Tuesday 22 July 2008

European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?

NDN has now posted a transcript of Declan Ganley’s appearance 17 July 2008. NDN describes itself as a (Democratic) ‘progressive think tank and advocacy organization’, and the transcript called ‘Conversation on the Future of Europe with Declan Ganley’ can be accessed here:


Although Ganley has later floated the idea to launch 400 Libertas candidates in the European elections 2009, this is the latest comprehensive information we have about his ideas for the future of Europe.

Dear reader, I ask you to read and reflect.

Is this a credible outline for a programme aiming to raise 75 million British pounds in campaign contributions, mobilise 400 candidates to vie for support and millions of voters to cast their ballots?

While I am trying to digest the contents, I would be happy to read your comments on how you perceive the message of Ganley and Libertas with a view to the next five year legislative mandate of the European Parliament, starting with the June 2009 elections.

Ralf Grahn

Update 23 July 2008: There is now a video available on the NDN web site with Declan Ganley's presentation: http://www.ndn.org/

Update II, 23 July 2008: There is now a new item on Libertas' web site 'Ganley tells Sarkozy that the Lisbon Treaty is dead: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/308/1/


  1. Well, I'm not convinced that taking this guy seriously will bring any good. Debating with him is pointless, because his potential electors will be appealed by his scaremongering (losing vetoes, commissioners, sovereignty etc), not by the soundness of his ideas.

    I agree with eslaporte that the true aim is nothing less than to make the European Union to fall. Or to become meaningless, which is just the same.
    As financing is concerned, I've no doubt that some people will be interested in funding such a noble deed. After all, there are guys which have payed much more than 75 milions pounds in fines to the European Commission, aren't there?

  2. I've just read Mr. Ganley's intervention.
    First of all, he says that the Constitutional Treaty was undemocratic, without explaining why. You have to take it for granted, "any democrat would have voted no".
    He claim that the treaty of Lisbon (and previously the Cost. Treaty) was the work of "Brussels". What exactly is "Brussels", this dark enemy of mankind? Maybe the Commission? But the Commission hasn't crafted neither treaty. The national governments did it.

    Brussels is also accused of not being accountable and trasparent. How on earth an international organization can be accountable? I'm a federalist, I don't want the EU to be just an international organization, but I've to face that this is the current situation.
    And as far as trasparency is concerned, that is total bullshit, as everything the Eu make is on the internet, including the phone numbers of those evil eurocrats and their minions, swarming the lost city of Brussels.
    As he deals with the unaccountable lot he includes President Sarkozy, one of the few leaders in Europe directly elected by the people.

    Mr. Ganley claims that Euroscepticism is dead, even in the Uk, without offering any evidence of such an amazing statement.
    And his solution? A short costitution with leaders accountable to the people...but, how?
    How if you're so opposed to Article 50 that show how dissenting memebers could leave? How if you just stopped the treaty that would have given the elected Parliament full control over the budget and the appointment of the executive arm of the Eu?

    And, finally, the mention about the last days of Soviet Union and its clueless government...how on earth is similar to today EU?
    Is Europol after Mr Ganley to throw him on a gulag in Sweden?

  3. Igor,

    Thank you for your comments.

    I agree with you that Declan Ganley and Libertas have a credibility problem, because the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty was achieved by arguments which bear little resemblance to the ideas about pan-European democracy and a pan-European political party expressed at the Heritage Foundation and NDN last week.

    These inconsistencies Ganley has done nothing to illuminate or explain. His rhetoric about Brussels elites, corruption and a lack of transparency are partly exaggerations, partly misdirected.

    Intergovernmental cooperation, including treaty reform, is the real nest of lacking transparency, much more than the Commission.

    I understand Ganley's words about Euroskepticism as a thing of the past in the context of what he proposes:

    If the European Union is founded on true representative democracy, most of the mild Euroskeptics would be won over in due time. Some die-hard anti-EU campaigners are obviously too deeply entrenched ever to climb out of their trenches.

    In my view, some of Ganley's comments about launching a pan-European party with the sole message to protest against the Lisbon Treaty are oversimplifications.

    Libertas, or anyone else for that matter, who wants to campaign for a democratic European Union, has to build a constructive and consistent agenda for the future.

    At this moment Libertas falls short of this requirement, but I find Ganley's thoughts interesting enough to merit discussion.

  4. I think many of the doubts echoed by this blog in its recent description of the detail of the Lisbon Treaty over the past months will find some answers in Mr Ganley's presentation.

    I hope some of these will be reflected in the full review for which we have been asked to wait.

  5. "I agree with you that Declan Ganley and Libertas have a credibility problem, because the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty was achieved by arguments which bear little resemblance to the ideas about pan-European democracy and a pan-European political party expressed at the Heritage Foundation and NDN last week."

    You need to make the connection to what the Heritage Foundation advocates and its view, both now and the past. This think tank has held conferences with the title and theme: "Is the European Union in the best interest of the United States."

    Gorden Brown said that the Euroskeptics use the Irish "no" vote as "evidence" against the EU. He also said that a Europe-wide referendum would become crackpot as well as be a referendum on the European Union's existence. We need to take a look at why those that voted "no" voted opposed the Treaty, not why Declan Ganley and Libertas said no.

    Now - if we were attorneys that were going to - say - take Declan Ganley and Libertas to court and prove that they are actually anti-European Union. What facts would we need to gather to prove that these entities are actually anti-EU?!

    Likewise, their side is twisting words and arguments to sound like they are pro-EU....

  6. Martin Cole,

    I have read and re-read Declan Ganley's NDN presentation with great interest, because many of the basic declarations he now makes (minus a number of exaggerations) are, as you say, in line with thoughts expressed on this blog.

    Do you mean that Libertas has promised to present a full review of its future propositions? Are there any specifics you can add to that, such as time and place?

    Or did you mean that this blog should offer a draft 'platform' for a democratic European Union?

  7. ESLaPorte,

    In my view, the NDN presentation by Declan Ganley brought forward a few new basic points about Europe's future, when we compare it to the speech at the Heritage Foundation.

    There have been inconsistencies and exaggerations, and many questions remain unanswered, but it would be unwise to dismiss the beginnings if Libertas is serious about a strong, democratic, legitimate and accountable European Union.

    I repeat my old question: Are the institutional reforms of the Lisbon Treaty worth having without profound democratic reform?

  8. Rome was not built in a day, neither is Libertas or Ganley's views in deeper level. Ganley would be savior for Europe when compared to current elite, which is covered with secrecy and, as we all can see, people have sensed something suspectable with it.

    "I feel something to be wrong, but I can not say what...", this is feeling of many lightly or more interested people.

    There is too much "coincidences" and oddities. Constitution must be short and clear. Other constitutions must be rejected. There is no other true answer.

  9. Mr. Grahn,
    I think that the Constitutional Treaty was a very disappointing document from a federalist point of view: unambitious, unresolving and misgiving. This said, it was a definite improvement to the Treaty of Nice. And so, it was the treaty of Lisbon, as highlighted in so many entries of your blog.

    As far as we got listening Mr. Ganley, we still not know why the Costitutional Treaty was so anti-democratic that any democrat
    would have voted no. We still don't know anything about the better deal for Ireland and for Europe. We don't know why Brussels means unaccountable elites and why instead the Heritage Foundation means the 495 milion citizen of Europe.

    The debate for a democratic EU could have come much more easily with the treaty of Lisbon in force.
    It could have been the topic of the current electoral campaign.

    Is democratic reform more or less likely now without institutional evolution?
    My best regards,
    Igor Guerra

  10. Anonymous,

    You point out the unease many people feel around Europe with an EU they know fairly little about and have little voice on.

    But before we declare Declan Ganley a saviour, much more needs to be known about his aims.

  11. Having heard Declan Ganley in the flesh, I suggest that it is a waste of time to try and analyse what he is saying, no more than Bonde from Denmark, for example. He is a populist and there is probably no rational basis to his beliefs but he can reach a certain element of society. It seems to me unlikely that he would have had much impact in the referendum had not some senior businessmen, and one in particular, joined in the fray on his side.

    He can also gaily stay on both sides of the argument and have a very loose contact with the truth. An example during the campaign was the constant reference to Article 113 and the addition of the reference to fair competition. No matter how often it was pointed out that this Article referred to indirect taxation (VAT etc.), and not direct taxation, he personally, and his website, continued to misrepresent the situation.

    To a more interesting topic. Igor says that he is a federalist. What does this mean? The differing answers in my view explain all the woes of the EU over the past 10years. The EU, or rather the EC, is not a federation and is never destined to become one. It is a unique structure best described as a form of cooperative or delegated federalism. It is the Member States that are responsible for implementing 99% of what the EU decides. This explains why, unlike a federal government, it has 50,000employees for half-a-billion people cf. Article 4.3 of new TEU.

    As I have pointed out on another thread, Member States are free to defend their interests and compete with one another. Indeed, the EC is designed to allow this to happen but within a framework of law, policed by the Commission and subject to review by the ECJ. The other essential element is the Community method, the sole right of initiative of the Commission, the fact that it can only be overruled by the Council on the basis of unanimity and can change its proposal at any time "as long as the Council has not acted" cf. Article 293 TFEU.

    This gives it a weight in the negotiating process equal to that of a large MS. That is what they do not like it and why they support co-decision. If the EP and the Council(both dominated by the larger MS and even more so under Lisbon) agree, they can overrule the Commission at conciliation stage cf. Article 293.1 TFEU which makes this explicit in the Lisbon Treaty while it was only implicit in the TEC.

    On the inter-governmental versus supranational debate, the Community method can only appy to the latter as it is that which makes it supranational i.e. a legislative or legal instrument under an article in the TEC which provides for it.

    The irony is that the founding fathers never - on the evidence - intended the supranational element to come into existence, believing that any commitments bound only Member States and not their citizens. The ECJ (Van Gend and Loos) rightly pointed out the contradiction between the objectives set in the Treaty of Rome and this attitude.

    Therein lies the acorn from which the mighty oak of the EU has grown. There may be a debate about the direction it has taken but lets agree basic definitions first. Where the TEC provides for the Community method, the MS cannot act intergovernmentally, much as they would like to. There cannot be a tendency one way or the other.

  12. Igor Guerra,

    Thank you for your thoughts and your questions.

    I don't have definitive answers to all questions, but I will try to describe my own 'Odyssey' in a few lines.

    I saw the European Convention as a ray of hope. After that I felt that the intergovernmental conference 2004, which led to the Constitutional Treaty, was a disappointment.

    But I accepted the 'Constitution' as the best deal on offer, and the French referendum campaign, which I followed intensely was a real let-down with regard to direct democracy, with causes of rejection out of fantasy land.

    The result in France as well as in the Netherlands was depressing.

    Therefore, I welcomed the IGC 2007 and the Lisbon Treaty as constructive efforts to find a way out of the deadlock, although with a weakened treaty.

    I welcomed the ratifications of the Lisbon Treaty, and taking into account the arguments proposed by the 'no' campaigners in the Irish referendum I would have voted 'yes' if eligible to vote in Ireland.

    As far as I understand, the main reasons for the no voters (and campaigners) were in no way pro-European, on the contrary.

    I also think that referenda are dubious instruments in general, and national referenda extremely unsuited to decide on EU level questions, especially if one electorate can paralyse the rest of the union.

    The crucial point, substantially, was that I thought that the Lisbon Treaty is an improvement on the current Nice Treaty.

    But the more I have studied the question, the more I have come to the conclusion that the national leaders who make up the inner core or elite of the EU, seem to be as hostile to a truly democratic union as they have been since the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community were torpedoed by the French National Assembly in 1954, and when they left the Spinelli draft to cover dust in 1984.

    At the same time, the general population seems to become increasingly hostile to and alienated from the present EU and there are fewer and fewer intellectuals outside the institution insiders ready to participate in any way.

    As I see it, the European project is heading for failure due to this lack of legitimacy.

    As I said, I don't trust the national European leaders to establish the European Union on a democratic basis, if they manage to squeeze the Lisbon Treaty through, in spite of growing popular discontent, although they may offer a few sops along the way.

    This is where we stand today, in my view.

    A short while ago, I proposed that the institutional reforms of the Lisbon Treaty should be accepted as a stop-gap measure, combined with a solemn undertaking by the European leaders to institute real democratic reform.

    They have not hinted at anything of the kind.

    For them it seems to be a question of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, come hell or high water.

    If they refuse to contemplate real democratic reform out of a realisation that political power has to be based on the citizens of the EU, and in spite of growing resistance and disillusionment, I ask if the only possibility is to refuse compliance where possible, in order to open up new avenues through crisis.

    This is the best account I can give you of my itinerary, and why i would like to pose one question:

    Is the Lisbon Treaty more important than democratic EU reform?

  13. Seachtu,

    Thank you for your comment, which just appeared.

    Although you seem to accept the so called double legitimacy of the European Union, I have increasingly come to doubt it as a model for the future, if the European Union wants to succeed and keep its citizens on board.

    I don't know if it is of any help, but you might read my latest reply to Igor Guerra with an attempt to describe my own itinerary.

  14. But this is exactly the problem. Everybody has his own theory and nobody is willing to look at the facts.

    The Lisbon Treaty is a huge improvement on the Constitutional Treaty (CT) as, being an amending treaty, it removes inevitable (and probably terminally destructive) problems of legal certainty and continuity cf. Article IV-438 in the CT on succession and legal continuity. What was "comparable provisions" of the Constitution supposed to mean? cf. Article IV-438-4. (Part IV of the CT was, incidentally, put together by a group of lawyers from the Council, Commission and Parliament as Giscard did not think it necessary to have legal advice. The text he delivered to the IGC would have meant that the institutions disappeared into oblivion as no transitional provisions had been agreed. The Convention was a coven of sorcerer's apprentices and that is the way that history will judge it).

    Another example. The ECB is listed among "The other Union institutions and advisory bodies" Article I-30 in the CT. In the Lisbon Treaty, as appropriate, it becomes an institution of the Union and has full access to the shortened list of legal instruments (5 instead of 15) in Article 288 TFEU which refers to "the institutions shall adopt" etc.

    The Lisbon Treaty is the institutional expression of a political agreement between 27 sovereign and exemplary (almost)democratic governments couched in legal language. That is where any analysis has to start.

    I agree beforehand with any opinion expressed that Europe's leaders are a politically inept bunch of incompetents. But the Community, like a patient elephant, trundles forward despite the attention of a myriad of gadflies, including Ganly.

    The course of action open to Cowen is obvious. Fianna Fail has 40% of the popular vote. He should agree to stage another referendum in March - on the basis of the Danish formula defining a new relationship between Ireland and the EU - and tell his party "back me or I resign". Not @&*$+ likely.

  15. Seachtu,

    Thank you for your comments, including the latest one, showing aspects or details I have not even begun to think about. Your intimate knowledge of certain prodeedings are partially beyond my outsider's view.

    I appreciate your contribution.

    Still, I am worried that the European project is going to run into a wall of resistance or disillusionmet without a pardigm shift to democratic governance.

  16. "I also think that referenda are dubious instruments in general, and national referenda extremely unsuited to decide on EU level questions, especially if one electorate can paralyse the rest of the union".

    My apologies if you have stated it elesewhere on your blog, Ralf .. but would you have supported a pan-European referendum on the treaty?

  17. JO,

    I understand referenda when one country decides on accession to or secession from the European Union, and the vote is a choice for that state alone.

    Tweaking the rules of the 'club' during membership is not cause to promise, demand or arrange a national referendum on the treaty amendment.

    This applies to the Constitutional Treaty (despite its name) and the Lisbon Treaty.

    The number of new EU policy areas was negligible, although there were a number of questions where decision-making was made easier through a shift to the ordinary legislative procedure.

    But if the European Union were to take the qualitative jump to a truly democratic Constitution, this would in my eyes merit a pan-European referendum requiring a double majority of citizens and states, and to enter into force between the approving electorates.

  18. Well said @08:22 today:-

    "But if the European Union were to take the qualitative jump to a truly democratic Constitution, this would in my eyes merit a pan-European referendum requiring a double majority of citizens and states, and to enter into force between the approving electorates."

    I have sensed for some months you have been heading in my direction, welcome to what I view as the essential starting point.

    The danger of such a referendum, anf believe you me this worries euro-sceptics and nationalists far more than so-called europhiles, is that given such a referendum and opportunities in a truly democratic constitution to participate in other acts of direct democracy, à la Suisse, few nations would vote 'NO', most especially not the supposed grudging Brits who have watched their Parliamentary gurantees disappear before their very eyes in the run-up to the recent Treaties.

    In reply to your question of yesterday at 15:47 it is my belief that the proposed 25 page Constitution suggested by Mr Ganley would prove the perfect launch pad for a truly democratic EU. Any input, especially this blogs would be helpful - my preferred starting point has up to now been the Swiss model with its in-built protections for minority language groups and cantons. What better model could we wish?

    Your question at 15:57:

    "Are the institutional reforms of the Lisbon Treaty worth having without profound democratic reform?"


  19. Martin Cole,

    Thank you for your supportive comments on various key issues. Perhaps I will have to study the Swiss constitutional system at some point.

  20. Martin Cole said:"In reply to your question of yesterday at 15:47 it is my belief that the proposed 25 page Constitution suggested by Mr Ganley would prove the perfect launch pad for a truly democratic EU."

    Clearly it would be nice to have such a treaty, but considering the complexity of the Europe it is difficult for me to imagine how that should be possible. I think as soon as we start to include opt outs for this or that country (and why should they not have some opt outs?) the document might become much larger.

    Thats why I found the statements by Declan Ganley so arrogant. He makes no concrete proposal at all but demands to get a 25 page documents delivered, which clearly will have to take into account the concerns of every single country (he has also stated that he is in favor of liberum veto) and he wants this magical treaty from the very elites he attacks as undemocratic!

  21. RZ,

    The situation could be different with a Constitution approved by a pan-European referendum.

    The negative electorates would opt out of the (new) European altogether.

    But I agree with you that Libertas could well present a draft Constitution for all to read and understand.

  22. My central thesis is that the European Community was never, by its very nature, intended to be a federation and its development to date does not allow it to become one.

    The error of Europe's politicians was to mislead the European public in the matter. (I cannot engage with the views of Mr. Ganley as they provide no basis for sensible discussion. The idea of asking the governments of 27 member states to negotiate a 25 page "constitution" - presumably federal - because he thinks this would meet his definition of the so-called "democratic deficit" is so off the wall, words fail me).

    Martin Cole in his contributions rightly identifies the disenchantment of the public with the European project and this is because it has been oversold to them against the background of an increase from 15 to 27 almost overnight. Is it any surprise that they are disenchanted!

    The democratic deficit lies partly in the inability of governments to explain to their citizens how the system actually works. I have outlined in my previous posts some of the basic building blocks. Implicit in them is the idea, underpinning all democratic systems (except, it seems in countries as disparate as France and Russia: I jest) of checks and balances. The involvement of the EP adds to these but slows down decision-making. What is at issue is relations between states which are resolved in the Council under the Community method. This explains why the co-decision procedure is now often largely ignored and deals are done at first or second reading. (The so-called "fast-track procedure". Why did the EU invent the co-decision procedure if it has to invest another mechanism to circumvent it?).

    Those arguing that there is a democratic deficit are, by implication, questioning the democratic process in their own countries. Their Ministers, democratically elected, and mandated by their parliaments, negotiate with their colleagues in a framework decided by the rule of law. As Churchill said, "jaw, jaw is better than war, war".

    The democratic deficit has been most accurately described as "the inability of national parliaments to control their ministers in the Council". This is the corollary of the leap of faith involved in allowing decisions to be taken by QMV. No minister can negotiate if he or she has instructions to come back with 100% of the national position. If anyone doubts the truth of this, simply consider the current WTO negotiations which are subject to the rules of "consensus". Or, to take a phrase popularised by the interminable Northern Ireland peace process, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". The predictable result is usually nothing.

    But, to take another phrase from the NI peace process, lets try and "move the process forward". The first step is for politicians to recognise what they are involved in and cease claiming credit for decisions that suit and blaming some mythical "Brussels" for those that do not.

    I fear, however, that the benign empire, to use the description of President Barosso, may be doomed to failure as the "provinces" have lost sight of what made Rome (Brussels) great. Those unruly Celts!.

  23. Sorry. Previous post from Seachtu.

  24. Thank you Mr. Grahn for your answer, your insights and for exposing your "Odissey".

    I agree with you that our "Elector Princes" seem to be blind to the necessity of democracy at the European level.
    I share your opinion that the case for no in Ireland was very little pro-european and also out of fantasy land.

    But the demise of this shy treaty will not bring democracy, only confusion, despair and an unworkable mess. Spinelli called for the rejection of the Single European Act: which wouldn't have brought in his Constitution, while blocking cooperation and assent procedures (and the single market).

    "Is the Lisbon Treaty more important than democratic EU reform?"
    No, but the chance of the latter will not increase with the demise of the former.
    Best Regards,
    Igor Guerra

  25. The Italian Senate just approved the
    (bill authorising the) ratification of the treaty of Lisbon. The lower house will almost certainly approve during next week.

  26. Seachtu,

    Your questions are both essential and difficult as they touch upon the very nature of the European project.

    In my view, there have always been actors who have seen a federal future for Europe as the ultimate goal, obliquely referred to as 'ever closer union'.

    The OCDE (later OECD) and the Council of Europe became traditional intergovernmental organisations.

    Their obvious limitations led to the search for more effective structures.

    The European Coal and Steel Community had a limited scope, but a fairly strong supranational structure, bringing a new element into the world of international treaty based organisations, but limited by what was achievable under the unanimity rule.

    Five out of six countries gave final approval to the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community, which would have constituted a proto-federation at least.

    The EEC and Euratom three years later signified a re-launch on the basis of what was achievable between all six; more than mere intergovernmental cooperation, with the Commission and the Court of Justice as supranational institutions and the Assembly as a modest beginning.

    I agree that many of the national European leaders have joined these organisations, including the European Union, with the thought that they surrender only a tolerable amount of power.

    But narrowing the scope of the democratic deficit to mean only the scrutiny of now 27 separate ministers by 27 distinct parliaments is, in my view, too limited.

    An urn in 27 shards is not a whole vessel.

    Decisions and scrutiny have to take place at the right (same) level if we want a working, accountable and legitimate system.

    Only such a 'simple' system is, in the end, comprehensible for the citizens.

    The failure to 'explain' the workings of the EU are not, in the end, failures of communication or PR, but structural faults.

    The European Union has to become, not only understandable, but legitimate in the eyes of its citizens.

    The only saisfactory outcome is therefore a democratic system, where the EU citizens decide directly on their representatives and the general course of government.

    Incremental improvements are not enough to legitimise the European Union in the eyes of its citizens.

    Therefore, the Lisbon Treaty and its ratification processes are, despite the improvements, a cynical exercise of representative power, by national elites unwilling to disband their cosy cartel.

    Irrespective of if the Lisbon exercise succeeds or not, I see the European project as heading towards failure by disregarding both public opinion and citizens' inherent rights.

  27. Igor Guerra,

    You pinpoint the dilemma. When is it right to accept incremental improvements, or a few sops, and when is the time to try to force the hand of the governing national elites?

    Your comparison with the Single European Act is a good argument, but do you really think that our national leaders are going to introduce real democratic reform once they have the Lisbon Treaty in the bag?

  28. Igor,

    Yes, I followed part of the debate and vote on the Senate's web TV.

  29. Ralf. I part company entirely with your analysis. To every proverb, there is a counter: in this instance, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

    Your odyssey is not yet over.

    The dual supra-national mandate emerged via the ECJ. The "ever closer union" came later. As in relation to this, and all my other points, I have given associated references to support my view.

    The European electorate is suffering under a misapprhension which their leaders have helped create and from the consequences of which they are now trying to escape (definition of competences etc.)

    Still another reference. The Single Market was establsihed on the basis of QMV and consultation only of the European Parliament. This could never have been achieved under co-decision (ordinary legislative procedure) as the years' long debate on the Services Directive demonstrates. Indeed, it could be argued that this omnibus directive put back the process and the only thing keeping the internal market alive in this sector is interpretation by the ECJ of earlier directives, notably the posted workers directive (Waxholm case).

    The real irony was that it was the UK - hoping to see progress in the financial services sector - that pushed for inclusion of the internal market under co-decision at Maastricht. One of many mis-steps by the UK.

  30. Anonymous,

    As far as I know, 'ever closer union' heads the preamble of the original Treaty of Rome (EEC) 1957. I would hardly call it a novelty.

    In politics we have to make a difference between structures or processes and outcomes.

    In exchange for prospective security and prosperity, we have to take into account that not all decisions go our way.

  31. Cilian Doyle, Tuam19 June 2011 at 00:08

    Mr Ganley is an attention-seeking fantasist, desperate to gain acceptance as Irish by the Irish people, most of whom appear to see him as an English owner of a country estate. Mr Ganley will probably hitch his star to some other campaign in the future to highlight how Oirish he really is. We won't have seen the last of him, and though his preaching can be tedious, he is entertainment value with his unconcealed need for acceptance.


Due deluge of spam comments no more comments are accepted.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.