Declan Ganley - Libertas Master

briantwin

Did anyone read anything about the sketchy dealings of Mr.Declan Ganley of Libertas. There is alot of speculation about where he has received his funding for the No Vote campaign. Anyone any theories or any actual idea who this nay saying clown is?

article about this:

Story about Mr.Ganley and his ties with US homeland security etc

Heres an article written by this Ganley fellow in 2003 about the EU constitution etc.
You might notice its more about the affect it will have on America etc rather than Europe.
Ganley on the EU constitution from 2003

people might starting screeching conspiracy theory, which i suppose is not a million miles off the mark. But this is one of those weird situations where both "conspiracies" contradict and if true negate each other.

Any opinions?

studiorat

http://www.whoisdeclanganley.blogspot.com/

http://www.irishelection.com/05/libertas-rivada/


A pious catholic and generally shifty character, with apparently no actual political agenda apart from No to Lisbon.

Regarding an Irish times article recently...

To quote from the article:

Asked if there was any overlap between Libertas and Rivada Networks, he said “no, none”.

That’s strange. When I look up the phone number for Rivada in Galway, it’s exactly the same number as is listed for Libertas on their site. The fax number is also the same. Naoise Nunn, as outlined yesterday, was definitely a Rivada employee last Summer, when he was coordinating the Forum on Public Safety, sponsored by Rivada, and using a @rivada.com email address to do so.

Not to mention David Cochrane owner of Politics.ie also being a member/employee of Rivada/Libertas. It's so unbelievable that you'd think it's a tinfoil hat job, it's not.

I'm betting some of the UK independence party candidates are going to join this new Libertas "political" party.

utick

i dont care he did a good job of getting a no vote for ireland

donaghs

The knives are out for him. You can't take on the political elite of Europe, and beat them, and expect to get away with it.

studiorat

utick wrote: »

i dont care he did a good job of getting a no vote for ireland

For who?

dresden8

studiorat wrote: »

For who?

For the American Lizard's who are in cahoots with the Illuminati who are preparing for the second coming and the Rapture when the 144,000 chosen ones ascend to heaven.

Or something.

nhughes100

Like him or not he took on the establishment and proved that democracy is still the way we do business in this country. That's who benefitted, the way the Greens are going on you'd swear Ganley had a veto on Lisbon.

I was listening to DeBurca whinging yesterday on Newstalk, coming out with all this crap about American Homeland security contracts - the usual I'm not saying it is suspicious but it would make you think crap. She actually said Ganley had nothing to gain by opposing Lisbon - Well Deirdre, he is an Irish citizen and he can vote anyway he likes and if he wants to spend his money promoting his viewpoint then fair play to him. If he wanted to give money to help pay for Ireland's carbon credits I'm sure the government would have come running, Then she wanted to overturn the McKenna judgement(fellow Green party comrade) as the no side got far more proportional coverage then it should have - mmmm lets see 53% of the vote got 50% of the airtime, this is so typical of Irish Politics, especially the Greens - when the rules don't suit you move the goalposts.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Like him or not he took on the establishment and proved that democracy is still the way we do business in this country. That's who benefitted, the way the Greens are going on you'd swear Ganley had a veto on Lisbon.

I was listening to DeBurca whinging yesterday on Newstalk, coming out with all this crap about American Homeland security contracts - the usual I'm not saying it is suspicious but it would make you think crap. She actually said Ganley had nothing to gain by opposing Lisbon - Well Deirdre, he is an Irish citizen and he can vote anyway he likes and if he wants to spend his money promoting his viewpoint then fair play to him.

And if he had campaigned for a 'Yes' vote, presumably you would still be singing his praises?

Run_to_da_hills

donaghs wrote: »

The knives are out for him. You can't take on the political elite of Europe, and beat them, and expect to get away with it.

They will also do anything in their power to tarnish his name including slur. This is a common practice used by controlling parties who have the upper hand and want to suppress any threat. Next we will hear of him having chi*d po*rn on his computer.

studiorat

There's a huge press hoo-ha! every time he blows his nose. Ganleys important meeting with the Czech president during the week was no more than a party hooley in the Shelbourne hotel. Libertas have a powerful communications and public relations presence. Ganleys posturing and showboating with minor european politicians has been nothing more than self promotion. Comments on his past business activities particularly have been spun into crackpot theories. (his business dealings in Albania should be examined) But the bottom line is Ganley the Anglo-irish millionaire has been involved with some very shady people in his business past and been involved in some ethically dubious schemes IMO.

He is still vague about what he actually stands for and for me hasn't given a satisfactory answer on why I would vote no. Libertas' no campaign was full of hysterical untruths concerning a European army and abortion issues were played up and played down according to their PR demographic to voters around the country.

Cynical PR campaning IMO.

studiorat

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They will also do anything in their power to tarnish his name including slur. This is a common practice used by controlling parties who have the upper hand and want to suppress any threat. Next we will hear of him having chi*d po*rn on his computer.

^^^
Libertas spin...
Same as Ganley's "European Elites".
They? Common Practice?

leninbenjamin

nhughes100 wrote: »

Like him or not he took on the establishment and proved that democracy is still the way we do business in this country.

bullsh*t. he proved how flawed the democratic process is, how easily the public will buy bull well presented lies.

Run_to_da_hills

leninbenjamin wrote: »

bullsh*t. he proved how flawed the democratic process is, how easily the public will buy bull well presented lies.

Like loosing the Irish constitution and invoking totalitarian control from Europe synonymous with other dictatorships that have passed through down through the ages.

djpbarry

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Like loosing the Irish constitution and invoking totalitarian control from Europe synonymous with other dictatorships that have passed through down through the ages.

Yes, bull**** like that.

utick

leninbenjamin wrote: »

bullsh*t. he proved how flawed the democratic process is, how easily the public will buy bull well presented lies.

he certainly exposed the lie that the eu political elites give a damn about peoples opinion, but that lie was already exposed after what happened in france and the netherlands

djpbarry

utick wrote: »

he certainly exposed the lie that the eu political elites give a damn about peoples opinion, but that lie was already exposed after what happened in france and the netherlands

Yep, they just went right ahead and brought that treaty into force, regardless of the result of the Irish referendum... Oh, wait now...

I just love the way Ganley has been embraced as some sort of crusader against the evil "political elite". This is a guy who had dealings with Liam Lawlor FFS.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Yep, they just went right ahead and brought that treaty into force, regardless of the result of the Irish referendum... Oh, wait now...

I just love the way Ganley has been embraced as some sort of crusader against the evil "political elite". This is a guy who had dealings with Liam Lawlor FFS.

You mean like Bertie did, who you are all so proud to proclaim 'negotiated' the Lisbon Treaty

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

You mean like Bertie did, who you are all so proud to proclaim 'negotiated' the Lisbon Treaty

I don't believe I ever exuded pride in the role Ireland had in the treaty's negotiation and I’m certainly no fan of Bertie.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

And if he had campaigned for a 'Yes' vote, presumably you would still be singing his praises?

Probably not, not exactly a comparision of like with like as if he had campaigned for a yes vote we would probably never have heard of him or Libertas but it was nice to see the establishment getting more then a shot across the bows for once.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

bullsh*t. he proved how flawed the democratic process is, how easily the public will buy bull well presented lies.

If you're a democrat you accept the vote, your alternative to democracy is? Although I suppose FF's domination of this country supports your argument.

If anything the "sheep" should have voted with their traditional party view and the yes vote should have waltzed it. Them grapes just keep getting sourer with you guys.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Probably not, not exactly a comparision of like with like as if he had campaigned for a yes vote we would probably never have heard of him or Libertas but it was nice to see the establishment getting more then a shot across the bows for once.

And therein lies the hypocrisy; it's ok for the 'No' side to mislead and deceive because you agree with them. If Ganley had campaigned for a 'Yes' vote (with the size of Libertas' budget, I'm sure he still would have been in the spotlight) using the same tactics, you would have been up in arms. In fact, I imagine most ‘No’ voters would have used Ganley as a reason to vote ‘No’!

studiorat

djpbarry wrote: »

I just love the way Ganley has been embraced as some sort of crusader against the evil "political elite". This is a guy who had dealings with Liam Lawlor FFS.

+1
Ganley is the bleedin' political elite FFS.
Have a look at the business he did with Kosta Trebicka these guys put make Liam Lawlor look like a paragon of virtue.

baztard

briantwin wrote: »

Did anyone read anything about the sketchy dealings of Mr.Declan Ganley of Libertas. There is alot of speculation about where he has received his funding for the No Vote campaign. Anyone any theories or any actual idea who this nay saying clown is?

article about this:

Story about Mr.Ganley and his ties with US homeland security etc

Heres an article written by this Ganley fellow in 2003 about the EU constitution etc.
You might notice its more about the affect it will have on America etc rather than Europe.
Ganley on the EU constitution from 2003

people might starting screeching conspiracy theory, which i suppose is not a million miles off the mark. But this is one of those weird situations where both "conspiracies" contradict and if true negate each other.

Any opinions?

I don't trust him or support him. I think in the future he will be a liability to the no campaign. His refusal to properly explain libertas funding shows his lack of transparency. No transparency means he has something to hide.

I don't trust the EU elite or the government who treat us like idiots either.

Hence why I spoilt my vote.

nhughes100

studiorat wrote: »

+1
Ganley is the bleedin' political elite FFS.
Have a look at the business he did with Kosta Trebicka these guys put make Liam Lawlor look like a paragon of virtue.

Here's one little difference, Lawlor was an elected public representative using his elected position for financial gain, Ganley is a lobbyist.

Blue 84

You hyprocrite! Let me ask you another question before you "YES TO LISBON" voter listen to the politicians that have the country as it is.
Where do you think that the government got the money from to fund their failure of a "YES" campaign ? Answer! from the taxpayer of course maybe not your good self as I doubt if you actually pay taxes but let me assure you that I pay approximately €15,000 PAYE annually. Now wherever Declan Ganley got his money from is none of your business as long as it is not my money as a taxpayer. Your type of propaganda shows that you are unable to think for yourself but use the foul mouthed tongues of all our politicians , you sore looser!
I would much rather see the government spend the funds where it is needed most ie. the health service, the vaccine for young girls and for people with disabilities. You are too blind to see where it is being spent. let me tell you that priority with this government is with the super rich builders, Bankers and speculators.
Declan Ganley spent his own money and as such he is not answerable to anyone. It was not stolen and hence he has the right to spend it as he wishes.
You will have to do better than that ould mantra "YES" voter

heyjude

leninbenjamin wrote: »

bullsh*t. he proved how flawed the democratic process is, how easily the public will buy bull well presented lies.

Like the lies presented by the current governing parties prior to the last general election and indeed, every recent election !

studiorat

Blue 84 wrote: »

of course maybe not your good self as I doubt if you actually pay taxes but let me assure you that I pay approximately €15,000 PAYE annually. Now wherever Declan Ganley got his money from is none of your business

Of course people who pay more tax are more entitled to vote.

sink

Blue 84 wrote: »

You hyprocrite! Let me ask you another question before you "YES TO LISBON" voter listen to the politicians that have the country as it is.
Where do you think that the government got the money from to fund their failure of a "YES" campaign ? Answer! from the taxpayer of course maybe not your good self as I doubt if you actually pay taxes but let me assure you that I pay approximately €15,000 PAYE annually. Now wherever Declan Ganley got his money from is none of your business as long as it is not my money as a taxpayer. Your type of propaganda shows that you are unable to think for yourself but use the foul mouthed tongues of all our politicians , you sore looser!
I would much rather see the government spend the funds where it is needed most ie. the health service, the vaccine for young girls and for people with disabilities. You are too blind to see where it is being spent. let me tell you that priority with this government is with the super rich builders, Bankers and speculators.
Declan Ganley spent his own money and as such he is not answerable to anyone. It was not stolen and hence he has the right to spend it as he wishes.
You will have to do better than that ould mantra "YES" voter

Hmm, I sure hope not as it is illegal for the government to fund a political campaign with taxpayers funds. If they did the should find themselves in court. They only can use their own parties funds raised through political donations to fund their campaign. Libertas spent more than the three main parties combined. The only thing government funded was the referendum commission which has to be 100% impartial. Unfortunately for the NO campaign reality had a YES campaign bias so they lied and obfuscated as much as possible.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0730/1217368580622.html

Frankie Lee

I voted no to Lisbon and will do so again but the thing that really pisses me off is how Ganley has got all the credit for the no campaign and has even been called the leader of the no campaign in recent weeks.

The fact of the matter is that the only thing Libertas did was put up a load of rubbish posters that anyone with half a brain cell would see as rubbish and most informed people knew Ganley was scum.
Never once did a Libertas representative engage in one of the forum debates that were held around the country.

Meanwhile good honourable people like Patricia McKenna and Joe Higgins are conveniently ignored.

oscarBravo

Frankie Lee wrote: »

...good honourable people like Patricia McKenna...

:eek:

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

And therein lies the hypocrisy; it's ok for the 'No' side to mislead and deceive because you agree with them. If Ganley had campaigned for a 'Yes' vote (with the size of Libertas' budget, I'm sure he still would have been in the spotlight) using the same tactics, you would have been up in arms. In fact, I imagine most ‘No’ voters would have used Ganley as a reason to vote ‘No’!

Well the taxpayer funded survey as to why there was a no vote would disagree with your Ganley bashing statement. I was going to vote no to Lisbon long before I even heard of Declan Ganley and he is, quite frankly being made out to be the Bogeyman of Lisbon. Fact of the matter is that the Yes side fkd up on more then one occasion and I think would have lost regardless of Libertas/Ganley/Coir etc.

If you think for one minute that the Yes side was being entirely truthful you need to wake up. Who can blame people for reading stuff into the treaty that may not have been there in black and white, if you'd told me 10 years ago that duty free would be a thing of the past thanks to the EU you'd have been laughed out of town by the Pro EU brigade. If you'd have told people in 1971 that joining the EEC would have led to milk lakes, butter mountains and fishermen dumping fish by the thousand after catching them you'd have being called a looney scaremongerer. You can't say that the EU has brought in some wacky stuff.

As for stuff not in the treaty I remember Albert Reynolds back around '92 telling us to vote for another EU treaty because we'll get 7 punts for every punt we put into the EU/EC, don't go too deep on the content there Albert. Don't worry about the lawyer talk, we're getting billions out of them.

There is without a shadow of a doubt, a skepicism about the EU project in this country and other member states and it isn't all Declan Ganley's fault.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Fact of the matter is that the Yes side fkd up on more then one occasion and I think would have lost regardless of Libertas/Ganley/Coir etc.

I think you're giving the Irish electorate far too much credit if you think they all made up their minds in the absence of any influence from Libertas and co. Sure we still have posters here on boards telling us they voted 'No' because Libertas said this, that and the other. Many of the reasons put forward by 'No' voters in the Eurobarometer poll are taken straight from Libertas' campaign, as well as those of Sinn Féin and Cóir.

nhughes100 wrote: »

If you think for one minute that the Yes side was being entirely truthful you need to wake up.

In what way were they untruthful? Let's go with Fianna Fáil; give me something specific that they said about Lisbon that was not true.

Furious-Dave

The only people who need to wake up are the 'No' voters. If Ireland votes No again then we can say good-bye to our EU membership. The rest of the EU are not going to tolerate a country the size of Ireland holding up the entire political process. What happens then? Well for one we'd have to change currency, again. Ireland is one of the countries that has benefited the most from being in the EU. Without them we would be an underdeveloped, piss poor country.

LaMer

AFAIK there's no legal backing to Ireland being expelled from the EU.

And Ganley, there's something dodgy from where the funding from Libertas came from, some have said neocons in the US military, Arms dealers, contractors, etc. etc. Who knows.

oscarBravo

LaMer wrote: »

AFAIK there's no legal backing to Ireland being expelled from the EU.

Therefore, the other 26 countries will sit quietly on their hands and let us dictate the pace? Indefinitely?

Furious-Dave

I'm pretty sure that if the majority of other member states wanted Ireland out, then we'd be out.

cassette50

so instead of asking why the Irish people voted no and addressing those concerns, it appears that it is now the tactics of the Yes campaign to enter in a smear campaign against those on the No side????

djpbarry

cassette50 wrote: »

so instead of asking why the Irish people voted no and addressing those concerns....

Ah yes, the famous "concerns". What were they again?

oscarBravo

Abortion, euthanasia, conscription. Try to keep up.

LaMer

OscarBravo,

Ireland isn't going to dictate the pace, its not even a given that other states would ratify this treaty. The Czechs still haven't ratified it.

And no it's legally not possible to be expelled.

oscarBravo

LaMer wrote: »

Ireland isn't going to dictate the pace, its not even a given that other states would ratify this treaty. The Czechs still haven't ratified it.

And if they do? If 26 countries ratify it, and one doesn't, what then?

And no it's legally not possible to be expelled.

According to whose law?

Furious-Dave

I do want to see an organized 'Yes' campaign that properly informs the public on the benefits of the Lisbon treaty, but I believe that the government are too incompetent to do it. The only concern I have about why people voted no is that they bought into the lies and misinformation of Libertas and Sinn Fein. Abortion and euthanasia being among these lies. Abortion is, and always will be, down to each member state to decide for themselves.

LaMer

Big if, It needs 60% in the Czech parliament to be passed, doesn't look likely with what has been said.

EU law, Ireland has an option to withdraw(not likely) but AFAIK the technical issues for expulsion are undefined, so theres no legal basis.

Anyway, I voted yes for Lisbon, and I do think it's definitely within the Nations rights to examine the financial situation and the sources of funding of a political party or entity. It not a smear campaign, its freedom of speech, we have tribunals to investigate senior politicians.

oscarBravo

LaMer wrote: »

EU law, Ireland has an option to withdraw(not likely) but AFAIK the technical issues for expulsion are undefined, so theres no legal basis.

What's the legal basis for the existence of the EU?

Furious-Dave

LaMer wrote: »

Anyway, I voted yes for Lisbon, and I do think it's definitely within the Nations rights to examine the financial situation and the sources of funding of a political party or entity. It not a smear campaign, its freedom of speech, we have tribunals to investigate senior politicians.

I agree. Especially when one of the leaders of the 'No' campaign may or may not have connections with the CIA and the Pentagon, and may or may not be acting in their interest, not ours.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

Abortion, euthanasia, conscription. Try to keep up.

Ah. I thought perhaps after all this time that "concerns" might have evolved into something that bears some sort of relation to reality. Oh well...

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I do want to see an organized 'Yes' campaign that properly informs the public on the benefits of the Lisbon treaty, but I believe that the government are too incompetent to do it....

...and many on the 'No' side don't want to be informed.

Dob74

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I do want to see an organized 'Yes' campaign that properly informs the public on the benefits of the Lisbon treaty, but I believe that the government are too incompetent to do it. The only concern I have about why people voted no is that they bought into the lies and misinformation of Libertas and Sinn Fein. Abortion and euthanasia being among these lies. Abortion is, and always will be, down to each member state to decide for themselves.[/quo

I voted no for none of these reasons. I do not want any further intergration into europe I think we have gone for enough. Single currency open borders, what do they want next? I thought that was as for the EU was going. I am perfectly happy with the EU at the moment. I do not want the United States of Europe as Lucinda Creighton proposed. At least she was honest enough to say were she wants europe to go.
I don't want Turkey in the EU. They have an appalling human rights record. I know Lisbon would not have let them in but it makes them one step closer. A Turkish city(istanbul) is european city of culture in 2010? And they are not in the EU. They are just softening us up to let them in.
Lisbon is just another step forward for the eurocrats to pull us in tighter. We were not happy in the British empire I dont think we would be happy in the European Empire.
Just wondering what made people vote Yes, except thier slavish devotion to our politial parties. Was there any line or paragraph in the Treaty that tipped them over the edge. Our was is just that the only party against it was SF.

Furious-Dave

I voted Yes because I do want Europe to become tighter and stronger. I believe it is the only viable counter balance to American power. People talk about Irish cultural identity and neutrality but we are already the most Americanized country in Europe. Most of the population speak English and there's American cafés and fast foot restaurants everywhere. Our neutrality went out the window when American military aircraft were allowed to land unchecked in Shannon airport.

Void

Dob74 wrote: »

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I do want to see an organized 'Yes' campaign that properly informs the public on the benefits of the Lisbon treaty, but I believe that the government are too incompetent to do it. The only concern I have about why people voted no is that they bought into the lies and misinformation of Libertas and Sinn Fein. Abortion and euthanasia being among these lies. Abortion is, and always will be, down to each member state to decide for themselves.

I voted no for none of these reasons. I do not want any further intergration into europe I think we have gone for enough. Single currency open borders, what do they want next? I thought that was as for the EU was going. I am perfectly happy with the EU at the moment. I do not want the United States of Europe as Lucinda Creighton proposed. At least she was honest enough to say were she wants europe to go.
I don't want Turkey in the EU. They have an appalling human rights record. I know Lisbon would not have let them in but it makes them one step closer. A Turkish city(istanbul) is european city of culture in 2010? And they are not in the EU. They are just softening us up to let them in.
Lisbon is just another step forward for the eurocrats to pull us in tighter. We were not happy in the British empire I dont think we would be happy in the European Empire.
Just wondering what made people vote Yes, except thier slavish devotion to our politial parties. Was there any line or paragraph in the Treaty that tipped them over the edge. Our was is just that the only party against it was SF.

Feel free to demonstrate the ignorance of No voters. I would suggest you go find a map and have a look at which continent Istanbul is located on. And you do realise that Turkey will not be allowed entry EXACTLY because of it's human rights record? They will have to sort their **** out first, they have already begun implementing many changes. You have provided an excellent example of the positive benefits of the EU, many thanks.

djpbarry

Dob74 wrote: »

I don't want Turkey in the EU. They have an appalling human rights record. I know Lisbon would not have let them in but it makes them one step closer.

This is a new one - full marks for an original spin.

Care to explain how ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will further Turkey’s application for EU membership?

studiorat

Dob74 wrote: »

Furious-Dave wrote: »

. I do not want the United States of Europe as Lucinda Creighton proposed. At least she was honest enough to say were she wants europe to go.

I think you'll find Ganley wants a closer model to the US. Federal Europe, Elected President etc...

Dob74 wrote: »

I don't want Turkey in the EU. They have an appalling human rights record. I know Lisbon would not have let them in but it makes them one step closer. A Turkish city(istanbul) is european city of culture in 2010? And they are not in the EU. They are just softening us up to let them in.

Personally I believe Turkey being in the EU would be a very good thing in the long run.

Dob74 wrote: »

Just wondering what made people vote Yes, except thier slavish devotion to our politial parties. Was there any line or paragraph in the Treaty that tipped them over the edge. Our was is just that the only party against it was SF.

We have gotten a very good deal out of Europe this far.

Firstly, the Irish Constitution will continue to be the basic legal document of the country and will continue to determine the relationship between Irish and EU law.

The Lisbon Treaty is not self-amending. Any future changes must be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member state. A referendum each time here. (Contrary to the myth perpetrated by the No side.)

The EU cannot take decisions over taxation rates unless it is with the unanimous agreement of all 27 EU member states. The reality is that there are a number of countries opposed to EU involvement in taxation matters, and this includes the UK.

The European Commission does propose EU law, it doesn't ratify it. That is decided, in the most cases, by the elected European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

Member states in the Nice Treaty in 2000 already agreed in principle to reduce the size of the Commission once the EU reached 27 countries. The reduction of commissioners guarantees complete equality of treatment among all member states. Two-thirds of member states may nominate a commissioner at any one time and this right will be rotated equally among member states.

Ireland, Malta and Cyprus will have exactly the same rights of representation on the European Commission as Germany, Poland and Britain.

Unfortunately, SF I believe just traditionally voted against the grain. As for Ganley he said he read it and is worried about his kids future or some such.
I doubt he actually understands it in the way in which he say's he does, he buys and sells company stock basically. He has no legal qualification or legal background. A genius at the fast buck and the marketing plan, but he's not in a position to make an informed decision regarding Lisbon.

LaMer

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the legal basis for the existence of the EU?

Read the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty.