Libertas are now friends of Immigrants?? but not Turkey

Steviemak

Libertas believe immigration is good but then treat us to a tirade of nonsense about immigration Irish Ferries style. They also say that in 2007 90% of new jobs went to non Irish - well considering we were at full employment in 2007 it wasn't as if Irish people were being left on the dole queue.


Libertas then go on a ridiculous rant against Turkey and how they are now the only one's going to stop Turkey joining the EU. Talk about fear politics.

This is despite the fact that a huge number of countries including France etc will not let it happen but according to Libertas without them we will be swamped by Turks.

I mean give us a break!!

They are really scraping the barrell now. Its disgusting and scary all at once. Is this the future of politics in Ireland?? I really hope not.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/libertas-views-misrepresented-1746381.html

PopeBuckfastXVI

Declan Ganley was himself an Irish immigrant in Britain and has huge respect and empathy for all immigrants.

Err... wasn't he born and bred there?

Surely he means he is a British immigrant in Ireland?

A vote for Libertas is a thumbs up for friendship, free-travel and free-trade throughout the EU.

We currently have free travel. Blue Cards will RESTRICT free travel. RESTRICT!!!!!

Wtf is this orwellian sh*t? War is peace? Restrictions are freedom?

kevteljeur

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Err... wasn't he born and bred there?

Surely he means he is a British immigrant in Ireland?

Actually, both, to a degree. His parents were Irish immigrants in Britain, and he is a British immigrant in Ireland. It really depends on how pedantic you want to be, but the word 'indecisive' springs to mind about the Ganleys. But technically that just means he is Irish with a funny accent.

With the 'blue card' 2-year visa notion that was bandied about, I'd find that somewhat ironic.


.

P. Breathnach

kevteljeur wrote: »

... but the word 'indecisive' springs to mind about the Ganleys...

I prefer "protean".

molloyjh

Honestly guys, I don't know whether to laugh or cry! I guess that all depends on the results of the election! We can afford to laugh at them should they do terribly, but we could really be in for it if they do well!

kevteljeur

Well, we'll have ourselves to blame. Just a random Googling of 'Germany 1933' threw this link up, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm

In a nutshell, it's times like these (recession, and Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) when people start clutching to anyone who promises real change, and revenge on the percieved enemies. It'll start with Turkey, but then move closer to home, and then the movement will need to find enemies further afield. Real enemies, to fight. It can only end in tears.


.

ionix5891

Libertas (or someone else?) removed the poster of Ganley in Eyre Square here in Galway where someone drew an Hitler mustache on him, i wish i took a picture now

BULLER

ionix5891 wrote: »

Libertas (or someone else?) removed the poster of Ganley in Eyre Square here in Galway where someone drew an Hitler mustache on him, i wish i took a picture now

Hahaha, brillient!

It's scary to think people might vote for that shower...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Not that I'd ever do such a thing but I'd be sorely tempted to white-out the word 'you' in the Libertas posters that say 'Let's get the European Union working for you. Declan Ganley'

:pac:

DFS UTD

Libertas = the new face of fascism

WooPeeA

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Not that I'd ever do such a thing but I'd be sorely tempted to white-out the word 'you' in the Libertas posters that say 'Let's get the European Union working for you. Declan Ganley'

:pac:

Did you mean "Let's get EU working for you, Declan Ganley"..?

Lockstep

From the Libertas book I got today, the blue card system basically means that someone can move wherever they want within the EU to work, volunteer, study etc but will be unable to get any help from the place theyre living such as health insurnace etc.

Sounds a bit dodgy to me; let's you use cheap labour without having any responsability towards them.

Scofflaw

kickoutthejams wrote: »

From the Libertas book I got today, the blue card system basically means that someone can move wherever they want within the EU to work, volunteer, study etc but will be unable to get any help from the place theyre living such as health insurnace etc.

Sounds a bit dodgy to me; let's you use cheap labour without having any responsability towards them.

'Tis the way of the right-eous...

cordially,
Scofflaw

adr

DFS UTD wrote: »

Libertas = the new face of fascism

If you forgot it's Libertas who stopped Lisbon Treaty. If they don't do it again you will see what fascism means.

Steviemak

adr wrote: »

If you forgot it's Libertas who stopped Lisbon Treaty. If they don't do it again you will see what fascism means.

Funny that considering Fascists all over Europe are jumping on the Libertas ship

PHB

adr wrote: »

If you forgot it's Libertas who stopped Lisbon Treaty. If they don't do it again you will see what fascism means.

I like the fact that their supporters are buying into this idea. It means that they'll never really grasp what they need to do to actually get elected in this country.

SF were the primary movers behind the no to Lisbon, that combined with Libertas and Youth Defence (or whatever they are called these days) formed a very interesting cocktail.

Libertas did well in the middle class as a respectible business man who made some solidish arguments against the treaty [solid in the sense of good sounding]. However those people would never vote for a Libertas candidate, just like they'd never vote SF. Hell even SF can't cash in on the no vote despite so much of it coming in Dublin, Mary Lou still looks like she's going out.

The idea that Libertas won the Lisbon Referendum is an press fantasy, one they are running with because it's slightly better than acknowleding the truth, that the Yes side were absolutely god awful (something they can't acknowledge because they'd be accused of disrespecting democracy etc. etc.) and that SF were the main drivers on the ground [Ya know, the people who rob banks, peddle drugs and knee cap people].
As such, they focus on Libertas, because its a nicer thought.
Libertas seem to be buying into press hype though.

Scofflaw

adr wrote: »

If you forgot it's Libertas who stopped Lisbon Treaty. If they don't do it again you will see what fascism means.

Why wait? Look it up in a dictionary now!

cheekily,
Scofflaw

Happy Monday

Was Fine Gael's first leader not one Eoin O'Duffy the blueshirt facist?

The founding fathers of what would become Fianna Fail and Labour used violence in 1916 to achieve their own ends in spite of the overwhleming voice of Irish people opposed to them.

I fear Declan Ganley has some way to go to match those facistic thugs....:cool:

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

Was Fine Gael's first leader not one Eoin O'Duffy the blueshirt facist?

The founding fathers of what would become Fianna Fail and Labour used violence in 1916 to achieve their own ends in spite of the overwhleming voice of Irish people opposed to them.

I fear Declan Ganley has some way to go to match those facistic thugs....:cool:

Nearly a century of intervening history, for one thing.

shooting fish in a barrel,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why wait? Look it up in a dictionary now!

cheekily,
Scofflaw

Hes busy posting elsewhere, oh wait whats that he has 1 post

Happy Monday

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nearly a century of intervening history, for one thing.

shooting fish in a barrel,
Scofflaw

Ah yes but the 'esteemed' politicans you would have us for vote for - Cowen, Ahern and so on - idolise these facists who tore up Dublin in 1916 without any public support - Ahern had a picture of PH Pearse in his office!!

So no distance has been put between FF and their facist founders like DeValera and Lemass - hardly in any position to lecture anyone else I reckon.

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

Ah yes but the 'esteemed' politicans you would have us for vote for - Cowen, Ahern and so on - idolise these facists who tore up Dublin in 1916 without any public support - Ahern had a picture of PH Pearse in his office!!

So no distance has been put between FF and their facist founders like DeValera and Lemass - hardly in any position to lecture anyone else I reckon.

Actually I vote Green - and while Ms McKenna may have injected a certain note of hysteria to the proceedings, I don't recall any actual bloodshed. On the other hand, I'm quite a fan of Michael Collins, who was, of course, a murderous bastard - but a competent murderous bastard.

As a side note, assuming people's political preferences is inclined to make one look foolish. Still, one is one's own keeper. On an entirely different side note, I see that it may be time to institute something of a purge of the misuse of the term fascist (or 'facist' as you have it) around these forums. Calling people you disagree with fascists is too low a form of 'discussion' to be worthwhile - and in that respect, I am your current keeper.

amused,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... As a side note, assuming people's political preferences is inclined to make one look foolish. Still, one is one's own keeper. On an entirely different side note, I see that it may be time to institute something of a purge of the misuse of the term fascist (or 'facist' as you have it) around these forums. Calling people you disagree with fascists is too low a form of 'discussion' to be worthwhile - and in that respect, I am your current keeper...

You're taking a fascist position.

Or something.

sceptre

There was a time when people understood the term. It's a shame that the time when people understood the term appears to have passed entirely.

View

adr wrote: »

If you forgot it's Libertas who stopped Lisbon Treaty. If they don't do it again you will see what fascism means.

Lisbon greatly increases the powers of the European Parliament giving MEPs co-decision making powers with the Council of Ministers in approx. 95% of all EU decision making areas. If you remember there are democratic elections about to take place to choose MEPs in a less than a fortnights time.

Personally, I'm puzzled how you seem to be of the opinion that this will lead us all to "see what facism means". Is this a case of "Democracy = Facism" or something like that?

Happy Monday

Scofflaw wrote: »

Calling people you disagree with fascists is too low a form of 'discussion' to be worthwhile.

Shame that precedent wasn't set at the beginning of this thread.

Or maybe you had taken your third latte of the morning over your Sunday Times and what with all the excitment of that wonderfully sporting Leinster victory you just couldn't contain yourself could you?

Declan Ganley is standing in the West and North West of Ireland - some distance from you latte supping Leinster folk on the other coast.

oscarBravo

Happy Monday wrote: »

Shame that precedent wasn't set at the beginning of this thread.

Or maybe you had taken your third latte of the morning over your Sunday Times and what with all the excitment of that wonderfully sporting Leinster victory you just couldn't contain yourself could you?

If you've nothing of value to contribute, please refrain from posting.

Happy Monday

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you've nothing of value to contribute, please refrain from posting.

I'm pointing out that tags such as fascism were introduced onto this thread by opponents of Ganley without challenge.

oscarBravo

Happy Monday wrote: »

I'm pointing out that tags such as fascism were introduced onto this thread by opponents of Ganley without challenge.

I'm sorry, I could have sworn you were being a smartarse, what with all the talk of lattes and all.

The admonition to understand the, y'know, meaning of a word like "fascist" before using it applies across the board. Back on topic, now.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happy Monday wrote: »

Declan Ganley is standing in the West and North West of Ireland - some distance from you latte supping Leinster folk on the other coast.

Yes but this particular Leinster folk lives in G-G-G-Galway and is putting Ganley last on the ballot...

Honestly... west v east? Is that the best Libertas can do? Would you vote for Robert Mugabe if he came from Kiltimagh!?

Must try harder...

ionix5891

Happy Monday wrote: »

I'm pointing out that tags such as fascism were introduced onto this thread by opponents of Ganley without challenge.

how would you describe him?

adr

View wrote: »

Personally, I'm puzzled how you seem to be of the opinion that this will lead us all to "see what facism means". Is this a case of "Democracy = Facism" or something like that?

Democracy? Ireland said NO in the referendum. It's obviously the wrong answer so they'll try again... and again... and again if necessary. I wonder if they run another referendum it they get a YES. Guess not.
Is this a democracy in your opinion?

thebman

adr wrote: »

Democracy? Ireland said NO in the referendum. It's obviously the wrong answer so they'll try again... and again... and again if necessary. I wonder if they run another referendum it they get a YES. Guess not.
Is this a democracy in your opinion?

Given most people didn't know what they were voting on the first time I'd say yeah given them a chance to get informed and vote again is democratic and in the spirit of what we want Ireland to be.

The government ran an appalling campaign and used it as an opportunity to put pictures of themselves up rather than promoting the actual treaty.

Ganley was on the news tonight and all he could do was attack the other parties.

Scofflaw

adr wrote: »

Democracy? Ireland said NO in the referendum. It's obviously the wrong answer so they'll try again... and again... and again if necessary. I wonder if they run another referendum it they get a YES. Guess not.
Is this a democracy in your opinion?

Well, yes, up to a point. It's the way our democracy is structured - the government poses referendum questions. We don't seem to have had much pressure to allow for referendums by petition, and there doesn't seem to be much appetite for electing an anti-EU government.

As to "again and again" - I doubt it. There's a precedent for a second referendum - Nice - but a second No would presumably mean that the people are not for turning, which would make subsequent referendums pointless.

If the people return a Yes at the next referendum, would you consider that as less valid than the original answer, and if so, how?

cordially,
Scofflaw

adr

thebman wrote: »

Given most people didn't know what they were voting on the first time I'd say yeah given them a chance to get informed and vote again is democratic and in the spirit of what we want Ireland to be.

The government ran an appalling campaign and used it as an opportunity to put pictures of themselves up rather than promoting the actual treaty.

Ganley was on the news tonight and all he could do was attack the other parties.

Yeah, I'm sure they will be equally concerned with people's understanding of the Treaty when they get a YES result...

thebman

adr wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure they will be equally concerned with people's understanding of the Treaty when they get a YES result...

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

If they get the result they want they won't care, why would they? They didn't get the answer they wanted, they checked the reasons for it and decided to try again and educate the people that didn't understand the question which seemed to be the main reason for voting no.

That is only logical IMO. Almost every party in the country is in favor of Lisbon so it makes sense to ask the people again if they didn't understand as almost all parties are in favor of asking again and the people can still vote no if they still disagree.

Lockstep

Happy Monday wrote: »

Was Fine Gael's first leader not one Eoin O'Duffy the blueshirt facist?

No, the Blueshirts were way more complicated than to be labeled merely as fascists.
Keep in mind I'm far from a Fine Gael supported but the Blueshirts were pro democracy.
Authortarian, nationalist, anti communist and pro-Catholic. But pro-democracy.

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

If they get the result they want they won't care, why would they? They didn't get the answer they wanted, they checked the reasons for it and decided to try again and educate the people that didn't understand the question which seemed to be the main reason for voting no.

That is only logical IMO. Almost every party in the country is in favor of Lisbon so it makes sense to ask the people again if they didn't understand as almost all parties are in favor of asking again and the people can still vote no if they still disagree.

True - it's not a coin-toss. The government has a definite policy, and wants a particular answer - they're not just throwing the question out for the laugh. This was probably more obvious before the McKenna judgement, when the government actually campaigned. If we opposed what the government wanted, the playing field wasn't level, because they had been elected, and we hadn't - therefore the supposition was that what the government wanted to do was something that was for the good of the country as the majority of the electorate defined it by their choice of government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

adr

That's the thing - most of the parties are in favour of the Lisbon and they cannot digest a NO answer. They wouldn't have cared if people had voted Yes. Lack of understanding is just a great excuse. But that's democracy. You respect people decisions. How many people understand a program of the parties running in the general election? Do you do a re run when one party wins over the other even if it turns out the people didn't understand what they were voting for?

Scofflaw

adr wrote: »

That's the thing - most of the parties are in favour of the Lisbon and they cannot digest a NO answer. They wouldn't have cared if people had voted Yes. Lack of understanding is just a great excuse. But that's democracy. You respect people decisions. How many people understand a program of the parties running in the general election? Do you do a re run when one party wins over the other even if it turns out the people didn't understand what they were voting for?

No, but then referendums are rather different from elections. The question in an election is always the same - who do you consider the best people to run the country on your behalf? The question for a referendum is different, because it usually involves a complex issue with far-reaching effects. That makes the question of electoral ignorance of the issue a far more serious matter in a referendum.

Still, though, the government is entitled to ask the same question again, or modify it by other riders or guarantees and ask it again. That's the way our Constitution works - that being the same document that gets us a referendum in the first place.

If we elected a government who had promised to push for, say, the removal of the death penalty from the Constitution, and if, having put such an amendment to the people, the amendment was rejected, does that mean that the government should therefore abandon its opposition to the death penalty and promote it instead?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Steviemak

We elect a govt to supposedly do what is best for this country. Therefore, they are, in my opinion, well with in their rights to get the best deal for this country and if that means running a second referendum then so be it.

Its not an affront on democracy - its actually the exact opposite.

adr

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, but then referendums are rather different from elections. The question in an election is always the same - who do you consider the best people to run the country on your behalf? The question for a referendum is different, because it usually involves a complex issue with far-reaching effects. That makes the question of electoral ignorance of the issue a far more serious matter in a referendum.

Still, though, the government is entitled to ask the same question again, or modify it by other riders or guarantees and ask it again. That's the way our Constitution works - that being the same document that gets us a referendum in the first place.

If we elected a government who had promised to push for, say, the removal of the death penalty from the Constitution, and if, having put such an amendment to the people, the amendment was rejected, does that mean that the government should therefore abandon its opposition to the death penalty and promote it instead?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, when you elect a party to run the country, they make decisions which are far -reaching too so there is no difference from this point of view.

No it doesn't mean the government should abandon its opposition. It means people changed their mind and decided to reject the amendment. The government should respect their decision. But like in the case of Lisbon the government sees only one right answer and uses its right to ask the question again.

WooPeeA

adr wrote: »

Democracy? Ireland said NO in the referendum. It's obviously the wrong answer so they'll try again... and again... and again if necessary.

I agree with you in one thing you said, there's no democracy around Lisbon Treaty. If there was one, we'd already have the Treaty applied long time ago.

Remember Ireland is less than 1% of EU population.

adr

WooPeeA wrote: »

I agree with you in one thing you said, there's no democracy around Lisbon Treaty. If there was one, we'd already have the Treaty applied long time ago.

Remember Ireland is less than 1% of EU population.

You mean force member states to give up their sovereignty because they are small? That's what scares me about the EU.
Thank God the decision on Lisbon has to be unanimous. Irish people are lucky that they were even given a chance to say what they think on the matter. In most of the other countries the Treaty was sneaked in through a back door and nobody cared about the public opinion.

Scofflaw

adr wrote: »

Well, when you elect a party to run the country, they make decisions which are far -reaching too so there is no difference from this point of view.

There's quite a large difference between asking who you would like to make the complex decisions and making them yourself. I would certainly choose a lawyer to write a contract rather than doing it myself. I won't necessarily choose the right lawyer, but I am still likely to make a better choice of lawyer than I would make about the contract.

adr wrote: »

No it doesn't mean the government should abandon its opposition. It means people changed their mind and decided to reject the amendment. The government should respect their decision. But like in the case of Lisbon the government sees only one right answer and uses its right to ask the question again.

That's the point, though. The government has respected the decision - it hasn't ratified Lisbon - and it hasn't abandoned its policy of trying to get Lisbon ratified. What it hasn't done is attempted to ratify Lisbon in defiance of the referendum result - and that's its only obligation here.

To put it slightly differently, you're right that the government sees only one 'right' answer here, but as long as it only seeks to obtain that answer by the due mechanism, it's doing nothing either illegal or undemocratic. The government thinks ratifying Lisbon is a good idea - why is it not entitled to pursue that?

You mean force member states to give up their sovereignty because they are small? That's what scares me about the EU.
Thank God the decision on Lisbon has to be unanimous. Irish people are lucky that they were even given a chance to say what they think on the matter. In most of the other countries the Treaty was sneaked in through a back door and nobody cared about the public opinion.

That's not the case at all! You may disagree with the extent to which the successive governments of Ireland have chosen to pool sovereignty in Europe, and you may disagree with the fact that the Irish people have voted to allow them to do so, but there is no question of Ireland being forced by anybody.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

adr wrote: »

Democracy? Ireland said NO in the referendum. It's obviously the wrong answer so they'll try again... and again... and again if necessary. I wonder if they run another referendum it they get a YES. Guess not.
Is this a democracy in your opinion?

Yes it is. A democratically elected Government acting in accordance with the provisions of its democratically enacted Constitution is totally democratic.

In Ireland's case, the relevant provisions of the Constitution allow the Government to hold referenda whenever they so choose. That constitution (and all provisions therein) was approved by the people in a democratic referendum.

As such, it is totally democratic for the Government to hold a first, second, third or even one hundredth referendum on an issue since in each case the decision rests with the demos (i.e. people).

You are essentially refusing to accept the democratic decision of the people to approve the Consitution when you claim it is "undemocratic" for the Government to act in accordance with its provisions.

If you have a problem with the "undemocratic" nature of a second referendum then stop whining and trot off to the Supreme Court where you can argue your case. I am sure the Justices would soon clarify the matter for you.

Happy Monday

WooPeeA wrote: »

Remember Ireland is less than 1% of EU population.

It's this reality that worried people in the first instance to vote NO.

If the Vote is Yes next time in the interests of fairness should the government hold a third ballot as a final decider?

Brian Cowen and the Greens you'll notice are less keen to hold a referendum on the performance of their own government.

djpbarry

adr wrote: »

In most of the other countries the Treaty was sneaked in through a back door and nobody cared about the public opinion.

Presumably the public in <insert member state here> were outraged by this underhanded approach?

P. Breathnach

djpbarry wrote: »

Presumably the public in <insert member state here> were outraged by this underhanded approach?

Of course they were. But they also sneaked in their outrage through the back door, and nobody noticed it.

kevteljeur

Happy Monday wrote: »

It's this reality that worried people in the first instance to vote NO.

If the Vote is Yes next time in the interests of fairness should the government hold a third ballot as a final decider?

Brian Cowen and the Greens you'll notice are less keen to hold a referendum on the performance of their own government.

They don't have a choice, there'll be a referendum on the performance of their government in 2012. On past indicators, the democratic choice of the Irish people will be based largely on economic performance of the previous few months, preserving the status quo, and on the promise of tax breaks. As little as two of those will see Fianna Fail back in and the current policies maintained, including those on EU integration.

I wouldn't expect a revolution any time soon.


.

WooPeeA

adr wrote: »

You mean force member states to give up their sovereignty because they are small? That's what scares me about the EU.

Are you one of those who think that the Treaty was made for "all against Ireland"?

Thank God the decision on Lisbon has to be unanimous. Irish people are lucky that they were even given a chance to say what they think on the matter. In most of the other countries the Treaty was sneaked in through a back door and nobody cared about the public opinion.

Well yeah, but when they asked the people why they voted no people didn't know what to say which only embarrassed Ireland as credible partner in Europe...