoever to bend over backwards to suit one member which doesn't seem to know what it wants.

You seem to be under the illusion that I'm unhappy with the result of the referendum solely because I feel the electorate was misled or ignorant. For the avoidance of doubt: I'm unhappy with the result of the referendum because I think it was the wrong answer. I've been trying since the referendum to figure out why we gave the answer we did, and so far I've been given the approximate equivalent of "um... what was the question again?". I don't think we should re-run the referendum because the electorate was mislead, I think we should re-run the referendum because a "yes" answer is in our best interests, and I think the "no" answer was based largely on ignorance, doubt and fear rather than on reason and evidence.

Feel free to apply whatever level of sophistry you feel is necessary to make it seem like I said something I didn't, but - again - I don't think I've been unclear.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

The long and the short of it is, you have no issue whatsoever with large amounts of money changing hands in order to secure political influence?

I think its clear the issue he is highlighting is that our political parties have no problems with receiving large political donations and not revealing the source but when someone else receives large funding and doesn't declare their source when using it for pushing a political agenda, they declare that it is wrong.

I think, all funding sources should be in the public. Anything else is keeping information from the people. We have the right to know who's funding our political parties since it appears to be influencing decisions.

Complete transparency of funding is best for the people and for everyone really as it reduces the likelihood that others will get up to Libertas shenanigans and it allows us to see where our parties are getting their funding which would make it easier to see if it is influencing their decisions or not.

molloyjh

brim4brim wrote: »

I think its clear the issue he is highlighting is that our political parties have no problems with receiving large political donations and not revealing the source but when someone else receives large funding and doesn't declare their source when using it for pushing a political agenda, they declare that it is wrong.

I think, all funding sources should be in the public. Anything else is keeping information from the people. We have the right to know who's funding our political parties since it appears to be influencing decisions.

Complete transparency of funding is best for the people and for everyone really as it reduces the likelihood that others will get up to Libertas shenanigans and it allows us to see where our parties are getting their funding which would make it easier to see if it is influencing their decisions or not.

I think the point is just that, but OB was saying that questions are being asked re our political parties, we're just not really getting any answers. Additionally a lot of this came from a comment originating from the Labour party who I doubt are on the take in the same way that FF or FG would be. Dresden is complaining about our politicians making allegations against Libertas, using allegations as his basis for the alleged hypocracy (). Hence it is a straw-man argument as we have seen no proof of anything from anyone involved. While we all "know" that most of our parties are getting dodgy funding we have no proof, yet strangely we're allowed to throw around accusations. When our politicians "know" that an opposing private group is doing the same though, they can't throw the same accusations.

Whatever the guys may or may not have been talking about I personally feel this "funding" should stop altogether in political parties. I'd happily pay a small bit extra in tax to make up for any lost funding for the political parties. Any private group should be strictly regulated and funding should be totally transparent. But that's a whole other topic!!!

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I misunderstood your question: you're suggesting that whatever the result of a second referendum, we'll have to have a third? Either your straw man factory is working overtime, or you haven't the first idea of realpolitik.

If we have a second referendum and vote to ratify the treaty, then we ratify the treaty, which would go some way towards restoring the status quo ante in terms of the EU's progression and our role in it. If we have a second referendum and vote not to ratify the treaty, then everything changes. The EU has some hard decisions to make, and 26 members have no obligation whatsoever to bend over backwards to suit one member which doesn't seem to know what it wants.

You seem to be under the illusion that I'm unhappy with the result of the referendum solely because I feel the electorate was misled or ignorant. For the avoidance of doubt: I'm unhappy with the result of the referendum because I think it was the wrong answer. I've been trying since the referendum to figure out why we gave the answer we did, and so far I've been given the approximate equivalent of "um... what was the question again?". I don't think we should re-run the referendum because the electorate was mislead, I think we should re-run the referendum because a "yes" answer is in our best interests, and I think the "no" answer was based largely on ignorance, doubt and fear rather than on reason and evidence.

Feel free to apply whatever level of sophistry you feel is necessary to make it seem like I said something I didn't, but - again - I don't think I've been unclear.

But do you deny that "the voters were mis-led and lied to" is the justification (or at least one of them) that will be used to ram a second vote through. I'm used to being lied to by this shower of tossers, but I really hate being taken for a sap.

dresden8

brim4brim wrote: »

I think its clear the issue he is highlighting is that our political parties have no problems with receiving large political donations and not revealing the source but when someone else receives large funding and doesn't declare their source when using it for pushing a political agenda, they declare that it is wrong.

I think, all funding sources should be in the public. Anything else is keeping information from the people. We have the right to know who's funding our political parties since it appears to be influencing decisions.

Complete transparency of funding is best for the people and for everyone really as it reduces the likelihood that others will get up to Libertas shenanigans and it allows us to see where our parties are getting their funding which would make it easier to see if it is influencing their decisions or not.

Exactly.

Is anyone really taken in by Roche's pretend and shocked surprise that he's only now just realised that rich people use their money to influence the Irish political system? From a Fianna Failer no less.

Here's the deal, I'll compromise.

Ganley should reveal his funding and motives when all the mainstream political parties and all T.D.'s reveal the names (and really reveal, not pretendy reveal like they do) the names, amounts and motivations of all their donors. We'll start with Roche.

That, at least, would be fair.

djpbarry

dresden8 wrote: »

But do you deny that "the voters were mis-led and lied to" is the justification (or at least one of them) that will be used to ram a second vote through.

The fact that so many voters, by their own admission, did not understand the treaty is reason enough for another referendum, in my opinion. Having said that, I don't think it will make a huge amount of difference; people will object to being asked the same question a second time and just vote 'No' while still not understanding the treaty (or making any attempt to understand it). I expect an exercise in futility...

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

But do you deny that "the voters were mis-led and lied to" is the justification (or at least one of them) that will be used to ram a second vote through. I'm used to being lied to by this shower of tossers, but I really hate being taken for a sap.

I reject the premise that a vote can be "rammed through".

Do you have a problem with general elections being "rammed through" every few years?

dresden8

Ok, I'll offer another compromise.

I'll freely agree to a new referendum after the next election. That's fair too.

And that might be sooner than if we go through this charade of "researching why the vote went the way it did".

As an aside. Do you really believe that Dick Roche was shocked to learn that rich people use their money to influence politics?

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm used to being lied to by this shower of tossers, but I really hate being taken for a sap.

So does that mean that as long as we are lied to by the politicians we should allow ourselves to be lied to by anyone/everyone else? Personally I think we should resist being lied to at all. To hell with what the politicians may say, I will not accept them or anyone else lying to me. Here we're discussing Ganley and Libertas. If you want to discuss the polticians then start a new thread and we can do that too.

dresden8

Well, we were talking about Labour and FF calling Ganley on his "Dubious" connections and motivations. If questions are being asked, I think it's a basic starting point to want to know who is asking them and why.

Pot, kettle and blackarse spring to mind.

This is a turn up for the books though. It's usually Oscar who tells me to get out of discussions.

The question still stands, do you think Roche and Labour, (yes Oscar, I know, that wasn't in the original question) were surprised to find out that money influences politics?

dresden8

molloyjh wrote: »

So does that mean that as long as we are lied to by the politicians we should allow ourselves to be lied to by anyone/everyone else? Personally I think we should resist being lied to at all. To hell with what the politicians may say, I will not accept them or anyone else lying to me. .

That point was dealt with.

Here's the deal, I'll compromise.

Ganley should reveal his funding and motives when all the mainstream political parties and all T.D.'s reveal the names (and really reveal, not pretendy reveal like they do) the names, amounts and motivations of all their donors. We'll start with Roche.

That, at least, would be fair.

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

That point was dealt with.

Sorry I phrased my point poorly. What I really wanted to say is that for the purposes of this conversation I really couldn't care if our politicians ae on the take or what they have to say about Ganley. I'm unhappy with it and I want to find out what he's up to.

Now when it comes to the political parties and their dubious activities my stance is the very same, but I just think the two are different problems and should not be tied together. Why should whether the politicians keep lying or tell the truth have any bearing on whether Ganley does or not? Different cases should be kept seperae in my book.

dresden8

But what we have here is the mainstream parties all sitting around saying "Isn't it terrible the we don't know where Ganley's money comes from and what his backer's dubious motives are".

It seems that he who has sinned has cast the first stone.

Also, these pr1cks have recently discovered their crusading zeal purely to manipulate us, if that doesn't stick in your craw, there's something wrong with you.

If they want answers from Ganley, they come across first. What's wrong with that?

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry I phrased my point poorly. What I really wanted to say is that for the purposes of this conversation I really couldn't care if our politicians ae on the take or what they have to say about Ganley. I'm unhappy with it and I want to find out what he's up to.

Now when it comes to the political parties and their dubious activities my stance is the very same, but I just think the two are different problems and should not be tied together. Why should whether the politicians keep lying or tell the truth have any bearing on whether Ganley does or not? Different cases should be kept seperae in my book.

But what we have here is the mainstream parties all sitting around saying "Isn't it terrible the we don't know where Ganley's money comes from and what his backer's dubious motives are".

It seems that he who has sinned has cast the first stone.

What dresden8 is not addressing is that we - that is, quite ordinary voters - want to know where Libertas' money comes from. We don't care whether politicians have, or have not, asked it too. That's irrelevant, and simply because Dick Roche asks where the money comes from does not stop us also being interested - and while Dick Roche may not have a right to ask (on account of his own possible sins), we do.

To put it another way, I was probably interested in where Libertas' money came from before Dick Roche was, and I remain interested whether Dick Roche asks or does not ask. And as someone who is affected by the operations of public life in Ireland, I have a right to ask the questions - and I also have a right to ask the questions in any order I please. I have my own views on where FF's funding comes from (developers), so I can place their interests - I have no such handle on Libertas, and I both want to have, and am entitled to have.

I am perfectly happy for the press to keep digging, but the fastest thing would be for Libertas to "come clean" - to make some verifiable statements about their funding, so we can put their agenda in the proper perspective. For a group that claims to be after transparency and honesty in Europe to be in the position of having denied being funded out of Declan Ganley's pocket throughout the campaign, only for it now to be admitted that it has been - and admitted so badly, too, with talk of the €200K being the 'first loan', followed instantly by a claim it is also the 'only loan'. How does one put any more faith in that than in Bertie's 'digout' spiel? What value have Libertas to the voter if they're just another bunch of bent shysters pursuing their own advantage?

cordially,
Scofflaw