Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Declan Ganley wants a United States of Europe

Options
  • 25-09-2009 11:20am
    #1
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭


    We keep hearing over and over quotes such as "European constitution", "empire", "USE" and "elites", "forced on the people" thrown by the NO side


    Now how do you explain the top (unelected) spokesman for the NO campaign

    wanting a Federal United States of Europe

    Declan Ganley
    “The EU has served the people of Europe well. It is abundantly apparent that it is capable of much more, which is why we must jealously guard it from those that would try to snatch its levers from us. A United Europe could provide for European peace, prosperity, strength, quality of life, and the ability to build not just a better Europe but a better and safer world. A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world.”

    source

    http://federalunion.org.uk/quotebank/?p=76

    http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html


    i will point to this thread, everytime i hear a NOooer talk about European empire etc

    the hypocrisy of it all is amazing

    :(


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    He does, yes - but that's no reason to vote for the treaty though.
    FF support the treaty - does that mean their opponents should vote against them?


  • Options
    #3
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    He does, yes - but that's no reason to vote for the treaty though.
    FF support the treaty - does that mean their opponents should vote against them?

    This thread is here to put to rest every single argument about the YES side wanting a federal state or empire or anything else ridiculous along the lines


    here we have the beloved "leader" of the NO side rambling on about how he wants to turn EU into a copy of the US

    talk about himself being an unelected elite and wanting to shape europe in his vision ;)


    US a country with which he has mucho millions in military contracts and a country whos flag hangs in his office while he hires yet more ex Bush generals and admirals into his company

    /


  • Options
    #4
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Interesting. I wonder how many Libertas candidates and voters wanted a United States of Europe. Not many I would have thought, I had no idea Declan Ganley did either.


  • Options
    #5
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    A fundamentalist Catholic Europe at that, if his backers and supposrers would have anything to do with it. Maybe even a couple of monarchists thrown in for good measure.

    Ganley is/was backed by the elites of Europe, the aristocratic descendents and heirs to the Bourbon Royal houses of Europe and Charlemagne. Not just by fundamentalist Christians.

    Viscount Phillipe de Villiers of the Vendee, the centre of the counter revolution in France, was the only MEP elected on the Libertas ticket. De Villier is a far right French fundamentalist Catholic who believes in monarchical rule.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_Villiers#Positions
    Damian Erbgraf v.Schönborn-Buchheim and his Irish wife Deirdre Mary Ascough have both campaigned actively for Libertas in 2008.
    He was born in Vienna, Austria on 17 July 1965 the son of Friedrich Karl Graf v.Schönborn-Buchheim and of his wife, Princess Isabelle d'Orléans).
    Isabelle d’Orleans is a Boubon, and helds the title Princess de France
    Deirdre Ascough’s sister in law Jacki is a writer for the far right fundamentalist Catholic ALIVE! newspaper. Jacki’s husband Tom Ascough is a director of the Iona Institute, a fundamentalist Catholic organisation

    These facts come from within Ganleys own camp...

    http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2009/09/libertas-backers-monarchist-unelected.html

    More above on Ganleys connections to European Elites...


  • Options
    #6
    roosh
    Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    He does, yes - but that's no reason to vote for the treaty though.
    FF support the treaty - does that mean their opponents should vote against them?

    exactly. That is just another fallacious argument, an argumentum ad hominem, just like Michael O'Leary tried in the televised debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    studiorat wrote: »
    Ganley is/was backed by the elites of Europe, the aristocratic descendents and heirs to the Bourbon Royal houses of Europe and Charlemagne. Not just by fundamentalist Christians.

    lets not forget Jens-Peter Bonde from Denmark

    and his false advertising campaign targeting Irish voters

    is another "advisor" to the man

    the whole thing is so dodgy it smells


    /


  • Options
    #8
    roosh
    Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    I don't necessarily support the No campaign, but the onus is on the Yes side to show me why it is necessary to vote Yes. They haven't done this.

    If we vote Yes, then we are sending a message to all the major political parties in this country, that this kind of politics is acceptible.


  • Options
    #9
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    exactly. That is just another fallacious argument, an argumentum ad hominem, just like Michael O'Leary tried in the televised debate.

    So Ganley did not write this masterpeace?


    /


  • Options
    #10
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    I don't necessarily support the No campaign, but the onus is on the Yes side to show me why it is necessary to vote Yes. They haven't done this.

    If we vote Yes, then we are sending a message to all the major political parties in this country, that this kind of politics is acceptible.


    yet again im gonna point you towards

    10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon


    /


  • Options
    #11
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    This thread is here to put to rest every single argument about the YES side wanting a federal state or empire or anything else ridiculous along the lines


    here we have the beloved "leader" of the NO side rambling on about how he wants to turn EU into a copy of the US

    talk about himself being an unelected elite and wanting to shape europe in his vision ;)


    US a country with which he has mucho millions in military contracts and a country whos flag hangs in his office while he hires yet more ex Bush generals and admirals into his company

    /

    Try and focus on the substance. As someone else alluded to, using Ganley's more undesirable traits and views as a factor in a 'Yes' vote is akin to voting 'No' because of your dislike for the present Goverment, or the political system in general. Just becasue someone is a No voter does not mean they have to support all that comes out of Ganley's (or MaryLou's, or Joe's) mouth. Similarly, a Yes voter doesn't need to defend what FF, FG or Labour are advocating.

    As for Ganley, tbh, the main argument I've heard him trot out is that Lisbon makes the EU 'undemocratic'; he is usually at pains to stress that he does not disagree with the Europen project, per se.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    drkpower wrote: »
    Try and focus on the substance. As someone else alluded to, using Ganley's more undesirable traits and views as a factor in a 'Yes' vote is akin to voting 'No' because of your dislike for the present Goverment, or the political system in general. Just becasue someone is a No voter does not mean they have to support all that comes out of Ganley's (or MaryLou's, or Joe's) mouth. Similarly, a Yes voter doesn't need to defend what FF, FG or Labour are advocating.

    As for Ganley, tbh, the main argument I've heard him trot out is that Lisbon makes the EU 'undemocratic'; he is usually at pains to stress that he does not disagree with the Europen project, per se.

    once again this thread is aimed at the posters that keep popping up under new usernames

    and claiming that Lisbon is some step towards a European Empire or Federal state

    here i provide reference that Ganley, the much beloved spokesman for the NO side in fact wrote an article about wanting a United States of Europe



    I understand that not everyone on the No side agree with Ganley, hence the use of the word "some" by me

    it is very important for people to know what Ganley stands for, since his party Libertas has not still to this date produced a policy document or a manifesto



    /


  • Options
    #13
    roosh
    Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    once again this thread is aimed at the posters that keep popping up under new usernames

    and claiming that Lisbon is some step towards a European Empire or Federal state

    It seems more like an argumentum ad hominem against Ganley, and a fallacious argument to discredit the No vote.


  • Options
    #14
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    once again this thread is aimed at the posters that keep popping up under new usernames

    and claiming that Lisbon is some step towards a European Empire or Federal state

    here i provide reference that Ganley, the much beloved spokesman for the NO side in fact wrote an article about wanting a United States of Europe

    I understand that not everyone on the No side agree with Ganley, hence the use of the word "some" by me

    it is very important for people to know what Ganley stands for, since his party Libertas has not still to this date produced a policy document or a manifesto
    /

    I can see what you are doing. But is it especially relevant?

    If it is very important to know what Ganley stands for, presumably it is on the basis that, once one knows what he stands for, one might be less lilely to vote 'No'. Presumably that is your intention by drawing this to their attention?

    And if it is, is it not equally important for 'Yes' voters to know what Cowen & Co stands for, and what their record is, so that they can make a reasoned decision on how to vote?

    If the detail of Ganleys CV is especially pertinent to the debate, then so is the CV of every Yes advocate. And if we allow the record of those who advocate either side to be a significant determining factor in how one votes, 'Yes' will probably lose by a landslide.


  • Options
    #15
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    It seems more like an argumentum ad hominem against Ganley, and a fallacious argument to discredit the No vote.

    once again

    do you dispute that the article was not written by Ganley?


    drkpower wrote: »
    I can see what you are doing. But is it especially relevant?

    If it is very important to know what Ganley stands for, presumably it is on the basis that, once one knows what he stands for, one might be less lilely to vote 'No'. Presumably that is your intention by drawing this to their attention?

    And if it is, is it not equally important for 'Yes' voters to know what Cowen & Co stands for, and what their record is, so that they can make a reasoned decision on how to vote?

    If the detail of Ganleys CV is especially pertinent to the debate, then so is the CV of every Yes advocate. And if we allow the record of those who advocate either side to be a significant determining factor in how one votes, 'Yes' will probably lose by a landslide.


    look every party on the YES side has a clear policy document in regards to Lisbon

    after a year and half and one EU election

    we still dont know Ganley's policies

    so that leaves us with his past articles on EU to draw conclusions :(


    /


  • Options
    #16
    moondogspot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 113 ✭✭moondogspot


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    It seems more like an argumentum ad hominem against Ganley, and a fallacious argument to discredit the No vote.

    That's the way I see it too. Ganley absolutely destroyed Michael O'Leary

    of the Yes camp in his debate last night. The Yes camp are just trying to

    think of anything possible to discredit the No vote because they are

    getting worried.;)


  • Options
    #17
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    This thread is here to put to rest every single argument about the YES side wanting a federal state or empire or anything else ridiculous along the lines


    here we have the beloved "leader" of the NO side rambling on about how he wants to turn EU into a copy of the US

    talk about himself being an unelected elite and wanting to shape europe in his vision ;)


    US a country with which he has mucho millions in military contracts and a country whos flag hangs in his office while he hires yet more ex Bush generals and admirals into his company

    /

    He's not the leader of the "NO" side. He's a complete bloody tool who I (and I imagine many) on the no side really wish would feck off and stay the hell out of it.

    The yes side do advocate a federal Europe (SOME on the yes side). The difference is, you vote no to Lisbon, you prevent one type of federal Europe and you can then stop Ganely from setting one up by not electing him. You vote yes and it won't matter, there'll be one either way. Whether Ganely is in charge of it or not is irrelevant - I don't want one at all.


  • Options
    #18
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Personally, I don't believe that Declan Ganley wants a Federal Europe at all. Yes, I know the quotations looks like he does at first glance but there is an old saying that actions speak louder then words.

    In the wake of Lisbon I, Mr Ganley, if you remember organised a "State Dinner" in the Shelbourne which was attended by just about every Eurosceptic he could invite. Were Mr Ganley a dedicated Federalist, it is completely unbelievable that he would have had a meeting with such people - instead the meeting would presumably have been full of Federalists.

    As such, based on his actions, I believe Mr Ganley is fundamentally a Eurosceptic.


  • Options
    #19
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I don't want one at all.

    i dont want one either

    we finally have something in common

    :)


    anyways i already explained the purpose of the thread twice, its not aimed at you dont worry

    /


  • Options
    #20
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    View wrote: »
    Personally, I don't believe that Declan Ganley wants a Federal Europe at all. Yes, I know the quotations looks like he does at first glance but there is an old saying that actions speak louder then words.

    In the wake of Lisbon I, Mr Ganley, if you remember organised a "State Dinner" in the Shelbourne which was attended by just about every Eurosceptic he could invite. Were Mr Ganley a dedicated Federalist, it is completely unbelievable that he would have had a meeting with such people - instead the meeting would presumably have been full of Federalists.

    As such, based on his actions, I believe Mr Ganley is fundamentally a Eurosceptic.


    thats the problem aint it?

    he has no policies against which we can judge him by

    he jumps on opportunities as they present themselves in order to further his ego

    he has connections with a wide range of people, from people in charge of starting Iraq war to people opposed to the very existence of EU

    and now we know that we cant trust his word, he spend alot of time and made alot of noise as to how he can take NO for an answer, and then turns on his word


    /


  • Options
    #21
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    The yes side do advocate a federal Europe (SOME on the yes side). The difference is, you vote no to Lisbon, you prevent one type of federal Europe and you can then stop Ganely from setting one up by not electing him. You vote yes and it won't matter, there'll be one either way.

    Germany's Supreme Court (the Bundesverfassungsgericht) has already ruled that Lisbon does not create Federal Europe, as such your claim that by voting yes, there will be one is nonsense.

    The only way such a claim is credible is if you believe that the member states of the EU are going to ignore what they have written into the EU Treaties plus also their (respective) consitutions and create a Federal Europe anyway. If you do believe that, then it doesn't matter if you vote either Yes or No since they'll presumably create one even if you vote No.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    roosh
    Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Personally I don't think this should be seen as an us against them, yes against no, issue at all.

    As citzens of Ireland and indeed Europe, we should look at how this campaign is being run. On the one hand we have "failed politicians", self-interest groups, and god knows who else, using fallacious arguments, rhetoric and scaremongering to get us to vote No.

    On the other hand we have our next government using fallacious arguments, rhetoric and scaremongering to persuade us to vote Yes. It is these people who will be running the country next. They are claiming that if we vote Yes then we will have a more transparent and efficient Europe, but not just yet. In fact, when it comes to the referendum, there will be little or no transparency, no open discussion and debate involving our highest government officials.

    If we vote Yes we simple let them know, that this is perfectly acceptible, and that there is no need to change how they put issues to us in future.

    Also, the fact that our voting rights in the council of ministers will decrease while other nations voting rights will increase is a very concrete reason to vote No, because it will actually weaken our voice in Europe


  • Options
    #23
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    If we vote Yes we simple let them know, that this is perfectly acceptible, and that there is no need to change how they put issues to us in future.
    You keep saying this on unrelated threads. As my time is too limited to meander around pointing out that I'm being asked to vote on a particular treaty rather than whether I like the colour of Brian Cowen's underwear or how he manages or mismanages the country or manages a treaty proposal, I'll simply point it out here. Even though it's off-topic really but that hasn't stopped you from dropping it around like cheap confetti.

    We're being asked to vote on whether we approve the Lisbon Treaty or not. Fun and all as it is to play a game of amateur dominos, where one hopes that a Lisbon refusal may lead to a NAMA refusal or Brian Cowen being driven out of the country like the snakes of yore, I don't play amateur dominos much, I don't pretend that I'm being asked question X when it's really question Y (which makes life much simpler in nightclubs and when ordering lunch) and when the question arises about whether to get rid of the government, revoke citizenship from Coir members for stupidity, criticise either camp in this oft-childishly run debate where no-one can manage to stay on-topic without making things up or take each piece of legislation individually, you can be sure I'll have an opinion on all that.

    But as I've said before, voting yea or nay based on an unrelated question is plain stupid. I might have used the word retarded, I'm not sure. But either way, it's the sticky end of the stupid stick. And whether this is "letting them know it's acceptable" is an unrelated question. Definitely the sticky end of that stick. Is the Lisbon treaty good or bad for Europe, for Ireland or for you? You get to make up your own mind on that. But answer that question when you're voting, don't all crowd around the sticky end of the stupid stick answering an unrelated question like people voting in "You're A Star" based on location rather than talent. I've definitely said this before, but doing that and touting that (pimping it even) makes me wonder about the education system in this country. It makes me fearful for the future of this country if that's the limit set by those emerging from that education system. And that's worrying. Very worrying.

    The question on October 2 is very important. Take the time to answer that question, regardless of which way you vote. Not some unrelated question you'd prefer they asked instead. Anything else is a waste of your time, vote and presumably education.


  • Options
    #24
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    As a Federalist, I believe that this document is similar to The Belfast Agreement, or the Sunningdale agreement for the polarised camps in Northern Ireland. It is a step of further co-operation. However, it is nowwhere near the federal EU state.


  • Options
    #25
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,060 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    i will point to this thread, everytime i hear a NOooer talk about European empire etc

    You're assuming that Ganley represents everyone on the No side :rolleyes:
    the hypocrisy of it all is amazing

    Yes, the hypocrisy of those on the Yes side continuously arguing that only issues within the treaty should be used as fodder, and then relishing the mud-slinging that their own side do towards the opposition


  • Options
    #26
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    My name is URL wrote: »
    You're assuming that Ganley represents everyone on the No side :rolleyes:



    Yes, the hypocrisy of those on the Yes side continuously arguing that only issues within the treaty should be used as fodder, and then relishing the mud-slinging that their own side do towards the opposition

    if you bother to read my post you would see i used the word some


    its even in bold!


  • Options
    #27
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,060 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    if you bother to read my post you would see i used the word some


    its even in bold!

    No you didn't


  • Options
    #28
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    My name is URL wrote: »
    No you didn't

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62258435&postcount=12


  • Options
    #29
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    thats your fifth post on the thread man and you refer to a unexistent *some* in an earlier post there aswell.

    Just clarify it by editing the op


  • Options
    #30
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    thats your fifth post on the thread man and you refer to a unexistent *some* in an earlier post there aswell.

    Just clarify it by editing the op

    no need im used to them nitpicking on punctuation and grammar instead of addressing the big white elephant in room


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Plotician
    Closed Accounts Posts: 113 ✭✭Plotician


    Hey ei,

    Thought i'd help you out a bit. Here's the link to where Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, likens the EU to an empire.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU

    It's fairly easy to follow (specifically tailored for normal people) and is where the whole 'empire' thing started from. As such i would recommend that you refer anyone who happens to mention the 'empire' word to this link.

    Everyone can then form their own interpretation of it independently of the opinions of individuals here.

    Happy to be of service.


Advertisement