Ganley concedes

cornbb

Robbo wrote: »

What odds him appearing in Galway East in a General election?

I wouldn't rule it out. Unlikely that he'd run though I think, and getting elected seems highly unlikely. He can only talk about one thing - the EU - and he couldn't even get elected as an MEP. In Michael O'Leary's words, he wants to be Dana and can't even manage that.

I reckon he'll turn his attention to trying to block Lisbon elsewhere in Europe.

ei.sdraob

cornbb wrote: »

he wants to be Dana and can't even manage that.

I reckon he'll turn his attention to trying to block Lisbon elsewhere in Europe.

him?

you mean his US Militaty overlords and neocon buddies...

Oafley Jones

PaulieD wrote: »

He really gets you europhiles riled up, doesnt he. A heavily backed eurosceptic party would get 10-15% in a general election.

Remember how well the heavily backed eurosceptic Libertas candidates did in European elections - an election i think you'd agree which is far better at gauging how the Irish stand on the European issue.

Euro_Kraut

Robbo wrote: »

What odds him appearing in Galway East in a General election?

I think he will run but will not be elected. He is not involved in the community there. His own polling station voted 70% YES.

Stark

Next point of call, Czech republic. "Ooh, l33t rejection Mr. Klaus". "Mmm, yes it was, wasn't it".

jacool

TelePaul wrote: »

Do you want some cheese with your 'whine'

Not really, just correcting something incorrect that's all.
Glad to see you have to laugh at your attempt at a joke.
Get out of the house and hug another YES voter - there's loads of you out there!

free-man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

him?

you mean his US Militaty overlords and neocon buddies...

That tin foil hat really doesn't suit you

Conspiracy forums are over here =======>

ei.sdraob

free-man wrote: »

That tin foil hat really doesn't suit you

Conspiracy forums are over here =======>

yeh :rolleyes:

Jip

jacool wrote: »

Get out of the house and hug another YES voter - there's loads of you out there!

Shouldn't be too hard, as there's about twice as many as
yourself, although most of the other No crowd will probably be a little more gracious.

Carstuck

cornbb wrote: »

That man is foul. He is still like a bad smell, and manages to sound sinister and cynical even after losing.

He actually admitted that he didn't win, unlike Cowen last year. I say if he was in the campaign earlier he might have had a chance, after all he did manage to overthrow 3 main parties last year, which is an achievement in itself. If everyone hates him so much why did they believe him last time?

jacool

Jip wrote: »

Shouldn't be too hard, as there's about twice as many as
yourself, although most of the other No crowd will probably be a little more gracious.

Its got nothing to do with being gracious. I merely pointed out a factual inaccuracy, seeing as this was what the YES vote were saying about the NO campaigns lies (and I am not defending those!). I was very gracious in victory last time round, so I feel quite balanced about the whole thing now! As I've said elsewhere it'll take 10 years for the fall out to do exactly that.

OldJay

free-man wrote: »

That tin foil hat really doesn't suit you

Conspiracy forums are over here =======>

Ganley is a defence contractor with the US military and has contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Are you denying this?

Irish and Proud

namloc1980 wrote: »

"We have not succeeded but we did tell the truth" LOL fair play Declan

...and the YES side was fair and honest! :rolleyes:

I am a democrat and there is no way I can say this referendum was fair - especially looking at newspapers and corporate advertisements. The Metro however, was fair and balanced - credit has to be given there. Back to the point, God only knows how much money the YES camp got, while they apply their usual double standards in accusing Declan Ganley. It is also interesting that most big business (including multi-nationals) were all for Lisbon - I wonder why? :rolleyes:

The YES advertisement which appeared on the Hearld AM (one day before polling) was a blatant example of the money that the Yes camp had. To me, it seems that democracy in this country is dead - money is what speaks, not the people's wishes!

Well, if money is the language that big business and politicians understand, then that is the language we as ordinary people should use. We should not listen anymore to the media telling us what to buy or wear etc, and instead, get what we want, when we want it, and at the price we want. We can't do such for everything, but we can certainly do so as much as possible. That's the attitude I have when I'm shopping! By not playing the game big business wants us to play, we erode their control and eventually win back our democracy!

We can say No to Lisbon no more, but we can say No to big business and their mechanisms of control!

BTW I was originally from a FF background, but now I say:

No to FF
No to FG
No to Lab
No to GP

Get them out!!!

I'm voting Socialist the next time - they have to be better than the above four political parties!

Stark

Irish and Proud wrote:

We should not listen anymore to the media telling us what to buy or wear etc, and instead, get what we want, when we want it, and at the price we want. We can't do such for everything, but we can certainly do so as much as possible. That's the attitude I have when I'm shopping!

Aren't you a good little shop around consumer.

http://xkcd.com/610/ tbh.

seamus

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I am a democrat and there is no way I can say this referendum was fair - especially looking at newspapers and corporate advertisements.

How does corporate backing of a particular stance make a referendum unfair? Corporations don't get to vote, individuals do.

Back to the point, God only knows how much money the YES camp got, while they apply their usual double standards in accusing Declan Ganley.

The political parties will be required to declare the source of all their funding, as they do every year. Libertas on the other hand have never declared the source of their funding, despite insisting that the other political parties declare theirs. When asked to reveal the source of their funding, Declan Ganley hid behind the fact that he was not required to declare this information. I wouldn't defend Declan Ganley in relation to double standards. You're onto a loser there.

It is also interesting that most big business (including multi-nationals) were all for Lisbon - I wonder why?

Ireland occupies a useful point for multi-nationals. We are an open economy with low corporate taxation with a perfect geographical location right between the US and EU. Companies can base here and benefit from low taxation, and by basing here they have free access to EU markets, while at the same time are within spitting distance of the USA. A stable EU provides greater consumer confidence within that free market and therefore more stable profits for companies trading in the EU. Why wouldn't they support a Yes vote when a No vote leaves the EU in a less certain position?

We should not listen anymore to the media telling us what to buy or wear etc, and instead, get what we want, when we want it, and at the price we want.

You're trying to start a revolution against nothing, really. Nobody has your hand tied behind your back, forcing you (or anyone else) to buy the things you see advertised. "Big business" is big because people choose to buy their products. You can argue about media brainwashng, but that's the human being for you. In any case, the individual always has a choice, and that is the very essence of democracy. The ideals behind capitalism are in fact one of the purer forms of democracy - everyone chooses to consume what they want and how they want, and the choices of the people determine what's available in the market. Pure socialism by contrast creates virtual constructs which make decisions on behalf of the people and requires adherence to certain policies in particular areas.

meglome

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...and the YES side was fair and honest! :rolleyes:

Fairer and honester* certainly (* may not be a real word)

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I am a democrat and there is no way I can say this referendum was fair - especially looking at newspapers and corporate advertisements. The Metro however, was fair and balanced - credit has to be given there. Back to the point, God only knows how much money the YES camp got, while they apply their usual double standards in accusing Declan Ganley. It is also interesting that most big business (including multi-nationals) were all for Lisbon - I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Yeah the poor No campaign with their majority of the posters around my way. Where did these small groups get all that money?
I don't want to speak for you but isn't the No campaign line normally that there isn't anything in the treaty that does anything for the recession or jobs, so what are the multi-nationals getting out of it?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

The YES advertisement which appeared on the Hearld AM (one day before polling) was a blatant example of the money that the Yes camp had. To me, it seems that democracy in this country is dead - money is what speaks, not the people's wishes!

Ban all the ads I say. How do you think the No campaign would spread all that bull then?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well, if money is the language that big business and politicians understand, then that is the language we as ordinary people should use. We should not listen anymore to the media telling us what to buy or wear etc, and instead, get what we want, when we want it, and at the price we want. We can't do such for everything, but we can certainly do so as much as possible. That's the attitude I have when I'm shopping! By not playing the game big business wants us to play, we erode their control and eventually win back our democracy!

You could, I suppose, just read the treaty's.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

We can say No to Lisbon no more, but we can say No to big business and their mechanisms of control!

Can I assume you're going to create the jobs instead?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

BTW I was originally from a FF background,...

Ah so it's you that's responsible for the situation we're in. No one else seems to be admitting it.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

No to FF
No to FG
No to Lab
No to GP

Get them out!!!

I'm voting Socialist the next time - they have to be better than the above four political parties!

You really think that voting socialist instead of Fianna Fail will fix anything. Dear god I fear for us all.

Irish and Proud

meglome wrote: »

Fairer and honester* certainly (* may not be a real word)

Well, time will tell if Lisbon is implemented!

meglome wrote: »

Yeah the poor No campaign with their majority of the posters around my way. Where did these small groups get all that money?
I don't want to speak for you but isn't the No campaign line normally that there isn't anything in the treaty that does anything for the recession or jobs, so what are the multi-nationals getting out of it?

Well, in most areas I've seen, the good majority of posters were those of the YES campaign. Also, did you see the cover Advert on the Hearld AM - on the 1st Oct? Regarding multi-nationals, do you think they really care about Ireland? A more centralised EU would make it far easier for the multi-nationals to lobby for things that favour their interests - once elected, who do you think mainstream politicians serve: people or business? Look at our society will you!

meglome wrote: »

Ban all the ads I say. How do you think the No campaign would spread all that bull then?

And neither would the YES campaign with all their aggressive adverts!

meglome wrote: »

You could, I suppose, just read the treaty's.

I heard that the wording is rather vague - like what is a "terrorist threat"? Who would define a "terrorist threat"? Who would interpret this treaty document? I myself have been very busy so I didn't have time to read the document. The question might be, what do many pro-Lisbon people (who seem to have loads of time on these forums) be doing during the day?

meglome wrote: »

Can I assume you're going to create the jobs instead?

Maybe, people should start thinking outside the box - many seemed brainwashed by the current economic system! To give you a clue, our current global economic system is a system of control - a system that allows an elite few to prosper at the expense of ordinary people and those of the third world. Our world is broken and corrupt - we need a new world order that is fair and democratic!

meglome wrote: »

Ah so it's you that's responsible for the situation we're in. No one else seems to be admitting it.

I said I was from a FF background - a background in which people traditionally voted for FF. It was FF that created the mess! It was FF that abused our trust, and I for one will not trust them again unless there is a complete overhaul (including the ousting of all dynasties) of the party - something I guess is quite unlikely.

meglome wrote: »

You really think that voting socialist instead of Fianna Fail will fix anything. Dear god I fear for us all.

Well, at least they respect democracy! As a democrat, how the hell could I vote for undemocratic parties like FF, FG, Lab and GP? SF - I'm still not sure what they're about, so I'm going for the Socialist Party - it's all there is at the moment!

In any case, we need a new mainstream democratic party!

For now, I'm voting Socialist!

ei.sdraob

Irish and Proud wrote: »

In any case, we need a new mainstream democratic party!

For now, I'm voting Socialist!

once the commies get a foothold

they would never leave peacefully and would damage the country into hell

case in point:

* Cuba
* North Korea

voting in people who only pay lip service to democracy is madness, go read a book on the history of the 20th century to see what happens

cornbb

Carstuck wrote: »

He actually admitted that he didn't win, unlike Cowen last year. I say if he was in the campaign earlier he might have had a chance, after all he did manage to overthrow 3 main parties last year, which is an achievement in itself. If everyone hates him so much why did they believe him last time?

I think the No side won the first time despite Ganley's support, not because of it. Well, maybe they believed the posters he paid for, but I don't believe the man was ever popular himself. "Overthrowing" parties is a total misnomer - when Ganley himself (and not his no-to-lisbon platform) went up against the electorate, he failed miserably.

Cowen admitted that he didn't win the first time around - it took him a while to go off and secure guarantees, prepare for round 2 etc. Cowen is neither a masterful politician nor a popular man, so if you are comparing Ganley to him you are not exactly setting your sights very high.

Scofflaw

cornbb wrote: »

I think the No side won the first time despite Ganley's support, not because of it. Well, maybe they believed the posters he paid for, but I don't believe the man was ever popular himself. "Overthrowing" parties is a total misnomer - when Ganley himself (and not his no-to-lisbon platform) went up against the electorate, he failed miserably.

Cowen admitted that he didn't win the first time around - it took him a while to go off and secure guarantees, prepare for round 2 etc. Cowen is neither a masterful politician nor a popular man, so if you are comparing Ganley to him you are not exactly setting your sights very high.

I wonder about this, myself - my feeling is that while people may not have trusted Ganley himself, he certainly lent momentum to the No campaign, and an air of excitement and purpose that's often lacking. A fairground barker role, if you like - you may not trust him, and you're certainly not going to vote him onto the local council, but he does get you into the circus tent.

I also wonder about the extent to which he was instrumental behind the scenes in coordinating the No campaigns - for a very minimal value of "coordinating".

cordially,
Scofflaw

drkpower

cornbb wrote: »

I think the No side won the first time despite Ganley's support, not because of it. Well, maybe they believed the posters he paid for, but I don't believe the man was ever popular himself. "Overthrowing" parties is a total misnomer - when Ganley himself (and not his no-to-lisbon platform) went up against the electorate, he failed miserably.

Cowen admitted that he didn't win the first time around - it took him a while to go off and secure guarantees, prepare for round 2 etc. Cowen is neither a masterful politician nor a popular man, so if you are comparing Ganley to him you are not exactly setting your sights very high.

While Lisbon I was probably lost more than it was won, there is little doubt that Ganley's involvement was significant. I agree with some of Scofflaw's points (above) but I also think he helped 'respectable-ise" a No vote amongst the middle classes by presenting a non-socialist face and a non-socialist argument to the No campaign. Other then him, the No campaign was led by the usual SF/SWP faces, faces the average middle class voter will not follow.

cornbb

The man can certainly speak eloquently. He's also a master of spin and lies. He would be better for any campaign if he was left in the background, namelessly pulling strings. He is just perceived as untrustworthy, except amongst a small minority, even in his own "locality". Hence any real political ambitions are going to be wasted. Money can only go so far. The man is devoid of the sort of charisma that it takes to get elected.

drkpower

cornbb wrote: »

The man can certainly speak eloquently. He's also a master of spin and lies. He would be better for any campaign if he was left in the background, namelessly pulling strings. He is just perceived as untrustworthy, except amongst a small minority, even in his own "locality". Hence any real political ambitions are going to be wasted. Money can only go so far. The man is devoid of the sort of charisma that it takes to get elected.

Thats a tad inaccurate.

He wast a million miles away from getting a seat in a predominantly rural (FF-FG- dominated) 3 seater Euro constituency coming from a position of relative obscurity with a new start-up party with no history in local/Irish politics campaigning on essentially a single issue. All things considered, it would have been pretty remarkable if he had won a seat.

Ganley certainly has 'something of the night' about him, but making silly unfounded claims about his potential charisma/electabilitydoes you no favours. His charisma is one of his strong points; but then again, it was one of Hitler's too....:eek:

cornbb

drkpower wrote: »

Thats a tad inaccurate.

He wast a million miles away from getting a seat in a predominantly rural (FF-FG- dominated) 3 seater Euro constituency coming from a position of relative obscurity with a new start-up party with no history in local/Irish politics campaigning on essentially a single issue. All things considered, it would have been pretty remarkable if he had won a seat.

Ganley certainly has 'something of the night' about him, but making silly unfounded claims about his potential charisma/electabilitydoes you no favours. His charisma is one of his strong points; but then again, it was one of Hitler's too....:eek:

I accept what you say, I agree the man has some sort of charisma, but not the sort of charisma that would see him elected. I wouldn't mind having him fight my corner in, say, matters of business or law, but I really can't see him charming people into trusting him and thence getting elected. He is just plain untrustworthy. Having said all that, perhaps I'm just relying on my own perceptions of Ganley and failing to gauge the public mood. All of this is ignoring the fact that he has never expressed any sort of opinion/ideology about anything except Lisbon. Although I concede that the small matter of ideology doesn't matter much to the electorate in this country...

Sam Vimes

cornbb wrote: »

He is just perceived as untrustworthy, except amongst a small minority, even in his own "locality"

English people don't like him?

Irish and Proud

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once the commies get a foothold

they would never leave peacefully and would damage the country into hell

case in point:

* Cuba
* North Korea

voting in people who only pay lip service to democracy is madness, go read a book on the history of the 20th century to see what happens

...and look at the records of both France and Germany - the very two countries that want to play a leading role in EU matters. Remember, Lisbon overrides the German constitution, and Lisbon is a Germany friendly treaty!!!

Regards!

Stark

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Remember, Lisbon overrides the German constitution, and Lisbon is a Germany friendly treaty!!!

No it doesn't, it doesn't override anyone's constitution. That's just yet another myth surrounding the treaty.

P. Breathnach

Irish and Proud wrote: »

... Remember, Lisbon overrides the German constitution, and Lisbon is a Germany friendly treaty!!!

Telling lies like that did not prevent the Irish electorate from voting yes. Now that the decision has been made, I don't really see a point in continuing to spread such untruths.

Scofflaw

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...and look at the records of both France and Germany - the very two countries that want to play a leading role in EU matters. Remember, Lisbon overrides the German constitution, and Lisbon is a Germany friendly treaty!!!

Regards!

You should phone the German Constitutional Court immediately and set them straight.

amused,
Scofflaw

View

cornbb wrote: »

I think the No side won the first time despite Ganley's support, not because of it. Well, maybe they believed the posters he paid for, but I don't believe the man was ever popular himself.

Well, the posters unquestionably had an effect in Lisbon I. Subtract the Libertas spend and related influence on the result and it would have required a relatively small swing to have passed Lisbon I. A swing of around 3 in 100 voters would have done.

As such, it is amusing to see the No posters here suddenly upset at all the posters for the Yes campaign that were up in Lisbon II.

Had the referendum commission the power to insist that all posters and campaigners reference only the legal opinion it got on the effects of Lisbon, there would almost certainly have been an ever bigger Yes vote.