That youngfella singing was feckin brilliant.

So do ye think PK is a Libertas head? Ganley is a smooth operator and seems to have shaken up the old guard a bit. He wants people who are not necessarily politicians to run for Libertas - "it might be better if they weren't" ... Has he got some kind of point?

Well the only person I heard who might run is Ben Dunne... if that is the calibre of potential politician they are lining up I think we're all doomed.

Maybe they can get Jim Corr on board?

Auditor #9 wrote:

That youngfella singing was feckin brilliant.

So do ye think PK is a Libertas head? Ganley is a smooth operator and seems to have shaken up the old guard a bit. He wants people who are not necessarily politicians to run for Libertas - "it might be better if they weren't" ... Has he got some kind of point?

The Plank - Libertas TD for Gorsehill, I wonder.

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

I think that technically it might be better described as a counter-revolution.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

We have to coin some phrase in case the likes of Pat and Ben Dunne and who else? Sean Dunne? What if a raft of these suited lads rose up en masse to smite the powers currently installed and severed all their heads Well, what if a whole rake of them got together with the intention of reforming the European system to their liking? It could be a revolution of sorts ... like a velvet revolution but that's taken for Czechoslovakia ...

I think that technically it might be better described as a counter-revolution.

Over the counter revolution or under the counter? He keeps talking about transparency and I'd love it if there was a lot more transparency here too and accountability. If he thinks we're looking for more transparency and we get it then couldn't it be called the Cling Film Revolution ?

And lastly, a man walks into the doctor wearing nothing except underpants made from Cling Film. The doctor says "Well I can clearly see ur nuts".

Sorry, off topic.

For a man keen on transparency he is extraordinarily cagey about his own background. There were a few small matters - the source of his original investment stake, the Albanian shares, Liam Lawlor's use of Ganley's office address, the unconventional attempts at winning Iraqi contracts, the fate of the failed Adornis on-line jewellry business, the chauffeured limo company in London and the origin of the money applied to the Libertas campaign - also the employment status and job descriptions of various other Rivada employees in working on the Libertas campaign.

Pat didn't seem to go into any of that too deeply.

I wonder if you would ever get an in depth analysis in that sort of a forum though. He would either need to be on Prime Time or have another guest on who disagrees with him and is prepared to press him on the issue in a way that a presenter of a light entertainment show cannot.

johnfás wrote:

I wonder if you would ever get an in depth analysis in that sort of a forum though. He would either need to be on Prime Time or have another guest on who disagrees with him and is prepared to press him on the issue in a way that a presenter of a light entertainment show cannot.

Indeed. Bring me the Head of Light Entertainment!

I don't know very much of Ganley but it seems Libertas were financed by him to a much greater extent than was thought, or volunteered by him, at the time. Any individual or group with links to Pentagon contracting purporting to be an independent voice on a debate followed by a crucial vote on the future development of the EU is suspect in my view. Just a personal opinion, though.

You want transparency for his failed businesses? Or are you just mentioning them because they are bad things and you like to bring them up?

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

As far as I know cookie, it was only Adornis that failed. I felt that the interview was a schmooze, and that anyone watching Declan Ganley being interviewed for the first time deserved at least a quick tour around his history. I am sure you would feel that he would be able to deal with the normal level of journalistic enquiry without difficulty.

Libertas don't deal with any level of journalistic enquiry without difficulty.

I didn't see the programme and it doesn't seem to be on the website yet. Was it a light entertainment interview cf, or an attempt at the kind of political thing Pat does so badly on tv?

It was light entertainment until a lady called Martha on a crackly phoneline apparently phoned in and then she pressed him on the issue of funding which Pat took up in a half arsed way. It was most peculiar to be honest.

Kate P wrote:

Libertas don't deal with any level of journalistic enquiry without difficulty.

I didn't see the programme and it doesn't seem to be on the website yet. Was it a light entertainment interview cf, or an attempt at the kind of political thing Pat does so badly on tv?

It was an opportunity for Declan Ganley to launch the prospect of a Libertas pan European election bid to the population of Ireland. It should not have been light entertainment, but of course in Pat Kenny's hands it was.

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

There was indeed a sell, he said he was in discussions with relevant people across Europe regarding both funds and potential candidates. He dropped a hint that many of the candidates would not have a political background and that perhaps, that would be better.

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ganley has been dissected, investigated and virtually strip-searched by most media organisations and political groupings in Ireland, Europe and even beyond. None have managed to land a glove on him. Maybe, just maybe, he is what he says. But, I suspect, nothing will ever satisfy some of us.
So far, Ganley's message has been simple - vote No against a bad treaty. Most voters are in agreement. Nothing obscure in that. To seek out a messianic or diabolical intention, beyond that is, as yet, wishful thinking and giving him credit for something he has not yet done.
Personally, while supporting his Lisbon campaign, I will reserve judgment on his future until I see the direction he takes.

Kate P wrote:

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

I did. It was a chat. Pat is useless and the interview was bouncing all over the place. Pat was just running through the talking points he was given.

Though why Pat didn't ask him about his failed dot.com venture which crapped out at the tail end of the dotcom boom is still bothering me though, I mean I knew Pat is bad but how did he miss that elephant in the room?!

Oh and there was spontaneous applause half way though the interview, which was nice.

D.Harry wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

D.Harry wrote:

It's an ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger, sour grapes sort of thing.

- Ad hominem, yes, because Mr. Ganley presents himself as an individual citizen, not a politician, and therefore there is no other way of judging him.
- Shoot the messenger - no - because the message that Ganley gives is obscure in the extreme
- Sour grapes - if you are assuming that I'm an aggrieved Yes voter, that is not the case, I voted no and am opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ganley has been dissected, investigated and virtually strip-searched by most media organisations and political groupings in Ireland, Europe and even beyond. None have managed to land a glove on him. Maybe, just maybe, he is what he says. But, I suspect, nothing will ever satisfy some of us.
So far, Ganley's message has been simple - vote No against a bad treaty. Most voters are in agreement. Nothing obscure in that. To seek out a messianic or diabolical intention, beyond that is, as yet, wishful thinking and giving him credit for something he has not yet done.
Personally, while supporting his Lisbon campaign, I will reserve judgment on his future until I see the direction he takes.

Hello DHarry,

I have to disagree with your opening sentence because despite the efforts of countless media and political reps, Declan Ganley and Libertas haven't answered many, many questions that have been put to them. And when they do, the answers are inconsistent.

I voted no, but in no way would like to align myself with the King of the No side or the spurious messages that he put out there. Indeed I wonder in the wake of the No vote, if we haven't paid too high a price for that No vote.

I also have to disagree with your second point - that the message was simple; vote no to a bad treaty. The catchphrase might have been simple, but that was merely the tip of an as yet uncharted iceberg. For a man who claimed to have read the contents of the Famous Yellow Folder so many times, I wonder still how he could conclude that the treaty would have seen the introduction of abortion in Ireland because it wasn't there, nor was the suggestion or intimation or possibility of it there. That was one of a number of stunts pulled by an organisation that wanted a No vote at all costs and promised the renegotiation that we know is not going to happen.

As to seeking out a diabolical or messianic intention, an intention of any kind would suffice. There have been far too many inconsistencies and contradictions in all aspects of the campaign, the organisation and the man to simply accept a simple message at face value, even for those of us who are inclined to want to believe the message anyway.

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

I did. It was a chat. Pat is useless and the interview was bouncing all over the place. Pat was just running through the talking points he was given.

Though why Pat didn't ask him about his failed dot.com venture which crapped out at the tail end of the dotcom boom is still bothering me though, I mean I knew Pat is bad but how did he miss that elephant in the room?!

So it was a bad interview in general? I imagine he'd have handled it differently on the radio. I'll be interested to see it when it is uploaded.

Kate P wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

I did. It was a chat. Pat is useless and the interview was bouncing all over the place. Pat was just running through the talking points he was given.

Though why Pat didn't ask him about his failed dot.com venture which crapped out at the tail end of the dotcom boom is still bothering me though, I mean I knew Pat is bad but how did he miss that elephant in the room?!

So it was a bad interview in general? I imagine he'd have handled it differently on the radio. I'll be interested to see it when it is uploaded.

Bad for Pat, but it wasn't bad for Declan and I believe his mammy was delighted he was on The Late late Show.

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

I did. It was a chat. Pat is useless and the interview was bouncing all over the place. Pat was just running through the talking points he was given.

Though why Pat didn't ask him about his failed dot.com venture which crapped out at the tail end of the dotcom boom is still bothering me though, I mean I knew Pat is bad but how did he miss that elephant in the room?!

So it was a bad interview in general? I imagine he'd have handled it differently on the radio. I'll be interested to see it when it is uploaded.

Bad for Pat, but it wasn't bad for Declan and I believe his mammy was delighted he was on The Late late Show.

Well we agree on one thing

Declan Ganley must have been delighted with the free ride offered by Pat Kenny: why wouldn't he be?

Any chance of Pat standing for Libertas ?

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Thanks Johnfás.

I wonder why now for Ganley on the Late Late - was he a random guest or is there some reason for publicity now, like Rachel Allen's book? Production teams like to have guests on who have a current relevance and Lisbon and Libertas would seem to be between relevances at the moment.

And I've just read your post, cf as I was about to send this. Was it an official launch? Was there a sell? How did that end of the interview work out?

Did you see it cookie? What did you think?

I did. It was a chat. Pat is useless and the interview was bouncing all over the place. Pat was just running through the talking points he was given.

Though why Pat didn't ask him about his failed dot.com venture which crapped out at the tail end of the dotcom boom is still bothering me though, I mean I knew Pat is bad but how did he miss that elephant in the room?!

So it was a bad interview in general? I imagine he'd have handled it differently on the radio. I'll be interested to see it when it is uploaded.

Bad for Pat, but it wasn't bad for Declan and I believe his mammy was delighted he was on The Late late Show.

Well we agree on one thing

Declan Ganley must have been delighted with the free ride offered by Pat Kenny: why wouldn't he?

Any chance of Pat standing for Libertas ?

More chance of you doing it.

I don't know what you people were expecting, Pat wrestling Declan into a headlock and giving him a nuggie until he spilled all Libertas's deep dark secrets*?


* there are no deep dark secrets, just incase anybody took that as an admission and it ended up in the Irish Times