Ganley: EU to discuss Treaty-change on June 28

Ozymandius2011

Declan Ganley has accused Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore of 'misleading spin' about the EU position on amending the Fiscal Compact. He claims that EU sources have said member state government's will meet on June 28th to discuss changes to the Treaty.

Yahoo News wrote:

...The Taoiseach and Tanaiste have been accused of misleading the public with their claims that the European fiscal treaty will not be changed.
Businessman Declan Ganley, who is campaigning for a No vote in the referendum on the deal, said a date had been set for European leaders to discuss the legal methods of amending the text in June.
He said Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore had intentionally lied to the country with their claims that the deal would remain untouched. Either that or their European counterparts had deliberately kept them in the dark, he claimed.
"There are members of the media in Brussels who said all of the EU leaders were told that the legal method of changing the treaty, the pact would not be discussed until June 28," said Mr Ganley.
"So presumably, they will discuss the legal methods to change the treaty on June 28. This is what was discussed yesterday, which is entirely different from the misleading spin that the Government is trying to put on this to suggest that the deal on the existing treaty won't change."....

So is amending the Treaty still on the agenda as Ganley claims,and what are the implications for the referendum campaign?

I believe Ganley because he said Lisbon would not create jobs and he was proven correct by the increase in unemployment since Lisbon 2 was passed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Declan Ganley has accused Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore of 'misleading spin' about the EU position on amending the Fiscal Compact. He claims that EU sources have said member state government's will meet on June 28th to discuss changes to the Treaty.So is amending the Treaty still on the agenda as Ganley claims,and what are the implications for the referendum campaign?

I believe Ganley because he said Lisbon would not create jobs and he was proven correct by the increase in unemployment since Lisbon 2 was passed.

How convienient that his claim can't be verified until after the referendum, and of course it's not like Libertas has a history of telling blatant lies, now is it!?

meglome

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Declan Ganley has accused Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore of 'misleading spin' about the EU position on amending the Fiscal Compact. He claims that EU sources have said member state government's will meet on June 28th to discuss changes to the Treaty.So is amending the Treaty still on the agenda as Ganley claims,and what are the implications for the referendum campaign?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0525/1224316665459.html

CHANCELLOR ANGELA Merkel has said Germany will not allow any changes to the fiscal treaty, before or after the Irish referendum.

“Four countries have already ratified, so no change will happen,” said the chancellor’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert.

Yesterday Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore insisted there will be no changes to the fiscal treaty text on which the electorate will vote next Thursday.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I believe Ganley because he said Lisbon would not create jobs and he was proven correct by the increase in unemployment since Lisbon 2 was passed.

Exports have been booming so yes there were jobs created. Who the hell do you think is producing the products/services we're exporting?

Of course it's been already said to you multiple times that this cannot make up for the hundreds of thousands laid off in the recession which happened before the Lisbon treaty.

Self amending treaty – lie
Saved Brian Cowens Job – wrong
European Army – lie
Our last say on Europe – lie

etc etc etc

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I believe Ganley because he said Lisbon would not create jobs and he was proven correct by the increase in unemployment since Lisbon 2 was passed.

It's probably more accurate to say that you believe Ganley because he says what you want to hear.

And while we're on the subject of Ganleys so called claim, can I point you here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78830435&postcount=41

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I didn't see that on any Libertas posters? Also I'd like to see a direct quote of Ganley stating there will be no jobs after Lisbon, if you are claiming that he was 'right' about it, lets see where he said it?

Also, FYI, there have been several hundred jobs created in MNC's since the Lisbon treaty passed, the same MNC's who said that it was vitally important for inward investment that we be seen to be a stable, pro Europe country, demonstrated by a 'yes' vote. Just because there has been no net gain in jobs generally, or net fall in unemployment, does not mean no jobs were created in the exact sectors which claimed that they could help sell Ireland Inc. with a 'yes' vote.

Not that I believe personally that there is massively direct causation involved.

It's you making the claim, though, so let's see you back it up, or retract it.

Seeing as you didn't show up on the thread again to answer that one, perhaps you'd like to have a go here?

K-9

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I believe Ganley because he said Lisbon would not create jobs and he was proven correct by the increase in unemployment since Lisbon 2 was passed.

By that reckoning rejection of Lisbon more than doubled unemployment! :eek:

I think people can only go on what the politicians say, Merkel, Hollande and our own leaders. There's probably spin somewhere and Ganley is as good at that as any politician.

Ozymandius2011

Your Holiness he said at the time that multinationals would not be swayed by a Yes to Lisbon 2. I heard him saying this repeatedly in radio and TV debates during that campaign.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Your Holiness he said at the time that multinationals would not be swayed by a Yes to Lisbon 2. I heard him saying this repeatedly in radio and TV debates during that campaign.

Firstly, the fact that you have already provided a source which directly contradicts one of your claims in another thread, and ascribed wild 'interpretation' as a basis for a conclusion in another again, you'll forgive me if I seek a more accurate source than your memory.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt have you got figures on net job loss or stagnation from multinationals? I'm hoping you've based your claim that there have been no jobs created in multinationals since Lisbon was passed on something more than your own gut feeling?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Firstly, the fact that you have already provided a source which directly contradicts one of your claims in another thread, and ascribed wild 'interpretation' as a basis for a conclusion in another again, you'll forgive me if I seek a more accurate source than your memory.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt have you got figures on net job loss or stagnation from multinationals? I'm hoping you've based your claim that there have been no jobs created in multinationals since Lisbon was passed on something more than your own gut feeling?

I didn't say no jobs were created. But most people would have understood the term "yes for jobs" to mean a net creation of jobs in the Irish economy.

later12

meglome wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0525/1224316665459.html
Exports have been booming so yes there were jobs created.

By Lisbon?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I didn't say no jobs were created. But most people would have understood the term "yes for jobs" to mean a net creation of jobs in the Irish economy.

Thanks, so Ganley was wrong when he said, according to your memory, that there would be no jobs created then.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

By Lisbon?

We know as a fact that the bursting of our bubble caused hundreds of thousands to be laid off, before Lisbon. We know as a fact that exports have been booming and there have been quite a number of high quality jobs created. Did Lisbon help create them... maybe, maybe not. However it's not correct to say no jobs were created.

later12

meglome wrote: »

Did Lisbon help create them... maybe, maybe not. However it's not correct to say no jobs were created.

I just wanted to clarify whether you believed Lisbon actually created employment in Ireland. We need to stop this sort of hyperbole. Even if one believes that a Yes vote facilitates inward investment (which I think is a little detached from reality in itself), using terms like "Yes to Jobs" is most certainly inappropriate.

PopeBuckfastXVI

later12 wrote: »

I just wanted to clarify whether you believed Lisbon actually created employment in Ireland. We need to stop this sort of hyperbole. Even if one believes that a Yes vote facilitates inward investment (which I think is a little detached from reality in itself), using terms like "Yes to Jobs" is most certainly inappropriate.

I agree, and I stated previously that I personally doubt the strength of the causation involved, or even if there is any. I'm merely addressing the 'Ganley was right' about Lisbon, so he's right now argument.

Ganley claimed many things about Lisbon, and was wrong on most of them, I didn't even see him claim there'd be no jobs after Lisbon, but that's what was put out there as a source of his record on his Lisbon predictions, so that's what I, personally, dealt with.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I believe Ganley because he said Lisbon would not create jobs and he was proven correct by the increase in unemployment since Lisbon 2 was passed.

So your standard for believing what someone says is that they predicted that someone else's claim would prove to be unfounded?

I (among others) predicted back then that Cóir's claims about minimum wage, conscription and abortions would prove to be untrue. I was right. Does that mean that if I make a prediction now, you'll believe me?

Or will you only believe it if it's a prediction that accords with your own beliefs?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I (among others) predicted back then that Cóir's claims about minimum wage, conscription and abortions would prove to be untrue. I was right. Does that mean that if I make a prediction now, you'll believe me?

Coir did explain that they had included question marks with their statements, meaning that their statements were hypothetical regardless of the results of the referendum (bull**** in short)

Vote No to Socialist Workers Party : Want to pay €2000 for a pair of shoes?
Vote No to Fianna Fail: English banned in Secondary Schools?
etc.

Vita nova

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I didn't say no jobs were created. But most people would have understood the term "yes for jobs" to mean a net creation of jobs in the Irish economy.

Would they? Have you a source for that?

To me "yes for jobs" was a vague electioneering statement which had numerous interpretations including the one you mention, e.g

Yes would be better for jobs than voting No
Yes would be better for jobs in FDI
Yes would overturn the underlying economic problems to produce a net increase in jobs.

So you're saying the last one was most people's interpretation. I think they'd need to be completely stupid to belief that.

Later12
I just wanted to clarify whether you believed Lisbon actually created employment in Ireland. We need to stop this sort of hyperbole. Even if one believes that a Yes vote facilitates inward investment (which I think is a little detached from reality in itself), using terms like "Yes to Jobs" is most certainly inappropriate.

The argument from the MNCs was mainly that No would damage our chances of investment and hence job creation rather than Yes would directly create jobs.

Ozymandius2011

Greece has ratified the Treaty. Can we say it has made that country more stable? Why then would it have that effect on us?

Vita nova

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Greece has ratified the Treaty. Can we say it has made that country more stable? Why then would it have that effect on us?

I'm getting a strong sense of déjà vu :-)

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Greece has ratified the Treaty. Can we say it has made that country more stable?

The Treaty doesn't come into force until twelve countries have ratified it, so an individual country ratifying it can't have any effect on the stability of that country. Either you're displaying a breathtaking ignorance of how treaties work, or you're being disingenuous (and I'm being kind in not saying dishonest).

Now, my instinct is to never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity, but I'll let you fill me in as to whether you don't understand what's going on, or do and are trying to deceive people. Which is it?

K-9

Vita nova wrote: »

I'm getting a strong sense of déjà vu :-)

Indeed, it reminds me of Lisbon and a few claiming Spain ratified the European constitution and unemployment went up. Yep a Constitution that never came in caused unemployment, that's the mentality you are dealing with for some on the No side.

I think Ozymandius knows fine well the point is nonsense.

Ozymandius2011

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, it reminds me of Lisbon and a few claiming Spain ratified the European constitution and unemployment went up. Yep a Constitution that never came in caused unemployment, that's the mentality you are dealing with for some on the No side.

I think Ozymandius knows fine well the point is nonsense.

But the point surely is that the politicians are making Ireland-specific claims in terms of confidence accruing from an Irish yes vote - quite separate from whether it comes into force across the signatury countries or not? That is why it matters. When you listen to the arguments of the politicians like Fergus O'Dowd claiming that multinationals wanting us to vote yes, they don't bring up specifics in the treaty but rather say that it's because these companies want to know Ireland is 'at the heart of Europe etc.'. I have yet to hear a representative of the multinationals speaking on specific elements of the Treaty that will benefit their operations here. Only the semantics about being "at the heart of Europe". Well then surely in that context, it is legitimate to raise events in countries like Greece and Portugal which have always ratified, despite the Treaty not coming into force in Europe yet.