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

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Another minus:

They focused on the deceased Albanian man as if he was important. What is Ganley supposed to have done that was wrong? Is it simply that he has tried to distance himself from this guy or does not remember him. I don't get why so much time was focused on that one guy.

Google AEY Albanian Kosta and read about the man.

Don de Marino said that he had met Declan Ganley and decided that he was a man he could work with as he (Don) was old and a young guy like Declan Ganley could get around. . He seemed to be saying he was the boss/mentor or am I wrong. . Marino worked for the Reagan administration.

Quote :

Cactus Flower: I'd still like to know how Ganley earned his first 10,000 pounds investment money.

Was that not from his turf cutting days and stock investments he made while at school?

Quote :

There is a media withch hunt on for Ganley that he does not deserve.

Ganley and Libertas is not about the Lisbon Treaty.

How can you defend someone with a strikebreaking agenda ?

I know people who have been rather more audacious than asking for £10,000 aged 19. One of these people I know happens now to be a billionaire.

It is certainly most unusual but not altogether remarkable. What is remarkable is how little he wants to speak about it.

johnfás wrote:

I know people who have been rather more audacious than asking for £10,000 aged 19. One of these people I know happens now to be a billionaire.

It is certainly most unusual but not altogether remarkable. What is remarkable is how little he wants to speak about it.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there - just compare him with Bill Cullen.

Squire wrote:

Expat what are the financial and political interests of Tory grandees? I tend to agree with you that there is possibly a game afoot, but believe the support is from the land of the free. If the Euro is strong, and for that to happen the EU needs stability, who has most to lose?

If Ganley has any US support, then it will not be official support. The US government is in favour of the EU - it has promoted it at every turn. There may be some maverick libertarian right-wingers who take a different view but they don't represent official policy. If the US had not wanted the EU, it wouldn't have happened. Wilson, Heath, et al - if they had tried to push ahead without the US would all have been discovered to be vile dictators like Chavez - we'd have been bombed out of existence too - or violently sabotaged like the South American democracies were to ensure that we did as we were told. These endless European wars were a nuisance business-wise - the EU was the solution. It was about creating conditions optimal for capitalism. The democratic deficit is no accident - Lisbon is about stripping away even more of the little the EU had. This crap about 'parliamentary democracy' means 'Leave it to us. You elected us so you have to shut up and do what we say now'. No more referenda, no direct voting of any sort'. Yes indeed, the era of pure democracy is being brought to an end.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

There is a media withch hunt on for Ganley that he does not deserve.

Ganley and Libertas is not about the Lisbon Treaty.

How can you defend someone with a strikebreaking agenda ?

Yes the Nunn point in the show the "No campaign was used to brand Libertas". Bearing in mind that his company Rivada employs less 100 people strikes would hardily be the issue they are/were for the huge state companies that Thatcher went after. Therefore we must assume this is ideological and perhaps forms part of his global vision , a union free world perhaps?

Just playing the show in the background"

Re aluminium "anyone working in aluminium" was in danger of a hit.

Don De Marino quote "I met Declan in 1992 when I was coming out of government he was tackling tsome of the he toughest emerging markets his youth and energy and my ability to negotiate with governments"

A transcript would be of interest


I would agree with Aragon his backers are not likely to US government.

Disaster capitalism is an interesting model. Naomi Klein explains the rich pickings to be had from societies that have been smashed up by war, or overnight privatisation of public assets.

The likes of Dick Cheyney moved seamlessly between neo con politics and private profits.

Life isn't simple, there are conflicting views of the EU in the US. The same undoubtedly in the UK. Speculation may ultimately be fruitless.

Ganley was able to gain traction here because mainstream politicians had become so out of touch with what people are thinking in Ireland.

Aragon wrote:

Squire wrote:

Expat what are the financial and political interests of Tory grandees? I tend to agree with you that there is possibly a game afoot, but believe the support is from the land of the free. If the Euro is strong, and for that to happen the EU needs stability, who has most to lose?

If Ganley has any US support, then it will not be official support. The US government is in favour of the EU - it has promoted it at every turn. There may be some maverick libertarian right-wingers who take a different view but they don't represent official policy. If the US had not wanted the EU, it wouldn't have happened. Wilson, Heath, et al - if they had tried to push ahead without the US would all have been discovered to be vile dictators like Chavez - we'd have been bombed out of existence too - or violently sabotaged like the South American democracies were to ensure that we did as we were told. These endless European wars were a nuisance business-wise - the EU was the solution. It was about creating conditions optimal for capitalism. The democratic deficit is no accident - Lisbon is about stripping away even more of the little the EU had. This crap about 'parliamentary democracy' means 'Leave it to us. You elected us so you have to shut up and do what we say now'. No more referenda, no direct voting of any sort'. Yes indeed, the era of pure democracy is being brought to an end.

Aragon, the era of pure democracy never even started. Certainly though the era of quasi-oligarchical parliamentray democracy is drawing to a close. The next stage is when the parliament becomes a mere show piece and the real power, once hidden, becomes public. I'd say we'll probably go along this road, i.e pretending to be a republic or a democracy for another few decades. Then it will finally dumped and we'll be in a one party state or a dictatorship. Thats where we're headed anyway.

I think it is important to differentiate between what we do know and what we don't know. Facts much more interesting than suppositions.

I think a separate thread should be set up about democracy so people can work through their theories at their leisure. This big issue for democracy is that we are now and have been for some time been a Machine Nation and a Machine knows no democracy .

cactus flower wrote:

Disaster capitalism is an interesting model. Naomi Klein explains the rich pickings to be had from societies that have been smashed up by war, or overnight privatisation of public assets.

The likes of Dick Cheyney moved seamlessly between neo con politics and private profits.

Life isn't simple, there are conflicting views of the EU inhe US. The same undoubtedly in the UK. Speculation may ultimately be fruitless.

Ganley was able to gain traction here because mainstream politicians had become so out of touch with what people are thinking in Ireland.

Pirro Kushi is still in business with Gary Hunter. Hunter attended the Shelbourne dinner. They seem to have a Dublin operation.
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Kushi_Pirro_836892125.aspx
Hunter
Ganley was shown to have known Kosta Trebicka. His first reaction was that this was a European smear and that Trebicka was unsavory.
Gary Hunter was a director of several Ganley companies.

Kushi Pirro acknowledged in the show that Trebicka knew Ganley. So someone in business with Ganley for years, who was at the dinner in the Selbourne, who is in business with Kushi was not asked about the affair? It begs the question since there has been a lot of questions raised re Ganley and Trebicka would he not have checked with Hunter and /Kushi his Ganley's connection with Trebicka. if his memory was vauge on knowing Trebicka.
Seems to me he would have asked before the Primetime show and certainly in September when Trebicka died or was killed.


Her is the Venator page none of the buttons on it work http://www.venator.co.uk/index.htm

Aragon,

Maybe as someone with a Law Degree you will appreciate the comparison of campaigning for a yes vote to the trial of a murderer.
The defence team (i.e. the No side) only has to prove reasonable doubt (i.e. by lies and deceit in this case) while the prosecution (the yes
side) have to wade through all the evidence and explain the detail. Which is extremely difficult with this treaty. In my view it is made
even harder by the fact that the people (the jury or in this case you) are not even listening to the evidence and have a closed mind.

The fact remains that if the Lisbon treaty was really bad for Ireland Ganley should have been able to point that out. He couldn't and made up lies instead, which the gullible believed.

Regarding your American points. I believe you are wrong. The current president of the United States is surrounded by neo cons. Their agenda is simply America first at all costs, they have a stated policy that if any other country in the world is likely to threaten the US top dog position then a preventative war will be fought before it overtakes the US. Declan Ganley supports these views and has given lectures to a Neo Con group/think tank called the heritage foundation. The EU has overtaken the US in most measurable areas apart from militarily and is therefore a threat to be weakened or removed. The endless European wars you talk about were a boon to the US. The first world war transferred Europes wealth and military expertise to America while the second one completed this process and ended the great depression in America.

I look at Europe's achievements to date and its proposals for the future and am excited by this future. America is the country with a democratic deficit not Europe. Where were the referendums in the US on much more important issues than the Lisbon treaty in the US; like the introduction of torture, the illegal war in Iraq etc? Where are the checks and balances?

Art wrote:

Aragon,

Maybe as someone with a Law Degree you will appreciate the comparison of campaigning for a yes vote to the trial of a murderer.
The defence team (i.e. the No side) only has to prove reasonable doubt (i.e. by lies and deceit in this case) while the prosecution (the yes
side) have to wade through all the evidence and explain the detail. Which is extremely difficult with this treaty. In my view it is made
even harder by the fact that the people (the jury or in this case you) are not even listening to the evidence and have a closed mind.

The fact remains that if the Lisbon treaty was really bad for Ireland Ganley should have been able to point that out. He couldn't and made up lies instead, which the gullible believed.

Regarding your American points. I believe you are wrong. The current president of the United States is surrounded by neo cons. Their agenda is simply America first at all costs, they have a stated policy that if any other country in the world is likely to threaten the US top dog position then a preventative war will be fought before it overtakes the US. Declan Ganley supports these views and has given lectures to a Neo Con group/think tank called the heritage foundation. The EU has overtaken the US in most measurable areas apart from militarily and is therefore a threat to be weakened or removed. The endless European wars you talk about were a boon to the US. The first world war transferred Europes wealth and military expertise to America while the second one completed this process and ended the great depression in America.

I look at Europe's achievements to date and its proposals for the future and am excited by this future. America is the country with a democratic deficit not Europe. Where were the referendums in the US on much more important issues than the Lisbon treaty in the US; like the introduction of torture, the illegal war in Iraq etc? Where are the checks and balances?

I would agree with some of this, particularly that the US conciously sat back and watched the European powers debilitate each other in two world wars whilst its own economic and military dominance was established.

Personally, I think "the enemy is at home" wherever you area, and is an ultra wealthy international class holding political, economic and military power which it operates in its own class interests.

My only disagreement is that No voters would all have changed their mind if things had been known to them sufficiently well. The more I read, the less I liked it. A lot of No voters voted in protest not just against certain provisions of the Treaty, but against the insufficient democracy of the EU structures, and the trend to militarisation. I personally felt that it was likely to be the last referendum and my last chance to use a vote in that way.

I've read Ganley's speeches, and he consistently plugged an anti federalist view of the EU from about 2002-3, irrespective of which Institute or Club he was speaking to.



+

Respvblica wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Squire wrote:

Expat what are the financial and political interests of Tory grandees? I tend to agree with you that there is possibly a game afoot, but believe the support is from the land of the free. If the Euro is strong, and for that to happen the EU needs stability, who has most to lose?

If Ganley has any US support, then it will not be official support. The US government is in favour of the EU - it has promoted it at every turn. There may be some maverick libertarian right-wingers who take a different view but they don't represent official policy. If the US had not wanted the EU, it wouldn't have happened. Wilson, Heath, et al - if they had tried to push ahead without the US would all have been discovered to be vile dictators like Chavez - we'd have been bombed out of existence too - or violently sabotaged like the South American democracies were to ensure that we did as we were told. These endless European wars were a nuisance business-wise - the EU was the solution. It was about creating conditions optimal for capitalism. The democratic deficit is no accident - Lisbon is about stripping away even more of the little the EU had. This crap about 'parliamentary democracy' means 'Leave it to us. You elected us so you have to shut up and do what we say now'. No more referenda, no direct voting of any sort'. Yes indeed, the era of pure democracy is being brought to an end.

Aragon, the era of pure democracy never even started. Certainly though the era of quasi-oligarchical parliamentray democracy is drawing to a close. The next stage is when the parliament becomes a mere show piece and the real power, once hidden, becomes public. I'd say we'll probably go along this road, i.e pretending to be a republic or a democracy for another few decades. Then it will finally dumped and we'll be in a one party state or a dictatorship. Thats where we're headed anyway.

I totally agree - sorry it wasn't at all clear but my reference to the era of pure democracy was a sarcastic reference to Peter Mandelson whose expression it is.

Aragon wrote:

I totally agree - sorry it wasn't at all clear but my reference to the era of pure democracy was a sarcastic reference to Peter Mandelson whose expression it is.

The reference was to the "era of pure representative democracy". This has been definitively shown on the Cowen Lisbon Tour thread. IYou would appear to have misrepresented the quote on numerous occasions. This may be because you do not understand the difference between "pure democracy" and "pure representative democracy".

If you can find any link to a Mandelson speech or quote referring to the "era of pure democracy" then I will stand corrected. Please do not paste the contents of an article into a post by way of reply.

New pro-Klaus Eurosceptic party may be on horizon

Lively discussions are underway with regards to the creation of a new Eurosceptic political party, reports the daily Lidové Noviny. According to the paper, the new party could be ready to field candidates in elections to the European Parliament next June. The party would reportedly be comprised of allies and supporters of the Czech president Václav Klaus, and would be called Libertas.cz. This name would effectively make the party a wing of the Irish lobby group of the same name that campaigned successfully for a “no” vote in a referendum in June on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty. The Civic Democrat-led Czech government supports the treaty and would like to see it passed during its upcoming EU presidency. Speaking to Lidové Noviny, the Civic Democrat leader and Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek conceded that the formation of such a party – essentially a Civic Democrat splinter faction, was inevitable. The Civic Democrats were formed by President Klaus, who is the party’s honorary chairman.

(Source)

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I totally agree - sorry it wasn't at all clear but my reference to the era of pure democracy was a sarcastic reference to Peter Mandelson whose expression it is.

The reference was to the "era of pure representative democracy". This has been definitively shown on the Cowen Lisbon Tour thread. IYou would appear to have misrepresented the quote on numerous occasions. This may be because you do not understand the difference between "pure democracy" and "pure representative democracy".

If you can find any link to a Mandelson speech or quote referring to the "era of pure democracy" then I will stand corrected. Please do not paste the contents of an article into a post by way of reply.

Unfortunately, Respvblica, this is the case. Aragon is prone to attributing things to Mandy that he never actually said, and which are in direct contradiction of the closest thing he did say.

Art wrote:

Aragon,

Maybe as someone with a Law Degree you will appreciate the comparison of campaigning for a yes vote to the trial of a murderer.
The defence team (i.e. the No side) only has to prove reasonable doubt (i.e. by lies and deceit in this case) while the prosecution (the yes
side) have to wade through all the evidence and explain the detail. Which is extremely difficult with this treaty. In my view it is made
even harder by the fact that the people (the jury or in this case you) are not even listening to the evidence and have a closed mind.

The fact remains that if the Lisbon treaty was really bad for Ireland Ganley should have been able to point that out. He couldn't and made up lies instead, which the gullible believed.

Regarding your American points. I believe you are wrong. The current president of the United States is surrounded by neo cons. Their agenda is simply America first at all costs, they have a stated policy that if any other country in the world is likely to threaten the US top dog position then a preventative war will be fought before it overtakes the US. Declan Ganley supports these views and has given lectures to a Neo Con group/think tank called the heritage foundation. The EU has overtaken the US in most measurable areas apart from militarily and is therefore a threat to be weakened or removed. The endless European wars you talk about were a boon to the US. The first world war transferred Europes wealth and military expertise to America while the second one completed this process and ended the great depression in America.

I look at Europe's achievements to date and its proposals for the future and am excited by this future. America is the country with a democratic deficit not Europe. Where were the referendums in the US on much more important issues than the Lisbon treaty in the US; like the introduction of torture, the illegal war in Iraq etc? Where are the checks and balances?

While you accuse no campaigners of lies and deceit there is no discussion to be had, I'm afraid. There were people on both sides who made claims that couldnt be substantiated but they were a minority - most people are arguing from conviction. For the purpose of this exchange I think we should assume each person here is genuine - unless they make it clear they are not.

Legislation is never completely definitive, so nobody can ever make absolute claims about what it says. What's crucial about the text is the judicial interpretation that is likely to follow. Even where the plain meaning of the text is straightforward - and an awful lot of it is not - there is massive scope for interpretation that will permit a great many things that are being furiously denied - mostly by honest yes people who don't realise when they are being sold a pup, in my opinion. The best any of us can do is to stand back and look at the big picture and make an educated guess about what we think is likely to follow.

All that said, there are definite grounds for saying the treaty weakens EU deomcracy, that it's partly about militarisation and that it creates unparallelled access to its administrative machinery for corporate lobbyists. See the Mandelson stuff again - he states the business case plainly.

The US had a huge hand in getting the EU off the ground. There are factions among the imperialists and capitalists there for sure and the current US administration is wary of the EU in ways that earlier administrations were not - but the fundamental game plan is all going according to plan by and large. Whenever the EU makes noises about militarisation, there are folk in the US who get restive. This treaty attracted criticism from the likes of John Bolton, eg, because of it. But this rather undermines the thrust of the yes side's rationale for their being a US plot to derail Lisbon, because they are denying at the same time that there was any intention to increased EU militarisation.

Also, if a text does not explicity preclude certain potential outcomes (conscription) then people have every right to speculate and fear the worst. You wouldnt sign a contract of any sort unless you tied down the terms. It's outrageous that the government is coming along and demanding this of us. If the pro-treaty people are serious then they should confront the looseness and confusion of the drafting. Even if people are to take you at your word who is to say that more unscrupulous forces will not come along in due course and walk through doors that have been left open for them instead of being locked tightly.

Not having a commissioner for any period of time as a nation state entity within the EU is a blazingly stupid idea. This isnt just about the size of a country or small populations holding bigger populations 'to ransom'. That argument makes plain the superstate motives of the drafters of the treaty in any case because it completely disregards that we are a sovereign country responsible for our own resources. We can't have a hiatus like that for a third of the time - no participation without representation is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Ganley was just on Newstalk, lambasting the program. Apparently they didn't even name his parents correctly, despite having spent three hours with them in their home. He said his 5 year old nephew asked his mum why they were playing 'monster music' on the program. He was pretty emphatic about never having set eyes on the dead Albanian chap.

The music and the silent credits didn't help the case. The whole Rivada (Ir.) paying Libertas staff wages appears to have been ignored too. The Albania stuff was also overplayed. If I were Ganley I would be very upset at the reference to the guy's murder - it is hatchet stuff. Ganley palyed on the fears of the ignorant in his anti-Lisbon campaign. He is now being subjected to the same crude treatment.

On the other hand, there was a definite case for a documentary to be made and Ganley has sank lower in my estimation after the program. The lack of clarity as to how he obtained his wealth and the nature of his business dealings, the SIPO stuff, the attacks on fanatics in Brussels and so forth all make me look askance at him.

Squire: America has never openly said much against the EU and has been usually vaguely supportive (although the neocons may differ, it is hard to know how much influence they would have, especially now, since Bush has been a lame duck for years).

However, in the UK, where Ganley has much closer links, and was siad by last night's programme to have lived for a few years before he went to Riga, the Tories and UKIP have aggressively opposed European integration for years.
Largely stoked by the Murdoch press, public opinion is 70 odd percent against Europe and they keep negotiating opt outs from EU laws. Cameron has said he'll hold a referendum on the EU as soon as he gets into power; he would suffer less economically if he were to bring us out with him. I note we saw Enda Kenny having a cosy tete a tete with Cameron on the RTE news a few nights ago; he seems pretty luke-warm on Lisbon lately. The Tory funder Stuart Wheeler took a court case against the UK govt recently to stop them from ratifying Lisbon (he failed). A lot of the Tory eurosceptics are personally very, very wealthy. I also suspect the UK arms manufacturers would not welcome having to deal with a European defence policy/army/strategy as they may suspect that French manufacturers may gain an advantage.
The Russians would undoubtedly not gain from a more united Europe either.

So why did the RTE programme ONLY point the finger at "US spooks"...explicitly mentioned in the last stage of the programme.

Join the dots, people

The Albania stuff was also under-explained. It would surely not have been rocket science, once in Albania, to find out what happened to Anglo Adriatika's voucher scheme fund.

They only pointed at US spooks because he is in business with ex-US Military/security personnel and has had business dealing with US federal agencies. Furthermore, it was De Marino who mentioned the CIA angle saying he had read about it and it wasn't Katie Hannon.

When is KevBar coming back?

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

When is KevBar coming back?

His moratorium is lifted today - he's free to post as long as he sticks to the rules.

Aragon,

Quote :

Not having a commissioner for any period of time as a nation state entity within the EU is a blazingly stupid idea.

European commissioners are not allowed to work in their countries interests. We were going to lose our commissioner anyway next year based on previous treaties, so its not a real argument for or against the Lisbon treaty.

Quote :

This treaty attracted criticism from the likes of John Bolton, eg, because of it. But this rather undermines the thrust of the yes side's
rationale for their being a US plot to derail Lisbon, because they are denying at the same time that there was any intention to increased EU
militarisation.

I believe the Lisbon treaty does increase the EU militarisation but it also allows Ireland to opt out of this (we are cowards really, we just
want the money and benefits but not share the costs).

Quote :

The US had a huge hand in getting the EU off the ground. There are factions among the imperialists and capitalists there for sure and the current US administration is wary of the EU in ways that earlier administrations were not - but the fundamental game plan is all going
according to plan by and large.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the US input. Its a pity the US have tried to undermine the Lisbon Treaty and therefore the EU as probably in the future the EU and the US will need to come together to defend democracy against China or Russia. We both need to be strong for this.

While I disagree with you for voting No I do admire your detailed defence of your decision, even though I may lose may job because of it. The only other No voter who actually seemed to know the ins and outs of the treaty was Vincent Browne.

Enjoy the weekend.