Jun 032008
 

Opposition to the Lisbon treaty is being orchestrated by an organisation with strong links to the US military.

Libertas is a great name.  It resonates with decency and honesty and freedom.  What a surprise then to discover that its two most prominent members are suppliers of services to the US military and intelligence agencies.

Declan Ganley, president of Libertas, also just happens to be chairman, CEO and founder of Rivada Networks LLC.  This is a company that supplies the US military, National Guard and federal agencies with secure communications equipment. 

Rivada LLC is registered in Delaware, but has a subsidiary in Galway, which by a curious coincidence, happens to employ five of the seven people who founded Libertas Institute Ltd.  One of them, James O’Reilly, is chief operating officer of the US-based parent company, while a sixth founder is Mr Ganley’s brother.

The directors of the parent company include a former US Airforce employee, two retired admirals, a former deputy secretary of Homeland Security and a retired Marine General, as well as a former US Airforce intelligence officer.  There’s also the chief advisor to GW Bush on telecommunications policy, and a man who served in a senior position with two Republican administrations: Reagan and Bush Snr.  All great friends to Ireland, no doubt, and passionately concerned about the future of Europe.

Mr Ganley has refused to disclose the sources of funding for the Libertas campaign, and refused to specify how much it would cost.  As much as we need to spend, was his only comment.

Another recent recruit to Libertas is Ulick McEvaddy, a former Irish Army intelligence officer, and now owner of Omega Air.  This is a company that provides an in-flight refuelling service to the US military.  According to their web-site, Contract air refueling is a business using specially-equipped and converted civilian airplanes to serve as air refueling platforms that meet the operational needs of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, as well as Foreign Military or specialized industry R&D projects.

Specialized industry R&D projects, eh?  Like, for instance, sending prisoners to Guantanamo or Egypt without having to stop for fuel at a European airport where people might protest?  Surely not.

Isn’t it remarkable, and heartening, that people with such close links to the US military and intelligence communities can find time to fight for the future of ordinary Irish people like you and me?  Isn’t it wonderful that they care so much about the future of the European Union? 

Where would we be without them?

__________________

Previously:

Lisbon Treaty. One Reason To Vote Yes.

  58 Responses to “Libertas. Another Reason For Voting yes to the Lisbon treaty”

Comments (57) Pingbacks (1)
  1.  

    It would probably be more interesting to see where these guys go after the Lisbon Treaty referendum. I have listened to several utterances from Ganley and in addition to not giving specific “cause and effect” reasons for a no vote, he also has never successfully connected the issues that would accumulate to a no vote.

    My take is they have picked a high profile “no win” situation to generate PR for some other lucrative efforts they want to engage in once its over…..perhaps business consultancy for potential arms dealer start ups!

  2.  

    Similarly a Reason to Vote No would be because the government is pushing for a yes vote and they are a big investor and recipient of Europe and therefore have a vested interest.
    Also the referendum commission was set-up and appointed by said government with vested interests so we shouldn’t trust the so called impartial information that they are providing us.
    Although I can’t be trusted either as I am one of the many working for an American company so have a vested interest with the imperialists.
    On a side note Ireland is a huge exporter of indirect military components.

    I’m not sure that we should dismiss someone out of hand just because of who the customers of their company are and who they associate with.

    We can find objectionable associations with every single person on the Yes and No side. Everyone from the government side are self serving gobsheen politicians. The opposition parties are just as bad. Don’t get me started on the shinners, the church, youth defence for fuck sake, I’m so filled with dislike for the people on both sides that I’m considering not voting altogether.
    Anyway rant over.

  3.  

    Actually Rant is not quite over yet.

    I heard Ruarie Quinn and Libertas girl (who’s name I don’t know) on the radio yesterday.
    Essentially she was saying that we’ll lose our Corporation tax (haven) and Ruarie was saying we’d still have our veto. It was hard to tell the exact argument as they were having a go at each other rather than the issue.

    Now I’ve been looking into this and I’m worried.
    Germany or anyone could in the morning say that they would like to have a common corporation tax rate. Everyone could vote for it but Ireland would say fuck that we’re not giving in our cash cow and veto it. (All going well so far).
    What Germany can now do is something nice called “Enhanced Cooperation” ( I think it translates as fuck you and your veto). All those other 26 countries can say we’re having an enhanced cooperation party so all our corporation tax rates are now the same leaving Ireland with it’s veto out. What this group then does is change the rules amoungst themselves so that that corporation tax is deducted on a country by country basis so there is now zero benifit for Dell or Microsoft or Google or Intel or IBM or any million other shelf companies funneling all their European sales through Ireland and having their Eurpoean Headquarters here. So we get a big chunk cut from our tax take. An then to top it all off we have to renegotiate our tax status with the new Enhanced cooperation club.
    At the end of the day we sign up.
    And that’s how I understand the new veto system works.

    In spite of this I’ll probably vote yes.

    I think the rant is over now.

  4.  

    I think Bock is guaranteeing a Yes vote all on his own!

    These treaties will always be good for some businesses, bad for others. The ones who benefit don’t have to campaign since the politicians are doing it for them. The ones who don’t have to somehow hide behind a makey-up name like Libertas and try and convince people that it’s in THEIR best interest to vote no.

    Hasn’t worked for me so far. I may not totally trust Cowen, Kenny, Gilmore & co, but at least I know they were voted for, which is a lot more that can be said for Mr Ganley.

  5.  

    Oh, Bock, don’t be such so spineless. What does it matter who says you should vote what?
    Surely the only thing that matters is what you’re voting on.
    Have YOU read the Treaty, Bock? If so, you’d join me in having done so. (Not the Taoiseach, though. Nor our EU commissioner. They think you’d be mad to actually READ the thing before signing off on it.)
    And being a man of some sense, I suspect that having done so, you’d be inclined to vote no.
    Because there is NO upside to this treaty. All we get is less of what we have already – less representation, less democracy, less sovereignty.
    The upside of voting No is that nothing changes, and they have to go back and try harder and better to put a better deal together for Europe.
    It really doesn’t matter who else is voting what. I’m not so comfortable about who Declan Ganley gets into bed with, and I NEVER like agreeing with Shinners.
    But frankly, when all the Yes camp have as an argument is to make ad hominem attacks on the No camp, then you know that they are entirely without a case to put forward.
    Vote No, Bock. So fuck if Ganley gets paid by Americans? So does half of Kildare, ffs. It doesn’t matter.
    But our sovereignty, our ability to veto laws that are against Irish interests, our representation in Europe – they do matter. And they all get cut if we vote yes, like the proverbial Turkeys at festive time.

  6.  

    I don’t think that the fact there are a few nutters on the no side is a reason to vote yes.

    And I don’t think the fact that there are a lot of big business interests (IBEC, the professional accountants, etc) on the yes side is a reason to vote yes

    Personally I’m not going to be bullied by Cowen et al into voting this thing in, and I don’t care if a bunch of weirdos are voting the same as me for their own sinister reasons.
    I’m not afraid of their company.

    Just because they’re crazy doesn’t mean it’s a crazy thing to do.

  7.  

    Bock, I don’t often disagree with you, but I don’t give a dang who says we should vote yes / no. I have read the goobledegook treaty, and here is my summary:

    Vote yes if:
    You believe the EU will / can be organized better as a result.
    You trust the boys in suits.

    Vote no if:
    You don’t trust any of them!
    You’d like to give FF a good kicking, but second best would be if the EU did it for you!!

    I know what I’m doing and I don’t care who is doing it beside me! I’m sharpening my steel toe-cap!!!!

    An aside about the EU that just lately came to my notice – A friend of mine is from Switzerland, he often travels to Germany on business. He says that in both countries the EU red tape that we endure e.g. about selling home made produce at markets – is laughed at in both of those countries. They implement none of it, but make their salami / cheese whatever and bring it straight to market no bother about EU directives. He told me that the suits send boys to Ireland to see EU directives in action and then go home and do their own thing! Are we monkeys in the zoo? My friend said that people laugh at the Irish doing what they’re told so meekly!!!!!!

  8.  

    JC Skinner, Could you give me a list of articles you find objectionable so I can make my own mind up. I don’t wish to trawl through the ‘debate’ that is occurring on politics.ie….there’s too much ad hominem attacks going on there….

  9.  

    Does “spineless” count as ad hominem?

  10.  

    STILL VOTING NO…..

  11.  

    Yeah, the usual. The usual you’re a “West Brit, Imperialist, Neo Con, Fascist, Gay” epitephs that are common currency there. Applied if you’re a Yes or a No voter. I’d prefer if their respective arguments on the Treaty itself were backed up by referring to the specific articles. They generally aren’t.

    I saw on telly Richard Boyd Barrett citing article 28 as evidence that we will all be drawn into a militarised Europe, a camp if you will. It doesn’t say that. There’s a few ifs and buts in that article as well as maybes.

  12.  

    On defence policy, here’s what Article 28 says:

    The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence,
    when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

    Acting unanimously.

    It also states as follows:

    If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

    That seems reasonable to me. We’d expect to be defended if attacked.

  13.  

    @ Bock: Nope, ‘spineless’ counts as fair comment in the context of someone from the Munster Red Army rolling over to have his belly tickled because the politicos up in the big smoke told him how to vote.
    @ Yobbah: My reasons for voting no can be found here: http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2008/04/so-whats-this-lisbon-treaty-thing-about.html
    Spoiler: They’ve got fuck all to do with Libertas, Coir, the Shinners or any of the other vested interests except the vested interests of me as an Irishman.

  14.  

    Oh, and Bock, you never told us if you’d read the thing or not…

  15.  

    Mr Skinner. You’re going a tad beyond ad hominem now, and straying towards old-fashioned insult. It’s because of the gobshite politicos in Dublin that i intend to vote Yes. And yes, I did read the fucking thing.

  16.  

    For what’s it worth.

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck for a treaty which causes so much confusion, frustration, apathy and recently anger.

    My political will cannot be summed into a simple yes or no, for what is reported to be a 700 fucking page document.

    The growing grass needs close watching before I would ever, ever, try to adsorb and then summarise what some suit can’t simplify and summarise for Joe soap me.

    Shower of arrogant and patronising cunts to even prepare and float such a monstrous piece of shit.

    Fuck the treaty and fuck those who believe that this superior piece of patronising claptrap is anything which approximates to democracy.

    If this is the European super-nation of the future, then we are so fucked.

  17.  

    Not sure what you mean by ‘beyond ad hominem.’
    You’re at liberty to vote whichever way you please.
    I’ve no professed interest in persuading you one way or the other.
    I’m just defending my own viewpoint.
    A few questions, though:
    Approximately, how many minutes did it take you to read the Lisbon Treaty?
    And how many more hours (and readings) did it take before you felt you really understood it?
    And what was it about the Treaty itself was it that made you believe that this was an agreement worth voting for?
    Because it’s the deal on the table that you’re voting on, not Declan Ganley, not Catholic psychos or the Shinners, not how cuddly Bertie was or how authoritive sounding Eamon Gilmore is.
    Just the deal. And when I read it, it was a shitty deal for Ireland.
    The issue as it is with any deal is who does it benefit and who does it not. It benefits Eurocrats and those close to centralised EU power, which we ain’t.
    It does benefit our political classes, though, which is why they want you to vote yes.
    So I’m wondering how anyone who could have read the deal could have found in it anything overwhelmingly worth voting for.
    Never mind something so overwhelming that it overrules all the bad stuff, like I mentioned on the post I linked to above.

  18.  

    My reason for voting No –
    Fianna Fail/Fianna Gael/Labour and the Pd’s

  19.  

    What I mean by “beyond ad hominem” is the suggestion that I’m rolling over to have my belly tickled. If you have that opinion of me, I’m surprised you bother arguing with me at all.

    As regards defending your viewpoint, I don’t recall attacking it, so you don’t need to be defending your viewpoint against me. I did read your post some days ago, however, and I’m not persuaded that the things you list as undesirable are in fact so.

    In view of the shit-poor standard of government and parochial gobshitery we suffer from, I think I’d welcome less of our local fools running the country and a more competent administration.

    In particular, I’d welcome an administration capable of delivering, for instance, a working health service including an end to pampered medical elites and church involvement, a public service operated by professionals not pen-pushers, a functioning public transport system (for everyone, and not just those Dubliners you describe as city-dwellers, as opposed to the rest of us, who presumably don’t live in cities), a modern education system owned and operated by the State, a professional police force, a rational energy policy and logical urban planning. I’d also welcome an administration not in thrall to the churches or other vested interests. Finally, it would probably be too much to ask for a leader who isn’t a crooked gobshite and who isn’t paid more than the presidents of France and the USA for mismanaging our country so badly we have fuck-all to show for fifteen years of unprecedented prosperity.

    But what the hell would I know? I’m just some bogtrotter who wants his belly tickled.

  20.  

    to paraphrase that other great Irish hero and MEP, Dr. Paisley:

    “Ireland says no”

  21.  

    Ad hominem. Now you know what I mean Bock. And yes you quoted Article 28 correctly. 28A 3 ‘Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’ causes a stir among the no camp. But knowing us, it would probably just involve the redecoration of the FCA canteen.

  22.  

    The hypersensitivity doesn’t become you, Bock.
    You realise that the Lisbon Traytee as proper boggers like Enda Kenny would have it won’t actually deliver us from any of the sins of our current or indeed future national administrations?
    Most of what you describe are in fact national character traits (defects?) rather than direct symptoms of poor government. Rather they cause the government than the other way around.
    That won’t change, Lisbon or no Lisbon. All that happens if Lisbon is passed is that you get a whole new layer of people to rule you while they ignore you.

  23.  

    So, you’re not voting yes because you were bullied into it. Good man. That puts you ahead of about 90% of those voting in favour, as far as I can see.
    So why ARE you voting in favour?
    It took me about three readings of the legalese of the Treaty (ie most of a weekend) to feel I actually understood what was being proposed in this treaty, and that involved constant reference to subsidiary documents like the Constitution that died and our own Constitution.
    And I really saw very little in there I liked (there is the odd thing, like parts of the charter, for example) but an awful lot not to like – like the erosion of our representation and our democratic say in important matters.

  24.  

    I am not persuaded of the merits of, or need for the Treaty and will be voting ‘no’ to maintain the status quo.

  25.  

    Hi Bock, JC Skinner and others. I’m undecided, and currently wrestling with the following thoughts and instincts:

    The instinct to vote No every time I listen to Cowen, Kenny et al. I don’t really trust them, but the main reason would be to give them a kick up the hole, which is childish and possibly cutting off nose to spite face. So I’m resisting this impulse.

    The main reason I see to Vote No is the whole democratic deficit thing. As I said on another thread, this IS the failed constitution, more or less, I havent heard any of the Yes camp deny this. The French and Dutch shot it down, now we (<1% of EU population) are the only citizens to be allowed to vote on it. One interesting outcome of a No vote would be to see if they go through the charade of coming up with a “new” treaty (maybe call it “Vienna” or something snazzy), or just ask us to vote again, like with Nice II, without the pretence.

    Another reason is that the plan for Europe, the grand strategy, is being withheld from us. We get a treaty to enlarge the Union, then a few years later another treaty to make enlargement workable – no mention of the latter when the former is being presented to us. Basically the mushroom treatment for Joe EU citizen. Werent we told in 72 that it was just an economic union, a trade bloc? Look at us now.

    On the other hand:
    If we dont allow qualified majority voting, how the hell is the EU going to pass any laws? Its not workable, or even democratic, the way it is. So, it could be that in order to make it more democratic, democracy has to be stifled this once.

    The “bad deal for Ireland” argument (attn Mr Skinner) doesnt add up to me. If we want to be part of a much bigger entity, we must have a reduced amount of power within that entity. Representation must reduce, vetoes must go.

    Some of the No arguments are crazy. The neutrality thing in particular bugs me. What good is the EU, or any political entity, if it cant defend itself. Having said that, if the Agenda is to have Europe’s poor fighting and dying for Europe’s rich, as with the US currently, then I’m dead against. How can we know?

    Bocks argument regarding how the EU might counteract our national goverments corruption, incompetence etc is spot on. I work in environmental protection and about 99% of our laws in this area comes from European Directives. Without them we would be swimming in our own shit, literally.

    All this is what I’m currently weighing up. I’m also aware I dont understand some of the politicos agendas fully. Will I be a stooge, a useful idiot, if I vote Yes, or a paranoid fool if I vote No. Any assistance enlightenment etc is welcome, and thanks for reading.

  26.  

    EssoDee, I agree with much of what you said but we were not told that it was only a trading bloc in 72 – written into the Treaty of Rome on March 25, 1957: “The Community shall have as its task (…) to promote throughout the Community (…) a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.”

    So if we were “told” that locally then one must not trust the politicos.

    I agree with your positioning of being part of a larger entity then we must move over in the bed to make more room – the words “dilution” of power are only one way of looking at it – another way is to say “appropriate” voice for the relative size and level of development of our region.

    What gets me going is the apparent contradiction being put out there by saying we are “Irish” and yet we forget the effects of the poison that that sort of thinking at this parochial level has had on our country.

    What it boils down to is whether we want to be part of this big ship or not – I believe we should be – we have more influence in Europe now – and this will remain to be the case than, e.g., Norway (and their relative wealth is skewed by oil reserves, but at the appropriate time they will come into the EU).

    The Treaty has been negotiated by hundreds of people at this point – that’s a fact – not political rhetoric even though the politicos use it – but the point is, the No camp suggest that we can get a better deal – ARSE – if this goes to a NO then we will get a worse deal as no person who has negotiated to this point will want to give a greedy little, < 1% pop of the EU more – its more likely that we’ll be told to go Fuck ourselves – which is also, I guess, a result the No camp would accept. Its not very elegant and I hope there is talent enough in that camp to manage the fallout, but doubtless we will see most run for cover or pass by whistling in the air with a “I’m not taking responsibility” attitude “sure I don’t even know what I voted for in the first place”.

    People say is it better or worse – why must it be either? The status quo, i.e., being part of the EU and deriving the benefits of that inclusion isn’t enough? I think if you answer that question in the negative then it is a no.

    The debate on this thing has reaffirmed one thing I feel about Irish society at the moment – we are greedy bastards, we steal from each other in terms of the prices we charge each other for goods and services and are constantly focussing on the fallacy of how rich we are now that or houses are worth more, being part of the EU should be seen as having value more holistically than focussing on how much money we are going to lose (and we aren’t we just have to work harder for it).

  27.  

    I would like to thank Bock and JC Skinner for a most illuminating and articulate discussion. I have learned more about the Lisbon Treaty here than I did by skimming through the bloody thing.

  28.  

    What a load of crap.
    Badly researched, badly written and sadly mis-informed.
    I used Google and Wiki to research Mr Ganley, perhaps you should have tried this also.He does indeed run the company Rivada Networks and yes they do provide communications equipment to bodies in the US.The coast guard and the emergency services.These people have, by necessity, links to the military organisations in their country.
    Mr Ganley was awarded with an honour last year by the state of Louisiana for the services his company provided to them during the hurricane Katrina disaster.
    Of the four people who are ACTUALLY being paid to participate in the Libertas NO campaign only one is actually employed by Mr Ganleys company.Thats him…
    Not good Bock, not good.
    Focus on the issues.

  29.  

    Ashley: Should I call you Declan?

    Don’t tell me what to write about.

    It’s strange that you have the same email address as a contributor who uses a different name. What’s going on?

  30.  

    No Bock, you shouldn’t.
    You can feel free to call me Ashley though because thats the name my parents gave me and yes thats my email address…the other name is a blogger tag of course.
    I won’t tell you what to write, I simply won’t choose to read it again.
    Best of luck.

  31.  

    That’s your business.

    Try not to use two different names in future when you comment on people’s sites. It’s bad manners.

    And while you’re at it, try to get your facts straight. I said nothing about employees of Libertas. I said “people who founded” Libertas.

    I notice you didn’t find anything else to contradict, and that seems to leave you with precisely no facts to quote.

    As regards the standard of writing here, I haven’t read your site enough to know if you’re qualified to comment.

  32.  

    Two things just to randomly throw in here…

    first of all, to use a Treaty of this nature to give a national party whom you disagree with a “kicking” is INSANITY. Vote on it on its merits.

    Secondly, I have no shame in saying I have not read it. I may try and read it, but the majority of people will not have. It is best to read it, obviously, but not everyone will/can, so its fair enough to make up you mind based on as much info as you can get, both pro/anti and neutral.

  33.  

    Still keen to know how long it took you to read the treaty, and what other documents you had to read to make sense of it, Bock.

  34.  

    Send me a questionnaire and I’ll fill it out for you.

  35.  

    I was just wondering, because when I still felt like a tard for not understanding the damn thing after the guts of two days, not to mention taking about ten pages of notes from various documents for cross-referencing, I began to wonder if it was just me or if it was the document is supposed to be that crazily obtuse.
    If you got your head around it significantly quicker than that, then I’m keen to know how and why, because that would indeed confirm that perhaps I am a tard.

  36.  

    No. I doubt if I’m any smarter than you. I’ve been reading for weeks. And I’ll continue reading right up to the day of the vote.

  37.  

    So you would agree that a lot of it is open to interpretation, and that it is neither concise nor clear?
    What do you think about the idea that you shouldn’t sign a contract if what it means ain’t exactly clear?

  38.  

    Let me put it to you this way: all law is open to interpretation, including the various constitutional referenda we voted on over the years.

    Just as in a constitutional referendum, you do your conscientious best and then you vote one way or the other. That’s what I’ll be doing.

  39.  

    But in constitutional referenda, the issues are generally very clear.
    Abortion or no abortion.
    Divorce or no divorce.
    They really aren’t clear here.

  40.  

    True. However, I’m just agreeing that it’s open to interpretation, like all law.

  41.  

    Don’t agree with that simplicity JC – at least one abortion referendum mangled the language to the extent that voting No = abortion and voting Yes = No abortion – the politicos had great craic with that one trying to educate the public.

    The complexity with the Lisbon Treaty, and all other EU framework developments is that they cannot be read outside the context of the previous treaties. The default position if Lisbon is a no is the Nice Treaty and we could start another go round of debate on the suitability or not of that one in the context of individual member state’s interests. Perhaps you are referring to Nice, Maastricht etc. when you say you have read referenced documents – good man – that takes a lot of absorption.

  42.  

    I am indeed referring to Nice, Maastricht, also Rome, the Irish Constitution and various documents describing the current make-up and responsibilities of EU bodies like the Council of ministers, the parliament, the Commission, the court of justice and so on.

  43.  

    After reading this, I’m positively voting ……. NO!

  44.  

    Ed: You’d need better reasons than Bock the Robber to vote No, but thanks for the compliment.

  45.  

    im not even going to go into it here, I have been ate alive for bringing up this point over at the blogger, and the hillarious thing I dont care about the treaty, now its just about defending my name against someone who causes an argument just for the sake of it!

  46.  

    Lette: Someone who causes an argument just for the sake of it is called a troll. I usually disconnect them.

  47.  

    Why don’t the no camp know about the UK and Ireland’s opt in? If they try to mess with our corporation tax, or ask us to join a European defence force, or tell us to only use one square of toilet paper at a time, we can say no if we don’t want to, no strings attatched. It is not the same as “vetoing”, which is a power that parliments will get from Lisbon to defend against bad directives that passed the EU.

    God damnit I hate this country.

  48.  

    I voted no to the Lisbon Treaty and I am proud of my decision. I was voting for the disenfranchised peoples of Europe who were not trusted and therefore not allowed by their Governments to exercise their democratic right. We were the only people with the right to vote. If we voted “Yes” we would have forfeited this right for the future. Our constitution would have been compromised. Our democratic right to vote on constitutional matters in relation to Europe would have been gone for good. We would have handed this sovereignty to unaccountable Eurocrats.
    Brussels said that “if one country said “NO” then the Lisbon treaty falls.” They are now saying otherwise. What part of “NO” do they and President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel not understand? This kind of arrogance and total disregard for democracy as well as their own laws sums up why it was so right to vote “NO”.
    Having the right to vote in this referendum was a great democratic privilege that only the Irish People had and which they will never cede to faceless unelected and unaccountable overpaid Eurocrats. My vote was not just on my own behalf but proportionally on behalf of the 500,000000 people of Europe who were disenfranchised in total disregard to their democratic right to vote by their cowardly Governments. My vote – under these circumstances – was the equivalent of voting 1,250000 times on both my behalf and on behalf of all the people of Europe who were not allowed to vote. This was one of the most powerful moments of my life. Is Ireland the last bastion of people power and democracy in Europe?
    Tom Ryan

  49.  

    So it’s a “No” and it turns out that the “do’nt be bullied” rhetoric had some truth in it after all as Europe’s big noises call for Ireland to be disregarded/marginilised. Bock’s pointing to Ganley’s financial arrangements is as pointless as asking where the “Yes” money came from. I voted “No” because I don’t trust our pols. When a photo of them having tea and scones together in Dundrum Shopping Centre appeared, my bullshit detector went into overdrive. The same paper carried an interview with an IBEC bigshot opining that the issue was a “no-brainer” Even more reason to vote “No”. What finally made the decision for me was the following: http://euobserver.com/9/25920.
    This confirms what everybody already knew about abuse of immigrant labour and consequent displacement of native workers. A recipe for xenophobia and social chaos. I tried to find out if the proposed treaty addressed this without any success. I somehow doubt that it did. Ultimately, I think what lost the referendum was the fact that people are pissed off with the Government. They wanted a change at the last General Election but were scared off in the last week of the campaign by Fianna Fail’s “safe pair of hands” rhetoric. Europe is a more nebulous concept and people feel safer giving the politicians a kicking on that issue.

  50.  

    Martin: Just to be absolutely clear, I’m not pointing to Ganley’s financial arrangements.

  51.  

    Ok, maybe I’m just fed up with the “Yes” camp and the media making funding for the opposite side an issue and read the same negative bullshit into what you wrote. I have to say, however, re-reading your piece I still get the same sense from it although I humbly take your point that you didn’t mention Ganley’s financial arrangements. Jaysus you’re getting pedantic in your old age. Fantastic blog by the way…just came across it today.

  52.  

    Martin: That’s fair enough. My point here isn’t a negative one though. I just happen to be deeply disturbed at the thought that the American military and associated industry would have anything whatever to do with influencing a vote on this matter.

    I consider that to be very sinister, and I’d feel the same way if they were pushing for a Yes vote.

  53.  

    Democracy is dead in Europe. It is alive and well in Ireland. Look at the way France and Germany are now trying to marginalize us. The French are total hypocrites as well as bullies on this. Didn’t their population vote no to essentially the same seven hundred pages of what is now essentially uncomfortable toilet paper. The German Administration didn’t have the courage to trust their people to vote. So much for their democracy. They are now proving how right it is to vote no. If they are acting like this now, imagine what they would behave like when they would have us locked into seven hundred pages of unintelligible legal speak drivel. This was democracy in action at its very best and those who criticize this democratic decision of the Irish People the loudest are politicians who claim they are democrats. What a bunch of hypocrites and bad losers.
    How comes the American Constitution and Bill Of Rights are so easy to read and understand and an attempted European Constitution which they don’t even dare to call a constitution is such a pile of crap? The answer is obviously that they don’t want us to understand it. The Lisbon Treaty is dead and gone and good riddance to bad manipulative undemocratic rubbish.
    Regarding Ganley, He or any others of the “NO” campaign had any influence on my personal decision. I was heavily influenced by the “YES” campaign. Their bullshit was nauseating. By the way they are still at it. Hold your noses.
    Tom Ryan

  54.  

    Tom: If you have another look at what I wrote, you’ll notice that I’m speaking for myself, and not for you. I have no idea what influenced you and it wouldn’t be any of my business. This is my personal reaction to the involvement of Libertas, and I’m sure you have no objection to my seeing it this way.

    Do you?

  55.  

    Hi Bock,
    Actually I am in total agreement with you. I am just taking the opportunity to have a go at the Hypocrites of Politicians both native quisling and European.
    You did a great job in telling us about Ganley in better detail than anyone else.
    Respects,
    Tom

  56.  

    Bock: re. your concern about the American military and associated industries….me too. Re. the euobserver link in my original post….can you throw any light on whether the Treaty would have addressed that issue? I’m gonna do some more reading but if you can save me some time I’d be grateful.

  57.  

    Martin: As far as I know, this matter was not involved in the treaty at all, except to the extent that people might have been able to claim better pay under the Charter.

Leave a Reply