The return of Declan Ganley

Avgas

Hmmm...still not convinced.

I thought the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM) was one part of the arrangement and this was based on Article 122 of the Treaty (emergency provisions). This provided 60bn in funds and was backed on EU assets. The European Financial Stablity facility (EFSF) is related but different and that manages 400bn in funds and is outside the EU institutional system....but as you admit...it is actually a sleight of hand.

In fact the best thing I've read about the legalities of the no-bail out clause comes from Belgian economist and all round rum-chap, Paul de Grauwe:

"It is sometimes said that bail-outs in the Eurozone are illegal because the Treaty says so (see Wyplosz 2009 on this). But this is a misreading of the Treaty. The no-bail-out clause only says that the EU shall not be liable for the debt of governments, i.e. the governments of the Union cannot be forced to bail out a member state. But this does not exclude that the governments of the EU freely decide to provide financial assistance to one of the member states. In fact this is explicitly laid down in Article 100, section 2.3
Eurozone governments have the legal capacity to bail out other governments, and in my opinion they are very likely to do so in the Eurozone if the need arises."

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4384

The problem is this may be a too elastic reading of Article 125.

FULL TEXT OF article 125 follows:

Article 125
(ex Article 103 TEC)

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article.

I think the problem for Paul de Grauwe is the use of the word 'shall not' is usually taken as a strict injunction. Although as he puts it there is a big difference between volunteering to give Greece (and soon Ireland?) a few hundred billion Euro and saying your assuming all Irish and Greek debts. But the phrase 'assume' is ambiguous and could strictly mean any scale or extent of assuming, however temporary.
By giving such aid you are de facto paying Greek and others debts. The member states did not merely use the words 'may not be obliged to' in Article 125.

On the other had the references to "without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project" could at a massive stretch be widened to include a limited and finite stability fund mechanism as a specific project under emergency aid provisions.

Still not very clear…at least to me.

Scofflaw

Avgas wrote: »

Hmmm...still not convinced.

I thought the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM) was one part of the arrangement and this was based on Article 122 of the Treaty (emergency provisions). This provided 60bn in funds and was backed on EU assets.

It is, and the argument against it is based on the idea that an economic bust isn't an 'extraordinary' event - for the same reason, it can't, in its current form, be used as a legal basis for a permanent fund.

Avgas wrote: »

The European Financial Stablity facility (EFSF) is related but different and that manages 400bn in funds and is outside the EU institutional system....but as you admit...it is actually a sleight of hand.

To 'admit', I'd need to have denied it, rather than making the point myself!

Avgas wrote: »

In fact the best thing I've read about the legalities of the no-bail out clause comes from Belgian economist and all round rum-chap, Paul de Grauwe:

"It is sometimes said that bail-outs in the Eurozone are illegal because the Treaty says so (see Wyplosz 2009 on this). But this is a misreading of the Treaty. The no-bail-out clause only says that the EU shall not be liable for the debt of governments, i.e. the governments of the Union cannot be forced to bail out a member state. But this does not exclude that the governments of the EU freely decide to provide financial assistance to one of the member states. In fact this is explicitly laid down in Article 100, section 2.3
Eurozone governments have the legal capacity to bail out other governments, and in my opinion they are very likely to do so in the Eurozone if the need arises."

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4384

The problem is this may be a too elastic reading of Article 125.

FULL TEXT OF article 125 follows:

Article 125
(ex Article 103 TEC)

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article.

I think the problem for Paul de Grauwe is the use of the word 'shall not' is usually taken as a strict injunction. Although as he puts it there is a big difference between volunteering to give Greece (and soon Ireland?) a few hundred billion Euro and saying your assuming all Irish and Greek debts. But the phrase 'assume' is ambiguous and could strictly mean any scale or extent of assuming, however temporary.
By giving such aid you are de facto paying Greek and others debts. The member states did not merely use the words 'may not be obliged to' in Article 125.

On the other had the references to "without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project" could at a massive stretch be widened to include a limited and finite stability fund mechanism as a specific project under emergency aid provisions.

Still not very clear…at least to me.

I don't think you need to stretch the article like that, though. If you are in financial difficulties, and I loan you money, have I thereby assumed your debts or liabilities? Can your creditors come to me for repayment? No, they can't, because assuming your debts is not what I have done. Instead, I have become another of your creditors.

What we're seeing is a collision between the spirit of the rules, which I would say is pretty clearly that there should be no bailout, however it happens, and economic reality, which is that the eurozone states are in fact jointly responsible for the stability of all the members, because they all have a large stake in it. In the medium term it will be resolved, as far as I can see, in favour of changing the rules to reflect the reality - in the short term, though, the immediate question is whether there's enough room in the letter of the law to allow what is necessary to happen. Given that you have to presume national sovereignty where it is not explicitly given up, and that a loan allowing the repayment of debt isn't the same as assumption of debt, I'd be pretty certain that by choosing the option of a separate SPV offering only loans there's room enough.

Certainly I'd be happy enough in the case of a legal contract that by loaning you money I wasn't assuming liability for your debts, as long as I had some explicit proviso to that effect - much like Article 125. Which, in turn, is why I expect Article 125 won't be changed as part of the long-term legal basis for the EFSF's successor - and the absence of a proposal for change strongly suggests that the article is not regarded as a legal impediment to the EFSF or its successor, but would remain a protective bulwark against any attempt to make the other Member States jointly (through the EU) or severally liable for the debts of a Member State that defaults.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Avgas

No point going on and on about this...but it does come down to legal interpretation.....a strict reading of "assume" under article 125 could imply loans to pay off debts are in fact a type of temporary assumption of debt.

I owe a bank 4,000 euro. You agreed to loan me 2,000 euro to help pay off the debt. You are of course not liable for the remaining 2,000, if I don't pay off the remainder, but by lending me 2,000 you have assumed the debt in the ordinary sense of having facilitated its part payment up to 2,000 euro.

You have not assumed legal liability-your 100% there. BUT note article 125 makes a distinction between legal liability for a debt (in fact it uses the broader word 'commitment' rather than debt) and the word 'assume'. Whatever 'assume' means, whether constructed strictly or otherwise, this distinction suggests it is not about the legal liability of a given debt. The example you gave was about assuming a legal liability of debt.

The Commission line is that merely because the form of aid takes the guise of loan rather than a grant, therefore it cannot be in breech of Article 125.

This seems a bit obscurist and weak.

Yes the loan will/might be paid back but there is a cost and risk to that. There is also the not trivial matter of the commercial rate of the loan-is it a preferential loan...if so that may be closer to a bailout merely disguised as a loan.

The bottom line is that the Treaties have said there should be no bail out since 1993. In my view that has always been nonsense but that is what the Treaties said and still say. We do actually need a bail-out fund IMHO. The problem is that EU states have now agreed since May 2010 what is in plain language a bail-out fund for Greece and others, even though the Treaties suggest this should not have in fact happened.

Moreover, the fact that they are now agreeing some kind of limited/technical treaty change, of article 122 [?], must indicate there is some doubt over the legality of what they have done so far, no?

sealgaire

.

Scofflaw

Avgas wrote: »

No point going on and on about this...but it does come down to legal interpretation.....a strict reading of "assume" under article 125 could imply loans to pay off debts are in fact a type of temporary assumption of debt.

I owe a bank 4,000 euro. You agreed to loan me 2,000 euro to help pay off the debt. You are of course not liable for the remaining 2,000, if I don't pay off the remainder, but by lending me 2,000 you have assumed the debt in the ordinary sense of having facilitated its part payment up to 2,000 euro.

Not really - I've loaned you 2,000 euro, and what you do with it is actually up to you. After all, your interpretation would mean that banks assumed the liabilities of their customers, which I somehow doubt they'd accept!

Avgas wrote: »

You have not assumed legal liability-your 100% there. BUT note article 125 makes a distinction between legal liability for a debt (in fact it uses the broader word 'commitment' rather than debt) and the word 'assume'. Whatever 'assume' means, whether constructed strictly or otherwise, this distinction suggests it is not about the legal liability of a given debt. The example you gave was about assuming a legal liability of debt.

The Commission line is that merely because the form of aid takes the guise of loan rather than a grant, therefore it cannot be in breech of Article 125.

This seems a bit obscurist and weak.

Yes the loan will/might be paid back but there is a cost and risk to that. There is also the not trivial matter of the commercial rate of the loan-is it a preferential loan...if so that may be closer to a bailout merely disguised as a loan.

The bottom line is that the Treaties have said there should be no bail out since 1993. In my view that has always been nonsense but that is what the Treaties said and still say. We do actually need a bail-out fund IMHO. The problem is that EU states have now agreed since May 2010 what is in plain language a bail-out fund for Greece and others, even though the Treaties suggest this should not have in fact happened.

Moreover, the fact that they are now agreeing some kind of limited/technical treaty change, of article 122 [?], must indicate there is some doubt over the legality of what they have done so far, no?

If they were concerned about the legality of what they've done so far, they'd presumably be changing Article 125 - because Article 125 is the legal basis for the challenges. What they're doing instead is beefing up the legal basis of the existing EU fund - Article 122 - to provide a legal basis for a permanent fund on the same lines as the Commission's stabilisation fund. That doesn't necessarily argue there's no legal basis for what they've done to date, but only that there's no adequate legal basis for doing it in a permanent way through the EU, which I don't think there's any argument over.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PanchoVilla

Avgas wrote: »

Still not very clear…at least to me.

Sorry for editing your post, just want to point out that the treaty was written in such a way that most people would not understand it. "Legalese" is very different from common English and is used to deny regular people information which should be made available to them. I know Youtube videos are usually frowned upon here but I think the following is relevant to back up my statement. There was a campaign by the EU parliament to make the treaty easier to understand for regular people and it was blocked completely by the EU. I'm sure there was a very good reason for blocking it.

sensibleken

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Sorry for editing your post, just want to point out that the treaty was written in such a way that most people would not understand it. "Legalese" is very different from common English and is used to deny regular people information which should be made available to them. I know Youtube videos are usually frowned upon here but I think the following is relevant to back up my statement. There was a campaign by the EU parliament to make the treaty easier to understand for regular people and it was blocked completely by the EU. I'm sure there was a very good reason for blocking it.

it was not written that way in order to decieve you. Laws are written in legaleese so as not to be ambiguous. All laws are like that, read any tort law, land law, family law etc. they are all in the same language.

It is tricky to get your head around because it was a treaty that amended several other treaties which you needed to have knowledge of in order to see what it was doing.

Im sorry if some people found it difficult to understand but if you want to vote on international treaties between 27 countries then you have a duty to educate yourself. Not listen to lobbiests be they government or private interest, its your responsibility at the end of the day

Scofflaw

sensibleken wrote: »

it was not written that way in order to decieve you. Laws are written in legaleese so as not to be ambiguous. All laws are like that, read any tort law, land law, family law etc. they are all in the same language.

And it's worth pointing out that despite writing it to exclude a bailout, there's room for a loan facility that many people would consider the equivalent of a bailout.

I think, though, that a lot of people believe that legalese is written specifically to allow such things to happen, rather than prevent them, as is actually the case. I'm sure that there's a camp of opinion which would replace Article 125 with the statement "no bailouts" and believe that to be more watertight.

sensibleken wrote: »

It is tricky to get your head around because it was a treaty that amended several other treaties which you needed to have knowledge of in order to see what it was doing.

Or one could have read the consolidated version, which came out on April 16th - before the referendum. The claim that the Treaty was 'deliberately unreadable' remains one of the most effective lies used by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PanchoVilla

sensibleken wrote: »

it was not written that way in order to decieve you. Laws are written in legaleese so as not to be ambiguous. All laws are like that, read any tort law, land law, family law etc. they are all in the same language.

I'd have to saw laws are quite ambiguous, which is why lawyers are paid lots of money to interpret them in favor of their client. A good lawyer can have a guilty person found not guilty by abusing the countless loopholes and interpretations of the law. Edit: We wouldn't be looking at this German court case if the treaty had been so unambiguous.

It is tricky to get your head around because it was a treaty that amended several other treaties which you needed to have knowledge of in order to see what it was doing.

Im sorry if some people found it difficult to understand but if you want to vote on international treaties between 27 countries then you have a duty to educate yourself. Not listen to lobbiests be they government or private interest, its your responsibility at the end of the day

Actually, I believe it's the responsibility and duty of legislatures to ensure that the laws they pass are understood by the majority or the population. If it was so easy to understand what was written in the treaty then why did the EU parliament vote unanimously in favor of a reader friendly version and why was it blocked by the powers within the EU?

PanchoVilla

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it's worth pointing out that despite writing it to exclude a bailout, there's room for a loan facility that many people would consider the equivalent of a bailout.

I think, though, that a lot of people believe that legalese is written specifically to allow such things to happen, rather than prevent them, as is actually the case. I'm sure that there's a camp of opinion which would replace Article 125 with the statement "no bailouts" and believe that to be more watertight.

I would have been happy with something along the lines of "no state institution will be liable for or allowed to rescue a private financial institution with taxpayers money without the consent of those involved". Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Or one could have read the consolidated version, which came out on April 16th - before the referendum. The claim that the Treaty was 'deliberately unreadable' remains one of the most effective lies used by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So why was an initiative unanimously voted in favor of by the EU parliament to write up a reader friendly version blocked by the EU? That seems to me to be a very deliberate attempt to keep the treaty unreadable.

sensibleken

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I'd have to saw laws are quite ambiguous, which is why lawyers are paid lots of money to interpret them in favor of their client. A good lawyer can have a guilty person found not guilty by abusing the countless loopholes and interpretations of the law. Edit: We wouldn't be looking at this German court case if the treaty had been so unambiguous.


Actually, I believe it's the responsibility and duty of legislatures to ensure that the laws they pass are understood by the majority or the population. If it was so easy to understand what was written in the treaty then why did the EU parliament vote unanimously in favor of a reader friendly version and why was it blocked by the powers within the EU?

Laws are not written to be understood by the majority. they are written in such a way as to be as unambiguous as possible however there of course will always be debate and chalenges . just because you dont understand what for example 'subsidiarity' means does not mean it should not be included in laws. Its ridiculous to assume laws should be written so you can understand them just as chemistry books should not be written so you can understand them, but rather so it is accurate.

Scofflaw

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I would have been happy with something along the lines of "no state institution will be liable for or allowed to rescue a private financial institution with taxpayers money without the consent of those involved". Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Define the following:

1. state institution
2. liable for
3. rescue
4. private financial institution
5. taxpayers' money, and tax payer
6. consent
7 those involved

By the time you've defined all those, you'll have legalese. Your version wouldn't prevent the current loans either, since they're state to state via a private SPV - indeed, your version would allow a state institution to give money to a private bank just for fun, since that wouldn't be a 'rescue'. It would also allow any State to make use of moneys that weren't derived from tax - such as a loan - or to nationalise a bank and then rescue it.

No, I'm afraid the solution there would have been a bit more legalese, rather than less.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

So why was an initiative unanimously voted in favor of by the EU parliament to write up a reader friendly version blocked by the EU? That seems to me to be a very deliberate attempt to keep the treaty unreadable.

If you're referring to Bonde's readable version, the copyright notice actually says that it was "subject to financial support from the European Parliament":

THE LISBON TREATY
The Readable Version
Editor: Jens-Peter Bonde ©
Third edition 2009, can be downloaded for free at www.euabc.com or bought at www.eubookshop.com
email: jp@bonde.dk
Cover: Henry Abela
Publisher: Foundation for EU Democracy
“Subject to financial support from the European Parliament. The sole
liability rests with the author. The European Parliament is not responsible
for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.”
Printed at Notat Grafisk, Denmark - 2009
ISBN: 87-87692-72-4
EAN: 978-87-87692-72-4

His "Foundation for EU Democracy" is certainly in receipt of funds from the EU Parliament:

FEUD is a recipient of support from the European Parliament. Responsibility for its research and publication activity rests solely with the Foundation and the European Parliament is not responsible for any use that may be made of the Foundation' s material.

Possibly you're referring to something else, in which case perhaps a link to the vote in question would help clarify matters?

Sadly, my own searchable and comparative version did not receive any funding!

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I know Youtube videos are usually frowned upon here but I think the following is relevant to back up my statement.

The guy is using font size as part of his argument – the words “clutching” and “straws” spring to mind.

Avgas

[QUOTE=Scofflaw;68812700]Not really - I've loaned you 2,000 euro, and what you do with it is actually up to you.

Not at all. If Ireland or Greece draws down loans from the two EU funds, there are strict conditions attached on what the loans may be used for and accompanying measures which the IMF details. Moreover, the loans are being granted because either you have a balance of payments crisis or because the market premium for borrowing money is simply too high. You can only get these loans for very specific reasons which are connected with a country's inability to service its debt or issue new debt. Its not a gift of a loan or a commercial prospect of a loan. Its a bailout to help you meet your commitments and if you didn't get it then a default on debt would sooner or later have to happen. The obvious meaning of Article 125 is that this should not happen.

The German constitutional court appears to have for now accepted the force majure arguments of Article 122, which is that in an emergency something short of a bailout is legally consistent with the apparent prohibition of bailout in Article 125 (its normal for ECJ and other judges and lawyers to read articles in sympathy with each other).

However, they may change their minds and there are arguments to weigh that the force majure provisions of Article 122 are not substantive enough to justify the existing temporary schemes, never mind a permanent one going forward (which we agree on). That was my original point concerning the case in Germany which you blithely dismiss.

I would say we are not out of the woods yet.

ctrl-alt-delete

Ganley is due on Sky News tonight at 19:00 for a talk on the Irish situation for anyone interested.

kaiser sauze

Palmach wrote: »

Having worked with the commission let me tell you he wasn't far wrong.



I think you'll find being in the EURO is what helped get us into this mess and is making it worse.



I am sure those politicians questioning Ganley were paragons of virtue.

Please educate yourself? Please!

Come out of the bubble you are in and do not continue to fall for his nonsense.

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Has anyone been following him on Twitter? http://twitter.com/declanganley

While Brian Cowen, Eamonn Gilmore and Enda Kenny are all advocating slash and burn policies to appease the Wall Street speculators, Ganley seems to be one of the few sane voices that's willing to say that enough is enough. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but right now, he's one of the few sane voices who doesn't seem hellbent of wrecking the country for future generations.

What are his policies?

galwayrush wrote: »

Loss of sovereignty , European army.

Uhm, what?

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Ganley is due on Sky News tonight at 19:00 for a talk on the Irish situation for anyone interested.

I cannot wait, I will have the fire on and a large brandy!

meglome

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Ganley is due on Sky News tonight at 19:00 for a talk on the Irish situation for anyone interested.

I wonder will he actually say anything truthful, would make a nice change.

steelcityblues

The guy mightn't be totally likeable, but he will be vindicated by history when it comes to the European question!

sensibleken

steelcityblues wrote: »

The guy mightn't be totally likeable, but he will be vindicated by history when it comes to the European question!

no he won't. lisbon has sweet fa to do with where we are at the moment. our corporation tax is under threat because we are in a hole made by our greedy banks, not due to any new powers under lisbon.

steelcityblues

Well, the bailout and economic aid culture is directly endorsed by dubious figures from Brussels like Ollie Rehn, and I feel that this undermines our sovereignity and economic stability in the long run.

I expected the shower in FF/Greens to be pro Lisbon, as it was the perfect back up for the storm that the masses had yet to figure out - but FG and increasingly Labour's slave admission to the growing centralised European state is seriously making me consider to not vote for either party!

Add a mostly lapdog media and the country's citizens weren't presented with balance coverage in both treaties.

I may not trust Ganley with my pocket money, but he hardly stands out in a country already filled with gombeens, crooks, double takers and faux patriots!

kaiser sauze

steelcityblues wrote: »

The guy mightn't be totally likeable, but he will be vindicated by history when it comes to the European question!

Just like the death penalty has come in, conscription, buffet abortions and Merkel's control of our tax rates?

steelcityblues

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Just like the death penalty has come in, conscription, buffet abortions and Merkel's control of our tax rates?

A vague one liner that leaves me confused as to what you're actually saying.

Care to expand!

Scofflaw

steelcityblues wrote: »

A vague one liner that leaves me confused as to what you're actually saying.

Care to expand!

I suspect that he's pointing out the large number of things that Ganley said which didn't come within clutching distance of reality - abortions, conscription, no more referendums, losing the Commissioner, etc etc.

Ganley's an opportunist, this is an opportunity - lucky man. He should be able to rely on the usual political principles to make some headway, if that's what he wants.

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

Well, the bailout and economic aid culture is directly endorsed by dubious figures from Brussels like Ollie Rehn, and I feel that this undermines our sovereignity and economic stability in the long run.

If we need a bailout, we need a bailout. Ultimately, taking a loan from the EU/IMF is our choice to make. But if we didn't do it we would be absolutely crucified in the bond markets. So blame the markets, blame the banks, or blame the national policymakers that got us into this mess. But pinning our current woes on Ollie Rehn is completely delusional and counter-productive.

As for economic aid, well we have been receiving aid from the EU since we joined in 1973. It was EU money that built this country in terms of infrastructure, and it was our membership of the EU that enabled us to attract foreign investment. And while this was happening, where was Ganley? He was in the Galway tent, forking money over to Bertie and co. So let's not forget who our friends are here.

steelcityblues

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suspect that he's pointing out the large number of things that Ganley said which didn't come within clutching distance of reality - abortions, conscription, no more referendums, losing the Commissioner, etc etc.

Ganley's an opportunist, this is an opportunity - lucky man. He should be able to rely on the usual political principles to make some headway, if that's what he wants.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness you could say he wasn't the only opportunist during those campaigns. See my feelings on the government parties above.

I agree though that the NO side needed that larger than life character with impeccable credentials as the media face to perhaps sway certain voters. Ganley didn't quite fit the bill in that sense!

imme

Is Ganley really making a comeback, rather than making a few headlines for the newspapers. Is he running?

Surely the drubbing that Libertas got in the Euro´s would make him think twice.
Or is he going to run alone, be the ´big man´ of the west as he might see it?

nyarlothothep

I think he may come to prominence again, much more so than with Libertas. In essence I think you have the fall of a central power in Irish politics, namely Fianna Fail, through their own decadence and corruption. This leaves a power vacuum for a weak opposition to fill. Unless there is a certain tangible progress made with respect to the economy and public services you may get Ganley making a considerable comeback. He may say that Irish politics is corrupt (which it is) and that he is a outsider saviour, a businessman who "gets things done", practical, a "decider" so to speak. And he may direct public negativity towards the EU, stating that they're not fit to run our economy, that they don't care about Irish people, just about getting their money back, how we've sacrificied our liberty under the Lisbon treaty, etc. I'm not saying Europe are angels in this regard, they have made some dodgy decisions ref the Israel citizen data case, but I don't trust Ganley has anyones best interests in mind except his own and those of his political paymasters, I would expect that anything he has to do with Ireland will always be part of a larger pan European wide agenda. He has a particular type of populist charisma, it doesn't appeal to me but it would appeal to voters who like that kind of thing instead of hard facts and analysis, and there are many such people.

Mr.Nice Guy

Many people on this board a few years back rubbished the idea that the Lisbon Treaty would result in our sovereignty being weakened. This past week we have seen politicians from all sides frantically urging the Taoiseach to stand up for Irish sovereignty. I listened to Michael Noonan make this point on RTE. Well surely we wouldn't have to stand up for our sovereignty if it was never under threat?

Whatever about Ganley's views he was right on that particular point and as far as I'm concerned, the people who endorsed Lisbon are partially responsible for the shameful position we now find ourselves in. Even the Irish Free State had economic sovereignty.

imme

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Many people on this board a few years back rubbished the idea that the Lisbon Treaty would result in our sovereignty being weakened. This past week we have seen politicians from all sides frantically urging the Taoiseach to stand up for Irish sovereignty. I listened to Michael Noonan make this point on RTE. Well surely we wouldn't have to stand up for our sovereignty if it was never under threat?

Whatever about Ganley's views he was right on that particular point and as far as I'm concerned, the people who endorsed Lisbon are partially responsible for the shameful position we now find ourselves in. Even the Irish Free State had economic sovereignty.

what Ganley warned of in relation to the loss of soverignty was in relation to Lisbon, not in relation to a negligent government, we did it ourselves.

Re loss of soverignty, is any government really able to act as they wish and preserve their soverignty, we are beholden to international moneylenders, be they banks, IMF, governments, and always will be.

Mister men

Like or loath him he has been correct about everything in regards to Europe.