The return of Declan Ganley

zenno

ShooterSF wrote: »

Only flickin through the first pages of this thread and what's the big issue with Ganley changing his mind? After all isn't the irish govt. asking the public the same thing, "Have we changed our mind?"

correct...
declan is free to choose, whether he wants to or not, to hold a debate on this treaty. do I hear a bit of fury in the yes camp ?. trying to brush him off with accusations and such ?.

ShooterSF

ei.sdraob wrote: »

perhaps you should read the whole thread, specifically this post

instead of jumping in and trying to deflect from the matter at hand

Sorry but it still seems your point is that he can't change his mind and he has no policies. I agree with you on the policy point and I don't like the guy anymore than you do so there's little point in me debating something I agree with you on. The issue I had was with your claim that by changing his mind his word now means ****. Had he always claimed he was going to campaign on lisbon 2 would you lend more weight to his word or is this just a convenient stick to beat a guy you don't like with?

Spiritoftheseventies

Ganley to make a statement tomorrow outlining his reasons for re-entering the campaign. Should be interesting.

ei.sdraob

ShooterSF wrote: »

Had he always claimed he was going to campaign on lisbon 2 would you lend more weight to his word or is this just a convenient stick to beat a guy you don't like with?

yes i would give more weight to his word

a man that makes a statement and then goes back on it has no honor in my eyes, he would have been more "respected" (rofl what am i saying ) if he actually stuck around and as @drkpower above said "seek to convince others" of his beliefs, what he is doing is making him appear as an opportunist and a liar and people can see that

bayviewclose wrote: »

So what you are telling me is that we are making this huge deal about having a commissioner at the table but that he does not represent us. Yes I get they have to "bat for the team" but each commissioner also is there to give us a voice. Otherwise why have an Irish commissioner there in first place.

yet again, the commissioner does not represent "us" as a nation


and as i stated before i would be delighted if the whole of the commission were to disappear, as they are "useless"


the NO campaign made a big issue out of the commissioner point, playing on the fact that most people don't know what a commissioner does or what the commission itself do, i found that whole "issue" amusing as it just clearly underlined how easy it is to deceive people and make them vote in a certain manner over a non issue


so to reiterate the commissioner is not "our" and does not represent "us" as a nation, none of them do that

is_that_so

zenno wrote: »

correct...
declan is free to choose, whether he wants to or not, to hold a debate on this treaty. do I hear a bit of fury in the yes camp ?. trying to brush him off with accusations and such ?.

Indeed . But why would anyone take an individual seriously who is a failed election candidate or one who claimed that the EU elections were a plebiscite on Lisbon or that Libertas would get 100 seats or most important of all that he claimed that he would not be involved in Lisbon 2? His interview involves him anyway whether he's part of the campaign or not. I doubt if there's a lot of fury. In fact beyond the dubious Coir nonsense and the usual muttering of scare-mongering there does appear to have been far more sober discussion of Lisbon this time out. I have no doubt there are many who will relish countering the claims that made the No campaign so strong the last time and crossing swords with Ganley if he does indeed become part of it.

Spiritoftheseventies

is_that_so wrote: »

Indeed . But why would anyone take an individual seriously who is a failed election candidate or one who claimed that the EU elections were a plebiscite on Lisbon or that Libertas would get 100 seats or most important of all that he claimed that he would not be involved in Lisbon 2? His interview involves him anyway whether he's part of the campaign or not. I doubt if there's a lot of fury. In fact beyond the dubious Coir nonsense and the usual muttering of scare-mongering there does appear to have been far more sober discussion of Lisbon this time out. I have no doubt there are many who will relish countering the claims that made the No campaign so strong the last time and crossing swords with Ganley if he does indeed become part of it.

RTE led with news that Ganley is re entering with Libertas. Statement tomorrow. I'm assuming he is legally entitled to enter the campaign but sure he will get grilled on the airwaves for going back on his pledge not do so.

ShooterSF

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes i would give more weight to his word

a man that makes a statement and then goes back on it has no honor in my eyes, he would have been more "respected" (rofl what am i saying ) if he actually stuck around and as @drkpower above said "seek to convince others" of his beliefs, what he is doing is making him appear as an opportunist and a liar and people can see that

Ok then we'll have to disagree here. I feel people are entitled to change their opinion.

yet again, the commissioner does not represent "us" as a nation


and as i stated before i would be delighted if the whole of the commission were to disappear, as they are "useless"


the NO campaign made a big issue out of the commissioner point, playing on the fact that most people don't know what a commissioner does or what the commission itself do, i found that whole "issue" amusing as it just clearly underlined how easy it is to deceive people and make them vote in a certain manner over a non issue


so to reiterate the commissioner is not "our" and does not represent "us" as a nation, none of them do that

Off topic but I assume you would suggest that is a good reason to vote no so and streamline the commission ala nice?

ei.sdraob

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok then we'll have to disagree here. I feel people are entitled to change their opinion.
?

as i already said in this thread, he is entitled to whatever opinion he wants (within law), but i have even less respect for him now for flip flopping

ShooterSF wrote: »

Off topic but I assume you would suggest that is a good reason to vote no so and streamline the commission ala nice?

not at all what Im saying is that im pissed of that there were changes to the commissioner point, i was quite happy with the original direction of Lisbon 1 with regard to commissioners

since the commissioners are a useless bunch of bureaucrats whether they stay or go doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of the Treaty which contains plenty of reasons to vote YES

zenno

is_that_so wrote: »

Indeed . But why would anyone take an individual seriously who is a failed election candidate or one who claimed that the EU elections were a plebiscite on Lisbon or that Libertas would get 100 seats or most important of all that he claimed that he would not be involved in Lisbon 2? His interview involves him anyway whether he's part of the campaign or not. I doubt if there's a lot of fury. In fact beyond the dubious Coir nonsense and the usual muttering of scare-mongering there does appear to have been far more sober discussion of Lisbon this time out. I have no doubt there are many who will relish countering the claims that made the No campaign so strong the last time and crossing swords with Ganley if he does indeed become part of it.

let the man speak, as he will do tomorrow. this slagging match against him is a bit childish at this stage. what has "failed election candidate" got to do with it ?. say your peice tomorrow when the man has spoken.

is_that_so

bayviewclose wrote: »

RTE led with news that Ganley is re entering with Libertas. Statement tomorrow. I'm assuming he is legally entitled to enter the campaign but sure he will get grilled on the airwaves for going back on his pledge not do so.

From a Ganley/Libertas point of view this is the big risk. Instead of getting their message out they could end up having to defend his position for the best part of a week. That said hardcore No voters will welcome him with open arms but undecideds will be harder to shift.

There's a new Red C Poll tomorrow which should give some indications as to the state of things. The last one in May had Yes in the high 50s , No in high 20s and Don't Knows in mid-teens.

zenno

is_that_so wrote: »

From a Ganley/Libertas point of view this is the big risk. Instead of getting their message out they could end up having to defend his position for the best part of a week. That said hardcore No voters will welcome him with open arms but undecideds will be harder to shift.

There's a new Red C Poll tomorrow which should give some indications as to the state of things. The last one in May had Yes in the high 50s , No in high 20s and Don't Knows in mid-teens.

the polls this time around will be like headless chicken polls because this time around all the polls are wrong.

ShooterSF

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as i already said in this thread, he is entitled to whatever opinion he wants (within law), but i have even less respect for him now for flip flopping

I know. Where as I couldn't care if he changed his mind or not. I feel respect for someones opinion should be based on if they can prove their claims not whether or not they have shown they can change their minds.
As a comparison, under your views, if you persuaded me to vote yes and I went on to try and persuade others you would have little respect for my arguments because I flip-flopped even though I was spouting your opinions!

is_that_so

zenno wrote: »

let the man speak, as he will do tomorrow. this slagging match against him is a bit childish at this stage. what has "failed election candidate" got to do with it ?. say your peice tomorrow when the man has spoken.

Credibility or lack thereof. Nothing I have said is untrue. I'd sooner listen to Joe Higgins, Mary Lou or Ms McKenna because they are recognised successful politicians.

Aidan1

Ok then we'll have to disagree here. I feel people are entitled to change their opinion.

On that, at least, we agree. I wonder does Mr Ganley share that perspective?

drkpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes i would give more weight to his word

a man that makes a statement and then goes back on it has no honor in my eyes, he would have been more "respected" (rofl what am i saying ) if he actually stuck around and as @drkpower above said "seek to convince others" of his beliefs, what he is doing is making him appear as an opportunist and a liar and people can see that

So let me get this straight.

You believe that it would be a respectable position if Ganley had stuck around and convinced others of their views.

But once he had made a statement (having just falied to win an MEP seat) that he would not campaign, you think that the more respectable position for him now is to say nothing, even though he genuinely believes this is a bad thing for Ireland and knows that he could benefit his 'side' in the campaign..?

If those who advocated the 80's Divorce referendium had made a similar statment indicating their intent not to participate in future referneda following the failure of that referendum, would it have been dishonorable for them to return to campaign in the 90's campaign? Of course not; it may have been inadvisable to make the initial assertion but, once the assertion had been made, the lesser of the two evils would be to return to the campaign rather than sit in silence when you know you can make a valuable contribution to what you believe in.

The substance is what is important. Focus on that. And try and remove yourself when deciding on this point, from the position you believe in vis-a-vis Lisbon. I am a Yes voter (then and now) but, as I said, if Ganley genuinely believes what he says v-a-v Lisbon, he should campaign nothwithstanding former statements. That is the more honorable course.

ei.sdraob

drkpower wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

You believe that it would be a respectable position if Ganley had stuck around and convinced others of their views.

But once he had made a statement (having just falied to win an MEP seat) that he would not campaign, you think that the more respectable position for him now is to say nothing, even though he genuinely believes this is a bad thing for Ireland and knows that he could benefit his 'side' in the campaign..?

If those who advocated the 80's Divorce referendium had made a similar statment indicating their intent not to participate in future referneda following the failure of that referendum, would it have been dishonorable for them to return to campaign in the 90's campaign? Of course not; it may have been inadvisable to make the initial assertion but, once the assertion had been made, the lesser of the two evils would be to return to the campaign rather than sit in silence when you know you can make a valuable contribution to what you believe in.

The substance is what is important. Focus on that. And try and remove yourself when deciding on this point, from the position you believe in vis-a-vis Lisbon. I am a Yes voter (then and now) but, as I said, if Ganley genuinely believes what he says v-a-v Lisbon, he should campaign nothwithstanding former statements. That is the more honorable course.

the why did he make such a big deal about himself withdrawing from politics/lisbon debate

i still remember reading all the posts here on boards saying

"Ganley knows how to take NO for an answer"

seems like it was nothing but a publicity stunt, tsk tsk tsk

ShooterSF

Aidan1 wrote: »

On that, at least, we agree. I wonder does Mr Ganley share that perspective?

I imagine anyone that spends a fortune trying to persuade people to vote a certain way believes in a right to change your mind!

is_that_so

drkpower wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

You believe that it would be a respectable position if Ganley had stuck around and convinced others of their views.

But once he had made a statement (having just falied to win an MEP seat) that he would not campaign, you think that the more respectable position for him now is to say nothing, even though he genuinely believes this is a bad thing for Ireland and knows that he could benefit his 'side' in the campaign..?

If those who advocated the 80's Divorce referendum had made a similar statement indicating their intent not to participate in future referenda following the failure of that referendum, would it have been dishonourable for them to return to campaign in the 90's campaign? Of course not; it may have been inadvisable to make the initial assertion but, once the assertion had been made, the lesser of the two evils would be to return to the campaign rather than sit in silence when you know you can make a valuable contribution to what you believe in.

The substance is what is important. Focus on that. And try and remove yourself when deciding on this point, from the position you believe in vis-a-vis Lisbon. I am a Yes voter (then and now) but, as I said, if Ganley genuinely believes what he says v-a-v Lisbon, he should campaign notwithstanding former statements. That is the more honourable course.

Ganley's position on Lisbon was what informed his stance for the elections. He claimed it was a plebiscite and at the end of it he accepted the rejection of his candidacy. He did lose by 15,000 votes, not "nearly" by any stretch of the imagination. No-one can prevent him exercising his freedom of speech but if he was an honourable man as you suggest, we would and should have have heard from him long before now. Politically it's not a wise move and even in practical terms they have barely three weeks to go to influence the vote.

ShooterSF

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the why did he make such a big deal about himself withdrawing from politics/lisbon debate

i still remember reading all the posts here on boards saying

"Ganley knows how to take NO for an answer"

seems like it was nothing but a publicity stunt, tsk tsk tsk

So now your holding the guy responsible for other's reactions to his actions?!

ei.sdraob

ShooterSF wrote: »

So now your holding the guy responsible for other's reactions to his actions?!

if he pulled that stunt in the hope of generating that type of a response from people then yes he is responsible for manipulation and lying

which is even worse

drkpower

is_that_so wrote: »

Ganley's position on Lisbon was what informed his stance for the elections. He claimed it was a plebiscite and at the end of it he accepted the rejection of his candidacy. He did lose by 15,000 votes, not "nearly" by any stretch of the imagination. No-one can prevent him exercising his freedom of speech but if he was an honourable man as you suggest, we would and should have have heard from him long before now. Politically it's not a wise move and even in practical terms they have barely three weeks to go to influence the vote.

I agree, to a degree, that he should have re-entered before now (or at lleast announced it before now).

But;
1. The last 3-4 weeks is always the key period in terms of any campaign, so he has plenty of time.
2. Doing it this way magnifies the media interest in his return to the campaign and the interest that he will attract.

Ultimately, I dont like the way he went about things. But, as of right now, the question is: Which is the most honorable choice?:

1. Contradict your previous intention not to campaign because you genuinely believe you can make a difference and because you genuinely believe that a No vote is best for the country

or

2. Say nothing

If this question was about someone who was campaignig for something I believed in, the answer would be a no-brainer. Just because I (or anyone else) am on the other side of the issue to Ganley does not mean we should lose sight of what is the right thing to do.

is_that_so

As I posted earlier there is a perceived credibility issue for anyone doing this, whatever side one is campaigning for. On that basis he is a potential weak link. True he'll get coverage , but the questions for the first few days or even a week will be all about the why as well as some of the other issues raises in this thread, and not their message.

drkpower

is_that_so wrote: »

As I posted earlier there is a perceived credibility issue for anyone doing this, whatever side one is campaigning for. On that basis he is a potential weak link. True he'll get coverage , but the questions for the first few days or even a week will be all about the why as well as some of the other issues raises in this thread, and not their message.

No doubt, the above is true.

But what should he do? Should he stay out of it because of a credibility issue? Or should he campaign for what he believes in?

They are the choices he has and, to my mind, the latter is by far the better of the two options

is_that_so

IMO in order to do the latter effectively he needs to have the former, otherwise he runs the risk of being used for target practice. It also supposes that we do know what he believes to be true, a feature of his campaigns in Lisbon and the EU elections that was not always obvious or static. Joe Higgins on the other hand, even though I disagree with many of things he say, I do see what his beliefs are and he's been consistent in them.

ei.sdraob

is_that_so wrote: »

Joe Higgins on the other hand, even though I disagree with many of things he say, I do see what his beliefs are and he's been consistent in them.

I disagree with Joe Higgins myself on alot of things

but yes you are right, he has policies and beliefs and he stands by them

im still waiting to be shown what are Libertas policies....

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I disagree with Joe Higgins myself on alot of things

but yes you are right, he has policies and beliefs and he stands by them

im still waiting to be shown what are Libertas policies....

One of the libertas policies is the blue card scheme they put forward during last European elections. No real secret as what they are about. look it up.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

One of the libertas policies is the blue card scheme they put forward during last European elections. No real secret as what they are about. look it up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/stateoftheunion/2009/05/18/libertas-scores-own-goal-in-poland/

Ganley says he is pro-European yet he cuddles up to the continent’s most prominent eurosceptics. He says he supports the EU’s internal market but then his Irish candidates say they want to stop freedom of movement. He calls on MEPs to publish their expenses yet drags his feet over saying how Libertas is funded.

This all begs the question: can we believe anything he says?

new “blue card” (visa) system should be introduced to “reduce the burden to Ireland of caring for inhabitants of other member states”.

incredible


so one of their policies was to dismantle of the main pillars of the EU, sigh


btw im referring to their website, still no sign of them putting up policies or manifesto, its been 3 months now since elections


seems they dont want to put up policies because this way they can chance it as opportunities arise, and not be held accountable

very sly

BlitzKrieg

One of the libertas policies is the blue card scheme they put forward during last European elections.

Is it?

From my recollection, their opinion of what the blue card scheme was changed day to day.

One day Caroline Simons said it extended to all european countries, the next its just the eastern european countries, then its just non eu countries and so on and on.

P. Breathnach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

From my recollection, their opinion of what the blue card scheme was changed day to day.

One day Caroline Simons said it extended to all european countries, the next its just the eastern european countries, then its just non eu countries and so on and on.

A perfect example of Libertas policy: say whatever you think will work to win a vote.

StealthRolex

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A perfect example of Libertas policy: say whatever you think will work to win a vote.

Don't all political parties work that way?