Libertas posters have sprung up

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Making stuff up doesn't seem to be much of a challenge.

Whats being made up,you might use your time better and go down the road and plant some gonads on your so called representative.

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

Whats being made up...

tipptom wrote: »

All that was heard from the yes side for months before was ... we will have no money the next morning,hospitals will close down,atms,no one gets paid etc etc...

tipptom wrote: »

...you might use your time better and go down the road and plant some gonads on your so called representative.

As I've said before, when you substitute personal abuse for intelligent argument, it's a tacit admission that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I saw a Votail Ta, don Fhostaiocht on a poster on the N7 near Portlaoise yesterday morning. I don't know if they've had the balls to hang that in English yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm sure you're not under the impression there is no distortion of the truth among the Yes campaign surely?

Well, I was asking after examples on boards:

later12 wrote:

I cut it out because the Yes side are constantly distorting the Treaty as well - both on these boards and in the media.

Unless you meant sign boards...? The official campaigns I, like you, can do nothing about!

cordially,
Scofflaw

tipptom

Zulu wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence of him being a liar, and peddling lies. Being a liar is shady. Ergo he's shady & there's evidence of him being shady. This of course raises the question: why are you choosing to ignore the evidence? (some has even kindly been provided in this thread for you)

IIRC, he's also stated he'd explain where his money come from after the election, and then, when the time came, refused to. Something to hide Declan?

There was no bigger liars in the history of this state than what this present coalition promised coming in to the election and why wont they release their lists of funding like they promised to do,something shady to hide?.
Now you say evidence has being kindly provoided to me about Declan Ganlys shady business dealings in this thread,come out from behind your key board and spell them out one by one then you might be kndly provoiding me with provoiding me with truths not cowardly insuinuations to suit your arguments.

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

As I've said before, when you substitute personal abuse for intelligent argument, it's a tacit admission that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Where is the personal abuse?

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

And that's why I said assessing legitimacy is important. But that's now what you raised. You brought up "unChristian hordes" instead.

Lets start with the latter: we should vote No unless there is a renegotiation. That's not really stating a fact about the Treaty. One might argue there is, in that, an implicit suggestion that the Treaty is about the banks, but of course that would be rather silly. It seems to me as little more than an idea that one should kick up a fuss until people start taking notice, rather like a bold child in a supermarket. Naive perhaps, but not dishonest.

I'm more interested in the first part, though. The part where you said that by voting No we can re-negotiate the debt. I haven't seen Ganley saying that. Is there a link?

OK, I'm impressed - you're prepared to say that "vote No unless there is a renegotiation" and "voting No gets us a renegotiation" are completely clear and distinct concepts, and that someone saying the former is totally not saying the latter. I don't see much point in arguing that corkscrew.

later12 wrote: »

because the latter is the sort of thing that deserves discussion (or rather, refutation, where appropriate). Harking on about unChristian hordes generally comes across as ad hominem waffle when someone is saying something irrefutable; if anything, character assassinations are more likely to inadvertently boost support for the No campaigners, I would have thought.

It's a little dramatically put, but did you not wonder why Ganley's allies were on the Christian right? That the parties Libertas allied with at the European elections were Christian nationalists, while he had no time for the secular nationalists like UKIP or Sinn Fein. The reason is that Ganley is somewhat a crusader for Christendom, and sees a Fortress Europe based on Christian values as a desirable thing. There are clearly people who support that view, so it's hardly an ad hominem to point out that such are Ganley's leanings. You might find this blog post of interest:

I'm not surprised that many of the eurosceptic community are slightly agast at Declans "second coming" as a eurofederalist - mainly because most of them know him in his guise as the EU's bete noire in Ireland on the back of the two Lisbon campaigns when he have would done anything, said anything, to get the treaty defeated and his efforts to harness that constituency to get himself elected in the euro elections in 2009......but if you meet the man (I've met him a couple of times) , get a chance to talk to him or listen to any of his speeches and writings pre 2008 and since 2010 - you would know he is an ardent euro-federalist and has been for a long long time.

I first met Declan in Nov 2007( or was it december - it was coming up to christmas anyway) when an old political acquaintance of mine called me up and asked me was I interested in heading into town (I was still living in Dublin at the time) to meet this guy in a city centre hotel for a drink and a chat - so I went ahead and met Ganley and a couple of others and had a very interesting conversation where Declan expounded his philosophy on all things, where Europe was going wrong and that the chances of a Federal Europe would recede rather than increase with passing of what became known as the Treaty of Lisbon and that the EU commission was complacent , too socialist and secular, compromised too much , showed no leadership and it would sleepwalk the EU to splitsville if it kept fudging its way along...... I was asked if I was interested in getting involved - my answer was non-committal and that I'd read the treaty first and then get back to them......and that was that.

You have to understand where Ganley is coming from. His vision of a federal Europe owes less to the visions of Monnet, Briand et all -and far more to writings and thoughts of, say, Pat Buchanan - its more "the infidel is at the gates" than a any utopic vision of all of europe living happily together in some sort of kraftwerk themed, futuristic, Ikea inspired reservation. Ganleys motivations ultimately come down to race and religion. He sees Europe as needing to come together to "preserve" western civilization from the asiatic and african hordes - his vision is one of a unified, militarily powerful, fortress European federal state where lots of white christian babies will be born to white christian mammies and daddies that will get rid of the necessity of immigration into the EU - especially from Muslim countries where his virulent dislike of Islam borders on phobia (tho Im sure he'll tell ya that he has lots of Muslim friends - whether they would be allowed to marry his daughters is another story........) , and we'll all live happily (us white, right of centre,christians) in free-trade Fortress USE with our great ally, the USA where our combined superior military might and technological superiority will allow us compete for the Earths scarce resources and preserve Western civilization from islam, and yellow and black hordes....

If you think this is all a bit far-fetched- well all you have to is go back over his articles, his speeches and writings, especially those connected with the Heritage foundation and other US conservative think-thanks - most of them are freely available on the internet if you look hard enough - its the only logical and rational conclusion I can come to after doing the above and meeting and talking to the guy at length. the whole "democracy" thing is a bit of a red herring to be honest - if the EU was going in the direction that Ganley wanted - moving rapidly towards a federal capitalist European state that stopped at White Christian Europes borders - you wouldn't be hearing a thing out of him about "democracy" and the like. Im sure that the most dog-eared and thumbed book in Ganley's library is Samuel huntingtons "Clash of Civilization" - which is, to boil it down to its essence - an urgent plea for the Western world , particularly the US and Europe, to get their acts together to purify themselves and stand up to Islam and the chinese man before we are out spent,out gunned and out-bred and the clock is ticking - which explains Ganleys urgency, his opposition to Lisbon and his getting engaged with every crank outfit in Europe prior to the last euro elections to try and get some presence on the EU state for his vision - which, at the end of the day, are million miles away from the likes of Farage, his sometimes ally....

he was right about Lisbon - but not in the way many of those who voted against Lisbon think - Lisbon laid out the rule book of the EU and for the first time, clearly defined what commission could or could not do, what was done at EU level and what was the nationstates responsibility and domain - and it recognised the EU for what it is - 27 different nation states with different agendas and interests that will co-operate on different levels according to their interests - not a unified federal state and with no roadmap to a federal state - it elevated the intergovernmental side of things and severly put the brakes on the commission and federating elements - and it will be very hard to move from that in the future -Ganley recognised that and thats why he opposed it.

I wonder what he will do now - He'll have learned a lot of lessons from his electoral bouts over the last few years - primarily I would hope, that he needs to do the hard yards and build up an EU wide organisation from small beginnings and that he needs to recruit individuals who dont look like they are on day release from the nearest mental institution, have some political experience and are good organisers and are willing to be patient and not go for short-term publicity which will be ultimately detrimental to the long term vision.

the irony here is that Ganleys vision would be far more attractive to the scared,threathened and uncertain middle-classes of europe right across the board at this moment in time and would have a far greater prospect of bringing about a USE than anything the castrated commission and leaders of the quarrelling and squabbling nationstates could ever do. Its a very attactive vision - he just needs to get the vehicle to move it and sell it together.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

Where is the personal abuse?

If you don't consider "plant some gonads on your so called representative" abusive, we'll have to agree to differ. It's not my idea of an intelligent contribution to the debate; it may be yours.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, I'm impressed - you're prepared to say that "vote No unless there is a renegotiation" and "voting No gets us a renegotiation" are completely clear and distinct concepts, and that someone saying the former is totally not saying the latter.

Absolutely.

Voting 'No' gets us a renegotiation is a statement that a positive link exists between voting the Treaty in itself and a renegotiation of bank debt.

The alternative is basically a "No co-operation until someone addresses the bank debt" argument. I am sure if there were a Treaty on straight bananas about which Merkel was very preoccupied, Ganley would probably oppose it too unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us. Bananas have nothing to do with bank debt.

It doesn't really matter what the referendum is about in Ganley's eyes - what matters is that the rest of Europe seems to care about the Treaty, and renouncing it may rile them into paying attention to Ireland.

Like I said, I think this is a naive path to take, but it is the only one I have heard Ganley express. I'm genuinely asking if I missed something. Has he explicitly said this Referendum is about bank debt in itself?

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Absolutely.

Voting 'No' gets us a renegotiation is a statement that a positive link exists between voting the Treaty in itself and a renegotiation of bank debt.

The alternative is basically a "No co-operation until someone addresses the bank debt" argument. I am sure if there were a Treaty on straight bananas about which Merkel was very preoccupied, Ganley would probably oppose it too unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us. Bananas have nothing to do with bank debt.

It doesn't really matter what the referendum is about in Ganley's eyes - what matters is that the rest of Europe seems to care about the Treaty, and renouncing it may rile them into paying attention to Ireland.

Like I said, I think this is a naive path to take, but it is the only one I have heard Ganley express. I'm genuinely asking if I missed something. Has he explicitly said this Referendum is about bank debt in itself?

Very Jesuitical - and it's not often I get to say that.

If one calls for people to vote No on the Treaty "unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us" then one is very much saying that voting No on the Treaty will help us reach the goal of "engagement on the issues that concern us".

Otherwise you're calling for people to vote No not because voting No achieves anything, but out of spite and in an entirely pointless way. Allow me to borrow a leaf out of your playbook and ask whether you have a link to Ganley saying that's what he advocates?

amused,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

If one calls for people to vote No on the Treaty "unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us" then one is very much saying that voting No on the Treaty will help us reach the goal of "engagement on the issues that concern us".

Yes indeed, and the word help is crucial there. There is no clear connection between the Treaty and Irish bank debt; however Ganley might argue there is a connection between general co-operation with Europe overall, of which the Treaty can be one aspect, and renegotiating bank debt. In fact, surely that is part of the typical quid pro quo that Noonan bangs on about, except coming at it from another direction.

Either way, it's not the same as saying "by voting No on the Treaty we can renegotiate the debt". That suggests a direct relationship that I have not seen suggested elsewhere.

View

later12 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what the referendum is about in Ganley's eyes - what matters is that the rest of Europe seems to care about the Treaty, and renouncing it may rile them into paying attention to Ireland Ganley.

Fixed that for you.

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't consider "plant some gonads on your so called representative" abusive, we'll have to agree to differ. It's not my idea of an intelligent contribution to the debate; it may be yours.

Where is the "personal" abuse,for a guy who likes to espouse his political views on here and litter them with short smart answers about posters lack of intelligence you have a thin skin,would not like to see you on door to door canvassing.
Mr kenny will not go in to a studio as leader of our country and debate this treaty with the NO side but instead hides behind suicide to avoid this.He also says he went up and down the country debating,telling a man "he could do with a days work"in the manner he did was not only disgraceful but WAS personal abuse.State of the nation address telling us "it was not your fault",days later crawling to his mates in europe,"they all went mad spending".Thats no leader of a country.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Otherwise you're calling for people to vote No not because voting No achieves anything, but out of spite and in an entirely pointless way. Allow me to borrow a leaf out of your playbook and ask whether you have a link to Ganley saying that's what he advocates?

amused,
Scofflaw

Just saw this.

I'm basing my limited knowledge of what Ganley is saying on the interviews I have seen such as on Tonight with Vincent Browne, as well as the campaign posters which state Cut the bank debt or no deal - not No deal cuts the bank debt or any variation of that.

If you're asking me why I'm defending Ganley using only limited knowledge, I'd remind you that I'm not defending him (well, maybe his right to feel disgruntled at unChristian hordes if it so pleases him). I asked for clarification of what Ganley has said and pointed out my understanding based on what I've heard. Presumably you have come across something different which has informed your interpretation of his position?

Zulu

tipptom wrote: »

Now you say evidence has being kindly provoided to me about Declan Ganlys shady business dealings in this thread

Well, I'll stop you there. I said there was evidence he was shady:

Zulu wrote:

There is plenty of evidence of him being a liar, and peddling lies. Being a liar is shady. Ergo he's shady & there's evidence of him being shady.

tipptom wrote:

come out from behind your key board

I assure you I am in front of my keyboard. Where I to be behind it, I'd find it difficult to see the screen & type.

tipptom wrote:

not cowardly insuinuations to suit your arguments.

Well now, fair being fair, I haven't been changing the facts to suit my arguments, unlike yourself (see above re Ganley being shady & Ganleys business dealings).

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

Where is the "personal" abuse,for a guy who likes to espouse his political views on here and litter them with short smart answers about posters lack of intelligence you have a thin skin...

It's not my skin you're being abusive towards. I also didn't comment on anyone's intelligence; only on the intelligence of the points they are making.

Look: maybe you think a tirade of abuse towards Enda Kenny has something to do with this treaty or with the proposed constitutional amendment. If so, I can't see it. If it makes you feel better to think that that's because your argument is too clever for me to understand, go for it.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Just saw this.

I'm basing my limited knowledge of what Ganley is saying on the interviews I have seen such as on Tonight with Vincent Browne, as well as the campaign posters which state Cut the bank debt or no deal - not No deal cuts the bank debt or any variation of that.

If you're asking me why I'm defending Ganley using only limited knowledge, I'd remind you that I'm not defending him (well, maybe his right to feel disgruntled at unChristian hordes if it so pleases him). I asked for clarification of what Ganley has said and pointed out my understanding based on what I've heard. Presumably you have come across something different which has informed your interpretation of his position?

Sure - logic. Someone advocating a No vote unless there's negotiation of issues of concern to us is either someone advocating a No vote in order to force negotiation of those issues, or advocating a pointless act of spite. I do think slightly more of Ganley than to believe the latter, although slightly less of him than to believe he believes that voting No will actually achieve such negotiation.

I see claiming that one can advocate a "No unless there's a debt deal" without in any sense claiming that a No could in some way achieve such a deal as the creation of a purely semantic construct unrelated to anything found in politics. I find it entertaining, but profoundly dishonest - by which I don't mean in any way that you're lying, obviously.

later12 wrote: »

Yes indeed, and the word help is crucial there. There is no clear connection between the Treaty and Irish bank debt; however Ganley might argue there is a connection between general co-operation with Europe overall, of which the Treaty can be one aspect, and renegotiating bank debt. In fact, surely that is part of the typical quid pro quo that Noonan bangs on about, except coming at it from another direction.

Either way, it's not the same as saying "by voting No on the Treaty we can renegotiate the debt". That suggests a direct relationship that I have not seen suggested elsewhere.

No, it doesn't. It suggests only exactly what you're saying there, and exactly what I said originally - that a No vote can help us get a debt deal. At no point did I claim that Ganley believed there was actually a direct causal relationship between the two, and I think you are entirely aware of that. And straw men are very much less entertaining than Jesuitical distinctions between implications and statements, so I'd prefer you stuck to that line, otherwise we'll have to dispense with your air of ingenuousness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tipptom

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I'll stop you there. I said there was evidence he was shady:
I assure you I am in front of my keyboard. Where I to be behind it, I'd find it difficult to see the screen & type.
Well now, fair being fair, I haven't been changing the facts to suit my arguments, unlike yourself (see above re Ganley being shady & Ganleys business dealings).

State his shady business dealings?

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - logic. Someone advocating a No vote unless there's negotiation of issues of concern to us is either someone advocating a No vote in order to force negotiation of those issues, or advocating a pointless act of spite.

...Or, making noise and pushing a policy of non-cooperation. This might not appeal to your own political preference or ideals in the case of Europe, but it doesn't mean that's not what Ganley is doing.

As far as I can see, you're basing your interpretation of his position on a misreading of the Libertas campaign slogans.

I see claiming that one can advocate a "No unless there's a debt deal" without in any sense claiming that a No could in some way achieve such a deal as the creation of a purely semantic construct unrelated to anything found in politics.

Maybe you're biased there, though. You clearly have a problem with Ganley. If there is an alternative way of interpreting his posters, I think it ought to be considered. I'm willing to consider the alternative interpretation you're putting forward, but that's not the order in which the tagline is written, so there should probably be some alternative evidence to support your suggestion.

antoobrien

It's interesting how Ganley actually proposed setting up Libertas in an article published in 2003 by the US Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). In the article Europe’s Constitutional Treaty: A Threat to Democracy and How to Avoid It he states that the proposed European constitution (which later became the Lisbon Treaty) he states

The forces at work within the Europolitical elites make a momentous force behind this power grab. Each state’s senior socialist and centrist political figures will call for adoption of the draft constitution as a “reasonable compromise” and a “historic achievement”—of which Europe has had too many with sad consequences already. The extreme right and fringe parties will argue against them, which will only make the proponents look more correct

And actually proposes (to a US foreign policy body) to set up a political party to counteract this

The convention can only be countered with a true and fair vision for a United Europe. Europeans who until now have kept their views to themselves should mobilize to stop this tide. They must overcome groupings and parties based on legacy national organizations to form a new organization and articulate a clear and achievable vision for Europe’s future. Rather than try to define itself in contradistinction to the United States, this new Europe must be an equal partner and influence for the worldwide extension of justice and liberty. Such a political party— I will for the sake of discussion call it “Libertas”—will need to challenge the engrained composition of the convention in local and regional elections, as well as running candidates at member-state and EU levels. The old structures need shaking up.

then states

The Intergovernmental Conference expects to conclude its work by December, towards having a treaty ready for signature in May 2004. Fortunately this outcome can be avoided. The constitution can be rejected by referenda voters in Ireland, Denmark, and France.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

It's interesting how Ganley actually proposed setting up Libertas in an article published in 2003 by the US Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI).

It is indeed interesting from a political science viewpoint, but it's hardly in the least bit incriminating.

If Ganley were the malevolent arms villain he is usually portrayed as being by European flunkeys, hangers on, and career politicians, he'd surely be arguing in favour of more of the same. Europe is a lobbyist's wet dream in its current format. A reformed, somewhat libertarian, increasingly democratic EU as Ganley proposed in that article is hardly the itch of the war mongering antihero, is it.

While i find Ganley's sentiments in that article pretty abominable in some parts - mainly in terms of his almost superstitious aversion to socialism - I imagine a lot of very reasonable politics regulars would be nodding their heads at the substance of his message.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

...Or, making noise and pushing a policy of non-cooperation.

...in order to achieve a deal on the debt.

later12 wrote: »

This might not appeal to your own political preference or ideals in the case of Europe, but it doesn't mean that's not what Ganley is doing.

As far as I can see, you're basing your interpretation of his position on a misreading of the Libertas campaign slogans.

And goodness knows, if I'm misinterpreting them, who else might be? Pity those poor unfortunates who fail to realise that when Ganley says "Cut the Bank Debt or No Deal" he's not actually suggesting that voting No would in any way achieve a deal on bank debt.

Anyway, we are, as far as I can see, at cross-purposes here - I haven't suggested that Ganley either believes or is claiming a No will in some direct or technical way affect the bank debt, only that by linking the two he is clearly suggesting that voting No is something that improves our chances of getting a deal on it, which you apparently agree with.

later12 wrote: »

Maybe you're biased there, though. You clearly have a problem with Ganley. If there is an alternative way of interpreting his posters, I think it ought to be considered. I'm willing to consider the alternative interpretation you're putting forward, but that's not the order in which the tagline is written, so there should probably be some alternative evidence to support your suggestion.

I think that would be a deep misreading of my views on Ganley. I strongly wish there were rather more people willing to upset the very settled trench lines of Irish politics in respect of the EU - although I'd rather such a challenge were coming from a realistic left-wing perspective than Ganley's more right-wing perspective.

But his record for honesty really is dreadful. A committed federalist who campaigned in the European elections without making a point of his federalism is not honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyway, we are, as far as I can see, at cross-purposes here - I haven't suggested that Ganley either believes or is claiming a No will in some direct or technical way affect the bank debt, only that by linking the two he is clearly suggesting that voting No is something that improves our chances of getting a deal on it, which you apparently agree with.

No, I don't agree with it; I'm trying to explain my understanding of what he's saying.

Will it work? Well, if Ireland voted No and Armageddon arrived as the Government parties warn, then there would probably have to be some deal on the bank debt when the MASSIV MELTDOWN!!!! happens and we're all living on dry black bread and sugarless tea. After all, as we have seen in Greece, Armageddon seems to result in some sort of restructuring.
More boringly, Armageddon is unlikely to arrive in the event of a No, and neither is a deal on the bank debt.

So obviously I don't agree. But he's sort of following the logic of the mainstream pro Treaty crowd.

But his record for honesty really is dreadful. A committed federalist who campaigned in the European elections without making a point of his federalism is not honest.

Probably so, but a politician cannot be both honest and successful all of the time. People like you or I can be frank about our opinions on the pros and cons of any Treaty. For example, I'm opposed to this Treaty but I still think there is potentially a lot to lose if we vote No. In real life, neither side of the campaign can be upfront about that because it makes their argument seem disordered and incomprehensible to those who want a black vs white, right vs wrong solution. All politicians have to accept that, and unfortunately must misrepresent facts accordingly.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

No, I don't agree with it; I'm trying to explain my understanding of what he's saying.

Will it work? Well, if Ireland voted No and Armageddon arrived as the Government parties warn, then there would probably have to be some deal on the bank debt when the MASSIV MELTDOWN!!!! happens and we're all living on dry black bread and sugarless tea. After all, as we have seen in Greece, Armageddon seems to result in some sort of restructuring.
More boringly, Armageddon is unlikely to arrive in the event of a No, and neither is a deal on the bank debt.

So obviously I don't agree. But he's sort of following the logic of the mainstream pro Treaty crowd.

Now you don't even seem to be arguing your own straw man. What are you arguing?

later12 wrote: »

Probably so, but a politician cannot be both honest and successful all of the time. People like you or I can be frank about our opinions on the pros and cons of any Treaty. For example, I'm opposed to this Treaty but I still think there is potentially a lot to lose if we vote No. In real life, neither side of the campaign can be upfront about that because it makes their argument seem disordered and incomprehensible to those who want a black vs white, right vs wrong solution. All politicians have to accept that, and unfortunately must misrepresent facts accordingly.

Here we are again - Ganley not making it clear that he is a European federalist when standing for election to the European Parliament is not a case of fudging a minor fact.

Concealing your actual political intentions in respect of the body you're standing for when standing for election to it cannot be rendered honest even by the most Jesuitical of arguments.

You're really wasting time and screen space now.

slight regards,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now you don't even seem to be arguing your own straw man. What are you arguing?

Sorry to disappoint you that I don't agree with Ganley, if you want someone to defend him maybe you should send him a series of angry letters and hope he replies. I'm simply explaining what is not on his posters and how I have interpreted Libertas contributions to the debate so far.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Concealing your actual political intentions in respect of the body you're standing for when standing for election to it cannot be rendered honest even by the most Jesuitical of arguments.

Ganley always denied he was a eurosceptic during Lisbon so I'm sure he brought up his pro European opinions somewhere, you'd have to check that yourself; it certainly didn't suit the Yes sides argument to accept that he was anything less than eurosceptic.

View

If Joe Higgins 10 years ago had spent his time attending IBEC conferences and campaigning with the PDs while never attending even a meeting of one the various Socialist parties, most sane people would regard his position as more than a little strange were he to start trotting out his Socialist Party line.

So also with Ganley who spent his time with Eurosceptics, not European Federalists, yet apparently is a Federalist although he appears to have no appreciation for any form of Federalism other than the US model.

To me, his public political positions would appear to be highly incoherent.

later12

But who was hiding anything? A poster earlier linked to Ganley's 2003 article on European federalism and reform from 2003.

Was this the third secret of Fatima? That looks like a No.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/declan-ganley-a-federal-europe-is-a-pretty-good-idea/
Declan Ganley: A federal Europe is a pretty good idea
BY RICHARD – 20/06/2008
POSTED IN: FEDERALISM, QUOTEBANK

“The EU has served the people of Europe well. It is abundantly apparent that it is capable of much more, which is why we must jealously guard it from those that would try to snatch its levers from us. A United Europe could provide for European peace, prosperity, strength, quality of life, and the ability to build not just a better Europe but a better and safer world. A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world.”

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/blog/2008/09/declan-ganley-and-irish-no.html
Sept 2008

To the horror of the UKIP members present, Ganley presented himself as a pro-European, waxing lyrical about how good Europe was to Ireland, how the EU was the most successful peace process in history and how the last thing he wanted was for the EU to break up. The big smiles quickly disappeared from the UKIP faces as he said that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/10/get_ganley.html
October 2008

Mr Ganley's views are a little curious. He always paints himself as in favour of the European Union, but says he wants a different sort of EU, one with an elected president. That would horrify many British Eurosceptics as well as his supposed mentor in that Washington think-tank. Then the unelected European commissioners would be reporting directly to an elected politician, rather as the unelected Condoleezza Rice or Hank Paulson report to George W. So perhaps there is something of an American model in his thinking.

If you do a custom google search, there is no shortage of articles like this from the past.

View

As I said, his position appears incoherent to me (you are perfectly free to find it coherent if you want).

From what I recall of Lisbon I, Libertas most certainly did not campaign on a slogan of "Vote No for a Federal Europe". Indeed if you think about it, they spent their time warning us about the danger of being out-voted (a position incompatible with the acceptance of a Federal-style democracy), insisting on us having a European Commissioner (another position incompatible with the idea of a democratic Federal (EU wide) election altering the make-up of the Commission along normal democratic party political lines), the dangers of an EU army (a Federal Army) and calling for guarantees for us (a special pleading position incompatible with the idea of a Federal union with all states being treated more or less equally).

Now maybe I missed the Federalist measures that our government were forced to negotiate for us in the wake of Lisbon I if you like but do point them out if so.

later12

View wrote: »

they spent their time warning us about the danger of being out-voted (a position incompatible with the acceptance of a Federal-style democracy)

As far as I recall, they were concerned about alterations to the QMV and perhaps a Veto over certain issues. That's not anti-federalist in itself.

insisting on us having a European Commissioner (another position incompatible with the idea of a democratic Federal (EU wide)

No, that's not actually incompatible. You can very reasonably have one Commissioner per member state in a federation. As you mentioned, he also wanted to reform the commission to make it accountable.

election altering the make-up of the Commission along normal democratic party political lines)

That's not anti-federalist. I have no idea even where to begin in defending that from such a tag. Perhaps you might begin by saying why it is against the spirit or definition of a Federation to elect a body with a role like that of the EU Commission.

the dangers of an EU army (a Federal Army)

Supporting the formation of a federation is not the same as supporting the formation of an army, because it does not follow that all federations must have one sovereign military.

and calling for guarantees for us (a special pleading position incompatible with the idea of a Federal union with all states being treated more or less equally).

I think you're confusing Federation with Republic.

Now maybe I missed the Federalist measures that our government were forced to negotiate for us in the wake of Lisbon I if you like but do point them out if so.

You seem to be missing the point somewhat. Ganley is in favour of a Federal Europe, and that is evident from his writing over the past decade.

Nobody has suggested that Europe has become a Federal Union - but that it is an aspiration for some - and evidently has been for Ganley for some time now.

I should once again re-emphasising that I have no personal affection for Ganley nor his overall political position. However, I do think these silly ad hominems about his religious belief and his personality are getting a little out of hand. Can you not just counter his arguments?

As I said earlier, it is important to establish an individual's legitimacy at time. But don't you think that the principle of debating the argument and not the man needs to be put to the fore here? I haven't seen anyone debate much on Libertas or their policies, but an awful lot about what a big bad villain Declan Ganley is.

View

later12 wrote: »

As far as I recall, they were concerned about alterations to the QMV and perhaps a Veto over certain issues. That's not anti-federalist in itself.

You can't have a Federal democracy if you are not prepared to accept this idea of being out-voted (under whatever system you use).

You are welcome to point out the Federation where individual states have a veto over the Federal decisions they don't like. I know of none.

later12 wrote: »

No, that's not actually incompatible. You can very reasonably have one Commissioner per member state in a federation. As you mentioned, he also wanted to reform the commission to make it accountable.

That's not anti-federalist. I have no idea even where to begin in defending that from such a tag. Perhaps you might begin by saying why it is against the spirit or definition of a Federation to elect a body with a role like that of the EU Commission.

I did not say (or even suggest) that it is against the spirit of a Federation to elect an Executive body.

I pointed out that normal democratic elections result in the change of the members of the Executive along party political lines. Insisting you must have a member of such an Executive is incompatible with that unless you are beliveve your state will always vote the majority position (an absolute improbability).

Which Federations use a "One Executive member per member state" system?

later12 wrote: »

Supporting the formation of a federation is not the same as supporting the formation of an army, because it does not follow that all federations must have one sovereign military.

Point out the Federation that doesn't.

Federations differ internally but to the best of my knowledge in all of them the Federation has primary (and usually exclusive) responsibility for defense of the Federation, Foreign Affairs etc.

later12 wrote: »

I think you're confusing Federation with Republic.

And I think you confusing Confederation with Federation.

later12 wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point somewhat. Ganley is in favour of a Federal Europe, and that is evident from his writing over the past decade.

Nobody has suggested that Europe has become a Federal Union - but that it is an aspiration for some - and evidently has been for Ganley for some time now.

And my point is his actions did not and cannot force our government, much less any of the other, to negotiate a more Federal Europe if they don't want to. They would most likely result in Ireland being side-lined while everyone else continues without us (or even the EU moving further away from a Federal model not towards it).

later12 wrote: »

I should once again re-emphasising that I have no personal affection for Ganley nor his overall political position. However, I do think these silly ad hominems about his religious belief and his personality are getting a little out of hand. Can you not just counter his arguments?

As I said earlier, it is important to establish an individual's legitimacy at time. But don't you think that the principle of debating the argument and not the man needs to be put to the fore here? I haven't seen anyone debate much on Libertas or their policies, but an awful lot about what a big bad villain Declan Ganley is.

I have no particular interest in Mr Ganley's religious beliefs or personality. I regard his political beliefs as incoherent as I see no way his actions will in practice bring about a Federal Europe or even moves towards it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I think I'm getting an understanding of Ganley's position and where it fits in the spectrum of opposition, SF & the ULA are saying the treaty goes too far, whereas in Ganley's world it doesn't go too far enough?

later12

View, I'm going to ignore the Lisbon Treaty issue. Apart from trying to suggest that Ganley is not the federalist he claims to be (or something) it's not really clear what the point of your returning to this issue could be.

View wrote: »

And my point is his actions did not and cannot force our government, much less any of the other, to negotiate a more Federal Europe if they don't want to.

Who said they do? Who ever said that?

I have no particular interest in Mr Ganley's religious beliefs or personality. I regard his political beliefs as incoherent as I see no way his actions will in practice bring about a Federal Europe or even moves towards it.

I don't think Ganley expects a No vote in either this or the Lisbon Treaty to bring about or have brought about a Federal Europe.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote:

As I said earlier, it is important to establish an individual's legitimacy at time. But don't you think that the principle of debating the argument and not the man needs to be put to the fore here? I haven't seen anyone debate much on Libertas or their policies, but an awful lot about what a big bad villain Declan Ganley is.

If Libertas brought their policies into the debate, or Libertas was less obviously a personal vehicle for Declan Ganley, you might have a point.

regards,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

If Libertas brought their policies into the debate,

What

Libertas's opinions about wider EU issues are about as relevant to this debate as FG's opinions on CAP reform or Sinn Fein's opinings on EU fisheries. This referendum has a very narrow ambit which relates solely to fiscal governance and limitations thereof. No party is bringing any extraneous policy issue into this debate, with the possible exception of the Socialists and their diatribes about water and household charges - issues whose referencing I presume most of us think pretty ridiculous.

Lisbon is over. The world has moved on. Maybe all those getting their knickers in a twist about Ganley should move on as well.

PopeBuckfastXVI

later12 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone debate much on Libertas or their policies

Literally only a few posts later...

later12 wrote: »

Libertas's opinions about wider EU issues are about as relevant to this debate as FG's opinions on CAP reform or Sinn Fein's opinings on EU fisheries.

Take the wheels off your goalposts!

tipptom

In the case of a No vote on the 31st which is very unlikley becuase of the terror that they promise is going to be struck down upon us and vengance will be theirs,does anyone seriously think that someone in brussels is going to step out the next morning and say Ireland is not going to have have access to bail out mechanisms?

later12

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Literally only a few posts later...



Take the wheels off your goalposts!

Read the entire post. We were discussing the Lisbon Treaty... way to take something out of context.

SAs it happens, Libertas's politics do belong in this debate actually. Just not the ones that people are referring to, like reform of the Commission and federalism.

Ozymandius2011

tipptom wrote: »

In the case of a No vote on the 31st which is very unlikley becuase of the terror that they promise is going to be struck down upon us and vengance will be theirs,does anyone seriously think that someone in brussels is going to step out the next morning and say Ireland is not going to have have access to bail out mechanisms?

Certainly not, given the risk of contagion in the Eurozone and the German bankers going under.

tipptom

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Certainly not, given the risk of contagion in the Eurozone and the German bankers going under.

Pretty simple really,our pithy little state would not do it,they would do it themselves if they followed through on their threats in the case of a NO.

Scofflaw

tipptom wrote: »

In the case of a No vote on the 31st which is very unlikley becuase of the terror that they promise is going to be struck down upon us and vengance will be theirs,does anyone seriously think that someone in brussels is going to step out the next morning and say Ireland is not going to have have access to bail out mechanisms?

No, I'm sure it will. The questions are where will that money come from, who will it have to be passed by, what conditions will they ask for, and what rates would we get?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

What

Libertas's opinions about wider EU issues are about as relevant to this debate as FG's opinions on CAP reform or Sinn Fein's opinings on EU fisheries. This referendum has a very narrow ambit which relates solely to fiscal governance and limitations thereof. No party is bringing any extraneous policy issue into this debate, with the possible exception of the Socialists and their diatribes about water and household charges - issues whose referencing I presume most of us think pretty ridiculous.

Lisbon is over. The world has moved on. Maybe all those getting their knickers in a twist about Ganley should move on as well.

And maybe you should stick to your argument for more than a post in succession.

You suggested that people should concentrate on Libertas' policies - in this debate. I pointed out that Libertas weren't bringing their policies into the debate. Now you're pretending to be bewildered by the idea that anyone would want to debate Libertas' policies.

What are Libertas' policies on the referendum, other than voting No in order to get a bank deal? And please spare me another Jesuitical ramble around the question of exactly what they're saying there - if their "policies" in this referendum are so unclear, you can hardly expect people to debate them unless they want to waste time and muddy the waters, as you appear to do.

regards,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

What are Libertas' policies on the referendum, other than voting No in order to get a bank deal?

I'm not a Libertas voter - most Libertas policies represent the opposite spectrum of my political opinions. However I have compiled this link to help you in your search.

tipptom

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I'm sure it will. The questions are where will that money come from, who will it have to be passed by, what conditions will they ask for, and what rates would we get?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I honestly do think it would be "as you were",why would they scare the bejaysus out of the markets by making it more difficult for us to pay back something back that we already cannot pay back,It will all be acedemic anyway when that great behemoth that is Spain that is looming large finally lets us know what we are all thinking.

Scofflaw

tipptom wrote: »

I honestly do think it would be "as you were",why would they scare the bejaysus out of the markets by making it more difficult for us to pay back something back that we already cannot pay back,

Not really. If we need more money, that money has to come from somewhere, and it will either directly or indirectly come out of the pockets of other countries' taxpayers. We'll be asking those countries which have already shelled out for ESM to put their hands in their pockets again for a country that doesn't want to sign up to the common fiscal rules intended to ensure that we are, if nothing else, good borrowers. As a result, the various parliaments involved are likely to want to see rather a lot more give on our side than would be the case with ESM.

tipptom wrote: »

It will all be acedemic anyway when that great behemoth that is Spain that is looming large finally lets us know what we are all thinking.

Spain is likely to be manageable within the stated scale of the bailout funds, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I'm not a Libertas voter - most Libertas policies represent the opposite spectrum of my political opinions. However I have compiled this link to help you in your search.

Shrug - you're the one arguing the relevance of their policies. I've already commented on both their policy stall in respect of a federal Europe and their "policies" in respect of this referendum.

If you're not actually arguing anything at all, as seems increasingly the case here, you might consider saving the electrons.

regards,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shrug - you're the one arguing the relevance of their policies. I've already commented on both their policy stall in respect of a federal Europe and their "policies" in respect of this referendum.

I think their fiscal policies are relevant, sure. Their policies on federalism, EU Commissioners, and QMV as have been raised on here are less relevant. Unless we want to get into all parties' policies on those issues do we?

I'm saying we should stop trying to drag the issue off course in the way that you are doing. Wider EU policies hardly belong in the debate on fiscal stability in the context of this Treaty.

That google link wasn't a joke. Seriously, if you're so concerned about Libertas's fiscal policies, go explore them. I don't feel qualified to profess what they are based on a handful of interviews I've heard, though I have little doubt but that they would be economically conservative. Instead of asking me to save the electrons, maybe you should be making use of them yourself.

tipptom

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really. If we need more money, that money has to come from somewhere, and it will either directly or indirectly come out of the pockets of other countries' taxpayers. We'll be asking those countries which have already shelled out for ESM to put their hands in their pockets again for a country that doesn't want to sign up to the common fiscal rules intended to ensure that we are, if nothing else, good borrowers. As a result, the various parliaments involved are likely to want to see rather a lot more give on our side than would be the case with ESM.



Spain is likely to be manageable within the stated scale of the bailout funds, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh certainly they would be all peed of,but we are the only living proof that there policys are supposedly still working,"top of the class"and all that sort of thing,however small we are we are the living thermoniter of europe at the moment and to shake that belief would be mayhem in the making.As for Spain,i dont think any of them will let the cat out of the bag and for good reason but when they finally have to reveal it will be massivly beyond their finances and they might give the Chinese another try.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

What

Libertas's opinions about wider EU issues are about as relevant to this debate as FG's opinions on CAP reform or Sinn Fein's opinings on EU fisheries. This referendum has a very narrow ambit which relates solely to fiscal governance and limitations thereof. No party is bringing any extraneous policy issue into this debate, with the possible exception of the Socialists and their diatribes about water and household charges - issues whose referencing I presume most of us think pretty ridiculous.

Lisbon is over. The world has moved on. Maybe all those getting their knickers in a twist about Ganley should move on as well.

I expect that all political parties will engage in exaggeration and spin, in fact the Irish system demands it to get elected (sad as that may be). But quite honestly when someone makes direct statements about something which are provably false and follows on with blatant attempts to muddy the waters at every turn then their creditability is very much open for discussion. I find it hard to believe you actually think the previous track record of someone has no bearing on what they are telling you now.

Oh and on the subject of posters, in town right now...
"No to upward only rents... no to liar politicians... no to fiscal compact". The size of a building on Grafton Street.
"Democracy is dead etc etc" With picture of Merkel standing like Hitler. Banner sized.

There are several more which I can't recall at this moment.

K-9

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Certainly not, given the risk of contagion in the Eurozone and the German bankers going under.

If Greece is let go by then God knows what will happen. The ESM will probably go ahead without us so we'd be looking at another fund, it'll probably depend on the market rates and if the markets view it as riskier than the ESM.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I think their fiscal policies are relevant, sure. Their policies on federalism, EU Commissioners, and QMV as have been raised on here are less relevant. Unless we want to get into all parties' policies on those issues do we?

I'm saying we should stop trying to drag the issue off course in the way that you are doing. Wider EU policies hardly belong in the debate on fiscal stability in the context of this Treaty.

That google link wasn't a joke. Seriously, if you're so concerned about Libertas's fiscal policies, go explore them. I don't feel qualified to profess what they are based on a handful of interviews I've heard, though I have little doubt but that they would be economically conservative. Instead of asking me to save the electrons, maybe you should be making use of them yourself.

I did point out that I have already looked at Libertas' policies, thanks. I don't think, however, that Libertas fiscal policies have anything to do with their opposition to the Treaty. Or, indeed, any of their policies - something that, having looked at Libertas' policies, I find myself in a position to state.

regards,
Scofflaw

later12

meglome wrote: »

But quite honestly when someone makes direct statements about something which are provably false and follows on with blatant attempts to muddy the waters at every turn then their creditability is very much open for discussion.

That's a very subjective statement. One could very easily say the same thing of Noonan based on his statements on the Referendum ("a referendum on our membership of the Euro") and Fine Gael's clearly misleading referendum posters in the current Treaty campaign.

At best it's unclear what can be achieved by attacking Ganley as opposed to his policies (fiscal policies, in this context). At worst you're just going to open the floodgates for calls of similar hypocricy from the likes of Kenny or Hogan on household charges (as unrelated to the Treaty as Ganley's stance on QMV), and we all know how tedious that can get.