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

toxic avenger wrote:

Aren't there enough Libertas threads now?

And seening as they all decend into the same farsical circle jerk of lies, half truths, factoids, misrepresentation and innuendo there seems little point having more than one in the first palce.

cookiemonster wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Aren't there enough Libertas threads now?

And seening as they all decend into the same farsical circle jerk of lies, half truths, factoids, misrepresentation and innuendo there seems little point having more than one in the first palce.

Well it would be off-topic to discuss funding on this thread then you see. And because the other thread would be a general thread on funding it would be appropriate to put as much funding-related material in there as people had and little else.

So you're having the first party convention in Rome then next month cookie. How many people do you expect to be gathered there.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Aren't there enough Libertas threads now?

And seening as they all decend into the same farsical circle jerk of lies, half truths, factoids, misrepresentation and innuendo there seems little point having more than one in the first palce.

Well it would be off-topic to discuss funding on this thread then you see. And because the other thread would be a general thread on funding it would be appropriate to put as much funding-related material in there as people had and little else.

So you're having the first party convention in Rome then next month cookie. How many people do you expect to be gathered there.

Seven, maybe eight. We've enslaved a load of interns now so assuming they don't starve to death between now and then there may be a few more in attendance.

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Aren't there enough Libertas threads now?

And seening as they all decend into the same farsical circle jerk of lies, half truths, factoids, misrepresentation and innuendo there seems little point having more than one in the first palce.

Well it would be off-topic to discuss funding on this thread then you see. And because the other thread would be a general thread on funding it would be appropriate to put as much funding-related material in there as people had and little else.

So you're having the first party convention in Rome then next month cookie. How many people do you expect to be gathered there.

Seven, maybe eight. We've enslaved a load of interns now so assuming they don't starve to death between now and then there may be a few more in attendance.

Thousand?

Auditor #9 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Aren't there enough Libertas threads now?

And seening as they all decend into the same farsical circle jerk of lies, half truths, factoids, misrepresentation and innuendo there seems little point having more than one in the first palce.

Well it would be off-topic to discuss funding on this thread then you see. And because the other thread would be a general thread on funding it would be appropriate to put as much funding-related material in there as people had and little else.

So you're having the first party convention in Rome then next month cookie. How many people do you expect to be gathered there.

Seven, maybe eight. We've enslaved a load of interns now so assuming they don't starve to death between now and then there may be a few more in attendance.

Thousand?

No, people.

You are having a party convention of 8 people ?

Or there will be 8 candidates announced at the Party Convention in Rome .. ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

You are having a party convention of 8 people ?

Or there will be 8 candidates announced at the Party Convention in Rome .. ?

Well if we get the camera angles right it will look like a lot more.

I see mr ganley is due to make an appearance tonight on Newsnight (10:30) I wonder if he is about to announce his party's new manifesto.

Tried the Indo in June and still no trace of those disaffected IBEC members who donated to Libertas. Ganley is almost as harsh on IBEC as Shane Ross. If people are disaffected with IBEC why don't they leave? It is not compulsory to be a member.

Ah this thread has been thawed out again. I'll look forward to hearing all about Mr. Ganley's Manifesto as well as all about the gathering of 8 at the party conference in Rome.

I'll also look forward to modding this thread OscarBravo style.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ah this thread has been thawed out again. I'll look forward to hearing all about Mr. Ganley's Manifesto as well as all about the gathering of 8 at the party conference in Rome.

I'll also look forward to modding this thread OscarBravo style.

First party conference in March is where the news will be at, not tonight.

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ah this thread has been thawed out again. I'll look forward to hearing all about Mr. Ganley's Manifesto as well as all about the gathering of 8 at the party conference in Rome.

I'll also look forward to modding this thread OscarBravo style.

First party conference in March is where the news will be at, not tonight.

re party conference?

Is this Ganley's inauguration? Is the occassion membership only.

will this be another public relations event, full of catch-all-protest-vote sound-bytes, or will a bona fide manifesto finally be put on the table.

Until I see a clear manifesto I guess I'll try and reserve scepticism.

snapple drinker wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ah this thread has been thawed out again. I'll look forward to hearing all about Mr. Ganley's Manifesto as well as all about the gathering of 8 at the party conference in Rome.

I'll also look forward to modding this thread OscarBravo style.

First party conference in March is where the news will be at, not tonight.

re party conference?

Is this Ganley's inauguration? Is the occassion membership only.

will this be another public relations event, full of catch-all-protest-vote sound-bytes, or will a bona fide manifesto finally be put on the table.

Until I see a clear manifesto I guess I'll try and reserve scepticism.

If you're gonna ask questions could you not make them provocative please? Because they count as provocations then not questions.

snapple drinker wrote:

I see mr ganley is due to make an appearance tonight on Newsnight (10:30) I wonder if he is about to announce his party's new manifesto.

BBC 2 then.

Auditor #9 wrote:

snapple drinker wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ah this thread has been thawed out again. I'll look forward to hearing all about Mr. Ganley's Manifesto as well as all about the gathering of 8 at the party conference in Rome.

I'll also look forward to modding this thread OscarBravo style.

First party conference in March is where the news will be at, not tonight.

re party conference?

Is this Ganley's inauguration? Is the occassion membership only.

will this be another public relations event, full of catch-all-protest-vote sound-bytes, or will a bona fide manifesto finally be put on the table.

Until I see a clear manifesto I guess I'll try and reserve scepticism.

If you're gonna ask questions could you not make them provocative please? Because they count as provocations then not questions.

Sorry Audi,
no more provocative questions

If as Ganley reackons a treaty between 27 nations can be no longer than 25 pages then his manifesto will probably amount to no more than a few smug grunts.

well no Declan. That's a pity

I really would like to hear what he has to say on human rights, being part of the EU etc.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

If as Ganley reackons a treaty between 27 nations can be no longer than 25 pages then his manifesto will probably amount to no more than a few smug grunts.

Where have you been I missed you like the proverbial. Use your comments wisely on this thread because it's getting to the season of Peak Provocation.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

If as Ganley reackons a treaty between 27 nations can be no longer than 25 pages then his manifesto will probably amount to no more than a few smug grunts.

The US constitution, originally agreed between 13 states, extended by 27 amendments and now covering over 300 million people in 50 states is 4 pages long, extended to 6 if you inlclude the letter of transmittal and the Bill of Rights. And it is far from a "few smug grunts".

Comparisons between the American Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are entirely futile and well you know it cookie. For a start the US Constitution, whilst federal in nature (in that it is made up of States) is in fact a single state in the global order. This is entirely apart from the European Union which is made up of sovereign actors in the international system who have merely limited their sovereignty in respect of certain issues between each other in a limited Union. Beyond that, owing to the nature of the institution, that of a international institution rather than a State itself, the Treaties contain a broad ambit of legislative principles as well as overarching principles. That is the nature of an international treaty.

The international nuclear non proliferation treaties equally run to hundreds of pages and would not serve any function if they were limited to 25 pages.

The two have also developed in an entirely different manner. The US Constitution a result of a couple of Continental Congresses between independent States seeking to form a Federal Union, a single Statist actor in the international political system. The EU a development and conglomeration of a number of treaties, over a sustained period of time, between independent States dealing with specific areas of law and policy.

johnfás wrote:

Comparisons between the American Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are entirely futile and well you know it cookie. For a start the US Constitution, whilst federal in nature (in that it is made up of States) is in fact a single state in the global order. This is entirely apart from the European Union which is made up of sovereign actors in the international system who have merely limited their sovereignty in respect of certain issues between each other in a limited Union. Beyond that, owing to the nature of the institution, that of a international institution rather than a State itself, the Treaties contain a broad ambit of legislative principles as well as overarching principles. That is the nature of an international treaty.

Ah, but having 'limited their sovereignty' so far they have created an entity which contains the seeds of the transcendence of the sovereign state system. The Constitution comparison makes perfect sense, for that is indeed the end goal of the integrationist idealists, and the original rationale behind the Constitution, as it was, was an explicit consolidation of this agenda. It is meant to presage the transcendence to single-state status...

johnfás wrote:

Comparisons between the American Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are entirely futile and well you know it cookie.

Just as well I'm not doing that then, isn't it. I'm comparing it to what Ganley has said in the past that there should be a European Union Constitution and it should run no longer than 25 pages. I'm making a comparison between that and the Constitution of the United States.

So would you rather a Constitution which suited a body, such as the USA, which has an absolute limitation on the international sovereignty of its constituent parts? So that Ireland can do nothing in the international sphere? That would be an interesting policy objective.

You see, this is all based on a flawed populist premise. Ok, fine lets have a 25 page Constitution. It will say "There will be a European Parliament". However, all the rules and regulations, the number of members, the voting procedure, the competence thereof and everything which is contained in the Treaties is going to have to be contained somewhere. Unless you are suggesting we have ad hoc rules and make them up on the morning. On that basis, all you are going to do is have a treaty, follows by sub treaties of equal importance... all of which will probably serve to make the whole thing less transparent. At least when you go to look up the European Treaties you get the full picture of the rules and regulations, you won't get that in a 25 page document yet the rules and regulations will still be necessary and thus will still exist. An international treaty necessarily resembles more a statutebook regulating the interactions between the signatories to that treaty, than a constitutional synopsis, only relevant to an individual state, and so it should.

toxic avenger wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Comparisons between the American Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are entirely futile and well you know it cookie. For a start the US Constitution, whilst federal in nature (in that it is made up of States) is in fact a single state in the global order. This is entirely apart from the European Union which is made up of sovereign actors in the international system who have merely limited their sovereignty in respect of certain issues between each other in a limited Union. Beyond that, owing to the nature of the institution, that of a international institution rather than a State itself, the Treaties contain a broad ambit of legislative principles as well as overarching principles. That is the nature of an international treaty.

Ah, but having 'limited their sovereignty' so far they have created an entity which contains the seeds of the transcendence of the sovereign state system. The Constitution comparison makes perfect sense, for that is indeed the end goal of the integrationist idealists, and the original rationale behind the Constitution, as it was, was an explicit consolidation of this agenda. It is meant to presage the transcendence to single-state status...

Perhaps - some time in the 22nd century. Or after.

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Comparisons between the American Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are entirely futile and well you know it cookie. For a start the US Constitution, whilst federal in nature (in that it is made up of States) is in fact a single state in the global order. This is entirely apart from the European Union which is made up of sovereign actors in the international system who have merely limited their sovereignty in respect of certain issues between each other in a limited Union. Beyond that, owing to the nature of the institution, that of a international institution rather than a State itself, the Treaties contain a broad ambit of legislative principles as well as overarching principles. That is the nature of an international treaty.

Ah, but having 'limited their sovereignty' so far they have created an entity which contains the seeds of the transcendence of the sovereign state system. The Constitution comparison makes perfect sense, for that is indeed the end goal of the integrationist idealists, and the original rationale behind the Constitution, as it was, was an explicit consolidation of this agenda. It is meant to presage the transcendence to single-state status...

Perhaps - some time in the 22nd century. Or after.

We can only hope. Vote 'no' anyway, ibis, just to make sure...