Who would be the most credible Leaders of the Yes and No To Lisbon Camps

Het-Field

It appears that Lisbon 2 is inevitable.

However, as previous Boards.ie thread have suggested the Green Party will remain as spineless jellyfish, while the Labour Party may switch sides. Of course, the PDs have exited the scene, which means that the yes camp will be of a far smaller size this time around

That leaves Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to carry the can. Frankly, neither put on the most robust campaign in May 2008, and they cannot be capable of acting in tandem without squabbling like schoolroom sissies.

Thus, it may be better to put all their efforts into the Alliance For Europe. The Alliance had a fairly poor time at the last referendum, and were just a part of a very divided Yes Camp. However, if the mistakes of the past can be learnt from, then its viable.

I would suggest that the Alliance appoint a de facto chair (Pat Cox---Ireland's number one man in Europe), while Bridget Laffen continues as Executive Director. Alongside these two Brian Cowan (although not the most credible individual at the moment), and Enda Kenny should establish a good working relationship, and both should put out their heavy hitters to encourage a yes vote. This would also allow floating Green Party members and ex Progressive Democrats engage in the campaign at a front line level Equally the likes of IBEC should join this alliance.

If the camp is divided, we will see the high publicity, low rent, low impact shopping centre tours which informed nobody of the issues. I wuld also encourage the hijacking of the referendum to promote potential 2012 candidates

The Alliance will need to have multiple posters with Three different Slogans. Each should inform Ireland of a variety of Plus points of the Treaty, and then there should be a generic "good for Ireland" type slogan.

The Alliance also needs to take its message outside of the big cities. I remember being in Clonmel (a fairly important town to say the least) three days before the referendum, and there was not one poster advocating the passage of the Treaty. This is worrying, did the major forces simply believe that outside the Pale a yes vote was guaranteed ???

Some of the Crucial Messages that the Alliance will need to get across include
-The Triple Lock Mechanism protects Irish "Neutrality" (Negates PANA)
-The Maastricht Protocol protecting Ireland against Abortion (Negates Coir)
-The Nature of Commissioner Rotation (we are not losing one)
-The virtually non existent exercise of the "Veto"


On the otherside I imagine Libertas will take a large portion of the no campaign... along with te nutter of the extreme left and right

ben bedlam

Most credible leader of No to Lisbon Camp: Declan Ganley

Most credible leader of Yes to Lisbon Camp: Robert Mugabe

Steviemak

ben bedlam wrote: »

Most credible leader of No to Lisbon Camp: Declan Ganley

Most credible leader of Yes to Lisbon Camp: Robert Mugabe

Both non elected men with very suspect pasts. Fair enough.

But I'd like to think we can have more intelligent postings than the Ben Bedlam contribution

WooPeeA

ben bedlam wrote: »

Most credible leader of No to Lisbon Camp: Declan Ganley

I wouldn't say he's credible. I'm still waiting for his fund source presentation. Each campaigner has to do so after campaign is over, all of them did. He didn't.

jhegarty

WooPeeA wrote: »

I wouldn't say he's credible. I'm still waiting for his fund source presentation. Each campaigner has to do so after campaign is over, all of them did. He didn't.

Your thinking of an election.

Unless there is some law I am not aware of.

ChocolateSauce

Mary Lou MacDonald is the only credible no camp IMO. I disagree with her but she has lied the least.

No one on the yes camp has discredited themselves. The government is in a weak position to lead it for other reasons.

Tipsy Mac

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No one on the yes camp has discredited themselves. The government is in a weak position to lead it for other reasons.

Dick Roche.

mike65

The yes camp no to de-party politicise the campaign, give the job to a credible ex politician who is well thought of generally.

the_syco

Yes campaign: Bertie

No campaign: the dude interviewed on Primetime that had a very dubious past, no info on where he got the funds for Libertas, the "no" campaign, etc.

As both know how to avoid the "where did you get the money from" question fairly well.

Eurosceptic2008

Yes campaign: McCreevy if he got involved, as we remember him standing up for Ireland in the reprimand crisis in 2001 and that would help dissuade people who fear the Treaty is a sellout. However, I think he is a (barely) closet "no" supporter.

No campaign: Declan Ganley. Proves you don't have to be on the extremes of Left or Right to oppose Lisbon. Also shows that big business is not united on the Treaty.

Simi

Yes - I dunno some politician most people like.
No - The sugar puffs monster.

WooPeeA

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

No campaign: Declan Ganley. Proves you don't have to be on the extremes of Left or Right to oppose Lisbon. Also shows that big business is not united on the Treaty.

His "big business" unlike to other, pro-Treaty businesses, is strongly connected with American government.

Americans, unlike Europeans, don't like Treaty of Lisbon.

WooPeeA

jhegarty wrote: »

Your thinking of an election.

Unless there is some law I am not aware of.

According to Wikipedia:

"Anonymous lobby funding of this type is legal under Irish law - although donations above a certain amount will have to be disclosed by the group after the referendum. According to the group, Ganley and his wife have already donated the maximum amount of €6,300." (that's the maximum, Irish law forbids to donate more than that - WooPee).

ShooterSF

Yes side: Hopefully the incompetent FF thank you.

No side: Hmm it's tough. I'd prefer none of the current options but unfortunately with these bull**** improvements FF came back with I'd put up with Libertas' big wads of cash.

I think the No side need a new approach on the posters. One that says "This time do what your told. Vote Yes. Do really want to do this all over again?"

I'd laugh. Ive given up on the true issues being visited by either side.

ShooterSF

WooPeeA wrote: »

According to Wikipedia:

"Anonymous lobby funding of this type is legal under Irish law - although donations above a certain amount will have to be disclosed by the group after the referendum. According to the group, Ganley and his wife have already donated the maximum amount of €6,300." (that's the maximum, Irish law forbids to donate more than that - WooPee).

Im not sure but I think that refers to a lobby group donating to a political party in support of their referendum views. If it was law why were the Dail meeting to try and close a loophole?

carveone

Yes: Scofflaw and others on boards.ie

No: FF and FG if they do as good a job as last time.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Im not sure but I think that refers to a lobby group donating to a political party in support of their referendum views. If it was law why were the Dail meeting to try and close a loophole?

Libertas are characterised as a 'third party' in a referendum - that is, a group whose aim is to influence the outcome of a referendum, but who are not themselves a political party. As such, they'd be subject to the same donation caps as political parties.

The scrutiny here, however, is based on Ganley's loans to Libertas. If such loans are made on any preferential terms, or there is some indication that they are not intended to be repaid, then they rather clearly become donations in the meaning of the legislation.

The reason Ganley objects to the publicity around them (and the publication of Libertas' dealings with SIPO on foot of an FOI request) appears to be that Libertas made a big song and dance about how they were funded by donations from ordinary voters - which suggested they were a movement with wide popular support, as opposed to the personal political vehicle of a rich businessman.

Ganley certainly made at least one loan of €200K to Libertas, which he referred to (briefly) as 'the first loan'. That suggests strongly that Libertas is exactly what its opponents consider it to be - a rich man's personal toy. If there's more loans - and it seems likely there are - Ganley would probably want to consider some way of gagging SIPO to prevent that information reaching the press.

All a bit cloak and dagger, really. Still, that seems to be the way Libertas and Mr Ganley have chosen to do things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Libertas are characterised as a 'third party' in a referendum - that is, a group whose aim is to influence the outcome of a referendum, but who are not themselves a political party. As such, they'd be subject to the same donation caps as political parties.

The scrutiny here, however, is based on Ganley's loans to Libertas. If such loans are made on any preferential terms, or there is some indication that they are not intended to be repaid, then they rather clearly become donations in the meaning of the legislation.

The reason Ganley objects to the publicity around them (and the publication of Libertas' dealings with SIPO on foot of an FOI request) appears to be that Libertas made a big song and dance about how they were funded by donations from ordinary voters - which suggested they were a movement with wide popular support, as opposed to the personal political vehicle of a rich businessman.

Ganley certainly made at least one loan of €200K to Libertas, which he referred to (briefly) as 'the first loan'. That suggests strongly that Libertas is exactly what its opponents consider it to be - a rich man's personal toy. If there's more loans - and it seems likely there are - Ganley would probably want to consider some way of gagging SIPO to prevent that information reaching the press.

All a bit cloak and dagger, really. Still, that seems to be the way Libertas and Mr Ganley have chosen to do things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah so its because it's classed as a loan rather than a donation. I get ya.
TBH I dont particularily like their way of doing things, anymore than any political parties. Though I'll admit to evilly appreciating their funds during the referendum for the greater good and all that even if I dont agree with their problems with the treaty.

Eurosceptic2008

WooPeeA wrote: »

His "big business" unlike to other, pro-Treaty businesses, is strongly connected with American government.

Americans, unlike Europeans, don't like Treaty of Lisbon.

That's nonsense. Loads of Irish companies are heavily involved in the US and with the US govt e.g. Elan. Irish companies employ 40,000 people over there. And in any case, the change in administration come January will make the anti-American argument less potent because the neocons will no longer be in charge. Most of the allegations of links to the Republican party are innuendo and speculation rather than fact. And the Bush admin publicly supported the EU Constitution which morphed into the Lisbon treaty after the Franco-Dutch no votes. I don't hear you complaining about Peter Sutherland's US links, given he sits on the board of Goldman Sachs International, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

Bush promoting EU constitution.(George W. Bush)(Brief Article)
Publication: The New American

Publication Date: 21-MAR-05

"President George W. Bush's newfound enthusiasm for working with a 'strong and united' European Union could help the campaign to ratify the new EU constitution," reported the February 24 Financial Times of London, citing supporters of the ratification campaign.

The first stop on Mr. Bush's European tour, significantly, was Brussels, capital city of the embryonic EU mega-state, which former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev called the "new European soviet."

"I'm looking forward to meeting with the EU," the president stated during a February 18 roundtable discussion in the White House with representatives of European print media. Asked by one reporter, "What is your view of the proposed EU Constitution?" Mr. Bush replied: "You know ... we want the EU to be successful. The European Union is a significant partner in many things, particularly trade."

He also said that he is "fascinated to see how the British culture and the French culture and the sovereignty of the nations, longstanding traditional sovereignty can be integrated into the larger whole in the modern era. And progress is being made and I'm hopeful it works...." Interestingly, he referred to the EU--rather than any of its constituent nations--as "a strong partner" in the trans-Atlantic alliance with the United States.

In her February 8 speech before the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conferred an unqualified benediction on the EU. "The agenda of U.S.-E.U. cooperation is wider than ever, and still growing, along with the European Union itself," stated Rice. "[T]he United States, above all, welcomes the growing unity of Europe."

The unspoken but crucial subtext of these remarks is the drive by the Bush administration to consolidate the nations of the Western Hemisphere into an EU-style soviet through the so-called "Free Trade Area of the Americas."

WooPeeA

Bush makes good smile and doing dirty job behind everyone's back. He is a warrior, not a peacemaker. He's bad for America and bad for Europe.

War in Iraq, missile shield in European soil and many other decisions of his administration started many argues and unneeded situations here in Europe. His second name is destructor.

Our strength is our unity. That's why every argue makes us weaker. Every intervention with bad intentions from outside, planned or not, slowly destroys our unselfish friendship which is our foundation.

America simply doesn't want to lose their hegemony to the world. I don't trust current US administration. I never did.

The Raven.

Jim Carrey for the YES ??

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3873029/10551076


:pac:Shh!! YouKnowWho wasn't born here either!!