Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

It's in our interests to build positive relationships with those countries however. That will not be achieved by subscribing to Lisbon, in order to "confront" them.

---

Was it in the Lisbon Treaty that we would confront China and Russia?

You didn't see the word confront in ". :o

Prime Time have their big investigation on Declan Ganley on Thursday night. Based on previous Prime Time investigations I wouldn't expect too much.

I see Ganley wants a directly elected EU President now. Not sure how this gives Ireland greater input as at least when leaders of the governments pick the President we are 1 of 27 instead of 5m from 400-500m.

:confused:

He is also proposing an EU wide Libertas party to contest EU elections. As a pro EU person should be interesting to see what interesting groups he attracts he join him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Prime Time have their big investigation on Declan Ganley on Thursday night.

I see Ganley wants a directly elected EU President now.

---

He's always wanted that.

Tbh, can't see what PT will investigate that isn't already known. Not that they should be investigating him in the first place.

Why shouldn't he be investigated? Transparency is the key to honest politics. Has he been 100% up-front and decared who's backing him and Libertas, now and during the Lisbon campaign?

adam

He has already stated publically on many occasions that Libertas will disclose that info when required.

There would be no investigation at all, if the vote had gone the other way. It's part of the propaganda machine imo, in order to discredit him/the result, and use it as a reason to hold another one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

He has already stated publically on many occasions that Libertas will disclose that info when required.

There would be no investigation at all, if the vote had gone the other way. It's part of the propaganda machine imo, in order to discredit him/the result, and use it as a reason to hold another one.

---

It's perfectly reasonable for politicians to be investigated, and to establish where their interests lie. The only pity is that more investigative journalism isn't done in Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

He has already stated publically on many occasions that Libertas will disclose that info when required.

---

It's required now, and it was required then. Political funding must be open and transparent at all times.

Instead, there should be an investigation into why taxpayers' and party political funding, together with the full weight of the business and media community failed to get the political establishment over the line. And another one into why thousands of €'s were spent on a pointless survey during the summer, which cost a lot and revealed little, at a time of economic crisis for the country.

It shouldn't be "instead", it should be "as well". It should apply across the board.

You seem to believe that Ganley should be an exception to this, can you give me one valid reason why please?

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

It's required now, and it was required then. Political funding must be open and transparent at all times.

---

:D
for this government to request the background to political funding is nothing short of both hilarious and hypocritical.

It is possible to be anti Lisbon Treaty without blindly supporting Ganley.

Interesting that has only now emerged that he gave Libertas a 200k loan. What are the rules for that? Does anyone know what the threshold for anonymous political donations is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

You seem to believe that Ganley should be an exception to this, can you give me one valid reason why please?

---

They're in no position to question his funding, when they don't have to explain how they funded their own campaign.

Every interview he does, every time he has to answer questions from politicians both here and abroad, his funding is queried. Our own politicians love the subject, many who sheltered corrupt members of their own parties for years. The European Commission/Parliament are obsessed with it. These are people who can't conduct audits on their accounts, and they're worried about Libertas' funding of a ref campaign?? :confused:

Ganley and Libertas were one of several non-political groups to oppose the treaty, yet are the easy target to cover up the government's disasterous ref campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

They're in no position to question his funding, when they don't have to explain how they funded their own campaign.

---

Move on from the hypocrisy of the government and answer the question you were asked.

Quote:

---

It shouldn't be "instead", it should be "as well". It should apply across the board.

You seem to believe that Ganley should be an exception to this, can you give me one valid reason why please?

---

If you don't you're just trolling, and you know how trolls are dealt with in here.

I don't see Ganley as an exception to it, he will have to declare it when asked by the authorities, but I don't understand the fixation with his opponents over how his campaign was funded, both here and abroad. :confused:

If he lost, there would have been no investigations, regardless of how it was funded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

It is possible to be anti Lisbon Treaty without blindly supporting Ganley.

Interesting that has only now emerged that he gave Libertas a 200k loan. What are the rules for that? Does anyone know what the threshold for anonymous political donations is?

---

Emerged a while back Pete.

Rules iirc are that if it is a loan (ie plan for repayment that is adhered to) then it is kosher but if its viewed as not being repayable then its a donation and it is against the funding rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Rules iirc are that if it is a loan (ie plan for repayment that is adhered to) then it is kosher but if its viewed as not being repayable then its a donation and it is against the funding rules.

---

Did Bertie "dig out" Ahern write that rule? :D

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...s-1552013.html

So, it was Declan Ganley who declared that "re-negotiation (of the treaty) was not an option" :eek::rolleyes:

Meanwhile, a good read below :cool:

http://www.spectator.org/archives/20...pean-fantasies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rte.ie

An Oireachtas sub-committee looking at Ireland's future in the EU has found that its position in Europe has been diminished.

The sub-committee said that Ireland could suffer serious economic consequences, as a result of the No vote in the Lisbon referendum last June.

The majority report warned that other States are likely to develop a mechanism to allow them move forward - without Ireland - with the reforms envisaged by the Treaty.

The findings were endorsed by all the main parties in the Dáil, but Sinn Féin and the independent Senator Ronan Mullen dissented from the main report.


It could, the report says, damage the ability of Irish banks to raise funds in international money markets and make it more difficult to compete for foreign direct investment.

The majority report says it is for the Government to devise a way of dealing with the consequences of the No vote.

However, it says ratification by the Oireachtas is not desirable and a solution involving Ireland leaving the EU is 'unthinkable.'

Sinn Féin said the majority report ignored all the concerns of the electorate expressed in the referendum and did not respect the decision of the voters.

Senator Mullins said the Committee's majority report had failed to address the concerns surrounding important social and ethical issues and for that reason he could not support it.

The report also said that there are no legal obstacles to prevent Ireland from holding a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

'No legal obstacle appears to exist to having a referendum either on precisely the same issue as that dealt with on June 12 or some variation thereof,' the parliamentary committee on Ireland's future in the EU said in the report.

---

1. Every major EU country that has ratified, is already suffering a recession with us.

2. In theory, the other 26 member states could move forward on Lisbon without us, but impossible in practice.

We'll suffer the same consequences as the other countries who rejected EU referenda did. They haven't collapsed since, and neither will we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

2. In theory, the other 26 member states could move forward on Lisbon without us, but impossible in practice..

---

They would likely need a new Treaty or partial one removing the bits Ireland are part of like EU Commissioner.