The Privatisation of Irish Politics

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Toxic if you ahd read the thread you would see that we have tried to find out if Libertas have policies but it seems though they have a political party they don't have policies beyond No to Europe that they are willing to state.

That's fine, that's a political criticism, and one not entirely without merit, stick to stuff like that.

Quote :

Their catch cry of Transparency begs the same from their self appointed leader.

Yes, fine again, but not page after page of unsubstantiated innuendo and accusations of guilt by tenuous association.

Quote :

re "nobody reads it apart from yourselves" 25,000 people read the Primetime thread on P.ie so I think you are underestimating the interest.

25,000 people have not read P.ie in its existence, I would say. Repeated logging in to the thread by anoraks like us accounts for 99% of that figure.

Quote :

Plus you read it Toxic

Yes, but I am a weird and sick individual, I must not be taken as representative. Much of the cut and paste stuff here has not been subjected to my gaze, I should add, my sadness only extends to 'pathetic', not to 'masochistic psychopath'...

The purpose of this thread was set out in the OP. Repeat posts on Declan Ganley's business history are off topic in this thread and any such posts, or ad hominem attacks on posters will be modded severely from here on in.
I'm reposting the OP here to remind people what this thread is for.

Anti-coalition said

Quote :

I'm working on an idea; the privatisation of politics, and Irish politics in particular. On a global scale, we have seen a proliferation of privatisation of government functions, at local, state, and national levels, taking the form of public private partnerships (PPPs). In fact, it is EU policy, to encourage this model of governance, despite the highly questionable results so far.

With the recent upheavals in the financial markets, we have seen unprecedented interventions by Governments in the banking systems and markets, as well as corporations like auto-makers in the US. With regards to the banks, all of the storm has been focused on the public money being used to prop up private profiteers. But there has been very little wind behind efforts to to look into how private entities are reaching into government, and negotiating positions of power, with other peoples money.

But the most striking example of the privatization of politics in Ireland, and Europe, comes in the form of Libertas. Ironically, just when free-market economics have driven us to the precipice, along comes this outfit calling for even less regulation and Government 'interference' with business. Along comes a designer 'political party' out of the blue, which launches itself, and is actually taken seriously by some, despite the fact that it has no candidates and no detailed policies; just a few handy slogans. It can't even be described as a cult of personality, because there are simply no members. There are only employees and players. Yet, the public are being asked for 100 million euros. And that is just the beginning.

The irony is that if we had passed the Lisbon Treaty, that we would have fundamental rights, which would protect us against this type of highly funded attack on Government, and public decision-making. As bad as Irish law has proven, in terms of protecting us from the privatisation of politics, the EU is even weaker. In fact, as far as I know, it funded the Libertas campaign, along with what currently appears to be a single donor. The traditional democratic checks and balances have failed citizens on many fronts, simultaneously. Only an inspiring vision of political integrity can save us now, which is the one thing our government and our new 'Liberator', sorely lack.

The People's Movement seems to be a political response to the current trend, with Patricia McKenna, Aengus O Snodaigh and others teaming up, in an NGO or third party type front. And while I respect the integrity of the members, I remain completely unmoved. So, what now?

Anticoalition in the first post opened the question of what kind of entity Libertas is, and is planned to become. There is plenty to talk about there.

Cookiemonster - the issues of the unusual undemocratic corporate character of Libertas and its lack of a clear policy base have been raised by scores of posters across the internet, myself, Zhou and johnfás included, going back over months. Now that negotiations are going on between Libertas and other small right wing libertarian groups across Europe, Declan Ganley can't rely on vague sloganeering any longer, as people will not make political commitments and alliances without a clearer understanding of what he's after. The EU deregulated, but with an elected President, as proposed by Ganley is not a model that seems to be popular anywhere in Europe.

Ganley will presumably take his chance in the European Elections, although he is slow to declare himself as a candidate. In my mind, his tax residency might be no legal bar to him standing here, but it presents a moral bar that he may be thinking about. In any event, it seems there will be Libertas candidates "appointed" through the interview system set up and the voters will take them or leave them. It is my hope that they will be able to make their decision on the basis of an honest and thorough policy statement by Libertas and not on a few "transparency democracy and apple pie" slogans.

Until we get the policy statement, we have to rely on what can be gleaned from the writings published on the Libertas website and from the memoranda and articles of the Libertas Institute, Party and Foundation limited companies: in summary it is

-Anti-Islamic
-Concerned that there are not enough Christian Europeans being born
-Socially conservative
-In favour of organised strike breaking
-In favour of economic deregulation.

Also, we have to assume that Libertas has no problem with the policies of affiliates the Mouvement Pour La France: which are to
*Restore the rule of national law over European law. It is a guiding principle: the re-establishment of democracy by subjecting the technocratic body to the elected one.
* Cease negotiations of accession of Turkey to the European Union, and begin a process of privileged partnerships with Turkey and other Mediterranean countries.
* Allow the countries of Europe to form their own, independent foreign policies.
* Follow a policy of respect of national borders and control of immigration.
* Build a Europe of free and selected co-operations.
* Put the national Parliaments in the middle of European construction in their giving a right of veto on the vital interests of the people which they represent.
* Found a right of call in front of the people for the judgments of the Court of Justice, true right of popular opposition.
* Put the European Union and the euro at the service of the growth and employment.
* Found a European preference for industry and the services, as for agriculture.
* Forbiding wearing hijab in public places and at street.
* Establish a moratorium on constructing mosques in France.
(quoted from peoplekorps on the P.ie thread linked).

Personally, I think a set of policies based on xenophobia socially, politically on nationalism and, suppression of trade union activity and rights, and on economic deregulation is retrograde, deeply reactionary and liable to end in unneccessary conflict and wars.

We have to consider that Libertas's slowness and reluctance to come out with its policy and programme is tactical, and that Ganley hopes to contest the election without giving full account of what he stands for. For that reason, imo it is well worth the effort to try and piece together where Ganley stands politically earlier rather than later.

cactus flower wrote:

Until we get the policy statement, we have to rely on what can be gleaned from the writings published on the Libertas website and from the memoranda and articles of the Libertas Institute, Party and Foundation limited companies: in summary it is

In your summary it is...

Leaving asside the chaff, I'll attempt to address the issues your raise.

Quote :

-Anti-Islamic

I would say anti-islamic fundamentalist would be more accurate, however, there is no need to restrained or rational when Libertas is discussed.

Quote :

-Concerned that there are not enough Christian Europeans being born

Put simply there aren't enough. The EU has one of the slowest population growth in the world and one of the highest median ages in the world. A continuation of this could have a drastic impact on the EU not only in relation social and societal changes but also in relation to pensions, tax take, cost of health services etc. Statistically it's a ticking timebomb.

Quote :

-Socially conservative

Well this is more Ganley than Libertas, isn't it? But then socially conservative parties are quite popular in countries all over the EU, here included, and also in the European Parliament in the form of the largest grouping the EPP-ED. No dount, however, that this label will evolve now to staunchly socially conservative or something along those lines...

Quote :

-In favour of organised strike breaking

I'm not terribly convinced by this, but you keep bringing it up. What application it would have in the European Parliament I don't know. I hardly suspect MEPs are going to strike any time soon, unless they're given a strik allowance that is...

Quote :

-In favour of economic deregulation.

I would be in favour of deregulation in general, but it's certainly a buck to the trend in Brussels whoes reaction to almost any issue is to pass some regulation. It's rarely about how much regulation is passed and more about if good regulation is passed.

Quote :

Also, we have to assume that Libertas has no problem with the policies of affiliates the Mouvement Pour La France: which are to

I don't agree that we have to assume that, but anyway there is no getting away from it I fear so...

Quote :

*Restore the rule of national law over European law. It is a guiding principle: the re-establishment of democracy by subjecting the technocratic body to the elected one.

They are not alone there it seems.

Quote :

* Cease negotiations of accession of Turkey to the European Union, and begin a process of privileged partnerships with Turkey and other Mediterranean countries.

Seems to have happened anyway

Quote :

* Allow the countries of Europe to form their own, independent foreign policies.

Something shared by the Conservative party in the UK too I believe.

Quote :

* Follow a policy of respect of national borders and control of immigration.

It's a little vague. Free movement of people within the EU has been part of the EU since 1993 and something I wouldn't be giving up without a fight.

Quote :

* Build a Europe of free and selected co-operations.

I doubt they are alone here either. Sounds a little like "enhanced co-operation" to me.

Quote :

* Put the national Parliaments in the middle of European construction in their giving a right of veto on the vital interests of the people which they represent.

I think getting the current system fucnctioning in some may might be a start.

Quote :

* Found a right of call in front of the people for the judgments of the Court of Justice, true right of popular opposition.

I like that idea.

Quote :

* Put the European Union and the euro at the service of the growth and employment.

Seems good.

Quote :

* Found a European preference for industry and the services, as for agriculture.

Likewise.

Quote :

* Forbiding wearing hijab in public places and at street.

Wouldn't agree with that.

Quote :

* Establish a moratorium on constructing mosques in France.

Nor that, thought how the EP could do anything about that I don't know.

Quote :

(quoted from peoplekorps on the P.ie thread linked).

Personally, I think a set of policies based on xenophobia socially, politically on nationalism and, suppression of trade union activity and rights, and on economic deregulation is retrograde, deeply reactionary and liable to end in unneccessary conflict and wars.

Fear much?

Quote :

We have to consider that Libertas's slowness and reluctance to come out with its policy and programme is tactical, and that Ganley hopes to contest the election without giving full account of what he stands for.

Or that policy formulation is difficult, that consultation is a lengthy process and also that it's important that it's done correctly.

Quote :

For that reason, imo it is well worth the effort to try and piece together where Ganley stands politically earlier rather than later.

Or attempt to ruin Libertas before you've any real idea of what they are about. Two legs bad, four legs good.

Quote :

policy formulation is difficult, that consultation is a lengthy process and also that it's important that it's done correctly.

I note your comments with interest cookiemonster, but until the launch of Libertas's programme and policy, we can only make our best surmises.

I have no time for this kind of messing at all:

Quote :

Bridget Rowe, self styled dynamic newspaperwoman and close friend of Nigel Farage the charismatic leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, is listed as “leader” of newly registered Libertas UK on the electoral commission’s website register of political parties.


The party’s address is given as 400 Main Road, Westerham Hill, in Kent, which is believed to be Bridget Rowe’s home. Her nominating officer is J.M. Greenbough and her Treasurer is given as Damian Wilson.

Bridget Rowe, whose Fleet Street reputation does not match her own claim on her page at the Jaque Evans Management Ltd web site, has been a speaker at UKIP rallies. She is known in Brussels as a key UKIP player who is close to Nigel Farage. UKIP officials close to the leadership have described her as “the replacement national press officer”.

Either this UKIP insider has defected to Libertas or, it is being speculated, she has launched a spoiler operation. Under the Registration of Political Parties Act of 1998 brought in after a party calling itself Literal Democrats caused confusion and damage to the Liberal Democrats no other party can now use a name close to Libertas.

We have been unable to contact Libertas although a Brussels official promised before Christmas Day that someone would contact us. Paul Nuttal, UKIP party chairman, did return our call to say he was unable to contact his leader Nigel Farage on Christmas Eve.

Mr Nuttal did say that he knew nothing about the registration of a party by Bridget Rowe. He speculated that if Mr Farage was behind a “spoiler operation” it would be a great story.

Just how Declan Ganley who lives in Galway and is blamed by the EU for orchestrating the Irish no to the Lisbon Treaty campaign and who made his millions as a contractor to American defence industries could have overlooked such a fundamental issue as registering his party in the UK is a matter for speculation.

These UKIP types must be the pits to deal with.

This could all get very messy

LINK to EUReporter

Lather, rinse, repeat... repeat, repeat, repeat.

cookiemonster wrote:

Lather, rinse, repeat... repeat, repeat, repeat.

Here you are cookiemonster, you can borrow this stuff. I have a feeling you're going to need a lot of it.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Lather, rinse, repeat... repeat, repeat, repeat.

Here you are cookiemonster, you can borrow this stuff. I have a feeling you're going to need a lot of it.

You've seen my house?

cactus flower wrote:

The purpose of this thread was set out in the OP. Repeat posts on Declan Ganley's business history are off topic in this thread and any such posts, or ad hominem attacks on posters will be modded severely from here on in.
I'm reposting the OP here to remind people what this thread is for.

Anti-coalition said

Quote :

I'm working on an idea; the privatisation of politics, and Irish politics in particular. On a global scale, we have seen a proliferation of privatisation of government functions, at local, state, and national levels, taking the form of public private partnerships (PPPs). In fact, it is EU policy, to encourage this model of governance, despite the highly questionable results so far.

With the recent upheavals in the financial markets, we have seen unprecedented interventions by Governments in the banking systems and markets, as well as corporations like auto-makers in the US. With regards to the banks, all of the storm has been focused on the public money being used to prop up private profiteers. But there has been very little wind behind efforts to to look into how private entities are reaching into government, and negotiating positions of power, with other peoples money.

But the most striking example of the privatization of politics in Ireland, and Europe, comes in the form of Libertas. Ironically, just when free-market economics have driven us to the precipice, along comes this outfit calling for even less regulation and Government 'interference' with business. Along comes a designer 'political party' out of the blue, which launches itself, and is actually taken seriously by some, despite the fact that it has no candidates and no detailed policies; just a few handy slogans. It can't even be described as a cult of personality, because there are simply no members. There are only employees and players. Yet, the public are being asked for 100 million euros. And that is just the beginning.

The irony is that if we had passed the Lisbon Treaty, that we would have fundamental rights, which would protect us against this type of highly funded attack on Government, and public decision-making. As bad as Irish law has proven, in terms of protecting us from the privatisation of politics, the EU is even weaker. In fact, as far as I know, it funded the Libertas campaign, along with what currently appears to be a single donor. The traditional democratic checks and balances have failed citizens on many fronts, simultaneously. Only an inspiring vision of political integrity can save us now, which is the one thing our government and our new 'Liberator', sorely lack.

The People's Movement seems to be a political response to the current trend, with Patricia McKenna, Aengus O Snodaigh and others teaming up, in an NGO or third party type front. And while I respect the integrity of the members, I remain completely unmoved. So, what now?

Anticoalition in the first post opened the question of what kind of entity Libertas is, and is planned to become. There is plenty to talk about there.

Thank you for brining us back to base Cactus. I was thinking more about this this morning, and was imagining how Ganley would have been viewed if he tried to do what he is doing in say the 1920s. He would never have gotten away with it, like he is now. He would have been laughed or shot to death. What is different these days? The privatisation of politics, which is possible now in Ireland, not only due to a weak coalition Government, but do to an easily accessible, and overly powerful media.

So far, he has run an anti-Lisbon campaign, but failed to create a political movement. Instead, he is trying to invent one from the top down. He continues to spend vast amounts of his own money, on an infrastructure for the party, an image for the party, and yet there is no party. The reason is that he still hasn't figured out (a) what people want to hear and (b) how to make it sound good, so as to gain followers.

If somebody announced he was launching a political party, with no candidates and no policies, 80 years ago, it would have been seen for what it is... a joke, and a plot. Nowadays, there is no need for substance, only spin, as Ganley is living proof of.

Anticoalition wrote:

The privatisation of politics, which is possible now in Ireland, not only due to a weak coalition Government, but do to an easily accessible, and overly powerful media.

You do know that the both the Irish Times and the Independent were not exactly helpful to Libertas during the Referendum?

Interesting article in yesterdays Tribune on Ganley's bid to get IFI with Grande Portage. Fertiliser bomb ignited Ganley's anger

makes an interesting addition to our discussion of Ganley Int and the fact that it was not what it seemed. Grande Poratge was "a shell company".

"On receiving the letter, Ronald Long sent a handwritten note to
Harney saying Grande Portage had "no net assets, no income... [and was]
basically a shell.""

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Interesting article in yesterdays Tribune on Ganley's bid to get IFI with Grande Portage. Fertiliser bomb ignited Ganley's anger

makes an interesting addition to our discussion of Ganley Int and the fact that it was not what it seemed. Grande Poratge was "a shell company".

"On receiving the letter, Ronald Long sent a handwritten note to
Harney saying Grande Portage had "no net assets, no income... [and was]
basically a shell.""

What has that got to do with the privatisation of Irish politics?

Have you not seen this? It's in bold and everything. Or do you just not understand?

cactus flower wrote:

The purpose of this thread was set out in the OP. Repeat posts on Declan Ganley's business history are off topic in this thread and any such posts, or ad hominem attacks on posters will be modded severely from here on in.
I'm reposting the OP here to remind people what this thread is for

Auditor #9 wrote:

Also an equitable title for that Ganley Super Thread might be something you could do for us too, please ?

The wonderful fantasy thread where we imagine the evil deeds of the Prince of Darkness, the evil far-right monster "Dodgy" Declan "Puppy Eater" Ganley!

I pmd FA about this, but he doesn't seem to be around. I suggest that we split anything about Declan Ganley's personal business history out of this thread and relocate it into the Prime Time- How Much Do You Know Thread.

Cookie, if you are going to say that posts are fantasy, lies or invention, it would help if you gave some basis for saying that. A lot of the material quoted is taken directly from Mr. Ganley's websites and press releases, and you would hardly want people to think you are saying that they are all lies.

cactus flower wrote:

I pmd FA about this, but he doesn't seem to be around. I suggest that we split anything about Declan Ganley's personal business history out of this thread and relocate it into the Prime Time- How Much Do You Know Thread.

Cookie, if you are going to say that posts are fantasy, lies or invention, it would help if you gave some basis for saying that. A lot of the material quoted is taken directly from Mr. Ganley's websites and press releases, and you would hardly want people to think you are saying that they are all lies.

Oh My God! Joke much?

I think Ganley's business is his politics and visa versa, this thread is about privatisation of Irish politics therefore the business element fits here.
What fantasy Cookie ? That Grande Portage was a shell and the bidders had no funds?

As I'm posting here myself, I've asked Auditor#9 if he would keep an eye on the modding issues here. Yes, I think Ganley's politics and his business lives are one and the same, but I'm not sure how your posts are demonstrating that.

There are plenty of entrepreneurs who do the kind of thing you describe Ganley as doing - using shelf companies to make bids. The Dublin Aquatic Centre tender was won I think by a company with very little in the way of assets, for example. Business is cut throat, and Ganley has chosen to operate in some of the world's roughest and most controversial business environments. That would make him a type of an asset stripper or oligarch.

What is unusual about Ganley is that he is setting up a political movement.

Perhaps its only to be expected that Ganley as a "lone wolf" would apply his knowledge of how to set up a business to the exercise, lacking as he is in
any party political experience.

The fact that there is no party in evidence with a membership that has legal ownership of the party through internal democracy is well worthy of note. As Ganley propoganises with the words Democracy, Transparency and Elites, it's particularly ironic. Anticoalition's OP pointed to those aspects of the Libertas set up.

The extent to which Ganley's business efforts were or were not successful imo is a marginal issue in terms of the OP.

I would be far more concerned to see that he is getting involved with the Polish right wing, which is violently antisemitic and homophobic.

And the French right which is anti Islam and homophobic eg d Villiers Mep

cactus flower wrote:

Business is cut throat, and Ganley has chosen to operate in some of the world's roughest and most controversial business environments. That would make him a type of an asset stripper or oligarch.

It would make him an asset stripper? Can you point to any example of him asset stripping a company he's owned? Oligarch and Asset stripper are not synonymous either, btw.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Business is cut throat, and Ganley has chosen to operate in some of the world's roughest and most controversial business environments. That would make him a type of an asset stripper or oligarch.

It would make him an asset stripper? Can you point to any example of him asset stripping a company he's owned? Oligarch and Asset stripper are not synonymous either, btw.

Ganley's activities lay more in asset stripping of national resources, rather than mere company holdings. That was oligarch or asset stripper, btw.

The pattern is to set up a company, use it to bid for a licence or acquire a state asset, mark it up and then sell it on. He has said himself that he's not really interested in running companies.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Business is cut throat, and Ganley has chosen to operate in some of the world's roughest and most controversial business environments. That would make him a type of an asset stripper or oligarch.

It would make him an asset stripper? Can you point to any example of him asset stripping a company he's owned? Oligarch and Asset stripper are not synonymous either, btw.

Ganley's activities lay more in asset stripping of national resources, rather than mere company holdings. That was oligarch or asset stripper, btw.

The pattern is to set up a company, use it to bid for a licence or acquire a state asset, mark it up and then sell it on. He has said himself that he's not really interested in running companies.

Oh I see, so not asset stripping in any business sense, but more in a shrieking leftie pro-nationalisation sense.
Still, I think building businesses in emerging markets which provide services and create jobs isn't a bad thing.

I took the or as you indicating oligarch to be an alternative to asset stripper.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Business is cut throat, and Ganley has chosen to operate in some of the world's roughest and most controversial business environments. That would make him a type of an asset stripper or oligarch.

It would make him an asset stripper? Can you point to any example of him asset stripping a company he's owned? Oligarch and Asset stripper are not synonymous either, btw.

Ganley's activities lay more in asset stripping of national resources, rather than mere company holdings. That was oligarch or asset stripper, btw.

The pattern is to set up a company, use it to bid for a licence or acquire a state asset, mark it up and then sell it on. He has said himself that he's not really interested in running companies.

Oh I see, so not asset stripping in any business sense, but more in a shrieking leftie pro-nationalisation sense.
Still, I think building businesses in emerging markets which provide services and create jobs isn't a bad thing.

I took the or as you indicating oligarch to be an alternative to asset stripper.

You should try explaining that to the thousands of people across eastern Europe who are hurling missiles at the Parliaments who passed over national assets to the likes of Ganley.

And yes, there was no business sense in it.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Business is cut throat, and Ganley has chosen to operate in some of the world's roughest and most controversial business environments. That would make him a type of an asset stripper or oligarch.

It would make him an asset stripper? Can you point to any example of him asset stripping a company he's owned? Oligarch and Asset stripper are not synonymous either, btw.

Ganley's activities lay more in asset stripping of national resources, rather than mere company holdings. That was oligarch or asset stripper, btw.

The pattern is to set up a company, use it to bid for a licence or acquire a state asset, mark it up and then sell it on. He has said himself that he's not really interested in running companies.

Oh I see, so not asset stripping in any business sense, but more in a shrieking leftie pro-nationalisation sense.
Still, I think building businesses in emerging markets which provide services and create jobs isn't a bad thing.

I took the or as you indicating oligarch to be an alternative to asset stripper.

You should try explaining that to the thousands of people across eastern Europe who are hurling missiles at the Parliaments who passed over national assets to the likes of Ganley.

And yes, there was no business sense in it.

I don't believe he was passes anything. And an unviable business is an unviable business regardless of who owns it.

Cookie is there any proof of the below?

Quote :

Still, I think building businesses in emerging markets which provide services and create jobs isn't a bad thing

other than Kosta Tribieka and Gary Hunter and Phil Flynn (ireland was emerging the I suppose) who else got jobs?
David Cochrane, Naoise Nunn (the emerging market being pan European politics)
Seriously how many people has he employed in all?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Cookie is there any proof of the below?

Quote :

Still, I think building businesses in emerging markets which provide services and create jobs isn't a bad thing

other than Kosta Tribieka and Gary Hunter and Phil Flynn (ireland was emerging the I suppose) who else got jobs?
David Cochrane, Naoise Nunn (the emerging market being pan European politics)
Seriously how many people has he employed in all?

Why don't you tell us?