A call to action against Libertas

tobias_wolf

This is a call to action against the impending treat that is Libertas, this year Ireland voted no to the Lisbon treaty, A document created my the leaders of our communities around Europe to give democracy back to the people. A legal document was put before the populace of Ireland, Libertas played on our difficulties reading and understanding this document,


We believe this organization driven by its founder Declan Ganley has but one goal the attainment of power in Europe for their sole purposes,


We believe Declan Ganley after amassing a fast fortune of over a quarter of a billion Euro now thirsts for real power in the political world and will use lies and deceit to attain this.


The story of Libertas and Declan Ganely in our view shows a stark Resemblance to that of the recent star wars movies,where the dark sith lord fooled the union into giving him power due to fear of something that did not exist.


Libertas is using FEAR to obtain power for there own means,


These must be stopped before it is too late


Before power is trust upon them in the up coming European elections because of the fear and lies the organization spreads.


This is not a yes to Lisbon campaign , it is a no to Libertas


please get in touch and join the fight


expect us


by


anonymous

Project United We Stand

seanybiker

didnt see star wars. Definately voting no this time round.

Vinegar Hill

Ireland already has democracy, we voted NO. I will do so again. :cool:

evercloserunion

I don't know if the OP is a joke or something, anonymous being those 4chan guys? Anyway, campaigned for a Yes last time and may do so again if I have time. Definitely voting Yes anyway. Libertas are a shady bunch all right and while we need to avoid the crazy extreme language, they should be subject to as much public scrutiny as possible.

seanybiker

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Ireland already has democracy, we voted NO. I will do so again. :cool:

I didnt vote last time but am this time. Pissed off that the country voted no but them plonkers are not happy with that so ill vote no.

,8,1

But you are Yes to Lisbon aren't you, tobias_wolf?

evercloserunion

seanybiker wrote: »

I didnt vote last time but am this time. Pissed off that the country voted no but them plonkers are not happy with that so ill vote no.

Surely you'd rather vote on the actual contents of the treaty? Lisbon is a good deal for Ireland, we shouldn't let a few annoying politicians ruin it for us by voting it down just to get back at them.

tobias_wolf

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Ireland already has democracy, we voted NO. I will do so again.

Large areas of Ireland decision making has already been transfered to the EU(under previous treaties Nice Amsterdam etc) to the commission, who is the only body who can make proposals on policy , and the council of minsters who is made up of our heads of states and ministries , this has caused what is called a “democratic deficit” meaning unelected people in Europe in some instance have power over elected ones such as the European parliament . One of Lisbons main purposes is the transfer of power back from Europe to Ireland , thus restoring and improving our democracy in Ireland.


This article further explains this in depth





http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm





this is a thread against the power hungry Libertrash , and takes no stance on Sinn Fein or any other no alliance who's stance is founded on political beliefs.

by


anonymous

Project United We Stand

seanybiker

evercloserunion wrote: »

Surely you'd rather vote on the actual contents of the treaty? Lisbon is a good deal for Ireland, we shouldn't let a few annoying politicians ruin it for us by voting it down just to get back at them.

sure i dont understand it anyways. Im easily led ill vote yes cos ya seem sound. Lol

tobias_wolf

,8,1 wrote: »

But you are Yes to Lisbon aren't you, tobias_wolf?

We are against thirst for power instead of thirst for change,

only libertas interests us.

knowledge is free

by

anonymous

Project United We Stand

turgon

tobias_wolf wrote: »

knowlage is free

As posted

tobias_wolf wrote: »

by anonymous

trellheim

Tobias ... I'm a Yes voter.

Witch-hunting Libertas won them the high moral ground last time. ooo small party they sound good and just look at those sound bites FFS

Let's not fall into this trap again

Guy:Incognito

If all the people who openly addmitted voteing no because they didnt understand it (ie didnt educate themselves) actually read up on it, would it still have been defeated? It can only have swung back the other way if they did (just depends on hoiw much).

evercloserunion

Stekelly wrote: »

If all the people who openly addmitted voteing no because they didnt understand it (ie didnt educate themselves) actually read up on it, would it still have been defeated? It can only have swung back the other way if they did (just depends on hoiw much).

Considering that both the Eurobarometer and mrbi polls revealed that not knowing enough about the Treaty was the single biggest reason people voted No, I'd say the swing in favour would be quite considerable if we managed to educate most people about the Treaty. Enough to pass it comfortably, anyway.

techdiver

Stekelly wrote: »

If all the people who openly addmitted voteing no because they didnt understand it (ie didnt educate themselves) actually read up on it, would it still have been defeated? It can only have swung back the other way if they did (just depends on hoiw much).

Without a degree in Law it is impossible to interpret the entire text and what it outlines. Many of our own Judges couldn't decipher the legal ramifications contained in the text and because of these ambiguities, many of the "legal" amendments in the treaty could be open to challenge in European Court.

If the leaders in the EU had any cop on what so ever, they would have constructed a document that is a plain simple constitution. Instead the arrogance of the EU leaders came to the fore with this tripe document, and the assumption that the "sheep" citizens of the member states would ratify the document and trust their leaders.

Remember other countries afforded a vote on Lisbon's predecessor, voted it down. So it is not just Ireland that are full of "ignorant people", who don't understand the will of the political elite.

,8,1

Lisbon is a good deal for Ireland, we shouldn't let a few annoying politicians ruin it for us by voting it down just to get back at them.

Of course that's exactly the way the Yes-folk spin it when the Irish vote Lisbon down.

Call it an "anti-Government" vote to save their own asses.

Project United We Stand

Shouldn't that be Project Yes to EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty? Jeez, drop the charade.

jhegarty

I prefer star trek to starwars , can I still vote no ?

evercloserunion

techdiver wrote: »

Without a degree in Law it is impossible to interpret the entire text and what it outlines. Many of our own Judges couldn't decipher the legal ramifications contained in the text and because of these ambiguities, many of the "legal" amendments in the treaty could be open to challenge in European Court.

If the leaders in the EU had any cop on what so ever, they would have constructed a document that is a plain simple constitution. Instead the arrogance of the EU leaders came to the fore with this tripe document, and the assumption that the "sheep" citizens of the member states would ratify the document and trust their leaders.

Remember other countries afforded a vote on Lisbon's predecessor, voted it down. So it is not just Ireland that are full of "ignorant people", who don't understand the will of the political elite.

There was one instance where the Referendum Commission failed to immediately produce an interpretation of one of the provisions of the Treaty, which they later rectified. The Treaty has to be read in context and obviously come legal knowledge is necessary but that's how it is with any legal document. It might seem like a good idea on the surface to create a short simply worded document to consolidate and reform the foundational law of the EU but short simple language is also vague language. The alternative of drafting a long-winded and complex legal document is entertaining hundreds, possibly thousands of cases in the ECJ about the interpretation of the Treaty, which would be extremely costly and lengthy.

eamon234

Libertas is second only to Scientology in it's shadiness. Ganley's a creep, but he's no Darth Vader
People will happily vote yes just to pee him off.

evercloserunion

,8,1 wrote: »

Of course that's exactly the way the Yes-folk spin it when the Irish vote Lisbon down.

Call it an "anti-Government" vote to save their own asses.

I'm not talking about the anti-government vote. I'm talking about people who want to vote No to a second Lisbon because of the behaviour of European politicians in the aftermath of the first vote.

Guy:Incognito

techdiver wrote: »

Without a degree in Law it is impossible to interpret the entire text and what it outlines. Many of our own Judges couldn't decipher the legal ramifications contained in the text and because of these ambiguities, many of the "legal" amendments in the treaty could be open to challenge in European Court.

If the leaders in the EU had any cop on what so ever, they would have constructed a document that is a plain simple constitution. Instead the arrogance of the EU leaders came to the fore with this tripe document, and the assumption that the "sheep" citizens of the member states would ratify the document and trust their leaders.

Remember other countries afforded a vote on Lisbon's predecessor, voted it down. So it is not just Ireland that are full of "ignorant people", who don't understand the will of the political elite.

How many legal documents have you read? How many loopholes can be plugged in plain, readable text that cant be twisted and picked apart by lawyers who have dedicated their lives to doing just that?

It wasnt put together to be an easy read item for jjob public.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

evercloserunion

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What's your point? Are you suggesting we string Ganley in front of a tribunal?

Scofflaw

techdiver wrote: »

Without a degree in Law it is impossible to interpret the entire text and what it outlines. Many of our own Judges couldn't decipher the legal ramifications contained in the text and because of these ambiguities, many of the "legal" amendments in the treaty could be open to challenge in European Court.

If the leaders in the EU had any cop on what so ever, they would have constructed a document that is a plain simple constitution. Instead the arrogance of the EU leaders came to the fore with this tripe document, and the assumption that the "sheep" citizens of the member states would ratify the document and trust their leaders.

Remember other countries afforded a vote on Lisbon's predecessor, voted it down. So it is not just Ireland that are full of "ignorant people", who don't understand the will of the political elite.

The Treaty is no more complex than any of the other EU treaties were. They're not intended as a guide to what the citizen gets out of Europe, they're designed as a legal straitjacket on the operations of Europe and a legal contract on how it operates.

Like any good legal contract, you are advised to seek good legal counsel in understanding it. A contract the layman can read usually won't stand up in court (the court in this case being the ECJ, and the disputants would be the governments). Even Libertas are only calling for a "simple constitution" in addition to the treaties, not to replace them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

eamon234

Aha I knew there was something in that Star Wars analogy!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

egan007

tobias_wolf wrote: »

This is a call to action against...

Yawnn........I was not planning to vote for Libertas should they run for power but now I think I will....

When they are in power I'll use their secret police to clamp down on moronic opinions

evercloserunion

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it's not... people go on about how shady FF are all the time. Just because one of our political parties is corrupt, should we be disallowed from voicing concerns about suspect political organizations?

Not that I particularly care about Ganley's shadiness. There are much better reasons to oppose Libertas.

techdiver

evercloserunion wrote: »

There was one instance where the Referendum Commission failed to immediately produce an interpretation of one of the provisions of the Treaty, which they later rectified.

That's my point. If the commission cannot immediatley interpret the text how can ordinary Joe Soap do so. And remember doddering over the issue doesn't instill confidence in the members of the comission that produced the interpretation and also it must be stated that an interpretation is an interpretation, not a iron clad legal fact.

Getting the leagl assurances is the right direction, but it may be too late as the trust is not there. They should have secured the leagal guareentees before the treferendum as they should have know the sore points that were raised.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete "No" voter, I am a swing voter on this issue.

Scofflaw

techdiver wrote: »

That's my point. If the commission cannot immediatley interpret the text how can ordinary Joe Soap do so. And remember doddering over the issue doesn't instill confidence in the members of the comission that produced the interpretation and also it must be stated that an interpretation is an interpretation, not a iron clad legal fact.

Getting the leagl assurances is the right direction, but it may be too late as the trust is not there. They should have secured the leagal guareentees before the treferendum as they should have know the sore points that were raised.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete "No" voter, I am a swing voter on this issue.

Why does the Referendum Commission need to be able to produce an interpretation immediately, though? Surely the Referendum Commission is supposed to take a bit of time about their answers - put in a bit of thought and produce a proper answer, rather than just pretending they knew all along? They're not politicians, after all.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

tobias_wolf

jhegarty wrote: »

I prefer star trek to starwars , can I still vote no ?

definitely

techdiver

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why does the Referendum Commission need to be able to produce an interpretation immediately, though? Surely the Referendum Commission is supposed to take a bit of time about their answers - put in a bit of thought and produce a proper answer, rather than just pretending they knew all along? They're not politicians, after all.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

If I am asked to vote on something I want the simple questions answered with exact explanations. This was not done. All that happened was the No side used the utter ambiguity in the treaty to instill doubt in the voters mind and the Yes side were not able to convince or reassure the voters.

Both sides may have believed they were correct, but that doesn't help and when people cannot make up their mind who to trust on these issues, they will inevitably vote for the status quo and reject the referendum.

The problem we are now left with is that we have hard-line/blinded YES and NO campaigners, who will get in line with their parties respective of personal belief.

The rest of us cannot respect either side because of the political points scoring that results and because of this the NO side will prevail. The government need to change tact on this occasion and stop harping on about Ganley and Libertas and just focus on reassuring the people about the treaty.

We're not interested in petty arguments by the dominant political classes and dynasties in this country, I want the issue at hand to be to the fore.

evercloserunion

That's my point. If the commission cannot immediatley interpret the text how can ordinary Joe Soap do so. And remember doddering over the issue doesn't instill confidence in the members of the comission that produced the interpretation and also it must be stated that an interpretation is an interpretation, not a iron clad legal fact.

That's ridiculous! Joe Soap doesn't understand any of the Treaties, and he'd probably have a hard time figuring out most of our domestic laws too. Laws are made by and for lawmakers and lawyers. If the average man could understand the legal language in which most laws and treaties are drafted there wouldn't be a legal profession. But there is, and lawyers are considered to be pretty educated professionals precisely because legal language is necessarily complex. The problems with having simple language are obvious. Look at the Irish Constitution for example; that's written in pretty simple language and could be "understood" by most. But what does it tell us about our rights? Not a whole lot by itself. The EU Treaties try to avoid this problem via their comprehensive language.

We had lawyers and politicians, some of whom were involved in the negotiation and drafting of the Treaty, telling us exactly what was in the Treaty and what it meant. If that's not good enough I don't know what is.

Getting the leagl assurances is the right direction, but it may be too late as the trust is not there. They should have secured the leagal guareentees before the treferendum as they should have know the sore points that were raised.

It would have been pretty hard to get all the necessary legal assurances beforehand though, because
a) it was very hard for the government to predict what arguments the No side would throw at them,
b) of the arguments that were relatively predictable, it was impossible for the government to tell which ones would resonate with the voter, and
c) had the government acquired all the legal assurances we are now seeking prior to the vote, the No side would have found alternative arguments to throw about anyway.

In any case, the legal assurances being sought are largely superfluous, as our babies are not about to be micro-chipped, aborted and post-humously conscripted into an EU superarmy, regardless of whether or not we get declarations on those issues.

Guy:Incognito

techdiver wrote: »

If I am asked to vote on something I want the simple questions answered with exact explanations. .

I take it you dont vote in local/general elections so? Or is it just that ANY explanation will do to get you to vote? So if the yes side make up some crap abu tetting you a free car for your vote, then off you go? Politicians lie (or put forward policies they cant put through when the time comes) but people still vote.

techdiver

Stekelly wrote: »

I take it you dont vote in local/general elections so?

Done with this. Couldn't be bothered putting my point across any more.

Toys are out of the cot.

Scofflaw

techdiver wrote: »

If I am asked to vote on something I want the simple questions answered with exact explanations. This was not done. All that happened was the No side used the utter ambiguity in the treaty to instill doubt in the voters mind and the Yes side were not able to convince or reassure the voters.

Both sides may have believed they were correct, but that doesn't help and when people cannot make up their mind who to trust on these issues, they will inevitably vote for the status quo and reject the referendum.

I don't have a problem with that, but it's essentially an argument for a better government campaign. It's really about not allowing the appearance of doubt, though, rather than there being any real reason why the Ref Comm should produce immediate answers.

techdiver wrote: »

The problem we are now left with is that we have hard-line/blinded YES and NO campaigners, who will get in line with their parties respective of personal belief.

The rest of us cannot respect either side because of the political points scoring that results and because of this the NO side will prevail. The government need to change tact on this occasion and stop harping on about Ganley and Libertas and just focus on reassuring the people about the treaty.

We're not interested in petty arguments by the dominant political classes and dynasties in this country, I want the issue at hand to be to the fore.

I'm completely in agreement. The disunity of the official Yes campaign, the lack of positives, the lack of focus...I could go on. It was probably the single most depressing thing about the referendum for me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DublinWriter

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ganley scares and unsettles the average polico because he's independently wealthy and didn't inherit his comfy Dail seat from Daddy in a nepotistic chain stretching back to the Civil War.

The big misrepresentation I've seen in the media is that Libertas are anti-European. They are not and Ganley has stated such many times.

What's wrong with wanting to reduce the Lisbon treaty into a six-word readable document?

Sorry, but people really need to get their heads out of their asses in relation to Lisbon. The French rejected the initial EU charter, then the Dutch rejected it.

Then Brussels had the bright idea to obfuscate the original text so much to render it almost unintelligible, repackage is as Lisbon and have it ratified by Government alone.

Only we thick Paddies were stupid enough to still have the treaty mandated by popular vote. Pure FF incompetence at it's worst, arguably the terms of reference of the treaty don't encroach on Irish sovereignty and actually didn't need a referendum in the first place.

Having worked in Brussels I can vouchsafe that some of the expense practices of the Commission would make your hair stand on end and would knock any sharp practice currently happening in the Dail and Senate into the Ha'penny place.

Just remember that a vote against Lisbon isn't necessarily taking an anti-European stance; personally, I'm pro European, but I'm also pro-democracy.

Guy:Incognito

DublinWriter wrote: »

What's wrong with wanting to reduce the Lisbon treaty into a six-word readable document?..

Why didnt he produce a readable document if thats all he wanted? (without misrepresenting it and scaremongering about things like conscrption to a european army)

DublinWriter wrote: »

Pure FF incompetence at it's worst, .

and what of the other parties supporting the yes vote?

The opposition has a moral obligation to do something to help the country the odd time instead of blindly opposing anything the government say, be it good, bad or indifferent.

tobias_wolf

DublinWriter wrote: »

The French rejected the initial EU charter,

following the french rejection of the treaty ,they then went on to elect one of the treatys biggest advocates as their president , who went even as far as saying that passing this treaty is one of his goals.

ShooterSF

So wait is it the empire or the rebels that get the X-Wings? It's a while since I watched it. X-Wings would definitely lean me towards their side.
Also anyway we can get the OP's text to have a space background with a bit of catchy music? Actually I might just go back and read it with the Star Wars intro...

Furious-Dave

Is Ganley still the chairman and CEO of Rivada Networks? If so then he will always be considering their interests in everything he does. The fact that they have contracts with the Pentagon amounting to more than $200m means that he should not be allowed anywhere near Irish or European politics.

It has already been explained that treaties must be written in legal speak so as to avoid loopholes that may be exploited in future. IMO treaties are not for the public to read. They are for Government officals to read who understand legal speak.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

humanji

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, because the US and Irish constitutions have never ever been amended. They're identical to how they were first written.

Furious-Dave

You may have worked for MNCs but were they military systems manufacturers? Rivada Networks is. I don't believe for a second that Ganley does not include the business interests of Rivada in his campaign in Europe.

Ok perhaps the Lisbon Treaty may have been a little too complicated, but it doesn't have to be written in big crayon letters for the public to be able to read it. I stand by my comment about the way treaties are written and I could continue but I feel evercloserunion put it better earlier.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Agent J

Play the ball not the man.

Yes side didnt do it last time and if they continue will loose again.

Although if it is passed i think we should have another one. Its only fair.

Best 2 out of 3?

Furious-Dave

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps, but I doubt the IFA would act in a way that could damage Ireland as it would backfire. What I'm trying to get at here is that a lot of what Ganley is campaigning for could be in Rivada's interests and not Ireland's interests.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ziggurat

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

With the result that people still argue about what a particular term means. Language changes over time and what a word meant a hundred years ago may be entirely different to today.
Hell, what a word means today and what it means in two years could be entirely different.

Legalese sets everything out in a very, very specific manner. There is no room for interpretation and when you're drawing up an international treaty (as opposed to a national constitution) you need something that doesn't have any ambiguity.

evercloserunion

Agent J wrote: »

Play the ball not the man.

Yes side didnt do it last time and if they continue will loose again.

Although if it is passed i think we should have another one. Its only fair.

Best 2 out of 3?

Of course, the Yes side were the only side that played the man and not the ball. Lucinda, after all, is not a man: http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/lib-7-b.jpg

Sangre

seanybiker wrote: »

I didnt vote last time but am this time. Pissed off that the country voted no but them plonkers are not happy with that so ill vote no.

so you'll cut off your nose to spite your face?