Why hate Libertas

RandomName2

There is a hell of a lot about Libertas on this forum, but I have attempted to produce an exhaustive list of the arguments made against them

1. They don't show where their funds come from
2. They are a pan-European Party
3. They oppose Lisbon
4. Ganley is rich
5. They are affiliated to private companies
6. They have shady links to the US military
7. Ganley is not really Irish
8. They are evil
9. They know nothing
10. Their actual motives are undisclosed
11. They are a manipulative, clever, organisation, directed by a single will
12. They are right wing
13. They have no policies
14. They look like the PDs

I know a lot of this is just fluff, mixed in with general concerns. Nonsense attacks are 3. 4. 8. 9. 12. and 14. and don't really merit any discussion (the fact that 3. 4. and 12. are patently obvious is not the point).

RandomName2

2. There are other pan-European parties, you know.

5. This seems to be a genuine problem, does anyone actually have any details?

6. This is pretty much fluff as well, unfortunately. There does not seem to be any concrete evidence to suggest CIA manipulation, and even if this was the case, in practice it changes little. What is in question is their political outlook and their funding.

7. This is a local issue. He is legally Irish, but hasn't lived in Ireland for at least 20 years.

10. The big question is why would a rich entreperneur put his neck on the line for no apparent financial gain. Most people seem to be cynical enough to believe that he has no actual ideology.

11. There certainly is a will-to-power thing with Ganley, hence the comparrisons with Michael McDowell. This is to be expected, however, with a newly formed party. The fact that Ganley is so uncharismatic doesn't help though.

13. Again, this is back to 10. The fact that any MEP standing for election in Ireland will say no more than the platitudes of 'I am for job-creation' or 'I want Ireland to be at the heart of Europe' is naturall enough because they don't controll the pan-European parties they affiliate themselves to. Libertas' actual policies, whilst clear enough, are too flimsy for a party's entire manifesto - hence the implication that there is an ulterior motive (or that they know nothing, or both... yawn).

PopeBuckfastXVI

15. They are slimy PR hiring, populist vote seeking, lying, flip flopping, disjointed, undemocratic, platitude slinging, semi racist, god bothering, greedy, anti Europe, pro NATO, power hungry policyless mountebanks.

And that's enough for me...

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

15. They are slimy PR hiring, populist vote seeking, lying, flip flopping, disjointed, undemocratic, platitude slinging, semi racist, god bothering, greedy, anti Europe, pro NATO, power hungry policyless mountebanks.

And that's enough for me...

I think that's number 8.

What did you say about NATO?

Oafley Jones

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

15. They are slimy PR hiring, populist vote seeking, lying, flip flopping, disjointed, undemocratic, platitude slinging, semi racist, god bothering, greedy, anti Europe, pro NATO, power hungry policyless mountebanks.

And that's enough for me...

That's pretty much my opinion of them as well. But you have to acknowledge their good points - e.g. Caroline Simons, for pure comedy value.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think that's number 8.

What did you say about NATO?

Some people would think some or all of those things were good, not evil.

I say they are pro NATO, Ganley makes his money from NATO agencies, and indeed proposed Libertas be formed in the FPRI Journal, which is from an Americentric, pro NATO US Right Wing think tank.

Scofflaw

16. They've actually managed to lower the tone of politicial debate in Ireland, something I wouldn't previously have thought possible.

17. If successful, they essentially put the European Parliament in the pocket of one man.

18. They are highly dishonest - it's probably their main distinguishing characteristic.


cordially,
Scofflaw

bladespin

Closing borders at this stage - just a bit far-right
Lead by one - just a bit of a dictatorship
Goal to lead all of europe - emm, think I've heard this stuff before in history class :eek:

RandomName2

To lead all of Europe is the goal of every pan-European party. This wont happen as not everyone will agree with their policies (the same with Libertas).

At least with Libertas it is a direct vote to a Pan-European party, as opposed to the roundabout manner in which a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the Nordic Green or whatever.

RandomName2

Perhaps because they have the potential to be powerful - this is the real reason why they are hated. The socialists and Sinn Fein are ignored to a large part because they look weaker.

And this power would be directed against the extant political mainframe in Brussels, for whatever reason. That's why they are hated.

As far as I know there isn't a single party on Earth which doesn't have a leader. As long as Ganley doesn't become EU president post-lisbon (which is unlikely :P) I won't be too concerned.

... unless all that guff about the EU having no real legislative power is untrue. Of course, many Libertas detractors would have to contradict themselves in relation to the potential 'threat' posed by Libertas in Parliament in that regard. But you cannot argue that the EU is soft politics and simultaneously point a shaking fingue at the potential disaster of electing what you are terming as a neo-fascist movement.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

... unless all that guff about the EU having no real legislative power is untrue.

Where did you pull that straw man out of?

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Perhaps because they have the potential to be powerful - this is the real reason why they are hated.

No, Ganley himself is the reason they're hated; he's a despicable, obnoxious liar. He is the most un-personable public figure I've ever seen in existence.

BTW, if you're affilliated with them (or anyone), I think the rules are that you should make that affilliation known. (Apologies for what looks like backseat modding, Scofflaw and OB and nesf, but this guy is really starting to annoy).

ionix5891

why love them?

hate is such a "negative" word

Hitman Actual wrote: »

BTW, if you're affilliated with them (or anyone), I think the rules are that you should make that affilliation known. (Apologies for what looks like backseat modding, Scofflaw and OB and nesf, but this guy is really starting to annoy).

I hope im not breaking any rules, if so please feel free to delete this and warn me, but its correct to note that all his posts are Libertas related, seems raising controversy and free publicity is an aim here of a certain political party who are known to masterfully use the internet for political gain

.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

No, Ganley himself is the reason they're hated; he's a despicable, obnoxious liar. He is the most un-personable public figure I've ever seen in existence.

BTW, if you're affilliated with them (or anyone), I think the rules are that you should make that affilliation known. (Apologies for what looks like backseat modding, Scofflaw and OB and nesf, but this guy is really starting to annoy).

Ganley is really uncharismatic. Mind you, your hyperbole is ott.

I was at one stage associated with Fianna Fail, but that was a long while back, but I am currently a free, 'undecided' vote. Oh and ban me if you like for me being annoying, sure .

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is a hell of a lot about Libertas on this forum, but I have attempted to produce an exhaustive list of the arguments made against them

1. They don't show where their funds come from
2. They are a pan-European Party
3. They oppose Lisbon
4. Ganley is rich
5. They are affiliated to private companies
6. They have shady links to the US military
7. Ganley is not really Irish
8. They are evil
9. They know nothing
10. Their actual motives are undisclosed
11. They are a manipulative, clever, organisation, directed by a single will
12. They are right wing
13. They have no policies
14. They look like the PDs

I know a lot of this is just fluff, mixed in with general concerns. Nonsense attacks are 3. 4. 8. 9. 12. and 14. and don't really merit any discussion (the fact that 3. 4. and 12. are patently obvious is not the point).

I was a PD supporter, and I am a liberal (economic and social) which would place me to the right on economics and to the left on social issues. Any of the points you have made which concern are minor, if that's all that concerned me, I wouldn't be overly concerned. The number one reason I hate Libertas is they tell flat out bare faced lies. Most politicians bend the truth a little, some are even caught lying, but never in history have I seen anything as brazen as that which Libertas spouts. They don't just lie about things they might be able to get away with, they don't just lie where they think the truth will never be known, they lie about cold hard facts and they can be conclusively proven incorrect with 2 minutes of research. If this is the shape of the future of European politics where political parties don't have to pay any attention to what is factually true and can just spin their own fairytale then we are screwed, politics = religion.

kevteljeur

There is an endearing honesty in their willingness to not just bend the truth, but break it and discard it, in the interests of getting a vote. It's frightening, but mostly because with the status quo players, you can't really be sure about what it true, what is not, and what is a 'commonly-held belief' (or, it's true because everyone else believes it too).



.

Euro_Kraut

Gosh we're going to miss them when they are gone lads. They were good for a laugh right through this campaign and we might still have a few giggles if Lech Walesa turns up for their final rally and backs the Lisbon Treaty!

Maybe its a form of political Stockholm syndrome but I'll kinda be sad when they fall about 90 seats short of the 100 Ganley is promising us.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

I was a PD supporter, and I am a liberal (economic and social) which would place me to the right on economics and to the left on social issues. Any of the points you have made which concern are minor, if that's all that concerned me, I wouldn't be overly concerned. The number one reason I hate Libertas is they tell flat out bare faced lies. Most politicians bend the truth a little, some are even caught lying, but never in history have I seen anything as brazen as that which Libertas spouts. They don't just lie about things they might be able to get away with, they don't just lie where they think the truth will never be known, they lie about cold hard facts and they can be conclusively proven incorrect with 2 minutes of research. If this is the shape of the future of European politics where political parties don't have to pay any attention to what is factually true and can just spin their own fairytale then we are screwed, politics = religion.

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

RandomName2

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Gosh we're going to miss them when they are gone lads. They were good for a laugh right through this campaign and we might still have a few giggles if Lech Walesa turns up for their final rally and backs the Lisbon Treaty!

Maybe its a form of political Stockholm syndrome but I'll kinda be sad when they fall about 90 seats short of the 100 Ganley is promising us.

Yeah, after that it will be just back to bashing the Irish electorate for being dumb when it comes to Lisbon II.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

I know a lot of this is just fluff, mixed in with general concerns. Nonsense attacks are 3. 4. 8. 9. 12. and 14. and don't really merit any discussion (the fact that 3. 4. and 12. are patently obvious is not the point).

Well if you're a left winger 12 and 14 would be pretty much to the fore, when you think about it. I believe Scofflaw pretty much covered the rest there. As regards the fear mongering and waffle - you expect that from certain parts in this country, because thats what they honestly believe. However I'm not convinced that an intelligent and travelled man like Ganley does, which means I don't rate him very highly in the honesty department.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ganley is really uncharismatic. Mind you, your hyperbole is ott.

I was at one stage associated with Fianna Fail, but that was a long while back, but I am currently a free, 'undecided' vote. Oh and ban me if you like for me being annoying, sure .

You're a free 'undecided' vote who just happens to support Libertas in all your posts on boards.ie, and to post on no other topic. Unlikely, I fear. The internet is surprisingly full of pro-Libertas things being said by "free undecided voters", who have magically popped up during the course of the election - much as 'unaffiliated' 'concerned citizens' popped up making YouTube No videos during the referendum, such as Sean Ganley.

By the way, this isn't personal as such. Were it not for Libertas' really really extensive astroturf record, and the way that known supporters and affiliates of LIbertas happily pose as 'undecided' or 'neutral' voices, I'd have no problem taking your claim at face value. As it is, however, I am inclined to favour the view that you are essentially a Libertas online canvasser based on your behaviour in forum. In particular, the description of yourself is exactly the one that is offered as a cover by people who are affiliated with Libertas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're a free 'undecided' vote who just happens to support Libertas in all your posts on boards.ie, and to post on no other topic. Unlikely, I fear. The internet is surprisingly full of pro-Libertas things being said by "free undecided voters", who have magically popped up during the course of the election - much as 'unaffiliated' 'concerned citizens' popped up making YouTube No videos during the referendum, such as Sean Ganley.

By the way, this isn't personal as such. Were it not for Libertas' really really extensive astroturf record, and the way that known supporters and affiliates of LIbertas happily pose as 'undecided' or 'neutral' voices, I'd have no problem taking your claim at face value. As it is, however, I am inclined to favour the view that you are essentially a Libertas online canvasser based on your behaviour in forum. In particular, the description of yourself is exactly the one that is offered as a cover by people who are affiliated with Libertas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay, claim I'm a member of Libertas if you like. Who knows, I might be Ganley himself in cunning disguise . I'm just interested in uncovering the truth of this issue, and I'm actually not biased (unlike you, who, being a moderator, makes me raise an eyebrow). In truth I am pissed off at how the issue has been handled by both sides of the debate, but as far as I can see, no matter how much people scream about Libertas' falsehood, the majority of publicity is accorded to the media and politicans which are pro-Lisbon (although this might be due to their very weight of numbers).

And yes, I have 'magically' popped up before an election. Odd that, huh? I like that bit about that being my 'cover' - but even if I was a member of Libertas, god forbid, it doesn't actually change the validity of my arguments (ad hominem attacks and all). Maybe you should put up a sticky saying that it's prefferable to be left-wing to post on this forum.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

I suppose this would be a candidate for the most objective factually incorrect statement from Libertas. It was one of their 8 reasons for voting no to Lisbon the first time around, but it is by no means the only.

2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

Completely wrong.The council at the moment has a QMV system which give each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizens vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizens.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

I suppose this would be a candidate for the most objective factually incorrect statement from Libertas. It was one of their 8 reasons for voting no to Lisbon the first time around, but it is by no means the only.



Completely wrong.The council at the moment has a QMV system which give each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizens vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizens.

I don't quite see how it is false, although you could agree with the change itself.

As far as I was aware Germany's vote goes from 25 to 50, and Ireland's from 8 to 3. Is this wrong?

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't quite see how it is false, although you could agree with the change itself.

When then you are blind. Irelands vote is 3.75% in one criteria and 0.8% in another. The mean being roughly 2%. That is patently clear and stating our vote is decreased to 0.8% is a bare faced blatant lie.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As far as I was aware Germany's vote goes from 25 to 50, and Ireland's from 8 to 3. Is this wrong?

I'm not even following you now 25 to 50 and 8 to 3 what? percent? Where are those figures coming from?

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

When then you are blind. Irelands vote is 3.75% in one criteria and 0.8% in another. The mean being roughly 2%. That is patently clear and stating our vote is decreased to 0.8% is a bare faced blatant lie.



I'm not even following you now 25 to 50 and 8 to 3 what? percent? Where are those figures coming from?

No, I am not talking percentages, but number of seats in parliament (I think that the Irish number has already been reduced from 8 to 7, mind you)

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

You want to try and argue in this thread?

Also, on the voting weights, it has been shown using computer simulations both here (by ConorIRL, iirc) and on politics.ie that with the new QMV system Ireland gains some influence over medium-size states (e.g. with populations of ~10 million), but loses out slightly to bigger nations like Germany. In fact, the smallest nations benefit most from the new system (Malta being the big winner, iirc).

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, I am not talking percentages, but number of seats in parliament (I think that the Irish number has already been reduced from 8 to 7, mind you)

Ireland has been reduced from 13 to 12 along with reductions for almost every other country because the size of the parliament itself is being reduced and capped. It was 784 and it is being reduced and capped and 750 + the president. It's not a reduction per-see since our relative proportion of parliamentarians will be roughly maintained. And besides we're discussing the council not the parliament, it's confusing if you jump from one to the other without stating.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, I am not talking percentages, but number of seats in parliament (I think that the Irish number has already been reduced from 8 to 7, mind you)

From 13 to 12, which is why Dublin is a three-seater now - happens under Nice or Lisbon (which is why it's happening now). Never mind that MEPs don't vote on national lines anyway, but according to their Parliament grouping and their consciences - the latter being rather more than we can say for our TDs.

regards,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Incidentally, is everything that COIR say false as well?

http://www.lisbonvote.com/

sink

Also want to add that Germany's MEP's will also be reduced from 99 to 96 under Lisbon. I forgot to mention that little fact in my original reply.