Libertas a pan European Project : Read OP Intro Carefully - Mod

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

snapple drinker wrote:

No, Libertas are pro-EU
If they are pro-eu why have they given their name to eurosceptic parties accross europe?

I don't think there's any ambiguity in anything I have heard from Ganley, he's pro-EU. As to their personnel, you'd have to ask them.

Quote :

Lisbon represents consolidation of the project so far, and I oppose it as such.

Do you mean you oppose Irish/EU integration per se?

Yes.

There you are knowing the financial situation both ourselves & Europe are in, the vote has been taken and it's a dead heat, you have the deciding vote, you’ve weighed everything up, which way would you go?

Well, once my joy at finally being the centre of the political world had abated (i'd stretch it out and milk it for a while, you understand...), I'd vote 'no' without thinking twice. I do not buy for a moment the scaremongering of the 'yes' side that we'll fall into the sea if we p1ss our European masters off. And even if they were that way inclined, the alternative of meekly accepting that we will never in future have a truly 'free' vote on European matters, rather be a hostage to implied threats, would make me, on a point of bloody-minded principle, vote 'no'.

toxic avenger wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I am in favour of the EU.I could do without aspects of Lisbon, but they are less problematic than a lot of individual countries domestic laws like the UK Terror legislation,mandatory sentencing in Ireland, etc.

At this stage I would prefer a strong Europe that was not crippled by Euroscepticism. We are 90% there as it stands.the benefits of a stronger Europe currently outway the negatives for me.

I had Polish taxi driver today who brought up the anti EU movement in Poland. he mention Ganley's popularity there. I asked him dis he think that the young people of Poland would like to work abroad. he said he thought a lot would, he then agreed that Poland would stay with the EU.


that siad I distrust the rise of neo con far right Ganley crew more than I am concerned with Lisbon

Would you still oppose Ganley if he came out in favour of a 'yes' vote this time around?

It's an interesting question, but whether he supported Lisbon or not would be mostly irrelevant from my point of view. If, as I suspect, what is behind the curtain is essentially just a well-heeled and charismatic Justin Barret in a suit, then, while he is not in any way a good thing for democracy or civic life, he's not any worse than the next reptile (assuming that to be Justin). If, on the other hand, he is a Mosley in the making, then he represents a small but actual bad thing for democracy and civic life - to the same extent, and for the same reasons, as Mosley. If, finally, he were the operator and demagogue that he makes himself out to be, he would be a clear and present danger to democracy. Lisbon doesn't really come into the picture.

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I am in favour of the EU.I could do without aspects of Lisbon, but they are less problematic than a lot of individual countries domestic laws like the UK Terror legislation,mandatory sentencing in Ireland, etc.

At this stage I would prefer a strong Europe that was not crippled by Euroscepticism. We are 90% there as it stands.the benefits of a stronger Europe currently outway the negatives for me.

I had Polish taxi driver today who brought up the anti EU movement in Poland. he mention Ganley's popularity there. I asked him dis he think that the young people of Poland would like to work abroad. he said he thought a lot would, he then agreed that Poland would stay with the EU.


that siad I distrust the rise of neo con far right Ganley crew more than I am concerned with Lisbon

Would you still oppose Ganley if he came out in favour of a 'yes' vote this time around?

It's an interesting question, but whether he supported Lisbon or not would be mostly irrelevant from my point of view. If, as I suspect, what is behind the curtain is essentially just a well-heeled and charismatic Justin Barret in a suit, then, while he is not in any way a good thing for democracy or civic life, he's not any worse than the next reptile (assuming that to be Justin). If, on the other hand, he is a Mosley in the making, then he represents a small but actual bad thing for democracy and civic life - to the same extent, and for the same reasons, as Mosley. If, finally, he were the operator and demagogue that he makes himself out to be, he would be a clear and present danger to democracy. Lisbon doesn't really come into the picture.

I really don't see any of that. He's not Justin Barrett, a man who makes an anti-EU, anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia person like me want to throw bricks at the television any time he's on it. He's a lot more coherent and plausible than Barrett (though, I agree, these things are relative). As to the Mosley side of things, I don't think that's a serious proposition in this day and age. Being a rabble-rousing demagogue usually doesn't involve speaking about sensible democratic reform and a respect for what European membership has done for Ireland. I don't think he has ever made himself out to be a demagogue anyway. Bald ginger people from Watford really are at a disadvantage on that score anyway...

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I am in favour of the EU.I could do without aspects of Lisbon, but they are less problematic than a lot of individual countries domestic laws like the UK Terror legislation,mandatory sentencing in Ireland, etc.

At this stage I would prefer a strong Europe that was not crippled by Euroscepticism. We are 90% there as it stands.the benefits of a stronger Europe currently outway the negatives for me.

I had Polish taxi driver today who brought up the anti EU movement in Poland. he mention Ganley's popularity there. I asked him dis he think that the young people of Poland would like to work abroad. he said he thought a lot would, he then agreed that Poland would stay with the EU.


that siad I distrust the rise of neo con far right Ganley crew more than I am concerned with Lisbon

Would you still oppose Ganley if he came out in favour of a 'yes' vote this time around?

It's an interesting question, but whether he supported Lisbon or not would be mostly irrelevant from my point of view. If, as I suspect, what is behind the curtain is essentially just a well-heeled and charismatic Justin Barret in a suit, then, while he is not in any way a good thing for democracy or civic life, he's not any worse than the next reptile (assuming that to be Justin). If, on the other hand, he is a Mosley in the making, then he represents a small but actual bad thing for democracy and civic life - to the same extent, and for the same reasons, as Mosley. If, finally, he were the operator and demagogue that he makes himself out to be, he would be a clear and present danger to democracy. Lisbon doesn't really come into the picture.

I really don't see any of that. He's not Justin Barrett, a man who makes an anti-EU, anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia person like me want to throw bricks at the television any time he's on it. He's a lot more coherent and plausible than Barrett (though, I agree, these things are relative).

Well, note "charismatic". I'm not suggesting the, er, personal characteristics of Barret. However, there are really quite a lot of other features in common - the social conservatism, the slightly crusading element, the very dodgy allies, the spin and tricks applied to winning the argument. Plus, of course, there's rather a lot of evidence lying around that the COIR-Libertas connection is strong.

toxic avenger wrote:

As to the Mosley side of things, I don't think that's a serious proposition in this day and age. Being a rabble-rousing demagogue usually doesn't involve speaking about sensible democratic reform and a respect for what European membership has done for Ireland. I don't think he has ever made himself out to be a demagogue anyway. Bald ginger people from Watford really are at a disadvantage on that score anyway...

I didn't say it was going to work - come to that, it didn't work for Mosley. However, there's no reason whatsoever you can't build a good rabble-rousing platform based on a lot of hot words about 'taking democracy back' from 'elites' who have 'stolen the EU' from the citizens. The citizens aren't going to get antsy if you say the elites are stealing something worthless off them, after all - for emotive effect it has to be something that people do care about which is now in danger from shadowy cabals. Pretty standard stuff, really, packs a good wallop if you can get yourself taken seriously.

As to the more general question of whether you can really be a demagogue in this day and age - I don't see why not - has something fundamental changed in humanity? I accept it's not easy in Ireland (or the UK, come to that), but there are plenty of places with rather stronger traditions of populism, and economic hard times are apt to make people look for the kind of "solutions" that make them feel righteous. Church membership is on the up and up, particularly amongst the less tolerant churches.

Ganley ten years ago would not have been anything to get bothered about. The present extreme economic instability and the political instability that is arising from it very rapidly means that not only Ganley but the far right generally is dangerous. People who have lost their pensions and incomes are easily enraged and those who have held on to their money fear the anger of people left with nothing to lose. The UKIP and BNP and a host of other groups are raring to go. There is a very nasty xenophobic angle to what is going on in the UK at the moment. Eastern Europe even more so.

He may well still go belly up, he is a high risk operator. Its not Ganley per se that bothers me, its his politics, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Lisbon Treaty so far as I can see, having just sat through his interview with the Oireachtas Committee.

The Coir appearence is further down the page absolute nutters
Ganleys performence is a must see. He drives on and onbut what a shallow empty message. he has no depth at all. he is angry

cactus flower wrote:

... his interview with the Oireachtas Committee.

Is that online CF, can you post a link?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Here is a great 2 and half hour epic Ganley at the Hearings of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union . Click here scroll down for link
.
About 11 min in Ganley startslosing it. He continues after his first use of the sound bites to talk atart rambling and going at it like a terrier. On one side sits an odious looking thing drooling and grinning at his masters "cleaver" riposte. On his other elbow sits a hacket faced Caroline Simons.
I presume the thing is John McGuirk of Ogre Fianna Fail fame and now ganleyhellhund
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/61936

It s linked in the quoted post above

ibis wrote:

Plus, of course, there's rather a lot of evidence lying around that the COIR-Libertas connection is strong.

No there's not. Some bloke on this website saying he knew somebody who got some leaflets off Libertas and was also canvassing for COIR isn't "rather a lot of evidence", it's hearsay.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Plus, of course, there's rather a lot of evidence lying around that the COIR-Libertas connection is strong.

No there's not. Some bloke on this website saying he knew somebody who got some leaflets off Libertas and was also canvassing for COIR isn't "rather a lot of evidence", it's hearsay.

He's not the only person who has stated that COIR members were distributing Libertas material, and had it in large quantities, and this is not the only place it has been said. There are also several reports that pre-referendum canvassing discussions were held - and somebody very forceful must have been required to keep Justin Barret off the airwaves. Off the airwaves, but not out of the loop, by the looks of it, though - a lot of Libertas' 'clever' tactics (such as the Austrian letters) are typical Barret material.

The question of who provided COIR and WACI's videos for them also indicates a link - possibly you don't remember that one of the reasons qtman was hounded off politics.ie was that he pre-emptively mentioned a video Dave was hosting on qtman's account - the video in question being the WACI one, while the guys behind the COIR video refer to themselves as having done work for Libertas, not COIR. Caroline Simmons is also an obvious link between Libertas and the pro-life groups, and the breadth of Libertas' contacts with similar socially right-wing and nationalist groups across Europe is impressive and suggestive in itself (Barret's address book perhaps?).

Of course, all of this is 'circumstantial', but there's such a lot of it, and all pointing the same way: COIR and WACI, groups with dedicated activists and strong networks but repellent brands, were put to work under the Libertas brand instead, giving the combination a clean and respectable brand plus a formidable on-street presence and contact network. It makes a lot of sense, but it would require a dominant, charismatic personality to pull it off - and one who had the right credentials in terms of religion and politics...Ganley fits the bill admirably.

Still, deny away, mon brave - someone has to do it, and it might as well be you as anyone.

Why would PANA have USAID links?

ibis wrote:

Of course, all of this is 'circumstantial',

Yeah, it is all circumstantial. I canvassed an awful lot for Libertas during the campaign and while I did encounter other groups while doing so neither I nor any of the other volunteers I'm still incontact with had any links with COIR, WACI etc.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Plus, of course, there's rather a lot of evidence lying around that the COIR-Libertas connection is strong.

No there's not. Some bloke on this website saying he knew somebody who got some leaflets off Libertas and was also canvassing for COIR isn't "rather a lot of evidence", it's hearsay.

Hey cookie, that's me your talking about.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Of course, all of this is 'circumstantial',

Yeah,
it is all circumstantial. I canvassed an awful lot for Libertas during
the campaign and while I did encounter other groups while doing so
neither I nor any of the other volunteers I'm still incontact with had
any links with COIR, WACI etc.

You must be kept out of the loop on lots of things you poor dear.

Ask big John McGuirk maybe he knows

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Of course, all of this is 'circumstantial',

Yeah, it is all circumstantial. I canvassed an awful lot for Libertas during the campaign and while I did encounter other groups while doing so neither I nor any of the other volunteers I'm still incontact with had any links with COIR, WACI etc.

I don't doubt that, and I don't doubt the honesty of your support for Libertas - I just doubt your experience is the full picture. Other people's experiences of Libertas and yours may be different without either one or the other being the only story.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Of course, all of this is 'circumstantial',

Yeah, it is all circumstantial. I canvassed an awful lot for Libertas during the campaign and while I did encounter other groups while doing so neither I nor any of the other volunteers I'm still incontact with had any links with COIR, WACI etc.

I don't doubt that, and I don't doubt the honesty of your support for Libertas - I just doubt your experience is the full picture. Other people's experiences of Libertas and yours may be different without either one or the other being the only story.

That's very much the way I see it too.

I'd like to add though: it's one thing for Cookie to deny a relationship, it'd be quite another thing for Mr Ganley to deny it. I myself have witnessed boxloads of Libertas materials held in the house of a single member of WACI (now a member of 'We The People'). Also it's interesting (and more circumstantial evidence) to note that these folks tend to know well in advance of any publications, where and when public events, involving Libertas, will happen.

Another thing that makes for consideration is that like Mr Ganley, WACI are friendly, to a very accepting degree, to both rightwing and leftwing politics. Whether this is a disguise to facilitate recruitment to be followed at some point by a cull, I know not. But I do know that various important members of WACI are very leftwing in their philosophies and approach.

If Coir people are distributing Libertas leaflets, their views on Lisbon being similarly hostile, so what? Doesn't it make sense? And why does it neccesarily mean anything more than that?

Hermes wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Of course, all of this is 'circumstantial',

Yeah, it is all circumstantial. I canvassed an awful lot for Libertas during the campaign and while I did encounter other groups while doing so neither I nor any of the other volunteers I'm still incontact with had any links with COIR, WACI etc.

I don't doubt that, and I don't doubt the honesty of your support for Libertas - I just doubt your experience is the full picture. Other people's experiences of Libertas and yours may be different without either one or the other being the only story.

That's very much the way I see it too.

I'd like to add though: it's one thing for Cookie to deny a relationship, it'd be quite another thing for Mr Ganley to deny it. I myself have witnessed boxloads of Libertas materials held in the house of a single member of WACI (now a member of 'We The People'). Also it's interesting (and more circumstantial evidence) to note that these folks tend to know well in advance of any publications, where and when public events, involving Libertas, will happen.

Another thing that makes for consideration is that like Mr Ganley, WACI are friendly, to a very accepting degree, to both rightwing and leftwing politics. Whether this is a disguise to facilitate recruitment to be followed at some point by a cull, I know not. But I do know that various important members of WACI are very leftwing in their philosophies and approach.

In what way is Ganley friendly to left wing politics?

toxic avenger wrote:

If Coir people are distributing Libertas leaflets, their views on Lisbon being similarly hostile, so what? Doesn't it make sense? And why does it neccesarily mean anything more than that?

/

1/ It is of interest because on one hand Libertas try to distance themselves from the COIR nutters.
2/It is of interest as it begs questions as to how much Libertas actually spent if they were in fact funding other parties printed matter.
3/ It shows that Libertas up for what they are,

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

Plus, of course, there's rather a lot of evidence lying around that the COIR-Libertas connection is strong.

No there's not. Some bloke on this website saying he knew somebody who got some leaflets off Libertas and was also canvassing for COIR isn't "rather a lot of evidence", it's hearsay.

Is there any trut to the stories about John McGuirk being "FFInsider" back in 2003 mleaking stuff tothe Phoenix and teh allegation thta he wrote a gossip column for a TCD mag that was deemed nasty and vinbdictive as well as boorish and crass?
I want to know more about this guy. What was the far right group he was in? Freedom Instiute or something like that?

toxic avenger wrote:

If Coir people are distributing Libertas leaflets, their views on Lisbon being similarly hostile, so what? Doesn't it make sense? And why does it neccesarily mean anything more than that?

It's not COIR distributing Libertas materials that's particularly surprising, it's WACI. WACI are anti EU and anti capitalism. Mr. Ganley advanced many arguments emraced by WACI long before Mr Ganley advanced them. I've advanced that I see a major split with regard to these views and arguments, in the near future. I've heard, but not witnessed for myself, that Mr Ganley has backed away from the sovereignty argument, by saying that it's not important to him (again this is hearsay on my part - so please correct me if I'm wrong Cookie). This is the fundamental argument for WACI.

CF wrote:

In what way is Ganley friendly to left wing politics?

There are many individual examples, that could on close analysis, due to their ambiguity, be eliminated. What cannot be eliminated is his actual approach. He's often portrayed himself as someone who is fighting the "elites"and the "establishment." That's a leftwing ethos at its very core. Of course as time marches on I'm sure that Mr Ganley will define "elites" and "establishment" in a way that is not friendly to the left at all. I'm under no illusions that Mr Ganley is leftwing, I'm saying that up until now, he's been saying things that he knows (or else he's incredibly stupid - and I don't believe that) that would tend to rally the left under his banner, if they fell for it.

Sadly, it seems to have in some cases worked.

Hermes wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

If Coir people are distributing Libertas leaflets, their views on Lisbon being similarly hostile, so what? Doesn't it make sense? And why does it neccesarily mean anything more than that?

It's not COIR distributing Libertas materials that's particularly surprising, it's WACI. WACI are anti EU and anti capitalism. Mr. Ganley advanced many arguments emraced by WACI long before Mr Ganley advanced them. I've advanced that I see a major split with regard to these views and arguments, in the near future. I've heard, but not witnessed for myself, that Mr Ganley has backed away from the sovereignty argument, by saying that it's not important to him (again this is hearsay on my part - so please correct me if I'm wrong Cookie). This is the fundamental argument for WACI.

I don't think Libertas were ever much gone on the sovereignty argument (they are federalists, after all), unlike myself. But I still don't see the issue. I am under no illusions about certain Libertas preferences that would be abhorrent to me. But that's not the issue right now. The immediate and common goal is sinking Lisbon. The shooting can wait until then...

Quote :

CF wrote:

In what way is Ganley friendly to left wing politics?

There are many individual examples, that could on close analysis, due to their ambiguity, be eliminated. What cannot be eliminated is his actual approach. He's often portrayed himself as someone who is fighting the "elites"and the "establishment." That's a left wing ethos at its very core. Of course as time marches on I'm sure that Mr Ganley will define "elites" and "establishment" in a way that is not friendly to the left at all. I'm under no illusions that Mr Ganley is left wing, I'm saying that up until now, he's been saying things that he knows (or else he's incredibly stupid - and I don't believe that) that would tend to rally the left under his banner, if they fell for it.

Speaking for myself, again, I don't think he has been particularly misleading to garner the support of the left. For the purpose of Lisbon, the left anti-Lisbon 'no' vote is sewn up by the Socialists, Sinn Fein, etc., he's tactically better off appealing to the individualist and centre-right voters who would normally run a mile from agreeing with the left on any matter, thus maximising the 'no' vote. That's Libertas' value to the 'no' side. It does not mean I am under any illusion, particularly with regard to their views on industrial relations. The language of opposing the 'elites' and 'the establishment', which you describe as 'a left wing ethos at its very core', hasn't been the exclusive property of the left for over forty years now, Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan said exactly the same. It's not something that should still be 'fooling' anyone into believing he somehow sympathises with the left.

Has it not occurred to you Toxic that it might well be Ganley who sinks the No vote?