The return of Declan Ganley

PopeBuckfastXVI

I've no problem with Ganley campaigning.

I have a big problem with the major news outlets giving him a platform, despite the fact that he was roundly rejected by the voters.

mcaul

There's a big difference in what Ganley says & what Ganley does...

and its not just recent things

Back in 1999 he was going to be the Amazon of the Jewellery world with adornis.com



"Nua is also a significant shareholder in Adornis, an Irish-based start-up that aims to do for jewellery sales on the net what amazon.com did for book sales.

Adornis.com will headed by Galway entrepreneur Declan Ganley who said he has $61m in debt and equity for the venture."

The $61m figure was based on em er well, based on a walter mitty moment imo.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually, if there's one argument to be used against them, it is that they are liars, and they mostly just tell lies...

Well we can go round in circles talking about lies all day. Either way, Yes campaign got their second chance to pass this treaty. Dont know why Ganley is such a big issue here. Huge lead in yes vote. Current govt got in on a bunch of lies and did not see them having to go before people a second time round.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well we can go round in circles talking about lies all day. Either way, Yes campaign got their second chance to pass this treaty. Dont know why Ganley is such a big issue here. Huge lead in yes vote. Current govt got in on a bunch of lies and did not see them having to go before people a second time round.

It's not so much him, as the media treatment of him which irks me. There are plenty of elected people on the 'No' side to represent that position, Sinn Féin, Joe Higgins, People Before Profit councillors.

RTÉ, Today FM and others just give Ganley airspace, despite his lack of mandate, because they consider him more acceptable to their listening public. It's remarkable snobbery.

Bob_Harris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually, if there's one argument to be used against them, it is that they are liars, and they mostly just tell lies...

Yes we get it, the No side are liars and the Yes side are basking in truth and righteousness.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Yes we get it, the No side are liars and the Yes side are basking in truth and righteousness.

RTFP: I was talking specifically about Nigel Farage and Declan Ganley, not the 'No side'.

ei.sdraob

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Yes we get it, the No side are liars and the Yes side are basking in truth and righteousness.

come Luke join the Dark side of the force


ive still yet to see any posters from the YES side that are anywhere near what Coir are putting up, they are way of on the ridiculousness scale


as for Ganley he got to keep the useless commissioner, now what are his policies?

btw did any presenter ask him what his policies are and where they can be found?


edit: woot 1000+ posts! i need to get a life

Bob_Harris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

RTFP: I was talking specifically about Nigel Farage and Declan Ganley, not the 'No side'.

I was talking in terms of the debaters, not the populous.

MrJetlag

Well I'm voting No again and Im glad to see Declan back.

its the same treaty that we rejected.

This is typical Fianna Fail - if the people say no keep asking them until they say yes.

As for those so called guarantees they got for Lisbon 2

Just ask the Farmers and The fishermen about their water tight guarantees.

They really worked out well for them !

oscarBravo

MrJetlag wrote: »

Just ask the Farmers and The fishermen about their water tight guarantees.

What guarantees are those?

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

What guarantees are those?

I think you are supposed to ask the farmers and the fishermen. I suppose that is because MrJetlag doesn't know.

MrJetlag

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you are supposed to ask the farmers and the fishermen. I suppose that is because MrJetlag doesn't know.

Farming

Reps Scheme

REPS was introduced by the EU in 1992 to change farming practices which were damaging the environment.
REPS 4 is paid 55% by the EU and 45% by the Irish Exchequer.
The previous schemes were mainly funded by the EU, 75% to 25%.
Farmers had a reasonable expectation that this scheme would continue, they had modified their farming practices to comply with its requirements, many had made substantial on-farm investments and then the Government pulled the plug on an EU Scheme without any prior notice. By doing so they have reneged on a contract with both Irish farmers and the EU and threatened the viability of farming especially in the small farm areas.

Fishing

Lisbon represents the final nail in the coffin for coastal communities and the
populations that depend on our indigenous fishing industry. Control of national
fisheries was handed over to Brussels on our accession to the EEC in 1973 in
exchange for what was believed to be a good deal for farming within the CAP.
The division of quotas has led to a situation where Ireland’s fishing waters
account for around 12% of the EU fishery but Irish fishermen are currently
allowed only around 4% of the EU quota.
The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the worst examples of a centralised EU
policy. It is backward-looking, inflexible and completely detrimental to the
survival, let alone, the development of fishing communities of Ireland.

PopeBuckfastXVI

MrJetlag wrote: »

Fishing

Lisbon represents the final nail in the coffin for coastal communities and the
populations that depend on our indigenous fishing industry.

Really?

What article in Lisbon represents the final nail in the coffin?

prinz

Ironic statement of the day comes from Declan Ganley..

“We’ve a big enough problem with the Government that we have. If you vote yes you reinforce Brian Cowen’s sellout of this country’s interests to unelected elites in Europe,” Mr Ganley concluded.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0914/breaking42.htm

....so says the chauffeur driven millionaire who failed to get elected...

P. Breathnach

MrJetlag wrote: »

Farming

Reps Scheme

REPS was introduced by the EU in 1992 to change farming practices which were damaging the environment.
REPS 4 is paid 55% by the EU and 45% by the Irish Exchequer.
The previous schemes were mainly funded by the EU, 75% to 25%.
Farmers had a reasonable expectation that this scheme would continue, they had modified their farming practices to comply with its requirements, many had made substantial on-farm investments and then the Government pulled the plug on an EU Scheme without any prior notice. By doing so they have reneged on a contract with both Irish farmers and the EU and threatened the viability of farming especially in the small farm areas.

A "reasonable expectation" is not a watertight promise -- although I agree that farmers did indeed have a reasonable expectation. I see that you recognise that it was our own government that declined to continue the scheme.

Fishing

Lisbon represents the final nail in the coffin for coastal communities and the
populations that depend on our indigenous fishing industry. Control of national
fisheries was handed over to Brussels on our accession to the EEC in 1973 in
exchange for what was believed to be a good deal for farming within the CAP.
The division of quotas has led to a situation where Ireland’s fishing waters
account for around 12% of the EU fishery but Irish fishermen are currently
allowed only around 4% of the EU quota.
The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the worst examples of a centralised EU
policy. It is backward-looking, inflexible and completely detrimental to the
survival, let alone, the development of fishing communities of Ireland.

The deal on fisheries goes right back, as you recognise, to the accession negotiations. I remember that fishing interests in Ireland were much exercised by it at the time. It was also the case that the Irish fishing industry was seriously underdeveloped then, which itself is part of the reason why our quotas are on the low side: we had a low baseline. But where are the watertight promises that were broken?

I agree that the CFP is probably very bad (for fishing interests in general, not just for Irish fishing interests). Much of what is wrong is due to bad politics within the EU. I suspect that if each maritime member of the EU ran its own fisheries policy, things would not be any better.

oscarBravo

MrJetlag wrote: »

Farmers had a reasonable expectation that this scheme would continue...

Ah. So your "water tight guarantee" was actually a "reasonable expectation". I think I see a chink in your logic.

What "water tight guarantee" (or was it a "reasonable expectation"?) did the fishermen get?

Martin 2

MrJetlag wrote: »

Farming

Reps Scheme

REPS was introduced by the EU in 1992 to change farming practices which were damaging the environment.
REPS 4 is paid 55% by the EU and 45% by the Irish Exchequer.
The previous schemes were mainly funded by the EU, 75% to 25%.
Farmers had a reasonable expectation that this scheme would continue, they had modified their farming practices to comply with its requirements, many had made substantial on-farm investments and then the Government pulled the plug on an EU Scheme without any prior notice. By doing so they have reneged on a contract with both Irish farmers and the EU and threatened the viability of farming especially in the small farm areas.

Still don't see what watertight guarantees you're talking about in relation to farming and fishing.
Your explanation seems to point out that it was the Irish government and not the EU that pulled the plug on Reps. The Irish Farmer's Association (IFA) are backing a Yes; what's more in the recent Red C survey, 75% of farmers polled intend to vote yes and 25% no, it would seem that farmers consider the EU and Lisbon to be good for farming.

MrJetlag wrote: »

Fishing

Lisbon represents the final nail in the coffin for coastal communities and the
populations that depend on our indigenous fishing industry. Control of national
fisheries was handed over to Brussels on our accession to the EEC in 1973 in
exchange for what was believed to be a good deal for farming within the CAP.
The division of quotas has led to a situation where Ireland’s fishing waters
account for around 12% of the EU fishery but Irish fishermen are currently
allowed only around 4% of the EU quota.
The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the worst examples of a centralised EU
policy. It is backward-looking, inflexible and completely detrimental to the
survival, let alone, the development of fishing communities of Ireland.

This text is taken verbatim from The People's Movement : http://www.people.ie/contreaty/fish1.pdf so in the interest of balance here is some information on fisheries from the talktoeu website: http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/
In the last sentence it mentions that "The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the worst examples of a centralised EUpolicy" however Proinsias De Rossa (MEP) has outlined recently how Lisbon decentralises fishery policy by the establishment of Regional Fisheries Advisory Councils: http://www.derossa.com/showPage.php?ID=2426&PHPSESSID=8b550a93dd0687a63dfe34b317e98b6e

Mr De Rossa said, "The Lisbon Treaty makes three positive changes to the current treaties as far as fishing is concerned. I believe these will be of considerable benefit to fishing communities in the North and West and all round the Irish coast.
“First, ‘Regional Fisheries Advisory Councils’, comprised of local communities representatives would be set up to provide a more direct input in EU fishing policy negotiations. As the European Parliament's Fisheries Committee has observed, these Councils would represent a 'step toward returning the administration of the fisheries sector to a more local level of decision-making'....

Happy Monday

prinz wrote: »

Ironic statement of the day comes from Declan Ganley..



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0914/breaking42.htm

....so says the chauffeur driven millionaire who failed to get elected...

But Declan is paying for the chauffeur himself - not expecting the tax payer to stump up for ministers taxi fares between terminals a la John O'Donoghoe.

Plus his anti Lisbon position was vindicated when Ireland first voted on this treaty - Cowen's wasn't.

Will we get a best of 3 play off decider in another 18 months if people vote yes this time around?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happy Monday wrote: »

Will we get a best of 3 play off decider in another 18 months if people vote yes this time around?

Wow... I never thought of that before, best of 3, hilarious, did you make that up yourself?

Bob_Harris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Wow... I never thought of that before, best of 3, hilarious, did you make that up yourself?

PopeBuckfast, your attitude would turn a neutral into a No voter, just to spite you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Bob_Harris wrote: »

PopeBuckfast, your attitude would turn a neutral into a No voter, just to spite you.

A vote well used then...

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aboards.ie+%22european+union%22+%22best+of+three%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=site%3Aboards.ie+%22european+union%22+%22best+of+three%22&fp=d201e90ebf28d963

force eleven

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Wow... I never thought of that before, best of 3, hilarious, did you make that up yourself?

Do you not, as a Yes advocator, find it even a tiny bit undemocratic, that a decision that was made by the electorate, not once , but twice (Nice 1,Lisbon 1) was essentially ignored, and no effort, apart from pious utterings about trying to understand why people said no, made to radically change things. Or changes anything in the Treaty?

As a nation, I argue, we are viewed as a soft touch, and therefore not likely protest or show dissent to something like this. It is not something you would have seen in France or Holland, had things been different. Therefore, we vote again, and again.

I find my will to actually vote on anything ever again is seriously undermined by all of this.

prinz

Happy Monday wrote: »

But Declan is paying for the chauffeur himself - not expecting the tax payer to stump up for ministers taxi fares between terminals a la John O'Donoghoe.

Er, taxpayers pay for politicians representing the country..... not private citizens

Happy Monday wrote: »

Plus his anti Lisbon position was vindicated when Ireland first voted on this treaty - Cowen's wasn't. Will we get a best of 3 play off decider in another 18 months if people vote yes this time around?

Between Cowen and Ganley, only one of them was elected to a position to decide national policy.... and it wasn't Ganley. So what is this about the "unelected European elites" - seems to me Ganley is the very living embodiment of that he claims to abhor.

PopeBuckfastXVI

force eleven wrote: »

Do you not, as a Yes advocator, find it even a tiny bit undemocratic, that a decision that was made by the electorate, not once , but twice (Nice 1,Lisbon 1) was essentially ignored, and no effort, apart from pious utterings about trying to understand why people said no, made to radically change things. Or changes anything in the Treaty?

As a nation, I argue, we are viewed as a soft touch, and therefore not likely protest or show dissent to something like this. It is not something you would have seen in France or Holland, had things been different. Therefore, we vote again, and again.

I find my will to actually vote on anything ever again is seriously undermined by all of this.

I would consider it undemocratic if Lisbon was ratified against the will of the people.

Now a question for you, did the 'Yes' to Nice II represent the will of the people, and did it justify the holding of the referendum?

oscarBravo

Happy Monday wrote: »

Will we get a best of 3 play off decider in another 18 months if people vote yes this time around?

Absolutely. All you have to do is elect a government that's committed to a referendum to repeal our ratification of the treaty.

You do know how referenda work under our constitution, don't you?

Stark

force eleven wrote: »

Do you not, as a Yes advocator, find it even a tiny bit undemocratic, that a decision that was made by the electorate, not once , but twice (Nice 1,Lisbon 1) was essentially ignored, and no effort, apart from pious utterings about trying to understand why people said no, made to radically change things. Or changes anything in the Treaty?

If the result of Nice I had been ignored, then Nice I would have been ratified as it stood regardless of what people who turned out to vote (note, only a small proportion of the electorate voted in Nice I) decided. The two major issues in Nice I were the concerns over neutrality and the low turnout. The neutrality issue was addressed by the Seville declarations for Nice II and a much higher proportion of the electorate turned out meaning Nice II represented the views of far more people than Nice I did. The Lisbon I issues (not knowing enough, concerns over abortion, taxation ,neutrality and the commissioner) have been addressed through additional time to read the treaty, changes to commission proposals meaning we get to keep a commissioner and guarantees to be submitted to the UN regarding abortion, neutrality and taxation.

prinz

force eleven wrote: »

Do you not, as a Yes advocator, find it even a tiny bit undemocratic, that a decision that was made by the electorate, not once , but twice (Nice 1,Lisbon 1) was essentially ignored, and no effort, apart from pious utterings about trying to understand why people said no, made to radically change things. Or changes anything in the Treaty?

Are you trying to say Nice and Lisbon are the same thing? They did make an effort to understand why people said no, hence the guarantees. Essentially we are voting on a different package now, so it's not in the least bit undemocratic.

force eleven wrote: »

I find my will to actually vote on anything ever again is seriously undermined by all of this.

Frankly I welcome that.

Hippo

force eleven wrote: »

Do you not, as a Yes advocator, find it even a tiny bit undemocratic, that a decision that was made by the electorate, not once , but twice (Nice 1,Lisbon 1) was essentially ignored, and no effort, apart from pious utterings about trying to understand why people said no, made to radically change things. Or changes anything in the Treaty?

As a nation, I argue, we are viewed as a soft touch, and therefore not likely protest or show dissent to something like this. It is not something you would have seen in France or Holland, had things been different. Therefore, we vote again, and again.

I find my will to actually vote on anything ever again is seriously undermined by all of this.

If you reject a treaty, and in time your concerns about it are addressed, and the treaty is then put once again to a public vote, what is undemocratic about that? Just vote against it again if you want. I don't understand this 'No' argument.

FunnyStuff

prinz wrote: »

They did make an effort to understand why people said no, hence the guarantees. Essentially we are voting on a different package now

Actually no we're not, same treaty. Guarantees only become law where written into protocol, which wont be for another few years. So as it stands, it is the same package.

ei.sdraob

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Actually no we're not, same treaty. Guarantees only become law where written into protocol, which wont be for another few years. So as it stands, it is the same package.

Denmark were given guarantees as well in their second referendum on the Maastricht Treaty


please do answer the following:

* were the exceptions and guarantees broken by other EU members in respect to Denmark

* does that not set and identical precedent