The return of Declan Ganley

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In other words, members of the upper and upper-middle classes, who just happen to be (according to the Irish Times polls) the biggest supporters of the Treaty.

I would argue that it's the people who are best informed who are the biggest supporters of the treaty, assuming they weren't against it from the start and only informed themselves as a means to find justification for their position that was never going to change. An example would be yourself

Maybe there is a correlation between class and how informed someone is but that's not RTE's fault either

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would argue that it's the people who are best informed who are the biggest supporters of the treaty, assuming they weren't against it from the start and only informed themselves as a means to find justification for their position that was never going to change. An example would be yourself

Maybe there is a correlation between class and how informed someone is but that's not RTE's fault either

Don't worry Declan Ganley the rejected working class hero is back to save the day...

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Elected by Laois-offaly - yes. But I question his legitimacy given we were clearly voting in 2007 on the understanding that Bertie would be Taoiseach.

I think I might just frame this post. You question the legitimacy of a vote because the people didn't fully know what they were voting for and were voting on the understanding that something was going to happen when it actually wasn't. Any time someone says a second referendum is undemocratic they're getting a link to that post

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I might just frame this post. You question the legitimacy of a vote because the people didn't fully know what they were voting for and were voting on the understanding that something was going to happen when it actually wasn't. Any time someone says a second referendum is undemocratic they're getting a link to that post

They had no reason to believe that they were going to get Brian Cowen as Taoiseach.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They had no reason to believe that they were going to get Brian Cowen as Taoiseach.

Surely it's "COWEN MEANS COWEN" and the fact that they voted for him on the understanding that his role would be different doesn't matter?

People had no reason to believe that conscription, abortion, taxation and neutrality were issues in the treaty or that it was self amending but they did anyway. They also believed that the treaty got rid of our commissioner when it just defined how it would be done. Significant numbers of people voted on the understanding that the Lisbon treaty did things that it actually didn't. Illegitimate vote?

Sam Vimes

Also I think it's very presumptuous for you to call the vote illegitimate just because they might not have known Cowen would become Taoiseach. Firstly he was next in line and Bertie couldn't hold on forever and if they were prepared to have him as their TD I don't see why they wouldn't want him as Taoiseach. They knew he'd be second in command and were fine with that

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Elected by Laois-offaly - yes. But I question his legitimacy given we were clearly voting in 2007 on the understanding that Bertie would be Taoiseach...

Given your nom de clavier, it is strange that you do not accept the legitimacy of the method our constitution sets out for the election of a Taoiseach.

You might not approve of Brian Cowen, but he has the appropriate mandate to be Taoiseach.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Given your nom de clavier, it is strange that you do not accept the legitimacy of the method our constitution sets out for the election of a Taoiseach.

You might not approve of Brian Cowen, but he has the appropriate mandate to be Taoiseach.

Is there not such a thing as moral-legitimacy that does not necessarily coincide with the legal position as regards what is allowed in our Constitution?

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Is there not such a thing as moral-legitimacy that does not necessarily coincide with the legal position as regards what is allowed in our Constitution?

What office was Declan Ganley elected to? To get back to the topic at hand.

Who elected him to speak for the 'No' campaign?

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What office was Declan Ganley elected to? To get back to the topic at hand.

Who elected him to speak for the 'No' campaign?

He wasn't elected that is true. But then neither is Olive Braiden (failed FF Dublin euro candidate 1994) yet it doesn't stop her founding "Women for Europe" or Olivia Buckley (former FF communications director 2002-7) of 'We Belong' (to FF?) from claiming a right to campaign for a no vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

He wasn't elected that is true. But then neither is Olive Braiden (failed FF Dublin euro candidate 1994) yet it doesn't stop her founding "Women for Europe" or Olivia Buckley (former FF communications director 2002-7) of 'We Belong' (to FF?) from claiming a right to campaign for a no vote.

Again with answering questions you weren't asked.

Who elected him to speak for (not campaign for) the 'No' Campaign?

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Again with answering questions you weren't asked.

Who elected him to speak for (not campaign for) the 'No' Campaign?

Noone because it's not a directly elected position. And neither, evidently, is being Taoiseach of this country. :rolleyes: I will say though that 100,000 votes and 5.4% of the electorate voting for you is something Joe Higgins and the SP can only dream of. It suggests Libertas would win seats in a GE. Again, the moral question comes into it. Can we say that someone who represents 100,000 people and 67,000 in NW should just go away after the first election? I don't think so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Noone because it's not a directly elected position. And neither, evidently, is being Taoiseach of this country. :rolleyes: I will say though that 100,000 votes and 5.4% of the electorate voting for you is something Joe Higgins and the SP can only dream of. It suggests Libertas would win seats in a GE. Again, the moral question comes into it. Can we say that someone who represents 100,000 people and 67,000 in NW should just go away after the first election? I don't think so.

He doesn't represent anyone in NW, he wasn't elected.

Livster

Him saying that he would not run for lisbon II was truth. The man was tired and run down and at the time of his statement it was 100% true. It is a basic human right to be able to change one's own mind. You can hardly deny a person that!

Livster

ei.sdraob wrote: »

his entitled to do whatever he pleases (within law of course)

but this just shows that his word means ****


btw have they still got around to publishing Libertas policies? its been 2-3 months after EU elections since their website promised to provide policies

not only do they not have policies but now we all know they cant be trusted in anything they say

Yes good point. Anyone is entitled to change their minds. That was his thinking at the time, he was after a very intense campaign and was tired. The last thing i am sure he wanted to do was go back campaigning. His words at the time were no doubt the truth. Time heals and people regain their energy. He changed his mind this is a basic human right and he is more than entitled to do so. I take it you are not happy with him exercising his basic human rights!

Livster

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they did respect the note vote, researched why people voted the way they did

and went back to eu to renegotiate and get agreements


Declan on the other hand had a pissy fit because, people not elected him, and then decided to ask for a recount which ended up proving that even less people voted for him


spot the difference!

the government are doing what people elected them to do

Libertas are unelected are doing what their military connections are telling them to do


which part of the word "democracy" do you not understand?

They got no agrrements they got clarifications of the treaty. Not one word was changed nor was anything they got legally binding in the European Court of Justice who make the decisions on these matters. They did comission a report on the reasons people voted no. They did not do anything about the major concerns and abortion was not even in the top 10 so why pretend that was a major reason for a no vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Livster wrote: »

They got no agrrements they got clarifications of the treaty. Not one word was changed nor was anything they got legally binding in the European Court of Justice who make the decisions on these matters. They did comission a report on the reasons people voted no. They did not do anything about the major concerns and abortion was not even in the top 10 so why pretend that was a major reason for a no vote.

What were the major concerns?

P. Breathnach

Livster wrote: »

Him saying that he would not run for lisbon II was truth. The man was tired and run down and at the time of his statement it was 100% true. It is a basic human right to be able to change one's own mind. You can hardly deny a person that!

Huh? One rule for Ganley, and another for everybody else: he is one of those on the no side who object to voters being given a chance to change their mind, even though circumstances have changed.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What were the major concerns?

For example, loss of power/domination by larger countries/loss of Irish identity. Those were ignored but were prominent in the govt research. Interestingly, 30% of no voters apparently referred to specific actual parts of the Treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

For example, loss of power/domination by larger countries/loss of Irish identity. Those were ignored but were prominent in the govt research. Interestingly, 30% of no voters apparently referred to specific actual parts of the Treaty.

So 70% didn't? And if you could convince 10% of that 70% to change their minds then that's the swing they need, that's democracy for you...

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They had no reason to believe that they were going to get Brian Cowen as Taoiseach.

No reason? That isn't true.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Noone because it's not a directly elected position. And neither, evidently, is being Taoiseach of this country. :rolleyes: I will say though that 100,000 votes and 5.4% of the electorate voting for you is something Joe Higgins and the SP can only dream of. It suggests Libertas would win seats in a GE. Again, the moral question comes into it. Can we say that someone who represents 100,000 people and 67,000 in NW should just go away after the first election? I don't think so.

Strange that you fully back Ganleys right but question Cowens.

Livster wrote: »

They got no agrrements they got clarifications of the treaty. Not one word was changed nor was anything they got legally binding in the European Court of Justice who make the decisions on these matters. They did comission a report on the reasons people voted no. They did not do anything about the major concerns and abortion was not even in the top 10 so why pretend that was a major reason for a no vote.

The main concern was "we didn't know enough about it!".

The guarantee on abortion covers areas of family law and education as well.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So 70% didn't? And if you could convince 10% of that 70% to change their minds then that's the swing they need, that's democracy for you...

The poll tomorrow night will help shed light on that. But that analysis on your part assumes no swing from yes to no, which I question. Some yes voters may regard the holding of the second referendum on an unamended treaty as undemocratic.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Some yes voters may regard the holding of the second referendum on an unamended treaty as undemocratic.

but it is fully democratic

if anything this is a great example of democracy in action, a referendum occured, the people were asked why they vote the way they did, and the concerns addressed with legal agreements

there is a precedent of such an event with the Edinburgh Agreement whicg granted exceptions to Denmark in their second referendum on Maastricht Treaty


was that undemocratic too?
did the eu not honor its agreements?
is a precedent not set?



FutureTaoiseach yourself and the NO side are clutching at straws now, our politicians listened to the people and went and gut us binding legal international agreements and clarifications of things that were ****ing already in the treaty


last Lisbon referendum the NO side has some interesting points, this time around i dont think your **** will fly or stick anymore

even your fella Libertas member has switched sides since he admits the concerns about commissioner have been met > http://www.davidcochrane.ie/2009/06/letter-publishers-in-irishtimes-on-lisbon/

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but it is fully democratic

if anything this is a great example of democracy in action, a referendum occured, the people were asked why they vote the way they did, and the concerns addressed with legal agreements

there is a precedent of such an event with the Edinburgh Agreement whicg granted exceptions to Denmark in their second referendum on Maastricht Treaty


was that undemocratic too?
did the eu not honor its agreements?
is a precedent not set?



FutureTaoiseach yourself and the NO side are clutching at straws now, our politicians listened to the people and went and gut us binding legal international agreements and clarifications of things that were ****ing already in the treaty


last Lisbon referendum the NO side has some interesting points, this time around i dont think your **** will fly or stick anymore

even your fella Libertas member has switched sides since he admits the concerns about commissioner have been met > http://www.davidcochrane.ie/2009/06/letter-publishers-in-irishtimes-on-lisbon/

The guarantees are not credible to me because they are not part of the EU treaties. We only have a statement that the EU/Irish givt 'attaches high importance' to workers-rights. Everyone admits that is not legally-binding - even the EU. Yet that was the single biggest reason for the no vote according to the poll. The no voters concerned about this deserve more than warm words about 'high important' from the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have not lived up to such "high value" in judgements from the ECJ like Laval and Viking.

As Mary Lou McDonald recently said on the Prime Time discussion on Lisbon, the decision on the Commissioner can be overturned at a later stage. And the Swedish PM has claimed there is a contingincy plan to allow all member states to retain a Commissioner even if there is a no vote. The politicians have also not listened to another major concern of the no voters revealed in the research, namely 'loss of identity/domination by large countries/loss of power'. They have done absolutely zero on that issue. One concern I have is the new voting system under which population weights are introduced to replace the numerical weighted-votes, reducing Ireland's voting-strength on the Council of Ministers. To form a blocking-minority, you will need 4 countries with over 35% of the EU's population between them. 11 small states would be unable to reach that blocking minority. The creation of the Presidency of the European Council is also a shift towards the Big States in terms of power because QMV will be used to appoint him (ironically referred to as an 'election') and this abolishes the old 6 monthly rotating presidency, which had treated all member states as equals. So we are becoming a less equal EU with this Treaty.

A lot of people on politics.ie wonder about DC's sudden change of heart after the Euro election. But if that is his position, then fair enough. I know that Naoise Nunn now works for John McGuinness TD (Fianna Fáil), and if you want work for these people, it doesn't help to be anti-Lisbon. The Edinburgh Agreement was different. For a start, unlike the 'guarantees', it gave Denmark 4 optouts i.e. the euro, Judicial Cooperation, European citizensship and the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Secondly, the provisions of Edinburgh became Protocols in the Amsterdam Treaty later on. We have only a political-promise from Fianna Fáil - the party of broken promises - that the supposedly 'legal guaranrees' will eventually be added as Protocols to a future Treaty. But there is reason to believe that will not happen. Firstly, it would require the agreement of whatever govts were in power in the 26 (+?) other member states in the EU at the time. That is not guaranteed. The promise of Protocols is not in itself, legally-binding. Secondly, Andrew Duff (pro-Lisbon UK Lib Dem MEP and self-described "militant federalist") and Paul Anthony McDermott have called the credibility of the guarantees into question. Duff claimed that adding Irish protocols to the Croatian or Icelandic Accession Tresties would be vulnerable to challenge in the courts:

Andrew Duff MEP wrote:

Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts...".

. Furthermore, eminent barrister Paul Anthony McDermott has called them "worthless", adding on Questions and Answers some months ago:

Paul Anthony McDermott wrote:

It's not clear they have any legal status...They are mumbo-jumbo. These legal guarantees - they're meaningless. The rest of Europe will sign up to anything if it gets them off the hook on Europe. But if you were ever to go to a court in Europe and try to rely on one of these pieces of paper you would be told "what article of the Treaty are you suing on and the answer would be I'm not suing on the Treaty, I'm suing on a piece of paper Ireland passed around the Council of Ministers and everyone signed up to it" so I'm certainly not a big fan of having another referendum..

There is also the thorny question of what happens to the 'guarantees' if Croatia or Iceland reject EU membership, which polls there suggest is likely in Iceland (now 48-34 against) and possible in Croatia (over 40% opposed to membership).

If the elites had wanted me to reconsider my no vote, then an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines ECJ interference in our asylum system, would have been an absolute precondition. Senator Eugene Regan suggested doing this after Lisbon I, but the govt didn't run with the idea. I speak as someone who had voted yes to Nice I and II and Amsterdam, and therefore part of the huge movement of former yes voters to the other side in Lisbon I. I am the kind of person the yes camp need to win over, and it's not happening at least where I am concerned.

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but it is fully democratic

if anything this is a great example of democracy in action, a referendum occured, the people were asked why they vote the way they did, and the concerns addressed with legal agreements

there is a precedent of such an event with the Edinburgh Agreement whicg granted exceptions to Denmark in their second referendum on Maastricht Treaty


was that undemocratic too?
did the eu not honor its agreements?
is a precedent not set?



FutureTaoiseach yourself and the NO side are clutching at straws now, our politicians listened to the people and went and gut us binding legal international agreements and clarifications of things that were ****ing already in the treaty


last Lisbon referendum the NO side has some interesting points, this time around i dont think your **** will fly or stick anymore

even your fella Libertas member has switched sides since he admits the concerns about commissioner have been met > http://www.davidcochrane.ie/2009/06/letter-publishers-in-irishtimes-on-lisbon/

Sorry wasn't Cochrane a communications director for Libertas. Not sure if that necessarily ties him down to party. Ganley has not come out with a statement. This the latest news on subject.
quoted texted
"The Libertas leader was at the centre of frantic speculation -- but little based on fact -- about a possible dramatic intervention in the referendum campaign."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/us-interview-sparks-rumours-of-ganley-comeback-1884894.html

FutureTaoiseach

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry wasn't Cochrane a communications director for Libertas. Not sure if that necessarily ties him down to party. Ganley has not come out with a statement. This the latest news on subject.
quoted texted
"The Libertas leader was at the centre of frantic speculation -- but little based on fact -- about a possible dramatic intervention in the referendum campaign."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/us-interview-sparks-rumours-of-ganley-comeback-1884894.html

Ganley has confirmed a full-scale return in an exclusive interview with this morning's Irish Daily Mail, according to my Libertas source. Must go buy it now.

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

We have only a political-promise from Fianna Fáil - the party of broken promises - that the supposedly 'legal guaranrees' will eventually be added as Protocols to a future Treaty. But there is reason to believe that will not happen. Firstly, it would require the agreement of whatever govts were in power in the 26 (+?) other member states in the EU at the time. That is not guaranteed. The promise of Protocols is not in itself, legally-binding.

This is tiresome. If Lisbon passes in Ireland the pledge to put the guarantees in a future treaty become a binding international agreement independent of the EU.

If you truly believe that the 26 other states will break that treaty (that spearate non-EU treaty) which contains only acknowledgements of things that are not in the Lisbon treaty, then there is no point in discussing the merits of any treaty because your position is that any state may ignore what it has signed up to.

In fact if you really think that is how international agreements work then I don't know why you are worried about Lisbon at all since logically if we disagree with something in it we can just ignore it!

Countries do not lightly sign such treaties, and future governments will honour them. And if they don't honour that treaty the whole trust behind signing any EU treaty is shattered and they all become meaningless.

I think for many No people that is their logic. The EU cannot be trusted. The states in the EU cannot be trusted. Therefore any treaty outside EU law canot be trusted either. However this logic is contradictory. If treaties were so casually broken EU treaties would have no meaning at all and there would be no point in us arguing at all!

Ix.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ganley has confirmed a full-scale return in an exclusive interview with this morning's Irish Daily Mail, according to my Libertas source.

so he cant take NO for an answer?

hypocrite!

next time i see another "the people have spoken" post here ill make sure to mention Ganley where the people have spoken and he ignored them, but he was never elected and has no mandate


@FutureTaoiseach

the guarantees given to Denmark during their second referendum were legally binding and never broken

the guarantees given to Ireland are legal international agreements, twist it whatever way you want but they are what they

you went on long post talking about something else, well done dodging a point, and bringing that joke of a politician Mary Lou McDonald into the paragraph



@bayviewclose
Cochrane leaving Libertas is a big blow for the NO side, perhaps you should read his letter where he writes how the concerns about the commissioner has been addressed in a democratic manner, here we have an intelligent man reasoning logically

/

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so he cant take NO for an answer?

hypocrite!

next time i see another "the people have spoken" post here ill make sure to mention Ganley where the people have spoken and he ignored them, but he was never elected and has no mandate


@FutureTaoiseach

the guarantees given to Denmark during their second referendum were legally binding and never broken

the guarantees given to Ireland are legal international agreements, twist it whatever way you want but they are what they

you went on long post talking about something else, well done dodging a point, and bringing that joke of a politician Mary Lou McDonald into the paragraph



@bayviewclose
Cochrane leaving Libertas is a big blow for the NO side, perhaps you should read his letter where he writes how the concerns about the commissioner has been addressed in a democratic manner, here we have an intelligent man reasoning logically

/

Yes Im sure as communications director he is a big blow. But does that tie him to Libertas.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes Im sure as communications director he is a big blow. But does that tie him to Libertas.

He was tied to them

now he claims hes not tied to them as he decided the concerns of the people have been met and switches sides

the domains are still in his name tho



theres not much to it now then so

Libertas have lost their "propaganda director"
to the YES side, thats best news i heard all week

So now we have an unelected rich bold guy who cant keep his own word and take no for an answer

thats the most hypocritical thing i heard all week