Ganley weighs in...

carveone

So Declan Ganley has decided to campaign against the Treaty. Given the massive investment he (alledgedly) holds in Swiss Francs, I guess this is hardly a surprise. It would be in the financial interest of his Swiss management fund to pummel the Euro down to a point where the SCB couldn't support it any more.

I presume this means that any individual is free to put up posters adopting a position on the Treaty, even if they're not part of a party.

Mr. Incognito

carveone wrote: »

I presume this means that any individual is free to put up posters adopting a position on the Treaty, even if they're not part of a party.

Of course they are- this isn't China.

Transpirant

This forum is soooo biased! Maybe it gets lots of funding from advocates of a yes vote. When one looks at the advertisements on boards.ie, it's no surprise they advocate a yes vote.

carveone

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Of course they are- this isn't China.

Well there is an amendment to the 2009 litter act that covers posters (19.7 - ... it shall not be an offence for a person to exhibit an advertisement ...) so amendments covering this stuff is more recent that one might think. The Libertas Lisbon stuff was all on billboards, not posters, and I remember some individuals putting up posters during Lisbon that were taken down.

I'm sure there are more rules to prevent stuff like:
Bob's Tile Market says
Vote Yes to the Treaty and
Vote Yes to lower prices!
or some such (which would be kinda fun to see at least!).

Having said that, the number of Yes posters is becoming an eyesore. They outnumber the No posters about 4 to 1 I'd say. When they start covering trafic filter lights its generally time to start bawling at the parties concerned.

Happy Monday

Scofflaw

Where are you?

There people are defending Declan Ganley.

You need to defend us from this awful man.

meglome

We have the UK Independence party and their chums from Europe sending out leaflets supporting a no and now Ganley has joined in. Makes me more and more convinced to vote Yes.

K-9

Did he not retire from politics after the Connaught/Ulster election?

carveone

meglome wrote: »

We have the UK Independence party and their chums from Europe sending out leaflets supporting a no and now Ganley has joined in. Makes me more and more convinced to vote Yes.

Well, at least they're consistent I suppose. So far I think the Irish electorate has not in any way been convinced by the No side. They've had posters up about water taxes and the like and the average person isn't buying that a No vote will have any consequence for, say, the household tax.

Ganley is adopting a better deal approach - deliver us a deal on Ireland's bank debt type thing (the "burn the bondholders" cry again). I guess the "better deal" worked better last time. We'll have to wait and see what posters he comes up with.

Beeftotheheels talked about the bank debt situation in the other thread: "Since then we have largely replaced the bank creditors with official sector borrowings, so even if we could have burnt the banking bondholders in '08-'10 we cannot do so now."

I assume this is the deal on bank debt that Ganley is referring to - so evidently it's a red herring. I've no particular problem with Ganley campaigning against the Treaty if he wants to - it's a free country after all - I'm just pointing out that (my opinion obviously) he appears to be trying to profit from crashing the Euro, exactly the type of person you'd imagine the socialists campaigning for a No vote would dislike.

carveone

K-9 wrote: »

Did he not retire from politics after the Connaught/Ulster election?

His line on that today was that "truth has no politics" or some such. It's all out of the goodness of his heart I suppose

Edit: From RTE News:
He said Libertas no longer existed as a political party and was now a think tank, but it would have a "limited poster campaign". Asked about his lack of mandate as an unelected representative, Mr Ganley said the truth had no mandate.

Mr. Presentable

Mr Ganley - C U next Time!

meglome

carveone wrote: »

Well, at least they're consistent I suppose. So far I think the Irish electorate has not in any way been convinced by the No side. They've had posters up about water taxes and the like and the average person isn't buying that a No vote will have any consequence for, say, the household tax.

I think most of us appreciate it's a rock and a hard place. I was pointing out to someone online that Sinn Fein has said the same things about every treaty with Europe. They called me on it so I went to the Sinn Fein site and they really have said the same things for every treaty since we joined the EU in 1972. Seemingly we've lost our sovereignty at every one and in an ironic twist we used the sovereignty that we'd supposedly lost to go mad with a property bubble.

carveone wrote: »

Ganley is adopting a better deal approach - deliver us a deal on Ireland's bank debt type thing (the "burn the bondholders" cry again). I guess the "better deal" worked better last time. We'll have to wait and see what posters he comes up with.

Better than the Sinn Fein rinse and repeat approach for sure.

carveone wrote: »

Beeftotheheels talked about the bank debt situation in the other thread: "Since then we have largely replaced the bank creditors with official sector borrowings, so even if we could have burnt the banking bondholders in '08-'10 we cannot do so now."

And yet people pretty much every day call for us to burn the bondholders. It's unbelievable that people still don't understand we owe this money and unless we have a time machine that's not going to change.

carveone wrote: »

I assume this is the deal on bank debt that Ganley is referring to - so evidently it's a red herring. I've no particular problem with Ganley campaigning against the Treaty if he wants to - it's a free country after all - I'm just pointing out that (my opinion obviously) he appears to be trying to profit from crashing the Euro, exactly the type of person you'd imagine the socialists campaigning for a No vote would dislike.

It's amazes me who people will side with when that person is telling them what they want to hear on a specific subject.

carveone wrote: »

He said Libertas no longer existed as a political party and was now a think tank, but it would have a "limited poster campaign". Asked about his lack of mandate as an unelected representative, Mr Ganley said the truth had no mandate.

hilarious... and people like this guy.

golfball37

If the reaction of a few yes voters on here is anything to go by I'd say Deccie has the establishment running scared already.

I don't care what the polls say, if we don't reject this treaty we are a mere nation of Sheep who deserve all the screwing we get from from our betters.

meglome

golfball37 wrote: »

If the reaction of a few yes voters on here is anything to go by I'd say Deccie has the establishment running scared already.

Personally I think he's a liability to the no side.

golfball37 wrote: »

I don't care what the polls say, if we don't reject this treaty we are a mere nation of Sheep who deserve all the screwing we get from from our betters.

Actually I'm going to add a new stipulation to my new meglome's law. So it now reads if you use the words sovereignty, independence or sheep to win an argument you've lost the argument.

golfball37

Good way of avoiding the question on point 2, I didn't realise you were that important?

Point 1 we'll have to wait and see really. Personally I believe it will be a game changer.

He caught out John Bruton on many things on Radio 1 yesterday.

meglome

golfball37 wrote: »

Good way of avoiding the question on point 2, I didn't realise you were that important?

Point 1 we'll have to wait and see really. Personally I believe it will be a game changer.

He caught out John Bruton on many things on Radio 1 yesterday.

Oh I wasn't avoiding anything, calling people who disagree with you sheep is not an argument.

Mance Rayder

Declan Ganley reminds me of Kane from Command and Conquer Series.

Declan Ganley

Unelected , anti establishment, shady past, involved in military technology.

Kane



Unelected , anti establishment, shady past, involved in military technology.

swampgas

golfball37 wrote: »

I don't care what the polls say, if we don't reject this treaty we are a mere nation of Sheep who deserve all the screwing we get from from our betters.

Really? You really think our fellow Europeans are our betters?

Happy Monday

swampgas wrote: »

Really? You really think our fellow Europeans are our betters?

Aren't they?

They can lend billions to Irish banks on a commercial basis in the expectation of making billions more.

When things go belly up they can demand that the Irish people who stood to make nothing on these deals pick up the tab.

Yeah - they are our betters alright.

washman3

carveone wrote: »

So Declan Ganley has decided to campaign against the Treaty. Given the massive investment he (alledgedly) holds in Swiss Francs, I guess this is hardly a surprise. It would be in the financial interest of his Swiss management fund to pummel the Euro down to a point where the SCB couldn't support it any more.

Maybe he's just like our own finance minister who holds some of his savings in German bank bonds. its in his interest to advocate a yes vote.??

meglome

Happy Monday wrote: »

Aren't they?

They can lend billions to Irish banks on a commercial basis in the expectation of making billions more.

When things go belly up they can demand that the Irish people who stood to make nothing on these deals pick up the tab.

Yeah - they are our betters alright.

Did they?

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is a summary of the balance sheets of the Irish domestic banking sector - that is, all the banks with any appreciable business in Ireland:

Year|Total Liabilities|Deposits from Irish Residents|Irish Bank Deposits|Irish Govt Deposits|Irish Private Sector Deposits|Euro Area Deposits|Rest of World Deposits|Irish Resident Bonds|Euro Area Bonds|Rest of World Bonds|Total Bonds|Resident Capital & Reserves|Non-Resident Capital & Reserves|ECB Borrowings|Resident Other|Non-Resident Other
2003|262|122|21|2|98|14|66|4|1|18|23|15|4|5|8|7
2004|346|156|41|2|112|17|84|7|3|32|43|18|5|6|9|8
2005|469|194|55|2|136|30|113|12|9|53|74|21|9|9|11|8
2006|606|248|88|3|157|34|135|22|12|76|110|25|10|8|15|21
2007|697|253|84|3|166|35|193|29|15|77|121|30|12|19|15|20
2008|801|296|126|3|167|38|233|27|16|57|100|28|13|45|26|22
2009|798|311|131|3|176|26|202|39|12|47|98|41|12|58|35|14
2010|742|292|132|3|157|16|121|33|10|21|64|64|8|95|69|13
2011|634|243|99|2|141|85|89|30|8|14|13|2|72|59|19|0


All amounts are in billions. Source is the aggregate balance sheet data from the Central Bank. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

washman3 wrote: »

Maybe he's just like our own finance minister who holds some of his savings in German bank bonds. its in his interest to advocate a yes vote.??

And the proof that he has savings bonds in a German bank is? And how much?

carveone

washman3 wrote: »

Maybe he's just like our own finance minister who holds some of his savings in German bank bonds. its in his interest to advocate a yes vote.??

I wouldn't know about that. I do know people who have diversified outside the Euro into Pounds and dollars. I would possibly do the same if I had any money. The intent was not to criticise that move - one is entitled to invest and protect one's investments. There's certainly no suggestion of wrongdoing.

My intent was to show that Ganley has other motives aside from "concern for Ireland". As do many people on both Yes and No sides I'm sure

sarumite

Happy Monday wrote: »

Aren't they?

They can lend billions to Irish banks on a commercial basis in the expectation of making billions more.

When things go belly up they can demand that the Irish people who stood to make nothing on these deals pick up the tab.

Yeah - they are our betters alright.

I guess you were missing for the previous decade when the Irish government taxed the very money that was loaned to the Irish banks.

--Kaiser--

Someone sent me an article on the Treaty he wrote for The Sunday Business Post, I stopped reading at when I came across this sentence:

We are now in the midst of the modern historic era's third attempt to unite Europe, Napoleon being the first, and Hitler being the second.

meglome

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Someone sent me an article on the Treaty he wrote for The Sunday Business Post, I stopped reading at when I came across this sentence:

I was almost surprised there for a second but this is his typical rubbish. Unfortunately some people buy into it.

Scofflaw

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Someone sent me an article on the Treaty he wrote for The Sunday Business Post, I stopped reading at when I came across this sentence:

We are now in the midst of the modern historic era's third attempt to unite Europe, Napoleon being the first, and Hitler being the second.

I don't know - as so often with Ganley, his real opposition is both nuanced and dishonest. I quite like some of his manifesto:

These are the measures that should be taken:

A liberal union-wide bankruptcy law should be passed, allowing for an 18 month (or shorter) beginning-to-end bankruptcy.

Seems reasonable.

Every financial institution that cannot repay taxpayer bailout funds recently injected, should be put through an insolvency purge, their assets sold to the highest bidder, their non-recoverable liabilities written off.

The problem there is that the financial institutions are nationally based, and not ever member state has any such resolution process. I'm not sure we do yet, although I know one is supposed to be being created.

Further, while this would certainly have been a partially good thing at the start of the crisis, is it either realistic or helpful at this stage?

No private company should receive state financial aid, nor should it be afforded any protections, direct of indirect, from the full force of competition.

Fair enough.

The EU should move immediately to a one-off full federalisation of state debts similar to the broad blueprint used by Alexander Hamilton to federalise the debts of the individual American colonies.

It should also achieve world peace immediately. This is exactly what member states like Germany, and German taxpayers, don't want, surely? How could this be achieved democratically?

A European Union bond should be issued to finance the needs of the Federal Union government and, where necessary, provide financing to supplement individual member states under specific loan criteria setting terms.

Again, the problem is that some nations are opposed to this.

Member states will be free to borrow directly from the markets on the understanding that they will be forced into bankruptcy, with full losses incurred by lenders, if they fail to meet repayment terms.

What does state "bankruptcy" mean? And surely it's not the states but the lenders that are likely to be headed for bankruptcy there?

These state borrowings would be tied to a requirement that any bond offering will only be offered with attachment to the specific means by which the debt will be paid down/extinguished.

Why? Mostly public debt is not repaid - I can't see any advantage in pledging revenues ahead of time to repayment of the debt, something which was characteristic of the inelastic finances of the medieval state. This would represent an incredibly tight limit on state debt - far tighter than that in the Treaty.

The position of president of the European Commission and president of the European Council should be merged into one office-holder and should be subject to a popular democratic election to be held not later than December 2013. This office will be a highly sought-after role and will probably attract high-calibre candidates; it will also force competing visions of Europe to be put to voters for their ultimate choice.

Voters should be weighted in an 'electoral college' type format so that the voters of smaller member states are not made irrelevant.

Maybe...at least Ganley deals with the small state problem that such a Europe-wide election throws up.

This president would serve for one six-year-term only, and would be chief executive in the same manner as the president of the United States.

I would be very strongly opposed to a POTEU to match the POTUS. That's completely the wrong model for a confederal system!

An accommodation could be made to remaining European monarchies in respect of their historic traditions, to allow for some ceremonial roles.

Heck, I'd be opposed to that too.

The commission should become the servant of the executive arm, and its members nominated by the democratically-elected president, and ratified by a newly-created upper house of the European Parliament.

An upper house or senate should be created, with four representatives of each member state, with each such state holding equal voting power. That is to say, Ireland will have four senators, as will Germany and other states. This upper house will be given the co-right to initiate legislation along with the lower house, the current EU Parliament.

The European Parliament should be reformed to give greater balance for population (which would favour larger member states) and should be given the power (along with its upper house) to initiate legislation.

While I'm sure many of our eurosceptic posters would think of me as a dyed in the wool federalist, this just gives me the shivers.

All lobbying of the executive and legislative branch must be registered and transparent.

Absolutely.

A full insolvency purge of all European financial institutions should be immediately undertaken. A liquidation and asset sale of all unhealthy institutions should take place forthwith. A write-down of significant size, together with a Hamiltonian scale re-negotiation should take place on all distressed EU member state debts.

I'm sure that would have no downside. Who exactly would buy the assets of the distressed banks?

The federalising of all remaining state debt should immediately follow, backed by the issuance of union bonds which are in turn backed by the entire tax revenue of the eurozone.

It's not exactly likely, is it? Certainly good for Greece, and good for us in our present situation, but what's in it for the currently stronger economies?

The union civil service should be kept small and highly efficient; this should be enshrined in Europe's new constitutional arrangement. A debt ceiling will also be set constitutionally.

Like in the Treaty...

The union should have monopoly of external action both in soft and hard power.

Jaysus.

The ECB should be guaranteed full independence and a low inflation policy be pursued.

As now, really.

The official working language of the union should be English. We understand the major sensitivities involved, but it is necessary to have one official language among so many, so as to remove any scope for ambiguity in laws and regulations or their interpretations.

That will be massively popular, obviously, and result in an Anglocentric model over time.

The automatic right of secession for any member state should be provided for with a two-thirds majority of the acceding polity.

Necessary in such a context, certainly.

An EU-wide pension plan is needed, placing citizens' pension assets beyond the reach of future potentially-insolvent and irresponsible governments, implemented per the highly successful Chilean model.

I like this one - requires an EU-wide set of pension limits, obviously, and is hugely intrusive.

I won't accuse Ganley of thinking small, anyway, and I can see that if you're a federalist, the template he offers is certainly straightforward and reasonable, even if one would obviously niggle over the details.

I can also appreciate that his federalism makes Ganley oppose what are, to him, a series of awkward and stupidly nation-centric compromises....but it does seem bizarre that on the one hand he criticises the rush to the euro, while on the other suggesting we rush to something more dramatic by at least a couple of orders of magnitude.

And seeing a federal plan laid out produces a rather visceral opposition in me. Given my particular utopia, I'd very much rather see a Europe far less uniform than it is, with even the national units removed in favour of city-states and cantons - a "Europe of the regions" - with even more awkward and conservative decision-making than now, and with a lot more local control over non-trade and non-rights law. Such a Europe would be appallingly uncompetitive in our current global system, and so, reluctantly, I'm willing to accept a confederal EU of nation-states as a necessary compromise between reality and fantasy. I don't agree for a second with the kind of centralisation and uniformity Ganley's model would entail - I can see how it would create a power on the global stage to easily rival the US and the other rising powers, but don't see that as an end worthy in itself, as I think Ganley does. His is a quite literally 'fascist' model of Europe - strength through unity, unity through uniformity and centralisation, abolition of what is perceived as the 'dead wood' of organic constitutional evolution. It gives me the shivers.

Still, nice to see someone actually setting out a federalist stall for people to look at the goods.

cordially,
Scofflaw

carveone

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Someone sent me an article on the Treaty he wrote for The Sunday Business Post, I stopped reading at when I came across this sentence:

We are now in the midst of the modern historic era's third attempt to unite Europe, Napoleon being the first, and Hitler being the second.

I see Britain is notable by it's absence in that list. But its right there between Napolean and WWI, busy "uniting" Africa and India (and Ireland, Asia, Middle East, China, S. America etc). Britain's current foreign policy seems to be the same as it ever was - that of Splendid Isolation!

At this point I can't help but quote from Yes Minister. It rings so true even after 30 years (eeep)!:

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"

Jim Hacker: "That's all ancient history, surely."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."

hatrickpatrick

Ugh. Not this again.
Ganley is absolutely toxic to the no campaign. His misinformation and playing to people's fears style of debating is an absolute disgrace and I think I speak for a lot of prospective no voters in saying that the no side would be much better served if he's sit down and shut the hell up for the next couple of weeks.

I've already seen some of their posters and all they do is add fuel to the yes side's accusation of no voters not voting on relevant issues and debating on points which have nothing to do with the actual treaty.

Libertas as an organization scares the sh!te out of me. If you actually read into their policies, they're far from opposed to integration and federalism - what they actually seem to want is to eventually have a majority of seats in the EU parliament in every country so they can dictate the whole thing. In whose interests? Not much is forthcoming by way of an answer to that question.

Wouldn't touch them with a barge pole myself.

betonit

If the no side are pointing to rejection of austerity in europe and France being on of those, aren't we better of voting yes and be on the inside if there are then future changes that might suit us.

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

A full insolvency purge of all European financial institutions should be immediately undertaken. A liquidation and asset sale of all unhealthy institutions should take place forthwith. A write-down of significant size, together with a Hamiltonian scale re-negotiation should take place on all distressed EU member state debts.

I'm sure that would have no downside. Who exactly would buy the assets of the distressed banks?

Bugbear alert. Without the sarcasm smilie this could appear to play into the hands of those who think that both "solvency" and "asset valuation" are absolute, rather than relative terms.

Banks that appear insolvent because they need to mark down their holdings of e.g. Italian debt down to market prices, could appear solvent again in a year's time if it is obvious that the market has over priced the risk of an Italian default.

Banks that are not discounting Gilts over the minimal risk of a UK default may have to mark down their UK debt in the future if the BOE continues trying to depress GBP while the ECB continues to support a strong euro.

Forcing everyone to assume the worst, at a time of market distress, makes that worst case scenario real. Not forcing it might actually be the better answer, the best answer of all being to admit that in the world of finance prophecies can be self fulfilling and thus ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

SPDUB

carveone wrote: »

I presume this means that any individual is free to put up posters adopting a position on the Treaty, even if they're not part of a party.

Apparently since IBEC have also put up posters .