Libertas posters have sprung up

later12

meglome wrote: »

As much as I'm personally suspicious of Ganleys's motivations and agenda they're not the actual reasons I'm against him. I'm against him for the same reason I'd be against anyone who actively seeks to distort the facts for their agenda.... dishonesty.

I have no interest in defending Declan Ganley. I have no idea why anybody would preoccupy themselves with being for or against him as opposed to his arguments. Perhaps those who are bringing Ganley's personal life into the campaign ought to consider the extent to which that worked in the first Lisbon Campaign.

Voters have not been concerned enough about Ganley's character or beliefs to prevent them from sharing his concern on certain issues. Move on.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

I have no interest in defending Declan Ganley. I have no idea why anybody would preoccupy themselves with being for or against him as opposed to his arguments. Perhaps those who are bringing Ganley's personal life into the campaign ought to consider the extent to which that worked in the first Lisbon Campaign.

Voters have not been concerned enough about Ganley's character or beliefs to prevent them from sharing his concern on certain issues. Move on.

You cut out my conclusion.

So if anyone has brought Ganley's character into question it's Ganley himself.

And I stand by it. If someone is a persistent liar I can't see how you can leave their character out of it, they certainly haven't.

later12

I cut it out because the Yes side are constantly distorting the Treaty as well - both on these boards and in the media. I cut it out because you no doubt will disagree that there is a similar level of misleading campaigning going on in the Yes camp.

Ganley is primarily campaigning to cut the debt. He doesn't mind being 'bribed' on ratifying the Treaty. This may be an oddly unrealistic expectation, but I don't see it as dishonest. No doubt he has misled elsewhere, of course, as have the yes side. Seen any of those Yes to Employment posters yet?

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

To be frank, I'm not really concerned about Ganley's religious beliefs and I don't think they are anybody's business but his own. For what its worth, I have heard Lucinda Creighton speak in a similar way about a strong European Union and she is a woman who has not been particularly shy about hawking her moral baggage to anybody who will listen. I'm sure that concerns you just as greatly, nevertheless it's not really any of our business, is it.

As voters, our job is to vote on policy. The candidates who push a particular policy have to carry a certain level of legitimacy, for sure. But as private individuals, we have to accept that they are deserving of their privacy too.

But sure so what? I'm sure Josef Stalin, Mother Teresa of Calcutta and George Michael all loved pizza and ice cream. The question at hand is one that people of very different backgrounds - Ganley, Adams, Cameron - can perfectly reasonably oppose for various reasons. There's nothing extraordinary about that.

This is not about choosing a side based on who you want to stand beside, nor ought it be about ad hominems on individuals' characters. There is a pretty basic question to be answered on May 31st, and the idea that someone would alter their response on foot of an unfavourable association strikes me as the sort of opinion that in a perfect world would be discarded altogether.

The reason for paying attention to someone's political position when they're making a political statement of any kind would be obvious, I would have thought. And someone's track record in honesty would seem to me to be equally cogent.

If someone claims that by voting No on the Treaty we can renegotiate the debt, or that we should vote No unless there is a renegotiation, they are clearly not stating any kind of fact about the Treaty. They are, instead, making a political claim.

And there we have to start asking ourselves - how realistic is this claim, given it is clearly not an objective fact? Is there a possibility that the person or group concerned might make this claim even if it was inherently unlikely to pan out as they claim?

To answer such a question, it seems rather obvious we have to take into account whether the person making the claim might have an ulterior motive for doing so, and whether they have a track record of honesty.

And in those respects, Libertas' record is by no means a happy one. Ganley clearly has at least the same level of ulterior motive as Sinn Fein - we know Sinn Fein will oppose a European Treaty, so we know that they start from the No and work backwards to find ways to sell the No - and his record for honesty sucks. Even Sinn Fein didn't publicly claim that Lisbon might introduce abortion, whereas Libertas did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I cut it out because the Yes side are constantly distorting the Treaty as well - both on these boards and in the media.

Do you have examples of the former?

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason for paying attention to someone's political position when they're making a political statement of any kind would be obvious, I would have thought.

And that's why I said assessing legitimacy is important. But that's now what you raised. You brought up "unChristian hordes" instead.

If someone claims that by voting No on the Treaty we can renegotiate the debt, or that we should vote No unless there is a renegotiation, they are clearly not stating any kind of fact about the Treaty.

Lets start with the latter: we should vote No unless there is a renegotiation. That's not really stating a fact about the Treaty. One might argue there is, in that, an implicit suggestion that the Treaty is about the banks, but of course that would be rather silly. It seems to me as little more than an idea that one should kick up a fuss until people start taking notice, rather like a bold child in a supermarket. Naive perhaps, but not dishonest.

I'm more interested in the first part, though. The part where you said that by voting No we can re-negotiate the debt. I haven't seen Ganley saying that. Is there a link?

because the latter is the sort of thing that deserves discussion (or rather, refutation, where appropriate). Harking on about unChristian hordes generally comes across as ad hominem waffle when someone is saying something irrefutable; if anything, character assassinations are more likely to inadvertently boost support for the No campaigners, I would have thought.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you have examples of the former?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I saw a Votail Ta, don Fhostaiocht on a poster on the N7 near Portlaoise yesterday morning. I don't know if they've had the balls to hang that in English yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm sure you're not under the impression there is no distortion of the truth among the Yes campaign surely?

tipptom

I hear all this stuff about Declan Ganly being shady and ulterior motives and all sorts but not one shred of evidence.What is wrong with trying to use this irelavant treaty at this time and use it to try to renegotiate our debt,what can Declan Ganly possibly look to achieve personally out of that?All that was heard from the yes side for months before was not the treaty itself but we are all doomed if we vote no, we will have no money the next morning,hospitals will close down,atms,no one gets paid etc etc,not one thing about the treaty itself,now Mr Hollande gets in,all of a sudden they all want to talk about growth with him,you couldnt make it uo,its like a monty python film.Our so called politicians are the laughing stock of europe.If we voted no on the 31st there would be a stampede in europe to the television cameras to assure the markets that ireland would be fully backed up with access funds,it would be suicidal for them not to.
And on the debate that Enda wont debate,he shamefully uses suicide to weasel his way out of a debate on VB,well he would not appear against VB 4 years previous to VBs ill judged remarks,this is what we have fighting for us in Europe.

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

All that was heard from the yes side for months before was not the treaty itself but we are all doomed if we vote no, we will have no money the next morning,hospitals will close down,atms,no one gets paid etc etc,not one thing about the treaty itself,now Mr Hollande gets in,all of a sudden they all want to talk about growth with him,you couldnt make it uo...

Making stuff up doesn't seem to be much of a challenge.

Zulu

tipptom wrote: »

I hear all this stuff about Declan Ganly being shady ... but not one shred of evidence.

There is plenty of evidence of him being a liar, and peddling lies. Being a liar is shady. Ergo he's shady & there's evidence of him being shady. This of course raises the question: why are you choosing to ignore the evidence? (some has even kindly been provided in this thread for you)

IIRC, he's also stated he'd explain where his money come from after the election, and then, when the time came, refused to. Something to hide Declan?

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Making stuff up doesn't seem to be much of a challenge.

Whats being made up,you might use your time better and go down the road and plant some gonads on your so called representative.

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

Whats being made up...

tipptom wrote: »

All that was heard from the yes side for months before was ... we will have no money the next morning,hospitals will close down,atms,no one gets paid etc etc...

tipptom wrote: »

...you might use your time better and go down the road and plant some gonads on your so called representative.

As I've said before, when you substitute personal abuse for intelligent argument, it's a tacit admission that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I saw a Votail Ta, don Fhostaiocht on a poster on the N7 near Portlaoise yesterday morning. I don't know if they've had the balls to hang that in English yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm sure you're not under the impression there is no distortion of the truth among the Yes campaign surely?

Well, I was asking after examples on boards:

later12 wrote:

I cut it out because the Yes side are constantly distorting the Treaty as well - both on these boards and in the media.

Unless you meant sign boards...? The official campaigns I, like you, can do nothing about!

cordially,
Scofflaw

tipptom

Zulu wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence of him being a liar, and peddling lies. Being a liar is shady. Ergo he's shady & there's evidence of him being shady. This of course raises the question: why are you choosing to ignore the evidence? (some has even kindly been provided in this thread for you)

IIRC, he's also stated he'd explain where his money come from after the election, and then, when the time came, refused to. Something to hide Declan?

There was no bigger liars in the history of this state than what this present coalition promised coming in to the election and why wont they release their lists of funding like they promised to do,something shady to hide?.
Now you say evidence has being kindly provoided to me about Declan Ganlys shady business dealings in this thread,come out from behind your key board and spell them out one by one then you might be kndly provoiding me with provoiding me with truths not cowardly insuinuations to suit your arguments.

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

As I've said before, when you substitute personal abuse for intelligent argument, it's a tacit admission that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Where is the personal abuse?

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

And that's why I said assessing legitimacy is important. But that's now what you raised. You brought up "unChristian hordes" instead.

Lets start with the latter: we should vote No unless there is a renegotiation. That's not really stating a fact about the Treaty. One might argue there is, in that, an implicit suggestion that the Treaty is about the banks, but of course that would be rather silly. It seems to me as little more than an idea that one should kick up a fuss until people start taking notice, rather like a bold child in a supermarket. Naive perhaps, but not dishonest.

I'm more interested in the first part, though. The part where you said that by voting No we can re-negotiate the debt. I haven't seen Ganley saying that. Is there a link?

OK, I'm impressed - you're prepared to say that "vote No unless there is a renegotiation" and "voting No gets us a renegotiation" are completely clear and distinct concepts, and that someone saying the former is totally not saying the latter. I don't see much point in arguing that corkscrew.

later12 wrote: »

because the latter is the sort of thing that deserves discussion (or rather, refutation, where appropriate). Harking on about unChristian hordes generally comes across as ad hominem waffle when someone is saying something irrefutable; if anything, character assassinations are more likely to inadvertently boost support for the No campaigners, I would have thought.

It's a little dramatically put, but did you not wonder why Ganley's allies were on the Christian right? That the parties Libertas allied with at the European elections were Christian nationalists, while he had no time for the secular nationalists like UKIP or Sinn Fein. The reason is that Ganley is somewhat a crusader for Christendom, and sees a Fortress Europe based on Christian values as a desirable thing. There are clearly people who support that view, so it's hardly an ad hominem to point out that such are Ganley's leanings. You might find this blog post of interest:

I'm not surprised that many of the eurosceptic community are slightly agast at Declans "second coming" as a eurofederalist - mainly because most of them know him in his guise as the EU's bete noire in Ireland on the back of the two Lisbon campaigns when he have would done anything, said anything, to get the treaty defeated and his efforts to harness that constituency to get himself elected in the euro elections in 2009......but if you meet the man (I've met him a couple of times) , get a chance to talk to him or listen to any of his speeches and writings pre 2008 and since 2010 - you would know he is an ardent euro-federalist and has been for a long long time.

I first met Declan in Nov 2007( or was it december - it was coming up to christmas anyway) when an old political acquaintance of mine called me up and asked me was I interested in heading into town (I was still living in Dublin at the time) to meet this guy in a city centre hotel for a drink and a chat - so I went ahead and met Ganley and a couple of others and had a very interesting conversation where Declan expounded his philosophy on all things, where Europe was going wrong and that the chances of a Federal Europe would recede rather than increase with passing of what became known as the Treaty of Lisbon and that the EU commission was complacent , too socialist and secular, compromised too much , showed no leadership and it would sleepwalk the EU to splitsville if it kept fudging its way along...... I was asked if I was interested in getting involved - my answer was non-committal and that I'd read the treaty first and then get back to them......and that was that.

You have to understand where Ganley is coming from. His vision of a federal Europe owes less to the visions of Monnet, Briand et all -and far more to writings and thoughts of, say, Pat Buchanan - its more "the infidel is at the gates" than a any utopic vision of all of europe living happily together in some sort of kraftwerk themed, futuristic, Ikea inspired reservation. Ganleys motivations ultimately come down to race and religion. He sees Europe as needing to come together to "preserve" western civilization from the asiatic and african hordes - his vision is one of a unified, militarily powerful, fortress European federal state where lots of white christian babies will be born to white christian mammies and daddies that will get rid of the necessity of immigration into the EU - especially from Muslim countries where his virulent dislike of Islam borders on phobia (tho Im sure he'll tell ya that he has lots of Muslim friends - whether they would be allowed to marry his daughters is another story........) , and we'll all live happily (us white, right of centre,christians) in free-trade Fortress USE with our great ally, the USA where our combined superior military might and technological superiority will allow us compete for the Earths scarce resources and preserve Western civilization from islam, and yellow and black hordes....

If you think this is all a bit far-fetched- well all you have to is go back over his articles, his speeches and writings, especially those connected with the Heritage foundation and other US conservative think-thanks - most of them are freely available on the internet if you look hard enough - its the only logical and rational conclusion I can come to after doing the above and meeting and talking to the guy at length. the whole "democracy" thing is a bit of a red herring to be honest - if the EU was going in the direction that Ganley wanted - moving rapidly towards a federal capitalist European state that stopped at White Christian Europes borders - you wouldn't be hearing a thing out of him about "democracy" and the like. Im sure that the most dog-eared and thumbed book in Ganley's library is Samuel huntingtons "Clash of Civilization" - which is, to boil it down to its essence - an urgent plea for the Western world , particularly the US and Europe, to get their acts together to purify themselves and stand up to Islam and the chinese man before we are out spent,out gunned and out-bred and the clock is ticking - which explains Ganleys urgency, his opposition to Lisbon and his getting engaged with every crank outfit in Europe prior to the last euro elections to try and get some presence on the EU state for his vision - which, at the end of the day, are million miles away from the likes of Farage, his sometimes ally....

he was right about Lisbon - but not in the way many of those who voted against Lisbon think - Lisbon laid out the rule book of the EU and for the first time, clearly defined what commission could or could not do, what was done at EU level and what was the nationstates responsibility and domain - and it recognised the EU for what it is - 27 different nation states with different agendas and interests that will co-operate on different levels according to their interests - not a unified federal state and with no roadmap to a federal state - it elevated the intergovernmental side of things and severly put the brakes on the commission and federating elements - and it will be very hard to move from that in the future -Ganley recognised that and thats why he opposed it.

I wonder what he will do now - He'll have learned a lot of lessons from his electoral bouts over the last few years - primarily I would hope, that he needs to do the hard yards and build up an EU wide organisation from small beginnings and that he needs to recruit individuals who dont look like they are on day release from the nearest mental institution, have some political experience and are good organisers and are willing to be patient and not go for short-term publicity which will be ultimately detrimental to the long term vision.

the irony here is that Ganleys vision would be far more attractive to the scared,threathened and uncertain middle-classes of europe right across the board at this moment in time and would have a far greater prospect of bringing about a USE than anything the castrated commission and leaders of the quarrelling and squabbling nationstates could ever do. Its a very attactive vision - he just needs to get the vehicle to move it and sell it together.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

Where is the personal abuse?

If you don't consider "plant some gonads on your so called representative" abusive, we'll have to agree to differ. It's not my idea of an intelligent contribution to the debate; it may be yours.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, I'm impressed - you're prepared to say that "vote No unless there is a renegotiation" and "voting No gets us a renegotiation" are completely clear and distinct concepts, and that someone saying the former is totally not saying the latter.

Absolutely.

Voting 'No' gets us a renegotiation is a statement that a positive link exists between voting the Treaty in itself and a renegotiation of bank debt.

The alternative is basically a "No co-operation until someone addresses the bank debt" argument. I am sure if there were a Treaty on straight bananas about which Merkel was very preoccupied, Ganley would probably oppose it too unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us. Bananas have nothing to do with bank debt.

It doesn't really matter what the referendum is about in Ganley's eyes - what matters is that the rest of Europe seems to care about the Treaty, and renouncing it may rile them into paying attention to Ireland.

Like I said, I think this is a naive path to take, but it is the only one I have heard Ganley express. I'm genuinely asking if I missed something. Has he explicitly said this Referendum is about bank debt in itself?

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Absolutely.

Voting 'No' gets us a renegotiation is a statement that a positive link exists between voting the Treaty in itself and a renegotiation of bank debt.

The alternative is basically a "No co-operation until someone addresses the bank debt" argument. I am sure if there were a Treaty on straight bananas about which Merkel was very preoccupied, Ganley would probably oppose it too unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us. Bananas have nothing to do with bank debt.

It doesn't really matter what the referendum is about in Ganley's eyes - what matters is that the rest of Europe seems to care about the Treaty, and renouncing it may rile them into paying attention to Ireland.

Like I said, I think this is a naive path to take, but it is the only one I have heard Ganley express. I'm genuinely asking if I missed something. Has he explicitly said this Referendum is about bank debt in itself?

Very Jesuitical - and it's not often I get to say that.

If one calls for people to vote No on the Treaty "unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us" then one is very much saying that voting No on the Treaty will help us reach the goal of "engagement on the issues that concern us".

Otherwise you're calling for people to vote No not because voting No achieves anything, but out of spite and in an entirely pointless way. Allow me to borrow a leaf out of your playbook and ask whether you have a link to Ganley saying that's what he advocates?

amused,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

If one calls for people to vote No on the Treaty "unless there was some engagement on issues that concern us" then one is very much saying that voting No on the Treaty will help us reach the goal of "engagement on the issues that concern us".

Yes indeed, and the word help is crucial there. There is no clear connection between the Treaty and Irish bank debt; however Ganley might argue there is a connection between general co-operation with Europe overall, of which the Treaty can be one aspect, and renegotiating bank debt. In fact, surely that is part of the typical quid pro quo that Noonan bangs on about, except coming at it from another direction.

Either way, it's not the same as saying "by voting No on the Treaty we can renegotiate the debt". That suggests a direct relationship that I have not seen suggested elsewhere.

View

later12 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what the referendum is about in Ganley's eyes - what matters is that the rest of Europe seems to care about the Treaty, and renouncing it may rile them into paying attention to Ireland Ganley.

Fixed that for you.

tipptom

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't consider "plant some gonads on your so called representative" abusive, we'll have to agree to differ. It's not my idea of an intelligent contribution to the debate; it may be yours.

Where is the "personal" abuse,for a guy who likes to espouse his political views on here and litter them with short smart answers about posters lack of intelligence you have a thin skin,would not like to see you on door to door canvassing.
Mr kenny will not go in to a studio as leader of our country and debate this treaty with the NO side but instead hides behind suicide to avoid this.He also says he went up and down the country debating,telling a man "he could do with a days work"in the manner he did was not only disgraceful but WAS personal abuse.State of the nation address telling us "it was not your fault",days later crawling to his mates in europe,"they all went mad spending".Thats no leader of a country.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Otherwise you're calling for people to vote No not because voting No achieves anything, but out of spite and in an entirely pointless way. Allow me to borrow a leaf out of your playbook and ask whether you have a link to Ganley saying that's what he advocates?

amused,
Scofflaw

Just saw this.

I'm basing my limited knowledge of what Ganley is saying on the interviews I have seen such as on Tonight with Vincent Browne, as well as the campaign posters which state Cut the bank debt or no deal - not No deal cuts the bank debt or any variation of that.

If you're asking me why I'm defending Ganley using only limited knowledge, I'd remind you that I'm not defending him (well, maybe his right to feel disgruntled at unChristian hordes if it so pleases him). I asked for clarification of what Ganley has said and pointed out my understanding based on what I've heard. Presumably you have come across something different which has informed your interpretation of his position?

Zulu

tipptom wrote: »

Now you say evidence has being kindly provoided to me about Declan Ganlys shady business dealings in this thread

Well, I'll stop you there. I said there was evidence he was shady:

Zulu wrote:

There is plenty of evidence of him being a liar, and peddling lies. Being a liar is shady. Ergo he's shady & there's evidence of him being shady.

tipptom wrote:

come out from behind your key board

I assure you I am in front of my keyboard. Where I to be behind it, I'd find it difficult to see the screen & type.

tipptom wrote:

not cowardly insuinuations to suit your arguments.

Well now, fair being fair, I haven't been changing the facts to suit my arguments, unlike yourself (see above re Ganley being shady & Ganleys business dealings).

oscarBravo

tipptom wrote: »

Where is the "personal" abuse,for a guy who likes to espouse his political views on here and litter them with short smart answers about posters lack of intelligence you have a thin skin...

It's not my skin you're being abusive towards. I also didn't comment on anyone's intelligence; only on the intelligence of the points they are making.

Look: maybe you think a tirade of abuse towards Enda Kenny has something to do with this treaty or with the proposed constitutional amendment. If so, I can't see it. If it makes you feel better to think that that's because your argument is too clever for me to understand, go for it.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Just saw this.

I'm basing my limited knowledge of what Ganley is saying on the interviews I have seen such as on Tonight with Vincent Browne, as well as the campaign posters which state Cut the bank debt or no deal - not No deal cuts the bank debt or any variation of that.

If you're asking me why I'm defending Ganley using only limited knowledge, I'd remind you that I'm not defending him (well, maybe his right to feel disgruntled at unChristian hordes if it so pleases him). I asked for clarification of what Ganley has said and pointed out my understanding based on what I've heard. Presumably you have come across something different which has informed your interpretation of his position?

Sure - logic. Someone advocating a No vote unless there's negotiation of issues of concern to us is either someone advocating a No vote in order to force negotiation of those issues, or advocating a pointless act of spite. I do think slightly more of Ganley than to believe the latter, although slightly less of him than to believe he believes that voting No will actually achieve such negotiation.

I see claiming that one can advocate a "No unless there's a debt deal" without in any sense claiming that a No could in some way achieve such a deal as the creation of a purely semantic construct unrelated to anything found in politics. I find it entertaining, but profoundly dishonest - by which I don't mean in any way that you're lying, obviously.

later12 wrote: »

Yes indeed, and the word help is crucial there. There is no clear connection between the Treaty and Irish bank debt; however Ganley might argue there is a connection between general co-operation with Europe overall, of which the Treaty can be one aspect, and renegotiating bank debt. In fact, surely that is part of the typical quid pro quo that Noonan bangs on about, except coming at it from another direction.

Either way, it's not the same as saying "by voting No on the Treaty we can renegotiate the debt". That suggests a direct relationship that I have not seen suggested elsewhere.

No, it doesn't. It suggests only exactly what you're saying there, and exactly what I said originally - that a No vote can help us get a debt deal. At no point did I claim that Ganley believed there was actually a direct causal relationship between the two, and I think you are entirely aware of that. And straw men are very much less entertaining than Jesuitical distinctions between implications and statements, so I'd prefer you stuck to that line, otherwise we'll have to dispense with your air of ingenuousness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tipptom

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I'll stop you there. I said there was evidence he was shady:
I assure you I am in front of my keyboard. Where I to be behind it, I'd find it difficult to see the screen & type.
Well now, fair being fair, I haven't been changing the facts to suit my arguments, unlike yourself (see above re Ganley being shady & Ganleys business dealings).

State his shady business dealings?

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - logic. Someone advocating a No vote unless there's negotiation of issues of concern to us is either someone advocating a No vote in order to force negotiation of those issues, or advocating a pointless act of spite.

...Or, making noise and pushing a policy of non-cooperation. This might not appeal to your own political preference or ideals in the case of Europe, but it doesn't mean that's not what Ganley is doing.

As far as I can see, you're basing your interpretation of his position on a misreading of the Libertas campaign slogans.

I see claiming that one can advocate a "No unless there's a debt deal" without in any sense claiming that a No could in some way achieve such a deal as the creation of a purely semantic construct unrelated to anything found in politics.

Maybe you're biased there, though. You clearly have a problem with Ganley. If there is an alternative way of interpreting his posters, I think it ought to be considered. I'm willing to consider the alternative interpretation you're putting forward, but that's not the order in which the tagline is written, so there should probably be some alternative evidence to support your suggestion.

antoobrien

It's interesting how Ganley actually proposed setting up Libertas in an article published in 2003 by the US Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). In the article Europe’s Constitutional Treaty: A Threat to Democracy and How to Avoid It he states that the proposed European constitution (which later became the Lisbon Treaty) he states

The forces at work within the Europolitical elites make a momentous force behind this power grab. Each state’s senior socialist and centrist political figures will call for adoption of the draft constitution as a “reasonable compromise” and a “historic achievement”—of which Europe has had too many with sad consequences already. The extreme right and fringe parties will argue against them, which will only make the proponents look more correct

And actually proposes (to a US foreign policy body) to set up a political party to counteract this

The convention can only be countered with a true and fair vision for a United Europe. Europeans who until now have kept their views to themselves should mobilize to stop this tide. They must overcome groupings and parties based on legacy national organizations to form a new organization and articulate a clear and achievable vision for Europe’s future. Rather than try to define itself in contradistinction to the United States, this new Europe must be an equal partner and influence for the worldwide extension of justice and liberty. Such a political party— I will for the sake of discussion call it “Libertas”—will need to challenge the engrained composition of the convention in local and regional elections, as well as running candidates at member-state and EU levels. The old structures need shaking up.

then states

The Intergovernmental Conference expects to conclude its work by December, towards having a treaty ready for signature in May 2004. Fortunately this outcome can be avoided. The constitution can be rejected by referenda voters in Ireland, Denmark, and France.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

It's interesting how Ganley actually proposed setting up Libertas in an article published in 2003 by the US Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI).

It is indeed interesting from a political science viewpoint, but it's hardly in the least bit incriminating.

If Ganley were the malevolent arms villain he is usually portrayed as being by European flunkeys, hangers on, and career politicians, he'd surely be arguing in favour of more of the same. Europe is a lobbyist's wet dream in its current format. A reformed, somewhat libertarian, increasingly democratic EU as Ganley proposed in that article is hardly the itch of the war mongering antihero, is it.

While i find Ganley's sentiments in that article pretty abominable in some parts - mainly in terms of his almost superstitious aversion to socialism - I imagine a lot of very reasonable politics regulars would be nodding their heads at the substance of his message.