The EU election thread

[Meneldil]

Since many orgahs are real eurotrashs, I thought it could be handy to have a topic to discuss the results of the European Elections.

So, as Europe is once again watching the rise of greed, hatred, racism, fascism and extremism, as civilization is once again about to collapse, let's have a look at the very last beacon of hope: France.

Here are the (not-yet-but-almost-final) results:
UMP (EPP) : 30
Parti Socialiste (PES) : 14
Europe Ecologie (European Green Party) : 14
Modem (EDP) : 6
Front de Gauche (European Left) : 4
Libertas (Libertas) : 1
Front National (Non-inscrits) : 3

So basically,
- Socialists got trampled. 14 seats, after two years of Sarkozy-delirium ? What a shame. The party desperatly needs a Léon Blum, a Mendès-France.
- Greens did unsurprinsingly well. Daniel Cohn-Bendit is kind of a hero in France. His charisma partly explains the Greens' success.
- The majority won, by a huge margin. More seats than both the greens and the socialists together. Almost unbelievable, given how much of a twit Sarkozy is.
- The Centre failed, badly. Quite a shame, given that Europe was created by centrism in the first place. Quite a hit for Bayrou, who appeared as a serious contender during the presidential elections.
- Both the far-right and the far-left (if we don't count the greens as far-left, which is arguable) got hammered. 4 seats for Libertas and the Front National, yet they keep claiming that people rejected the EU today. What a bunch of utter morons. The far-left isn't doing much better, partly because the 2 main parties didn't want to side together.

Now, I haven't had time to look at all results, but according to another forum, the anti-EU (far-)right did very well in many countries. Quite a shame. I'm not a complete found of the EU as it stands now, but I can't understand how people would vote for greedy angry nationalist wannabes.

[Tribesman]

Still counting over here .
FF looks like it took a real hammering and so did the greens .
Only one seat announced so far and thats FG .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Libertas

Libertas, far-right? You evidently have a definition of far-right that neutrality has not entered into.

[InsaneApache]

As a wise man once said...


“it is our job to choose between the liars”.

Indeed.

[Meneldil]

Of the 2 french parties that are members of Libertas, the first one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_France) is by all definitions, far-right. It's the traditional party of religious nutjobs and monarchists who still can't stand the Republic. The second one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting,_Fishing,_Nature,_Tradition) is much more liberal on a social issues, but still catters to a traditionally quite conservative (yet not reactionary) population (farmers, hunters). Whether Libertas as a whole is far-right or not is another question.

The MPF, Libertas Poland and Ireland are quite far-right IMHO, but most other members are much more moderate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Of the 2 french parties that are members of Libertas, the first one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_France) is by all definitions, far-right. It's the traditional party of religious nutjobs and monarchists who still can't stand the Republic.

Being religious or monarchist is far-right? Is anything that isn't centre-right far-right? They are right-wing to be sure, but if they are far-right then the term far-right is being thrown around far too easily.

[Tribesman]

Mars is right . Ganley might be a fruitcake , but he isn't far right.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You can see the German results coming in here. (http://www.welt.de/politik/europawahl/article3864593/Die-Europawahl-2009.html)

[CountArach]

The Greens vote is up right across Europe at the expense of the Socialists. I wonder if we are seeing a generational movement towards a new moderate-left with an environmentalist bent amongst members of the left. More on that here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/march-of-greens-final-voting-today-and.html):

Particularly among the young, green social democracy has become a new leftward movement, fueled in part by frustration with the mainstream system, and the recognition that environment damage, particularly climate change and natural resource depletion are the burden of the younger generation.
It will be interesting to see if this sort of thing can happen in national elections as well (Something similar is happening down here).

Oh, and how could I not mention that the Pirate Party have won a seat?

[TB666]

In Sweden the Pirate Party made a big hit getting 7.1% of the votes which gives them atleast 1 seat.
And if you wonder what their policies are well it's simple, legalise downloading.

[JAG]

We voted in the Fascist BNP in two areas - 2 seats for the BNP a shameful day.

:( bad times.

[Fragony]

Socialists took a beating here as well. The major winner is Wilders' Freedom Party, from 0 to 4 seats that's pretty spectacular.

[Furunculus]

The Greens vote is up right across Europe at the expense of the Socialists. I wonder if we are seeing a generational movement towards a new moderate-left with an environmentalist bent amongst members of the left. More on that here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/march-of-greens-final-voting-today-and.html):


an opinion i have long harboured.

[Furunculus]

We voted in the Fascist BNP in two areas - 2 seats for the BNP a shameful day.

:( bad times.

It is what will inevitably happen if mainstream labour won't deal with 'uncomfortable' questions like immigration and assimilation considered important by its core vote.

In the same way that the Cons bleed votes to UKIP because of dissatisfaction among its core vote resulting from the parties wishy-washy stance on europe.

[Meneldil]

Being religious or monarchist is far-right? Is anything that isn't centre-right far-right? They are right-wing to be sure, but if they are far-right then the term far-right is being thrown around far too easily.

Being reactionary is as far as I know, being far-right.
Now, monarchists and religious nut-jobs might be not considered pretty reactionary in some countries (and I feel sorry for those countries), but in France, where 80% of the population don't give a crap about religion, support abortion, and where the Republic is the basis of all our political and social culture (and furthermore, where every movement or party that opposed the republic happilly and hastily worked for the nazis in 1940), yeah, they are pretty far-right, like *FAR*-right.
I guess that might be hard to understand for someone who has little knowledge of the french political life and history, but heh :-/ I also guess some people could say I'm biased when calling some elements of the majority far-right, but monarchists and people who want masses in latin ? Come one.

The Front National, the mainstream far-right party, also rejects the republic, but is more vocal about immigration and capitalism. The Movement for France is on the other hand, more vocal about religious values than about immigration (though it often complains about the evil jewish religion and islam being imposed on good, faithful catholics).

End of clarification.

I for one, salute the victory of the pirate party. I cannot stand these singers and other so-called artists (lol) who keep complaining when people download their work. If they weren't trying to rip people off, illegal downloading wouldn't be as widespread. Sarkozy and his government deserve to be kicked out of power only for the laws they're trying to pass regarding downloading.

CA, I would agree there, except that I personnally think the appeal to green parties is fueled not in part, but mainly or entirely by frustration with the mainstream system. Most people don't really care about the ecological aspect. Thing is, traditional left (socialists) failed repeatedly, and far-left (communists, trosksysts) is not as attractive as it used to do, because its leaders don't offer anything but complainings.
I find it kind of saddening though. I can't see a french political spectrum without a living Socialist Party (the party was created in 1905). We already lost our Radical Party, and I don't think the Greens will be as attached to our republican values than the socialists or the radicals were.

[Beskar]

In Sweden the Pirate Party made a big hit getting 7.1% of the votes which gives them atleast 1 seat.
And if you wonder what their policies are well it's simple, legalise downloading.

ROFL!

That is pretty awesome.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is what will inevitably happen if mainstream labour won't deal with 'uncomfortable' questions like immigration and assimilation considered important by its core vote.

In the same way that the Cons bleed votes to UKIP because of dissatisfaction among its core vote resulting from the parties wishy-washy stance on europe.

Harsh but true. It's particually disturbing that while Conservative voters go to the (somewhat) lunatic fringe of the anti-EU, Labour voters go to the Neo-Nazis.

[InsaneApache]

I was talking with the guy who owns the local corner shop the other night. He was banging on about all these foriegners coming over here etc, etc. I had to smile. He's a second generation Indian/British Sikh.

Just goes to show you can't be too careful. :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

- Greens did unsurprinsingly well. Daniel Cohn-Bendit is kind of a hero in France. His charisma partly explains the Greens' success. Meh, 'red' Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a paedophile. :smash:



- The Centre failed, badly. Quite a shame, given that Europe was created by centrism in the first place. Quite a hit for Bayrou, who appeared as a serious contender during the presidential elections. Bayrou es trop minable.

Shame that Bayrou lost it. He should really become the centrist alternative to the right. There is no other. The PS is history, they've got only 246 members left, who spend their time fighting one another for the leadership of the party. To the left of the PS, the abyss.


- The majority won, by a huge margin. More seats than both the greens and the socialists together. Almost unbelievable, given how much of a twit Sarkozy is.I rather like Sarkozy. For all his faults and insufferable character, I can't help agreeing with him often. And he was an excellent EU chairman last year.



~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~


Feudalism, theocracy, anti-Semitism, monarchism, inequality - one man's far-right reactionarism is another one's moderate, traditional, mainstream conservative.

I too consider the far-right to consist of more than just fascism. The far-left isn't limited to communists either. There are far-left fruitcakes of other ideological origin. Both flanks have their share of extreme parties.

Not all concepts translate well from country to country. For example, the concept of hereditary leadership has strangely managed to sell itself to some electorates elsewhere in Europe as centrist democratic. That is, not being able to elect one's leader is considered the summit of democracy.
The result of historical compromise, lack of revolution, or of foreign restauration. Resulting in such wonders as, for example, socialist monarchists in Denmark. Whereas monarchism in France has remained reactionary, far-right.

[Furunculus]

I was talking with the guy who owns the local corner shop the other night. He was banging on about all these foriegners coming over here etc, etc. I had to smile. He's a second generation Indian/British Sikh.

Just goes to show you can't be too careful. :)

he sounds thoroughly british to me.

[Tribesman]

Harsh but true. It's particually disturbing that while Conservative voters go to the (somewhat) lunatic fringe of the anti-EU, Labour voters go to the Neo-Nazis.
Not really . If Labours votes had gone to the Neo-Nazis then the BNP would have got a landslide , after all Labours vote has absolutely crashed since the last election.
Strange then that the BNPs votes were also down on the last election if they were getting labours votes.

[Beskar]

-post removed and made into its own thread -

[Furunculus]

Hannan: ten conclusions to be drawn from the election results -
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/06/08/2009_european_elections_ten_conclusions

[Kralizec]

The Dutch results (wich were publicized, against the rules, before most of the other countries voted)

A lot of parties lost, but it should be noted that the Dutch only get 25 seats now instead of the 27 they got last election.

CDA (christian democrats) from 7 to 5
Currently leading the governing coalition in the Netherlands. Some loss was expected but they're super-duper glad that they're still bigger than Wilders' party.

PvdA[/b* (Labour, social democrats) from 7 to 3
Also part of the governing coalition, but these guys lost enormously.

[B]
VVD (free market liberal) from 4 to 3
They've lost, but the loss wasn't anywhere near as bad as projected so they're understandably relieved.

Groenlinks (Green Left) from 2 to 3
Nowadays they're one of the few parties who's outspokenly pro-EU without strings attached.

Socialistische Partij (crypto-commies) from 2 to still 2
They already had two in the last EU election but they were counting on a lot more this time since they did so well in national elections. They were mostly counting on anti-EU sentiment but apparently it didn't work for them.

ChristenUnie / SGP (religious conservatives; the ChristenUnie is currently part of the governing coalition) from 2 to still 2
Already had two in the last EU election. They're known as being somewhat Eurosceptic but I don't really know much about their stances - seeing as how I wouldn't vote for them anyway.

D66 (liberals, somewhat to the left of the VVD but part of the same fraction in the EU parliament) from 1 to 3
They're quite happy about this result. A few years ago this party was in a massive crisis and some even thought that the party as such wouldn't survive, but currently they're doing well in almost every poll.

PVV (party for freedom, Geert Wilders) first timeer, now at 4
They didn't participate in the last EU elections and now all the sudden became the second largest party. They're particulary happy that they're bigger than both the PvdA (labour) and the VVD (free market liberals)
It was uncertain wether they'd do well at first because most of Wilders' fans hate the EU and might not bother to vote.
Wilders thinks that the results taken together are a massive sign of dissapointment in the governing coalition and says that they ought to step down.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Fun stuff for the francophones: http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/Daniel+Cohn-Bendit+bayrou/video/x9hxer_debat-entre-francois-bayrou-et-dani_news

Cohn-Bendit and Bayrou exchanging insults. Go Bayrou! You tell that paedophile! :sweatdrop:



~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~


Regarding the far-rightness of Libertas.

Libertas, it appears, is both a political party in its own right. A semi-normal one. And a common list whereby national parties can brand themselves for this election with the Libertas identity. In France, two far-right parties ran in this election under the Libertas name.

Parties affiliated in this manner range from greens to fascists. :dizzy2:

The one thing they need too have in common is distrust of the EU.

What this is, is a broad alliance of communist and fascist clowns whose only common interest is that they acuse the EU of being communist or fascist. Presumably, the latter will say it is the first, and the former that it is the latter.

[Ronin]

Over here in Portugal the best analysis done of the election results was done by a comedian last night, and he was terrifically accurate.

According to him he was happy to see that all the parties had won...there where no loosers...

-The Social Democrats won because they came in first
-The Socialists won because despite being the governing party they endured the "normal protest vote for such a situation" with ok results.
-The "Left Block" won because they got more votes than the communists...becoming the third political party.
-The Communists won because....well they always think they have won.
-The Popular Party (right wing christians) claimed a victory over the polling companies, because the polling gave them 3% and they had 8,5%...so there! :P

ahhh elections in Portugal....no body loses...everyone goes home happy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Now, monarchists and religious nut-jobs might be not considered pretty reactionary in some countries (and I feel sorry for those countries), but in France, where 80% of the population don't give a crap about religion, support abortion, and where the Republic is the basis of all our political and social culture (and furthermore, where every movement or party that opposed the republic happilly and hastily worked for the nazis in 1940), yeah, they are pretty far-right, like *FAR*-right.

Every religious "nut-job" is far-right? The Christian Left wants a word with you.
Monarchists are far-right? I think the collective monarchists here at the .Org want a word with you (as well as monarchists in European countries who tend to support a fairly wide variety of parties).

Basically, with those two definitions, you're claiming everyone but the left-wing to far-left is far-right. Your definitions (France or no France) are not neutral or sensible.


I guess that might be hard to understand for someone who has little knowledge of the french political life and history, but heh :-/

Unnecessary personal attack, especially considering you have no idea what I know or don't know about France...



I also guess some people could say I'm biased when calling some elements of the majority far-right, but monarchists and people who want masses in latin ? Come one.

You don't go to Church. Who cares if the mass is in Latin or not? Wanting a Latin mass doesn't make you a far-right extremist (unless you're looking at it from a far-left perspective). Monarchism, far-right? Give me a break.


The Front National, the mainstream far-right party, also rejects the republic, but is more vocal about immigration and capitalism. The Movement for France is on the other hand, more vocal about religious values than about immigration (though it often complains about the evil jewish religion and islam being imposed on good, faithful catholics).

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Movement for France and the Front National are not the same thing.


Feudalism, theocracy, anti-Semitism, monarchism, inequality - one man's far-right reactionarism is another one's moderate, traditional, mainstream conservative.

1) Feudalism isn't inherently far-right in my opinion (nor is it a good thing)
2) Theocracy is also not inherently far-right or even right-wing
3) Anti-Semitism is certainly not confined to the right or, these days, even most common there.
4) Monarchism is not far-right.
5) Inequality is not either.

We're looking at it from two different perspectives, perhaps, but some of the claims made in this thread seem to be bordering on nonsensical...


I too consider the far-right to consist of more than just fascism. The far-left isn't limited to communists either. There are far-left fruitcakes of other ideological origin. Both flanks have their share of extreme parties.

That is fair enough.

[Meneldil]

Every religious "nut-job" is far-right? The Christian Left wants a word with you.
Monarchists are far-right? I think the collective monarchists here at the .Org want a word with you (as well as monarchists in European countries who tend to support a fairly wide variety of parties).
Yes, nutjobs are far-right. I'm well aware there's a wide variety of religious sensibilities. They are averagely conservative christians, progressive or liberal christians, and they are nutjobs.
Anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-semite, anti-republic people claiming that France is being destroyed by a socialist-satanic-freemason plot are nutjobs, whether you like it or not.
As for your conglomerate of Orgah monarchists, I don't really care about what they think or not, since I'm fairly sure none of them comes from France. I have no problem with british monarchists, spanish monarchists or any of those. I'm specifically talking about France.


Unnecessary personal attack, especially considering you have no idea what I know or don't know about France...
Right. Thing is, if you had a clue about french political history, you would know that monarchists have traditionally been quite-conservative, on the edge of fascism, negationism and revisionism more often than not. If you have time, read Maurras and his Action Française, learn about Les Camelots du Roi or la Cagoule, or more recently, Jean Sevilla or Pierre Chaunu's writings (Terrorisme Intellectuel, Le Livre Noir de la Révolution Française, and so on).
Note that all french monarchists aren't nazis wannabes trying to overthrow the republic. Some fought side by side with communists, socialists and gaullists after 1941, and afterward accepted to work with republicans to rebuild France. Yet, monarchism as a whole is in France (I'm not saying monarchism as a whole is far-right), highly tainted by fascism and authoritarianism.
If you refuse to admit it, then I'm sorry, but I'll repeat that you have no clue about french political history. Take it as a personal attack if you want, I don't know what I could answer really.


You don't go to Church. Who cares if the mass is in Latin or not? Wanting a Latin mass doesn't make you a far-right extremist (unless you're looking at it from a far-left perspective). Monarchism, far-right? Give me a break.
I don't know ? Maybe all these average catholic believers who would like their church to appear as 'normal' and {somewhat} open-minded, as opposed to a gathering of embittered and angry hard-hat intolerant lunatics and paedophiles.


Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Movement for France and the Front National are not the same thing.
I acknowledged it. The MfF is based around christian values more than the FN is. Its hatred of immigrants is also displayed in a much more subtle way (MfF doesn't blame migrants themselves, but Islam or Judaism), while is general disdain for the republican system more openly expressed.

To close this topic, monarchism is in France as stupid as it would be in the US. Our whole modern history is based on the bitter fight between the Republic and its opponents. To bring it down, the former did not hesitate to go as far-right as one could, long before Hitler, Mussolini and co came to power.


Cohn-Bendit and Bayrou exchanging insults. Go Bayrou! You tell that paedophile!
Honestly, this was ridiculous. Even though DCB's book is more than disturbing, this has no place in a political debate. He said he regretted and was ashamed by what he wrote, and all the children he worked with back then denied the whole paedophilia story.
If there are some new clues about this, then charge him in a court. Accusing him during a political debate just made Bayrou look stupid (I voted for the Modem though).


I rather like Sarkozy. For all his faults and insufferable character, I can't help agreeing with him often. And he was an excellent EU chairman last year.
I won't comment much on this as I think Sarkozy is nothing but a mix of Napoleon (the little) and Adolphe Thiers.

Overall, the election seemed to confirm a general victory of the traditional right, with a small yet noticeable rise of the far right in some countries. Socialists took a beating, while the Greens did fairly good in most of the West (can't talk much about the new members, I only saw hungarian and romanian results, though I doubt the green scored well there).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, nutjobs are far-right.

There are no far-left nutjobs?


They are averagely conservative christians, progressive or liberal christians, and they are nutjobs.

All Christians, be they progressive or conservative, are nutjobs? Wow.


Anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-semite, anti-republic people claiming that France is being destroyed by a socialist-satanic-freemason plot are nutjobs, whether you like it or not.

Out of those traits, I would say anti-Semitism and claiming France is being destroyed by Satanism and Freemasonry are nutjob traits. Anti-immigration is not a nutjob trait (depending how far it is taken), anti-abortion is not a nutjob trait (otherwise many of us at the .Org would be nutjobs by your definition), and claiming that socialism is bad for your country or that the application of socialism is bad for your country is certainly not a trait of a nutjob (but rather anyone who isn't a socialist).


As for your conglomerate of Orgah monarchists, I don't really care about what they think or not, since I'm fairly sure none of them comes from France. I have no problem with british monarchists, spanish monarchists or any of those. I'm specifically talking about France.

And I am saying that French monarchists need not be far-right, and not all of them are (though a significant portion may well be).


Yet, monarchism as a whole is in France (I'm not saying monarchism as a whole is far-right), highly tainted by fascism and authoritarianism.

Then I think we have had a misunderstanding with the phrasing of my comments. Well monarchists within France may have previously been involved with the far right, and some still may be, not all monarchists in France are of the far right and internationally most monarchists are not far right.

Is that better?


I don't know ? Maybe all these average catholic believers who would like their church to appear as 'normal' and {somewhat} open-minded, as opposed to a gathering of embittered and angry hard-hat intolerant lunatics and paedophiles.

Latin = teh evilz. Got it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Honestly, this was ridiculous. Even though DCB's book is more than disturbing [...] Accusing him during a political debate just made Bayrou look stupid (I voted for the Modem though).Yay! A vote for MoDem! (Ah...so you were the one. The vote from Montpellier....)

And yes, Bayrou should not have let himself be provoked in this manner. It does not exactly make him appear 'presidential'. If he can't keep his wits about him when challenged, then he has a clear problem.



@Maniac - Meneldil is simply explaining the nature of the French hardright. (And rather well too) Anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-semitism, anti-republic, anti-Second Vatican Council* = French hardright.

*A progressive council, where amongst other things it was decided that vernacular languages should replace mass in Latin. Therefore, to call for Latin in church is to oppose progressive, modern Catholicism. This is what Meneldil is referring to. That is, by Catholic standards, these people are hardright reactionaries.

Of course, the French hardright, the reactionaries, think themselves the moderates. That the rest of society is a disgraceful, Godless, modern experiment. They want to shield France from such atrocities as human rights, equality, civil rights for Jews, democracy and what have you not.

Whatever one may think about that, this is French politics, described in French political terminology. With what terminology political traditions elsewhere are described is a different matter. (Although mostly it's really not all that different)
Suffice it to say that 'left' and 'right' are...ba boom tish...French political terms. That is, Meneldil is correct by default. When these people sit themselves on the far right benches in the French National Assembly, they are far right by very definition. :beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Libertas is the party of Irish business man Ganley. He is credited with being instrumental in the Irish no vote over the Lisbon Treaty.

It would now appear that not everything is what it seems about Ganley:


THE TREATMENT of Libertas founder Declan Ganley by the media raises “very fundamental questions” about Irish journalism, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche has said.
Mr Roche said that, notwithstanding the work of two journalists – Colm Keena of The Irish Times and RTÉ’s Katie Hannon – Mr Ganley’s background in business was not “properly probed”.

The Libertas leader has said that he will not be involved in a second campaign against the Lisbon Treaty.

“He suckered a lot of senior journalists all over this country,” Mr Roche said. “All you have to do is look at the simple improbability of his biography and at the suggestions that he was, at 20, 22 years of age, running the largest forestry operation in the former Soviet Union. You just have to look at any of these so-called facts and you could begin to ask serious questions.”

Mr Roche also asked what had happened to the funds Libertas had collected over the past year.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0610/1224248537825.html


Ganley organised a pan-European party for this month's EU election. This party / movement, it appeared, was, oh let's say, a peculiar mixture of opportunists from the political fringes


UNSUCCESSFUL LIBERTAS candidate for Dublin Caroline Simons sent a legal letter to Declan Ganley’s spokesman the day after the European elections accusing the spokesman of defaming her.

Ms Simons’s complaint related to a press release issued to the media in her name describing an international Jewish organisation, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, as “beneath contempt”.

The release was prompted by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s claim that some Libertas candidates around Europe were “known anti-Semites, homophobes and anti-migrant racists”.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0616/1224248899908.html


Did someone mention 'fraud in the EU'? Do I hear somebody mention 'foreign interference in Ireland'? That's right. Our dear Ganley used both themes in his Irish 'No' campaign. However, it appears one need not look further than Ganley himself:

Anti-Lisbon organisation Libertas failed to provide adequate information to the Standards in Public Office commission on its activities during last year’s referendum, a report found today.

[the report] demonstrated that Libertas was not willing to operate under the Law, according to Minister for Europe, Dick Roche.

"It raises real issues regarding the extent of foreign interference channelled via Libertas into the referendum campaign. The report demonstrates the need for an immediate strengthening of the law."

“It confirms questions raised by me and others about the role of US defence contractor Rivada Networks Ltd and its Irish office. It contains and confirms that there was serious external interference in Ireland's referendum campaign from Mr Ganley's euro sceptic contacts via the Libertas campaign.”


Currently, Ganley has fled from politics. With his tail between his legs, amongst lawsuits, allegations of fraud, and millions worth of unpaid bills.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0612/1224248690587.html




Thank you very much, you lying, fraudulent :daisy:, for giving Ireland and the EU years worth of trouble. :no:

[Furunculus]

This would be the same Irish Gov't that has pushed its pro-europe agenda into the teeth of an unwilling Irish electorate, and they're annoyed with Declan Ganley's anti-Lisbon campaign.......... oh really!

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank you, you lying, fraudulent :daisy:, for giving the EU years worth of trouble. :no:

Once again, the Irish people did not vote against Lisbon merely on the say-so of this crook (who, I recall, was rightly held up as such by Tribesman on this very forum) but because of a range of deep concerns that Libertas happened to strike a chord upon. The question posed to the people was a Yes or No referendum, not a party vote.

I know it's hard to believe Louis, but our people actually voted against the Lisbon Treaty of their own volition. As did the French against the original constitution. Note that Ganley was not active when your citizens gave the EU months of trouble (ie until they were ignored and removed from the process).

[Louis VI the Fat]

This would be the same Irish Gov't that has pushed its pro-europe agenda into the teeth of an unwilling Irish electorate, and their annoyed with Declan Ganley's anti-Lisbon campaign.......... oh really!Yes, I am aware that Euro-scepticism is an overriding sentiment.

No matter how many lawsuits, no matter how many Bulgarians, Fins, Italians, Greeks, French point out that Ganley's European party in their country is made up of mobsters, no matter how much fraud and corruption Irish journalism manages to dig up, no matter how much even Ganley himself has stopped even the mere pretense, Eurosceptics will believe it is all an EU Superstatist lie.


Irish politics forum. They are not kind to Ganley.
http://www.politics.ie/elections/76770-ganleys-legacy-likely-include-several-lawsuits-libertas-funds-not-paid-over.html

Ganley is a fraudulent businessman. The leader of a far right pan-European party. The Irish 'no' campaign was illegally funded from abroad.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Once again, the Irish people did not vote against Lisbon merely on the say-so of this crook (who, I recall, was rightly held up as such by Tribesman on this very forum) but because of a range of deep concerns that Libertas happened to strike a chord upon. The question posed to the people was a Yes or No referendum, not a party vote.

I know it's hard to believe Louis, but our people actually voted against the Lisbon Treaty of their own volition. As did the French against the original constitution. Note that Ganley was not active when your citizens gave the EU months of trouble (ie until they were ignored and removed from the process).I am concerned here with the EU election earlier this month, not a rehash of the Irish referendum. Libertas ran a campaign in all European countries, gaining a seat in France.

[Furunculus]

i'm delighted.

since the EU tried to scupper the anti-federal party plan by raising the entrance fee to eight representing nations, maybe the french libertas MEP can form France's contribution to the EUro-skeptic European Conservatives? lol

[Banquo's Ghost]

I am concerned here with the EU election earlier this month, not a rehash of the Irish referendum. Libertas ran a campaign in all European countries, gaining a seat in France.

Fair enough. I was confused by your constant reference to that referendum.

[Husar]

There's on statement in Banquo's post that really made me laugh.

It's ironic that the anti-EU movement or at least a vocal part of it is based on fraud and claims the EU is bad because of corruption etc.
That people want to keep the status quo anyway doesn't surprise me that much, I'm afraid of certain changes myself, but sometimes it's better to go through them anyway. :shrug:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Fair enough. I was confused by your constant reference to that referendum.Now that I think about it a bit more, I think that you were irritated by my equating the no-vote with Ganley. Thereby overlooking sincere Irish doubts over 'Lisbon'. This was an unintended effect of my post about Ganley/Libertas. Unintended, because my criticism of his role in the Irish referendum is, of course, much harsher still. Here you go:

I predict that the 'no camp' in the new referendum will this time comply with Irish law and will not be financed illegally from outside of Ireland again. Why? Because the foreign financers have got it their way already.
In the new treaty proposal that the Irish government has negotiated, Ireland will remain a tax haven for, especially, American corporations. This removes the incentive for a repeat of large-scale illegal foreign interference into Irish internal politics for the next referendum. Despite the corruptness of this all, there is an up side: we might see Irish interests being discussed this time, instead of those of foreign multinationals.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

anti-republic

NAR? Rassemblement démocrate? Far-right?


*A progressive council, where amongst other things it was decided that vernacular languages should replace mass in Latin. Therefore, to call for Latin in church is to oppose progressive, modern Catholicism. This is what Meneldil is referring to. That is, by Catholic standards, these people are hardright reactionaries.

Language is language, and of course it could be debated all day, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.