The return of Declan Ganley

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

from quoted text
1.However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened..

So Germany's Constitutional Court made a ruling on German legal procedures..

bayviewclose wrote: »

2 Accusations of Euroskepticism and populism were soon levied at the CSU. A compromise was hammered out and all but the Left Party voted for the so-called accompanying law on Tuesday.

Sorry, still no concession made to 'Germany', one group of German politicians debated a change to German national law, and compromised with another group of German politicians. Concessions?

I think you're missing the point of that article. It has almost nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty, and all to do with the German political system.

Spiritoftheseventies

prinz wrote: »

So Germany's Constitutional Court made a ruling on German legal procedures..



Sorry, still no concession made to 'Germany', one group of German politicians debated a change to German national law, and compromised with another group of German politicians. Concessions?

I think you're missing the point of that article. It has almost nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty, and all to do with the German political system.

Sorry that article was linked to the Lisbon treaty if Im correct.

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry that article was linked to the Lisbon treaty if Im correct.

You're missing the point, intentionally I presume at this point. Could I ask you just what concession Germany received in your opinion? Or what in the article is directly applicable to the Lisbon Treaty and nothing else?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry that article was linked to the Lisbon treaty if Im correct.

It's no more a concession to Germany than the Crotty judgement was a concession to Ireland.

Spiritoftheseventies

"However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened."
What exactly is Germany's role here?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

"However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened."
What exactly is Germany's role here?

They are talking about the German Parliament's role, versus the German Government. Remarkably, in some countries, the two things aren't de facto the same.

Edit: my reading is wrong... see below...

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

"However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened."
What exactly is Germany's role here?

Germany's role is being Germany. The German Constitutional court can rule on whether Germany can ratify Lisbon, and under what conditions, just as the Irish Supreme Court ruled that ratification of the SEA required a referendum.

Scofflaw

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

"However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened." What exactly is Germany's role here?

The German Parliament's role in the implementation of European law as it applies to Germany, in Ireland the Dáil is responsible for implementing EU law in this country.

In Germany, because it is a federal country the regional parliaments etc, have a duty to implement EU law in each Lander. What the Constitutional Court decided IIRC was that power be shifted from the regional German parliaments to the centralised Bundestag..

This is not a concession. It is Germany deciding how best to implement EU law in Germany.

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Germany's role is being Germany. The German Constitutional court can rule on whether Germany can ratify Lisbon, and under what conditions, just as the Irish Supreme Court ruled that ratification of the SEA required a referendum.

Scofflaw

Fair enough. misread that as them influencing overall law in EU. No problems with that at at all so.

nacho libre

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Please do link to press releases or news about these

and who are they giving the money to

as far as I can see they are not even involved in ireland

I will not forget who Ganley is, and I will not allow his **** to be swept under the blanket! people like him are dangerous, one only needs to look at US for the 8 years it was under Bush regime to see an example of what happens when neo-cons + military get hold of a country

Im terrified of things that people like Ganley are capable of, and his record of lying, avoiding questions, not providing policies only underlines what a dangerous man he is

to be honest if you and other yes voters are confident in your debating skills and your knowledge of the treaty, i don't see what you have to fear from him in this second referendum. i think it is in his interest to sidetrack yes voters from discussing the contents of this treaty and making it into a mud-slinging personality contest. if i was you i'd be confident of this treaty passing because what is reasonating with people is the message from Cowen that the Lisbon treaty needs to be passed in order to aid our economic recovery, this will negate any tatic employed by Ganley in my opinion. if our economy wasn't in flux then things might be different.

as for these companies i mentioned, where did i imply they were involved in funding the yes campaign in ireland. it maybe so but i'm not aware of it. my point was that it is disingenous of you, while pointing out that Ganley is pro war, to continue to deny that there are other right-wing organisations who were also pro the Iraq war who are also pro this treaty.

it's well known that some european defense companies are keen for this treaty to pass and that the likes of the chairman of BP want to it pass.
why you must continue to deny these things i don't know.

prinz

nacho libre wrote: »

it's well known that some european defense companies are keen for this treaty to pass and that the likes of the chairman of BP want to it pass.
why you must continue to deny these things i don't know.

The chairman of BP wants it to pass.Big whoopee.So does the head of ICTU.
What's your point? As for your underhanded attempt to throw Iraq around as some sort of football in this debate - you may find that the only person involved personally in the Lisbon Treaty debate in Ireland gaining from the war in Iraq is one Declan Ganley. Go figure. Next the economy. The Treaty stands on it's own, regardless of how our economy is going, anybody who takes the time to learn how Europe was run,and how it will be run under Lisbon, will IMO vote yes, doesn't matter if we are boom or bust.

Sam Vimes

nacho libre wrote: »

to be honest if you and other yes voters are confident in your debating skills and your knowledge of the treaty, i don't see what you have to fear from him in this second referendum.

We're confident of our own debating skills but we're not confident of those of the government and we don't have access to large amounts of cash to start our own campaign to counter his lies. We can counter them on boards but there's only so much influence that can have

I would rather no one told any lies about this treaty for obvious reasons

is_that_so

nacho libre wrote: »

to be honest if you and other yes voters are confident in your debating skills and your knowledge of the treaty, i don't see what you have to fear from him in this second referendum. i think it is in his interest to sidetrack yes voters from discussing the contents of this treaty and making it into a mud-slinging personality contest. if i was you i'd be confident of this treaty passing because what is reasonating with people is the message from Cowen that the Lisbon treaty needs to be passed in order to aid our economic recovery, this will negate any tatic employed by Ganley in my opinion. if our economy wasn't in flux then things might be different.

I heard someone comment last week that we do not debate things properly, more often than not it's one entrenched position versus another. Referenda that involve a lot of emotion; abortion, divorce, Lisbon need a focal point. Ganley by dint of his profile provides that. Politically that makes him a target. What he says is important to some people and as we saw in Lisbon 1 he said a lot of things. On that alone he influences the debate and must be challenged.

I take your point about the need to debate the text and it is an ideal scenario but there are other elements to a campaign that do not involve detailed analysis of the issues. It is abundantly clear in referenda that there are an awful lot of people who do not engage with the issues and produce their own reasoning to vote as they do.

Campaigners like Ganley can have more impact on these types of voters because he uses messages and slogans that are easy to understand irrespective of how much truth lies behind them. He is also unashamedly tapping into the current national feeling for his own ends. That makes him dangerous and in my book "profoundly undemocratic".

nacho libre

prinz wrote: »

The chairman of BP wants it to pass.Big whoopee.So does the head of ICTU.
What's your point? As for your underhanded attempt to throw Iraq around as some sort of football in this debate - you may find that the only person involved personally in the Lisbon Treaty debate in Ireland gaining from the war in Iraq is one Declan Ganley. Go figure. Next the economy. The Treaty stands on it's own, regardless of how our economy is going, anybody who takes the time to learn how Europe was run,and how it will be run under Lisbon, will IMO vote yes, doesn't matter if we are boom or bust.

i'd argue that it does matter because regardless of the merits of voting yes, i believe if the economy was doing well it is likely those advocating a yes vote would have a harder task of convincing people to vote yes.
As Bill Clinton famously once said: it's the economy stupid.
people are associating the passing of the treaty as facilitating our economic recovery. with the economy in a state of flux, this is their primary concern, the fact that the EU will run more efficiently; have a charter of human rights; will make it harder for people traffickers to operate, is not the main consideration for most people who are going to vote yes to this treaty.

regarding your suggestion of underhand tactics on my part, if you had been reading all of this thread, you'll see i wasn't the first one to use Iraq as a "football". i merely asked the poster to acknowledge that as well as Ganley, there are also other right-wing people and companies advocating a yes vote who were also pro the Iraq war. Nowhere did i suggest there were Irish people involved on the yes side who profited from the Iraq war.

What i said was there are individuals and European defense companies who are pro this treaty for the same reasons Ganley is likely against it.

Anyway, to reiterate what i said earlier, I think it is far better to forensically take apart Ganley's lies rather than concentrate on who he is.

I think the government and opposition this time around are well capable of doing that, just as the yes voters on this forum are doing.

In the final analysis, I believe his slogans won't reasonate with the majority of the electorate this time because of the dire economic situation.

Sam Vimes

nacho libre wrote: »

Anyway, to reiterate what i said earlier, I think it is far better to forensically take apart Ganley's lies rather than concentrate on who he is.

We all know why these corporations are supporting Lisbon, their interests are obvious so any connections they have are irrelevant but because Declan Ganley does nothing but lie we have no idea why he actually opposes the treaty. By definition he has ulterior motives because none of his publicised motives are true.

People will be looking at Ganley and asking themselves "why would he lie?". They can see why the government would lie but Ganley doesn't appear to gain anything from a no vote, he just seems to be looking out for the Irish people. People will believe him until we show them what he's not telling us, his actual reasons for dedicating so much time, effort and money to burying this treaty under a pile of bullsh!t and you can bet your ass he's not doing it out of a love of the Irish people. People need to know why this guy is lying to us before they will believe that he is lying to us

O'Morris

Sam Vimes wrote:

We all know why these corporations are supporting Lisbon their interests are obvious

It's obvious that they're supporting the treaty because they see this as a good opportunity to make some powerful friends in Europe. If I was in their position I'd probably come out in favour of the treaty as well.

Sam Vimes wrote:

so any connections they have are irrelevant but because Declan Ganley does nothing but lie we have no idea why he actually opposes the treaty. By definition he has ulterior motives because none of his publicised motives are true.

How do you know his publicised motives aren't true?

ei.sdraob

O'Morris wrote: »

How do you know his publicised motives aren't true?

because he still hasnt produced a policy/vision/manifesto

which he can be judged against

oh and he lies and lies

Sam Vimes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh and he lies and lies

This.


Also

O'Morris wrote: »

It's obvious that they're supporting the treaty because they see this as a good opportunity to make some powerful friends in Europe. If I was in their position I'd probably come out in favour of the treaty as well.

I'd say that's at least part of Intel's motivation but I doubt Ryanair, IBEC etc are particularly bothered with that.

O'Morris wrote: »

How do you know his publicised motives aren't true?

To give one example, his last campaign had posters all over the country saying "Keep our commissioner, vote no" when presumably he knew that it was decided under Nice to reduce the size of the commission and Lisbon just defined exactly how it would be done. One would presume he also knew that the commissioners do not represent their country in Europe so he's not "our" commissioner, he's one of 27 EU commissioners. Regardless, the only way to keep our commissioner now is to vote yes because of the change the government got to override Nice and Lisbon.....and yet he's still against it.

ottobock

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

David Cochrane who own and runs politics.ie is the former communications director of Libertas. After Declan's defeat he wrote letter into the Irish Times stating that he was now going to vote YES to the Lisbon treaty on the basis that Ireland had secured a commissioner.

http://www.davidcochrane.ie/2009/06/letter-publishers-in-irishtimes-on-lisbon/

Isn't it a load of nonsense this "Irish Commissioner" thing, as if an Irish Commissioner is a "Commissioner for Ireland". Perhaps Mr David Cochrane always knew the correct way to vote was yes but joining Ganley's motly crew seemed such a good career move at the time

imokyrok

ottobock wrote: »

Isn't it a load of nonsense this "Irish Commissioner" thing, as if an Irish Commissioner is a "Commissioner for Ireland". Perhaps Mr David Cochrane always knew the correct way to vote was yes but joining Ganley's motly crew seemed such a good career move at the time

There certainly doesn't seem to be any love lost between them now. Cochrane referred to Ganlay as a hypocrite by twitter recently.

Happy Monday

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh and he lies and lies

A core competency of a Fianna Fail TD wouldn't you say?

K-9

Ganley wasn't his usual self tonight on Vincent Browne.

The no interrupting and No shouting down debates don't suit him.

meglome

Happy Monday wrote: »

A core competency of a Fianna Fail TD wouldn't you say?

Indeed. I'm sure Fianna Fail will get their medicine in the general election, I know I can't wait to serve some. In the meantime I'll be down voting Yes on Friday to this EU treaty.

ei.sdraob

Happy Monday wrote: »

A core competency of a Fianna Fail TD wouldn't you say?

Well at least Fianna Fail were elected by the people

thats more than can be said of a certain US Military Puppet