Do you remember the Libertas ‘no’ campaign spearheaded by Declan Ganley? Can you still recall the main reasons they put forward to vote ‘no’ on the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum?
Here is their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ (with, in my view, distortive and manipulative reasons added):
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
Incidentally, the latest on Libertas’ web site is still their thank you note from 17 June 2008. The eight reasons are accessible here:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/293/139/
***
Compare this with Declan Ganley’s appearance at the US Heritage Foundation, where he is introduced as a modern-day freedom fighter.
Yes, the Heritage Foundation, where the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom has been on a long crusade to drive a wedge between the US administration and its European allies.
What did Declan Ganley tell his hosts on 15 July 2008? Hardly anything to please his anti-European hostess:
Ireland and he are no Eurosceptics, but pro-European.
We need a strong and prosperous Europe.
The fundamental point of the ‘no’ campaign was democracy.
The European leaders have to offer Europe’s citizens democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The have to sell the vision of a democratic Europe to the people in order to succeed with the people.
Europe needs a 20 to 25 page Constitution, which can be read and understood by a 15 year old.
The Constitution has to be approved by the people.
If not, the politicians have to go back to the drawing-board.
A second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty would result in a bigger ‘no’.
You can look up the hour long event on the Heritage Foundation’s web site:
http://www.heritage.org/
***
Which Declan Ganley are we supposed to believe? The one spreading nationalistic fears before the referendum? The apostle of European level democracy and a strong Europe after the plebiscite?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
Let me append some links to your post which make it easier to find the event:
ReplyDeleteHere are the archives for events, the event in question was on July 15th.
Here a links to an mp3 stream.
Yes, they may be planning further anti-European actions. One of the things the cons are good at is the manipulation of language, labels and the meanings of words.
ReplyDeleteFor example, look at what they have done to the word "democracy." Then, look at the the twisting of the concept of the acceptable democratic practice (ratification of a treaty through parliamentary process) and twisted it to be "undemocratic."
We must take a look at who these people are, their ideology, and their past actions, including in American and transatlantic politics and relations. There Heritage Foundation is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and American conservatives are opposed to the European Union as acting independent from especially America and NATO.
I recently published a paper on the American opposition to the Lisbon Treaty America, the Lisbon Treaty and Europe's place in the world." This paper is endnoted, has videos, and has an extensive suggested reading list for further background.
I also suspect that they will attempt to again manipulate language, and rehashing old Cold War images and labels is what they like to do. This could include attacking Europeanists and European federalists as "communists" and more use of the "anti-American" label.
We must organize pro-Europe forces, especially young European Federalists and others interested in preserving and enhancing the European project...
Given that 23 Member States have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, it could actually be Ireland that is screwed in the end. But these guardians of the American order in Europe simply don't care about Ireland's well being - only that of their Neoconservative Uncle Sam.
RZ,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind service to readers.
You have to admit that it was a remarkable performance, especially given the setting.
Incidentally, Declan Ganley is going to appear at a NDN Washington lunch event in a little more than an hour (if I got the time right).
Eslaporte,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Perhaps you should take a look at the video and at the NDN event starting in an hour.
Was Sally McNamara the one who introduced Ganley at HF?
ReplyDeleteYou should read her papers on the Lisbon treaty, especially the recommendations, and watch the interview she gave to CNN a year ago after the Reform Treaty was crafted...
Oh, I see that McNamara did host the event...what a shock!
ReplyDeleteHere's direct links to Sally McNamara's papers on the Lisbon Treaty:
The EU Reform Treaty: A Threat to the Transatlantic Alliance
The EU Reform Treaty: Why Washington Should Be Concerned
I did not yet have the time, to completely listen to it, but I will do it some when tonight. However, so far I agree, Declan Ganley has been very interesting things to say and he sounds reasonable and moderate . This contrasts very strongly with the infantile hyperbole used in the introduction by Sally McNamara.
ReplyDeleteI have now listened to the whole talk of Declan Gangley and I must say that it was strong on rhetoric and weak on specifics. He used again and again the words "democracy" and "accountability" but without specifying what type of institutional reforms he wants to see to make this happen. He used this words not in a specific context but more like a marketing professional who know these words poll well with the public and speak to fears about the European Political project.
ReplyDeleteI also found his implied assumption that Ireland has a veto right about all decisions taken by nations in Europe to unite certain aspects of their political decision making process a little arrogant. The union can not be everything to everyone and this is especially true if we want to write a short and clear constitution for the EU. At some point each nation will have to decide if it want to be part of the political project or not, liberum veto is no option.
The central bankers behind One World Government are a bunch of megalomaniacs. If they are truly doing this to attain world peace, why don't they let the Dalai Lama run the show behind the curtain?
ReplyDeleteI am sure that in the end, all of this will be but a footnote in history. You could not stop the development of the European project now. At twenty seven countries and 500 million strong, it is just inconceivable. I agree that if Ireland does not get it's act together next year and ratify, then we could be the only net losers on this one.
ReplyDeleteRZ,
ReplyDeleteBecause the Irish campaign was totally focused on different internal Irish concerns and voter groups, I listened very attentively to Ganley's definitions of democracy.
In my view he clearly came out for EU level democracy, legitimacy and accountability. A crucial difference.
Some of his Brussels-bashing was, to my mind, over the top. Some was inconsistent:
If you want a democratic European Union, it implies that you want accountable government. How do you sqare it with national Commissioners (Ministers)?
But, Ganley clearly spoke for a strong Europe outside the area of free trade (cherished by the so called Eurosceptics who are anti-Europeans).
Still, the most remarkable thing is the discrepancy between the past campaign and the present message.
If the new message is to be believed, it has to be built into a consistent whole.
An addition: The venue did not prevent Ganley from clearly distancing himself from Eurosceptics and anti-Europeans such as Sally McNamara. Contrary to you, I would highly recommend listening to her introduction, to notice the contrast.
In my view, there are wrong reasons to resist the Lisbon Treaty and there are right ones. Ganley, incredibly, has first propagated the wrong ones and now the right ones.
The Glass Half Full Man,
ReplyDeleteSee my latest reply to blogger friend RZ on reasons right and wrong.
What do you think?
Ah, now I see. This guy is such a die-hard federalist, that he cannot stand functionalist half-measures.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't believe a single word that he said.
@Igor: Lets wait and see. If he does not come up with a more concrete counter proposal to the Lisbon Treaty you might be right.
ReplyDeleteGrahnlaw's Quote: "But, Ganley clearly spoke for a strong Europe outside the area of free trade (cherished by the so called Eurosceptics who are anti-Europeans).
ReplyDeleteStill, the most remarkable thing is the discrepancy between the past campaign and the present message.
If the new message is to be believed, it has to be built into a consistent whole.
An addition: The venue did not prevent Ganley from clearly distancing himself from Eurosceptics and anti-Europeans such as Sally McNamara. Contrary to you, I would highly recommend listening to her introduction, to notice the contrast."
Friend, this is NOT about "democratic deficit" or "accountability," but to defeat the Lisbon Treaty and only to defeat the Lisbon Treaty. Most people in Ireland did not vote "No" because of "democracy" and "accountability," but because they did not understand the Treaty in the first place.
There is here, also, a discrepancy between why actual Irish voters voted "no" and the demands of Declan Ganley...Everyone please think about it...
Igor, RZ, Eslaporte,
ReplyDeleteWell, you see why I called him the incredible Mr Ganley.
First, we had the Irish 'no' campaign with its reasons (and, quite correctly, the grounds for rejection among the voters). In my view, not one of the reasons for rejection was pro-European.
Then, we have the 'new' Mr Ganley appearing as a pro-European speaking for a strong and democratic EU.
You are more or less right, all of you: It is hard, to say the least, to know what to believe.
I am going to try to find information about Declan Ganley's appearance at NDN (a Democratic forum) and future events.
"For example, look at what they have done to the word "democracy." Then, look at the the twisting of the concept of the acceptable democratic practice (ratification of a treaty through parliamentary process) and twisted it to be "undemocratic."
ReplyDeleteOh Dear! Democracy from the people! The concept is that government is by the people for the people. It is not twisting the logic of democracy for the people to be allowed a voice in the style and the power of their own government.
A treaty is an agreement between sovereign states as such sovereignty remains at all times with the states. An EU treaty is substantially different from a normal international treaty because it passes power to a third party - the EU – and by so doing it changes the power of the nation state. Hence it would democratic to allow the people to give their consent to for such transfers of power, and anti-democratic to transfer powers to the EU without the clear consent of the people. If anything it is the EU which is twisting the logic of democracy by claiming to represent the citizens of the EU but not allowing the people a voice.
Kenadams,
ReplyDeleteThere is a notable difference between the concepts of national and EU level democracy.
In my view it is artificial to try to legitimize EU level decisions by national level decisions.
Each level should be legitimized as a whole.
Thus, the concepts people, electorate, voters, demos etc. have different meanings depending on the context. Just as between local, regional and national polities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I am going to try to find information about Declan Ganley's appearance at NDN (a Democratic forum) and future events."
ReplyDeleteWe should also try to find out just what "rewards" Rivada Communications/Networks gets in terms of contracts with the DoD and the like. I tried looking up their standing in various states and their articles of incorporation, as it's not clear what they really do.(?) A month ago, I was able to locate a notice of this company's incorporation in Delaware, a popular place for companies to incorporate. There also was a Rivada Communications in Colorado that appear to handle IT security for companies.
As we have seen from the last episodes with the constitutional treaty, the average voter is not capable of understanding a 200+ page treaty. "The People" are not united in terms of wants and desires and have differences depending upon national and local contexts.
As we have seen in the past, the electorate in France and Holland voted "no" based on things that have nothing to do with the treaty and used the referendum as a vote on the EU itself.
What I meant above is how the "no" camp and the Euroskeptics and American cons have twisted the word "democracy" to mean only referendums are acceptable.
If this was really about "democracy" then why not encourage more European voters to vote in European parliamentary elections?
It could be a safe bet that some that voted "no" in Ireland also do not vote in European parliamentary elections...
Again, it is acceptable for Western democratic practice for a parliament or the Senate to ratify a treaty. I tend to side with Gordon Brown in that referendums on European treaties would become crackpot (and already has) and a referendum on the European project, which is what those who are anti-Europe actually want...would be (ab)used to distroy the European project.
Again, this is about defeating the Lisbon Treaty, and perhaps an attempt to bring down the entire European project. I suspect (and you should too) that there is now some "repackaging" of the message going on between HF and the Irish "no" crusader Declan Ganley. No doubt it will be couched as a "freedom crusade against Brussels."
We need to understand the perspective these people are coming from. For example, what does "freedom" and "democracy" mean to them? Referendums? "Freedom" as Anglo-American, laissez-faire economics?" This is probably not about "democracy in the EU" that is constructive,(by saying this I am NOT saying that the "democratic deficit" is a perceived problem), but destructive and to continue the NATO status quo, defending "American interests," or even to destroy the European Union itself.
Keep the connections between HF and HF's message ("Is the EU in "America's interests?"), Declan Ganley, Libertas and the Irish "no" campaign in mind, now and in the future!
Check out this other American con think tank that Declan Ganley is involved in - the . It looks like typical neocon fare of promoting the "American strategic advantage."
ReplyDeleteThe Foreign Policy Research Institute
Take a look at their The Foreign Policy Research Institute">at their Author's list and see the name of Seth Jones, one of the authors I use in my essay, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (2007).
Eslaporte,
ReplyDeleteSadly, I didn't find additional information about Declan Ganley's NDN appearance when I tried earlier today.
In spite of US and British fringes bent on making the 'special relationship' into one excluding the rest of Europe, it is interesting that the US administration seems to have realised the importance of the transatlantic link with an EU potentially capable of defence commitments, as well as the French reintegration into NATO's military structures.
Well I listened to people like Declan Ganley on radio and tv during the campaign talk about accountability and democracy. Obviously when a thing gets as big as the EU has there are going to be issues about accountability. But to me, he speaks all the time in rhetoric and non specific terms.
ReplyDeleteIf he had an objection to the Euro or the policies of the ECB, I could understand it but to me it is all a puff of smoke.
The Glass Half Full Man,
ReplyDeleteIt may appear as a 'puff of smoke', but if it has had a decisive impact on the Irish referendum result, if the message sounds almost totally different one month after on the other shore of the Atlantic and if this movement is preparing to field candidates in the coming European elections, it needs to be scrutinised and the contradictions highlighted in order to ascertain what the real message is.
Libertas owes both the Irish and the rest of EU citizens much better explanations of its goals than it has come up with to date.