Prime Time Heckle - How much do you really know about Declan Ganley?

RTE does it as well for the football on RTE.ie/live.

Anticoalition wrote:

What was it Naoise Nunn said on Prime Time about how the Lisbon Treaty was an opportunity for "branding" Libertas? Google pulls this story from Eurobserver, which has been through feeds across Europe:
Ganley takes legal action against Irish politicians

Ireland is only the stepping stone. Take a look at the Libertas Facebook - it is mostly people from the Czech Republic:

"Would you join a popular movement - based on individual rights, free market economy and limited government - to claim the European politeia back for its citizens?"

Anticoalition - the Facebook page linked to a fascinating world of right wing ideology that is anti-socialist, "pro-indvidual", free market and xenophobic.

This is a short, typical blog.

http://peopleseurope.ning.com/profiles/blogs/we-the-peoples-of-europe-got

cactus flower wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

What was it Naoise Nunn said on Prime Time about how the Lisbon Treaty was an opportunity for "branding" Libertas? Google pulls this story from Eurobserver, which has been through feeds across Europe:
Ganley takes legal action against Irish politicians

Ireland is only the stepping stone. Take a look at the Libertas Facebook - it is mostly people from the Czech Republic:

"Would you join a popular movement - based on individual rights, free market economy and limited government - to claim the European politeia back for its citizens?"

Anticoalition - the Facebook page linked to a fascinating world of right wing ideology that is anti-socialist, "pro-indvidual", free market and xenophobic.

This is a short, typical blog.

http://peopleseurope.ning.com/profiles/blogs/we-the-peoples-of-europe-got

Damm Cactus...you found some scary stuff there!
Look, you are giving your agenda away by associating liberalism(masty non socialist thinking) with xenophobia. Considering the bad record of socialism(national and international) in that regard, I think thats a bit unfair.

As for teh blog that you highlighted, well I found it very unradical, and actually hit home true by identifying the coalition in europe between mainstream right and left at the expense of individual rights.

Ganley is an unknown for me, and in general I'd be wary of Messiah charcaters who are going to change the world, but if his organisation can add a another dynamic to Europe. one that brings the corrupt elites down a notch and makes them more accountable to the wishes of the people, then he is on the right track.

Let's keep on topic about Ganley/Prime Time.

Anytime p.ie is discussed here it gets very acrimonious. Let them keep the bulls-hit over there. Discussions about how internet poster can be sued should be in the law or technology fora.

I am going to split the posts not directly related to the Primetime off to a new thread in the site development forum called "legal aspects of internet use."

The Primetime topic may at this stage have been thoroughly done over, unless Ganley keeps it alive through legal action

There is another Libertas thread in which the politics of Libertas are being discussed.

Respvblica wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

What was it Naoise Nunn said on Prime Time about how the Lisbon Treaty was an opportunity for "branding" Libertas? Google pulls this story from Eurobserver, which has been through feeds across Europe:
Ganley takes legal action against Irish politicians

Ireland is only the stepping stone. Take a look at the Libertas Facebook - it is mostly people from the Czech Republic:

"Would you join a popular movement - based on individual rights, free market economy and limited government - to claim the European politeia back for its citizens?"

Anticoalition - the Facebook page linked to a fascinating world of right wing ideology that is anti-socialist, "pro-indvidual", free market and xenophobic.

This is a short, typical blog.

http://peopleseurope.ning.com/profiles/blogs/we-the-peoples-of-europe-got

Damm Cactus...you found some scary stuff there!
Look, you are giving your agenda away by associating liberalism(masty non socialist thinking) with xenophobia. Considering the bad record of socialism(national and international) in that regard, I think thats a bit unfair.

As for teh blog that you highlighted, well I found it very unradical, and actually hit home true by identifying the coalition in europe between mainstream right and left at the expense of individual rights.

Ganley is an unknown for me, and in general I'd be wary of Messiah charcaters who are going to change the world, but if his organisation can add a another dynamic to Europe. one that brings the corrupt elites down a notch and makes them more accountable to the wishes of the people, then he is on the right track.

Hi Cactus, Well after being on some other Libertas-related sites, I'd have to say alarm bells are ringing for me anyway. This stuff is very relevant to the Prime Time show, because of the fact that the news of the threat of litigation against the Irish State broadcaster is also going to be part of the Libertas campaign abroad, and again serve as a warning to critics. There is an interesting poster on the "We the People of Europe" blog you mentioned above, which to me appears to be some kind of reverse psychology. It has a picture of George Orwell, and says: "Pacifism is essentially pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense." It is done in a Libertas 'style', (headshot and quote, on white background) but has a link to ThePeoplesCube.com. This site has a button on top that says: "The Stalinist Version of the Onion" - Rush Limbaugh." Rush is a very conservative American commentator. I won't elaborate more yet, as you may deem this off-topic, but I think it puts meat on the bones of what is going on here in Ireland.

Quote :

I won't elaborate more yet, as you may deem this off-topic, but I think it puts meat on the bones of what is going on here.

I should have said on this thread, but I copied that last post over to the "Pan European Party" thread, where our current discussion of Libertas's politics mainly is and I replied to it there.

What I get the impression of is a ferment of libertarian thinking out there with infinite varieties but within which there is fertile stamping ground for the kind of movement Ganley is talking about.

imo, if Ganley doesn't do it, someone else will, although it might take on a different slant. The other aspect of his thinking is the Christian,Fatherland,Fatherhood mantra, set out in the Hibernian article to appeal to its readership. One size will fit all perhaps.

I know splitting threads is a bit disruptive, but if we can keep a good meaty thread on the politics of Libertas going, I think it will be well worth while.

One of the big issues in the Prime Time special was the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. Instead of just tossing opinions around here, I'd like to begin amassing some research here, for discussion. The following is a long passage, but I think it gives a good summary of what is supposed to have happened in Albania with Ganley's company. It is only available in PDF so I am reposting here:
Ownership Structure Impact on Enterprise Behaviour – The Case of Albanian Privatised Enterprises
- 2002 Research Competition
http://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/gdn/RRCIII_46_paper_01.pdf

Mass Privatisation Method

The legal basis for the implementation of the mass privatisation method was laid down in 1995, followed by changes in the legal framework of state-owned enterprises. Thus, before privatisation, all state-owned enterprises are transformed into commercial companies in the form of Public Joint-Stock Companies. In addition, in this process, changes have been introduced to the role of the National Agency of Privatisation. Later in 1996, the Ministry of Privatisation became responsible for identifying the commercial companies that were to be privatised and the privatisation method that would be used, and the National Agency of Privatisation would execute the sale procedures.

A specific feature of the implementation of the mass privatisation programme follows from the character of the capital market. It is a fact that investment funds have not played any role in the privatisation process in Albania. In order to offer to investors the opportunity to take part in stock market without having the necessary detailed knowledge, investment funds* were set up in 1996. There were three investment funds established in Albania: ‘Anglo-Adriatic’, ‘New Albania’ and ‘Nobel’.

The ‘Anglo-Adriatic’ Investment Fund is the only fund still in operation. These were supposed to play the role of financial intermediaries by exchanging privatisation vouchers collected from the population for shares of companies to be privatised in the mass privatisation programme. They aimed at investing in the so-called strategic sectors.

However, because of the lack of a supportive legal and institutional framework and experience, the practical involvement of Investment Funds in the privatisation process was delayed.

Another reason was the existence of a free market for vouchers, which introduced unfair competition between Investment Funds and individuals. The individuals had no restrictions in the collection and use of privatisation vouchers. Also, the procedure for share transfer without a pre-determined price made investment funds hesitate to be involved because they could not define the number of shares that they would acquire from any bid (the law limited them to 40% of the share of each company).

Recently, the ‘Anglo-Adriatic’ Investment Fund has been looking to participate in the privatisation process but it has been effectively barred from doing so because the government has, since 1998, decided not to allow vouchers as means of payment in privatisation (except for employees, who can use only their own allocated
vouchers).

The mass privatisation programme was applied to 97 Albanian enterprises. This method initially had the following features in Albania: voucher holders could use vouchers to bid for shares of enterprises directly; vouchers were freely tradable in the market, and foreigners could not participate in this process. The voucher market, practically excluded the direct use of cash for privatisation of enterprises in mass privatisation. Although, the vouchers in the market were traded far below their nominal value, they have been used to invest in shares of companies privatised in the mass privatisation programme at their nominal value. Another feature concerned the ‘voucher overhang’, a gap between the value of distributed vouchers on the one hand and the value of enterprises in the programme on the other. Mema (1998, p.44) reports that the potential total value of vouchers was about 72 billions Leks of which 57 billion Leks had been distributed. However, the book value of enterprises in the mass privatisation scheme until the end of 1996 only just exceeded 11 billion Leks (Hashi and Xhillari, 1999, p.123).

Up to the beginning of 1997, the privatisation of companies through the mass privatisation method was completed through 5 rounds or packages. The first round was conducted between 11 September and 25 October 1995; the second round between 20 November and 20 December 1995; the third round between 29 December and 30 January 1996; the fourth round between 21 February and 21 March 1996; and the fifth round between June and 8 July 1996. At the end of 1996 another 20 companies were ready to be offered in a sixth round but the unfolding of events in early 1997 disrupted this process. Table 2.1 shows the details of this process.

The number of enterprises privatised by the mass privatisation programme represents only 4% of the total number of the state-owned enterprises recorded in 1991 (see Table 3.4) but they are the much bigger companies. The small number of firms privatised by this method is likely to be directly related to the very weak publicity campaign for the mass privatisation method, a lack of information on the economic situation of the companies to be privatised, and also limited experience in such processes as well. The situation changed in the fourth and fifth privatisation rounds when people had gained more knowledge and information on the mass privatisation programme. In addition, the time to use the distributed vouchers was elapsing. For this programme to be successful, both the supply side (enterprises ready to be privatised) and the emergence of a new share owning mentality should be present. As discussed above, the number of state-owned enterprises has been falling over time as more and more moved into the private sector. However, it is difficult to define the

The number of enterprises privatised by the mass privatisation programme represents only 4% of the total number of the state-owned enterprises recorded in 1991 (see Table 3.4) but they are the much bigger companies. The small number of firms privatised by this method is likely to be directly related to the very weak publicity campaign for the mass privatisation method, a lack of information on the economic situation of the companies to be privatised, and also limited experience in such processes as well. The situation changed in the fourth and fifth privatisation rounds when people had gained more knowledge and information on the mass privatisation programme. In addition, the time to use the distributed vouchers was elapsing. For this programme to be successful, both the supply side (enterprises ready to be privatised) and the emergence of a new share owning mentality should be present.

As discussed above, the number of state-owned enterprises has been falling over time as more and more moved into the private sector. However, it is difficult to define the number of privatised Albanian enterprises because the official data refers to “privatised objects” and there is no record referring to “enterprises”.

However, according to the estimates made by EBRD (1999, p.32) up to 25% of the assets of state-owned enterprises have been privatised in Albania. Also, managementemployee buyout is identified as the primary privatisation method and vouchers as the secondary method. Recently, the government announced its intention to transform the state monopolies in transport, telecommunication, energy, mining and water into joint stock companies. Their privatisation is envisaged on a case-by-case basis, primarily through international tenders. The mining sector will be particularly attractive as Albania boasts substantial deposits of copper and chromium. In December 1997, copper exploration rights for one site were sold to Canadian investors. Production by the state-owned copper monopoly Albaker resumed in March 1998, after a one-year stoppage resulting from the civil unrest. The state-owned Oil Company, Albpetrol, is engaged in some joint ventures, but is plagued by financial difficulties.

Albanian government did not have a strategic privatisation programme, which specified the framework and the method of implementation. The investigation of the privatisation process and the methods used, in this section, identify some of the specific features of the privatisation in Albania, which are expected to affect managers’ and owners’ behaviour post-privatisation. The processes employed suggest that giving priority to insider buyouts, and in particular, the mass privatisation used in 1997, would result in dispersed ownership. This observation is expected to have consequences for the principals’ and agents’ incentives and the efficiency of the corporate governance mechanism. Furthermore, the policy-makers in Albania did not pay attention to who would be the new owners, a factor which also influences the efficiency of the corporate governance mechanisms. This analysis will help to provide a background for our discussion of the impact of the specific features of ownership structure on enterprise behaviour in Albania.

* According to the Albanian Law, an “Investment Fund” is a private legal entity which accumulates financial resources of individuals or other legal entities.

Ganley fails to provide clarity on Libertas loan The Irish Times

"THE ANTI-LISBON Treaty campaigner Declan Ganley has not responded to a request for information from the Standards in Public Office Commission in relation to a loan he has said he gave to Libertas during the recent referendum. Correspondence between the commission and Mr Ganley over the past number of months, seen by The Irish Times, shows that the commission has queried Mr Ganley and Libertas about a number of issues.

Ganley fails to provide clarity on Libertas loan The Irish Times

"THE ANTI-LISBON Treaty campaigner Declan Ganley has not responded to a request for information from the Standards in Public Office Commission in relation to a loan he has said he gave to Libertas during the recent referendum. Correspondence between the commission and Mr Ganley over the past number of months, seen by The Irish Times, shows that the commission has queried Mr Ganley and Libertas about a number of issues.

"In a letter to the commission on July 7th, Mr Ganley said that "under the definitions of the elector acts, Rivada Networks Ltd made no donations to Libertas".He also said his loan to Libertas "involved a detailed legal agreement with a repayment plan in accordance with commercial lending norms and signed in accordance with
the relevant section of the electoral acts".Libertas did not wish to comment when contacted yesterday.

Also in The Irish Times today: MEP in diplomatic row on Czech visit

FIANNA FÁIL MEP Brian Crowley has become embroiled in a diplomatic row with Czech president Vaclav Klaus while on a European Parliament trip to the Czech Republic.

"We don't want interference from outside about how we conduct our electoral business.

"It's up to the Irish people how we move forward," said Mr Crowley, who accused the Czech president of being deliberately provocative by attending a dinner hosted by Libertas chief Declan Ganley, a key No campaigner in the Lisbon referendum.

"In reply, Mr Klaus told Mr Crowley that his comments were something reminiscent of what one would hear under Soviet dictatorship.


- Ever get the feeling we are being played for fools?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

I won't elaborate more yet, as you may deem this off-topic, but I think it puts meat on the bones of what is going on here.

I should have said on this thread, but I copied that last post over to the "Pan European Party" thread, where our current discussion of Libertas's politics mainly is and I replied to it there.

What I get the impression of is a ferment of libertarian thinking out there with infinite varieties but within which there is fertile stamping ground for the kind of movement Ganley is talking about.

imo, if Ganley doesn't do it, someone else will, although it might take on a different slant. The other aspect of his thinking is the Christian,Fatherland,Fatherhood mantra, set out in the Hibernian article to appeal to its readership. One size will fit all perhaps.

I know splitting threads is a bit disruptive, but if we can keep a good meaty thread on the politics of Libertas going, I think it will be well worth while.

Not to go too off topic on this, but the Hibernian mentality is Pétainism in other words. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity thrown out the window and replaced with Work, Family and Country. No thanks and those who want that can keep it. It might also be noted that the great libertarian project of the last thirty years has come to a shuddering halt. There is a world of difference between the Liberalism of John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes that I espouse on one side and the Libertarianism of the followers of Milton Friedman, the isolationist/aggressive nationalism of the far Right and the religious conservatives who want Ireland remade in their image on the other side. I'll always be on the other side of that unholy trinity.

Ronald Binge wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

I won't elaborate more yet, as you may deem this off-topic, but I think it puts meat on the bones of what is going on here.

I should have said on this thread, but I copied that last post over to the "Pan European Party" thread, where our current discussion of Libertas's politics mainly is and I replied to it there.

What I get the impression of is a ferment of libertarian thinking out there with infinite varieties but within which there is fertile stamping ground for the kind of movement Ganley is talking about.

imo, if Ganley doesn't do it, someone else will, although it might take on a different slant. The other aspect of his thinking is the Christian,Fatherland,Fatherhood mantra, set out in the Hibernian article to appeal to its readership. One size will fit all perhaps.

I know splitting threads is a bit disruptive, but if we can keep a good meaty thread on the politics of Libertas going, I think it will be well worth while.

Not to go too off topic on this, but the Hibernian mentality is Pétainism in other words. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity thrown out the window and replaced with Work, Family and Country. No thanks and those who want that can keep it. It might also be noted that the great libertarian project of the last thirty years has come to a shuddering halt. There is a world of difference between the Liberalism of John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes that I espouse on one side and the Libertarianism of the followers of Milton Friedman, the isolationist/aggressive nationalism of the far Right and the religious conservatives who want Ireland remade in their image on the other side. I'll always be on the other side of that unholy trinity.

This new libertarianism is emerging I think to the right of Thatcher. Thatcherism was based on Monetarism, combined with "Get on Your Bike", self sufficiency and "there is no such thing as society". It was a crude philosophy aimed at dismantling the postwar Welfare State and the power of the Trade Unions. A large under-class was created and the upper reaches of the middle and capital owning classes benefitted. Everyone was told that something called a "service employment economy" could be viable - it was paid for to a large extent with oil, banking and credit. Manufacturing in Britain went, banking became more important, and North Sea oil kept the thing afloat. Its spawned New Labour. With the banks in the toilet and the oil running out, Britain is facing a financial and social shock.

Much of the new libertarianism is positively anti-society, religious and fanatical, xenophobic and lacking in a clear economic theory beyond " the invisible hand" of capitalism. It is a happy hunting ground for demagogues and opportunists.

The problem we have is that our politicians can't answer people like Ganley and Klaus because they lost touch with the electorate over Lisbon, and consistently treated the electorate with disrespect.

I'm copying these last two posts over to the Pan-European Party thread, in the interests of keeping a record there of discussion on Libertas's politics.

Another P.ie posting buried there in the usual about the clear employment of Naoise Nunn by Rivada "In a letter to the commission on July 7th, Mr Ganley said that "under
the definitions of the elector acts, Rivada Networks Ltd made no
donations to Libertas" Irish Time Saturday linked below HERE

Quote :

Naoise Nunn was very clear on this saying that as a Rivada employee he
was instructed by Ganley to work for Libertas. It is 100% clear that
Naoise Nunn knew who he was working for and that the work for Libertas
was part of his employment with Rivada.

this was later contradicted by Declan Ganley. I would take Naoise's
word for it as Ganley seems to be trying to cover up. See the below

Irish Times reported on Saturday Ganley fails to provide clarity on Libertas loan - The Irish Times - Sat, Dec 06, 2008
"In the course of the referendum campaign, Libertas activist Naoise Nunn told The Irish Times he was an employee of Rivada who did work for Libertas at the direction of Mr Ganley.
Mr Ganley has told the commission that the employees of Rivada who
worked on the Libertas campaign did so in a voluntary capacity."

See also Saturday, July 5, 2008 Irish Times "Ganley's bid for Baghdad action"
"Rivada Networks has an Irish subsidiary with a registered office at Ganley's home in Tuam.A number of employees of the subsidiary were founding members of
Libertas and one of them, executive director Naoise Nunn, told The
Irish Times during the Lisbon Treaty campaign that he had carried out
work for Libertas during 2007 and 2008, having been instructed to do so
by Ganley. Ganley later contradicted this and said Nunn had carried out voluntary work for Libertas while working for Rivada"


The earliest is more categoric Irish Times Saturday, May 31, 2008
On the mysterious trail of 'Mr No'

" The executive director of Libertas, Naoise Nunn, has told
The Irish Times he is an employee of Rivada. He said he was employed by
Rivada in October 2006. Asked what he did, he said he mostly did work
for Libertas, but also did work for Rivada. Asked who assigned him to
his duties, he said Ganley."

MLD on Prime Time now saying the the Govt have invented a piece of choreography to brow beat the people into accepting the same treaty.

Sinn Fein are the ones that said we should go back to Europe and get concessions. In fairness, that's what Cowen et al are trying to do.

Do we need a Lisbon II thread at this stage ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

MLD on Prime Time now saying the the Govt have invented a piece of choreography to brow beat the people into accepting the same treaty.

Sinn Fein are the ones that said we should go back to Europe and get concessions. In fairness, that's what Cowen et al are trying to do.

Do we need a Lisbon II thread at this stage ?

We surely do - unless there's one there in the Europe forum already?

Aye, we do have one. EVM

Ganley on BBC2 Newsnight now

What's he nattering on about? Is it live?

yes live, condemning patronising Poettering who's just been on and saying the EU elections will be a proxy referendum ...

(oops, btw German-English relations on the slide )

Ganley was in his City Gent striped suit .... a younger Jimmy Goldsmith ... I don't get how he thinks this is going to work in the UK. He's in a crowded field. The "pro EU" half sentence will get lost among the anti-EU dog whistles and the few who do read it will probably condemn him anyway.

Kirstie Wark good at incredulous that he should presume to fund candidates across the EU.

Was he harping on about the "elites" again? Clearly failing to realise that he is of course one of the said elites. He is hardly Richard Boyd Barrett is he?

Sure, I'll have to go along to a meeting, though, if he has any in London!

johnfás wrote:

Was he harping on about the "elites" again? Clearly failing to realise that he is of course one of the said elites. He is hardly Richard Boyd Barrett is it?

Yep, it's not gonna work here. I only heard half of the interview on the BBC R4 interview at 1pm today, but Farage was putting clear water between UKIP and Libertas. Ganley is only repeating Tory party stuff, at least on a cursory reading / hearing.

Atticus wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Was he harping on about the "elites" again? Clearly failing to realise that he is of course one of the said elites. He is hardly Richard Boyd Barrett is it?

Yep, it's not gonna work here. I only heard half of the interview on the BBC R4 interview at 1pm today, but Farage was putting clear water between UKIP and Libertas. Ganley is only repeating Tory party stuff, at least on a cursory reading / hearing.

He'll move to the right so, to find some space.

cactus flower wrote:

Atticus wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Was he harping on about the "elites" again? Clearly failing to realise that he is of course one of the said elites. He is hardly Richard Boyd Barrett is it?

Yep, it's not gonna work here. I only heard half of the interview on the BBC R4 interview at 1pm today, but Farage was putting clear water between UKIP and Libertas. Ganley is only repeating Tory party stuff, at least on a cursory reading / hearing.

He'll move to the right so, to find some space.

BNP territory so ...

I'll transfer over a post from another thread (I posted the same on P.ie, on three threads, but not a single response, perhaps I'm going insane)...

Running in the UK is a big mistake. They'll split the anti-Lisbon vote, and I doubt they'll get close to even a single seat. Can not understand why they would do this, and neither can Nigel Farage of UKIP:

Quote :

"I'm a little surprised that Libertas want to stand in the UK as their policy seems almost the same as David Cameron's Conservatives'.

"They [Libertas] just want some change and reform within the union. I cannot see, given that UKIP is committed to the UK being an independent country, that we have anything in common at all."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7777713.stm

I hope they fail miserably there, and in the North. Stupid.