More proof that Ganley is returning to politics. From the mouth of Bruce Arnold.

Ganley's hired hand and "journalistic" mouthpiece the ageing British journalist, formerly thought to be a British intelligence service asset based in Ireland, Bruce Arnold, called last week for Ganely to return to the "battle".
This is no doubt a statement made with the approval of his pay master and is part of the softening up of public opinion and designed to give Ganley a chance to claim he has been asked to return in the public interest.
Arnold's complete lack of credibility as an independent journalist was proven with his nasty defence of his master during the run up to the European election and his ridiculous article in The Village magazine that purported to be an interview with Ganley but was in fact an attack on writer Kevin Barrington and the Irish government.


Now Arnold is part of Ganley's advance publicity. He has also "written" Ganley's self published book which as Ganley tweeted last week is available free to download.


Arnold, you are in the sights of Irish people who love their freedom once again. Your sick promotion of the far right adds further cracks to your flawed pedigree. You can email him at barnold@independent.ie. Coming the day after Ganley re-entered the Lisbon debate on Twitter this further example of Bruce Arnold's journalistic fellatio is from Irish Independent 3 July
see below
We are no longer crucial. We are marginal again -- unless we say 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty


By Bruce Arnold

Saturday July 04 2009

Cowen and Martin espouse a wishful idea of Ireland at the centre of Europe. This will never be

The implications of this week's judgment on the Lisbon Treaty by the German Constitutional Court are profound for the whole of Europe and raise many questions, both for Germany and for all member states, whether or not they have it ratified. In light of the many sober messages given 'in the name of the German people' by the seven judges, it is difficult to see how the largest state in the European Union can rush headlong into the political processes that the court requires of the state, though this seems to be the intention and may well be the outcome. After all, Germany is at the heart of the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty undoubtedly strengthens its power -- at the expense of Ireland, it has to be said -- making even more impressive the safeguards the judgment imposes on Germany's politicians.

Moreover, the country, more than any other European power, was itself the overwhelming reason, following the Second World War, that inspired those who fashioned the European Economic Community, as a way out of the successive conflicts that had torn the continent in pieces. Why would they not now consider carefully and comprehensively the future of Europe from their point of view?

What the judgment does for the rest of Europe, in terms of 'sober messages', has implications for all countries, none more so than Ireland.

It is difficult to imagine a more humiliating or embarrassing contrast between the two countries. While Germany has considered, in the Karlsruhe Judgment, its relationships with the EU and with the treaty, our leaders, Brian Cowen and Micheal Martin, have acted like corner boys and rabble-rousers, rushing to Europe for a quick fix designed to get a 'Yes' vote. There was no serious thought or dignity at all.

It would lessen the damage of their deception and slyness if one could point to the main opposition parties and show they had handled things better. No such claim is possible. Lemming-like, they have followed those in power, offering their own dishonest description of 'Yes' vote benefits and raising dishonest prescriptions about a 'No' vote outcome.

They espouse a wishful idea of Ireland at the centre of Europe. This will never be. Ireland is small and peripheral. It has slavishly attended EU meetings looking for a cheap set of answers for a rerun of a totally unchanged Lisbon Treaty.

Compare this with the sobriety and intelligence of the German Republic's response to challenges to its Basic Law, or constitution, and you have a picture of representation running out of control.

It was a grave surprise and disappointment that Declan Ganley withdrew from this increasingly unequal debate after his defeat in the West. He should not have done it. He needs to return to the battle, one that has been fundamentally, even irretrievably, changed by the German judgment.

This all raises questions about the judgments made by Cowen and Martin. These two men are not in the same class of constitutional thought about the nature of sovereignty as the Germans, where a powerful lead, given by the Constitutional Court, is taken with serious thought and debate by the German people.

Our ministers do not consider -- as the Germans clearly do -- the need for the drawing of a line across the path of Europe's onward march towards anti-democratic centralisation and bureaucratic consensus. Yet it was the vital element in the referendum's defeat and will become central again.

Our interests and Germany's are quite clearly opposed. Germany will be strengthened by what is now happening, Ireland will be weakened. Their voting strength is enhanced, ours is lessened. They want to be at the heart of Europe, and can be. They are already dominant there. We want to be at the heart of Europe without knowing what it means, still less knowing how we achieve it.

On one thing both countries are together, Germany through considered purpose, ourselves because of our 1973 constitutional commitment on signing ourselves into the EEC: this is the desire for involvement in a trade and market union that gave us advantages without undermining sovereignty.

That debate has been overtaken by events and is fundamentally changed by Germany taking a lead in redefining itself and Europe. However, though Germany's Constitutional Court delivered a strong message, the message was finite. On the issue of whether the EU is becoming a federal state and whether a new EU citizenship is being created, it is no more a matter for the German Constitutional Court to decide than it is for a group of diners at a private dinner party. The decision becomes one for that biased institution, the European Court of Justice. They will take a view totally different from the German judgment. And that should frighten all of us.

What is likely to happen now is the following: the German judgment will go to the Bundestag. There, the drafting of the legislation demanded by the Constitutional Court will be challenged again, taking us into the early part of next year.

Behind this there looms a fresh Czech constitutional challenge and a situation where Kaczynski in Poland is unlikely to ratify before the German process is completed, which will almost certainly not be in September. It is unlikely that the process, in real terms, will be completed before next year when the logic and fairness of considering the post-election circumstances in the UK will arise, President Klaus will ensure this. This will demand an open and fair approach and not the pre-empting of the situation. Thus, a UK referendum is increasingly likely.

Ireland's debate, between now and October, has changed. We are no longer crucial. We are marginal again -- unless we say 'No' and start to map a properly reformed Europe.

barnold@independent.ie

- Bruce Arnold

Irish Minister Dick Roche on Bruce Arnold’s sycophantic defence of Declan Ganley

In the current issue of the Village magazine Irish government Minister for European Affiars, Dick Roche, has been given a right of reply to attacks on him in the last issue by Declan Ganley's hagiographer and pet hack Bruce Arnold.
Ganley brought an action against the Village but dropped it and as it satnds the record shows that he has been accused of being a liar, has attempted to defnd his name and has withdrawn his action when faced with the potential of a vigorous defence.
This leaves Ganley the most reputationally compromised politician in Irish public life
You can read the original article and Arnolds article as well as Declan ganley Liar? by editor Michael Smith here

Bruce Arnold’s sycophantic defence of Declan Ganley by Dick Roche Minister for European Affiars


Bruce Arnold’s sycophantic defence of Declan Ganley is fascinating at several levels. Devotion to a ‘hero’ can be touching – Arnold’s paen to his hero is merely cringe making.
The most interesting aspect of Arnold’s efforts is his claim that he has “checked the allegations” against Ganley. I doubt very much that Arnold has done so. If he has there a couple of areas on which he could enlighten those who have been attempting to probe the mysteries surrounding Mr Ganley, the Libertas organisation, its operations and true motives.
One of the most important functions of the free press in Ireland is to provide a forum where journalists – ideally ones with a far greater degree of integrity than has been evidenced by Arnold – can objectively examine the claims made by those who would wish to shape this country’s destiny.
Scrutiny may fall on anyone who puts him or herself forward as a leader, representative or activist – elected or otherwise – and Declan Ganley, for all his millions, should be treated no differently than others who seek public office.
The central argument presented by Arnold in his article for Village last month appears to be built on logic of a very questionable variety: Declan Ganley shouldn’t have to answer any questions because other public figures have not – in Arnold’s opinion – been sufficiently questioned in the past.
Arnold’s of unspecified “allegations” against Ganley is laughable, given that he has been employed to write a book illuminating Ganley’s “political vision.”
The notion that this established relationship with Ganley might have diminished his journalistic impartiality does not appear to have been entertained by Arnold.
Indeed as Arnold has in his words “checked the allegations” against Ganley here are a few issues from the acres of material from Mr Ganley’s self promoted biography on which Bruce might enlighten us all.
First there are Ganley’s claims to have been foreign economic policy advisor to the Latvian Government. This is an important starting point in Ganley’d ‘biog’ so the question arise - has Arnold really checked the facts?
Ganley claims that in 1991 he was Foreign Economic Affairs Advisor to the then Latvian Government. This appointment is supposed to have opened doors for the then young Mr Ganley. It is an important point in Ganley’s ‘biography’. The problem is that the then Latvian PM denies the claim. Colm Keena writing in the Irish Times has pointed out that “people in Latvia who had made inquiries about Ganley at the time were unable to find anyone who'd heard of him. Sources in the Irish embassy in Warsaw, which was accredited to Latvia, told The Irish Times in 1999 it had become aware of the reports about Ganley's activities in Latvia, and had made discreet inquiries. But no trace could be found by the embassy of Ganley's business dealings in Latvia, or of his acting as an advisor to the government ( See Irish Times Saturday, May 31, 2008 “On the mysterious trail of 'Mr No'”), Has Arnold any evidence to contradict this?

During the period when Ganley claims he was operating from Riga, an Irish citizen, Michael Bourke was working for the IMF in Riga. Mr. Bourke recalls meeting Ganley in the city. His meeting with Ganley was discussed in some detail on the Prime Time programme.
He told RTE, “the meeting is one I shall never forget - ----- He said that he was involved in international trade and that he would be setting up his own bank ----- “Ganley International Bank”.
He said he would be getting a licence from the Minister for Finance”. When asked whether the bank ever materialised, Bourke answered, “it did not” and went onto point out that he had contacted the Latvian Ministry for Finance shortly after speaking with Ganley and asked whether they had any information on a bank being opened by an Irish citizen or on application for a licence by Ganley International Bank. The response he received was negative. There was no evidence or information on any such venture. What is Arnold’s view on this ?
Ganley's claims regarding his activities in Russia in the dying period of the Soviet system have been described by experts of that era as not capable of holding water. Jan Urban the Czech journalist/ writer has described Ganley's claims as BS
To recap the claims: Ganley claims, that in his late teens / early 20s :-
- he hit on the idea of insuring the launch of western payloads
into space on Russian rockets.
- he was been invited by the Russians to lead a trade delegation to Moscow.
- to have, during the course of the trade delegations visit, “bagged”
a valuable contract with the Russian authorities for insuring western payloads launched on Russian spacecraft, only to have been foiled when he was forced by the US authorities to drop the idea.
- To have masterminded a major trade fair on Russian metals and alloys
in London.
- To have established a successful business exporting aluminium from Russia to the west at the height of Russia’s “aluminium wars”.
- To have established and owned Russia’s biggest timber business.
Ganley’s claims are all the more remarkable given that they are the “achievements” of a young man with little or no capital, with no knowledge of the Russian language and with no particular personal expertise in any of the areas concerned. In addition the ‘achievements’ were made against a backdrop of turmoil in Russia as it moved from the Soviet system.
It would be fascinating to read Arnold’s take on all of this. Journalists who have investigated Ganley’s claims to have been a major business player in Russia in this period have all run into brick walls – Mr Arnold would be doing his hero a major favour if he produces any evidence to dispel the suspicions that surround the truthfulness of the accounts of Ganley’s adventures in Russia.
Then there are the questions about Ganley’s activities in Iraq. These were probed by RTE. The account of his activities in Iraq given by Ganley clash with the known facts.
Ganley told RTE he walked away “from the controversy surrounding the controversial telecommunications contract in which his consortium was involved in Iraq.
The available material including the remarkable account of Ganley company activities in T Christian Miller’s book “Blood Money: Wasted Billions, Lost Lives, and Corporate Greed in Iraq raise some very fundamental issues which Ganley has to date avoided answering.
In his book Miller suggests that "one case in particular demonstrated how political favours, money and corporate avarice strangled in the reconstruction process and from the start.” Miller is referring to the programme to reconstruct Iraq's telecommunications system and a series of events surrounding Declan Ganley's involvement in that troubled country.
Ganley has sought to suppress any probing of his activities by threatening legal action to prevent questions that should be answered being raised. If Ganley has nothing to hide why the threats? Mr Arnold tells us in Village that he has the answers one looks forward to reading them.
And then there is the issue of Ganley’s Rivada operations. The obvious question that arises is why does the US Dept of Defence dole out contracts to Ganley’s company without the inconvenience of competitive tendering?
The US based Rivada Networks LLC and its various associated companies seem to be Ganley’s main current business operation.
Rivada through its tie up with an Alaskan Native Corporation, Nana Pacific, is in a position to win valuable US government contracts –through the US Defence Department and associated agencies on a ‘sole – bid’ basis.
Companies fortunate to win contracts under these arrangements do not have to subject themselves to the inconvenience of competitive tendering.
This results in Rivada’s case to the company depending in effect on a single client, normally not the happiest corporate position to be in, but as the sole client is the US a less worrying position than might normally be the case – provided the company manages to keep on the ‘right side’ of its ‘patrons’ in the various military & defence agencies.
Rivada’s tie up with Nana goes back to the abortive attempt by a Ganley consortium to win a very valuable contract for the installation of a police telephone network in Iraq during the post war reconstruction, an attempt which led to a major scandal, an FBI investigation - events described in graphic detail by T Christian Miller.
It would be fascinating to have Arnold’s take on this.
It would be equally fascinating to have Arnold’s take on the number of off shore tax havens that appear in Ganley company activities, to have his views of on the $120 million in vouchers handed over by unfortunate Albanian citizens to Ganley’s Anglo Adriatic Investment trust – a matter probed in RTE’s excellent documentary about some of Ganley’s business operations.
Given Arnold’s evident admiration of Ganley & Libertas he might also address the mounting evidence that Libertas has been rather less than successful in bringing together credible candidates for the upcoming EU Parliament elections. Few of the Libertas candidates have any well defined record of public service: some can most charitably be described as full-blown Europhobic.
One further question the Arnold might turn his mind to is why does Ganley always try to shut down opponents with threats of legal action - is he afraid of the truth or is he just a bully?
Ganley likes to talk about openness, democracy & transparency – he is reluctant to practice any of these virtues – as was demonstrated in Libertas reluctance to answer questions as to its funding in last year’s referendum.
While Libertas likes to preach about democracy its founder is not always accept a central feature – the right to hold an opinion that differs from himself. Declan frequently threatens litigation. In this he is travelling the same path as James Goldsmith another rich Europhobe who used the threat of Court action to silence opponents.
In November 2008, Ganley's solicitors issued threats of legal action to Irish politicians, including Joe Costello of the Labour Party. This follows comments by Costello regarding Libertas funding.
According to the Irish Times "Mr Ganley has threatened to sue Mr Costello for substantial damages, following Mr Costello's charge that the Libertas founder has "a subversive foreign agenda".

Ganley also threatened to sue Jim Higgins, the Fine Gael MEP. Higgins responded vigorously & Ganley appears to have backed off.
Ganley has issued several threats to take on journalists including the RTE team that produced the Prime Time special. ( A complaint to BCC on the programme was rejected out of hand )
Action has even been threatened against people posting messages on Politics.ie, a website controlled by a Libertas employee.
Most recently we have had the action against Village Magazine – an action that seems to have faded when faced with a determined and robust defence.
As in so many other areas it would be fascinating to have Mr Arnold’s journalistic take on this.


The June issue of the Village is out now. It also contains two other features on Declan ganley http://villagemagazine.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/party-over-new-party-needed/

One by Mark Murray on Libertas and Ganley's far right pan European connections and one by Michael Smith on Ganley's flawed pedigree

Caroline Simons thinks Germany has a prime minister and that Ireland should return to being the Free State and get tough on immigrants

On Irish TV tonight Caroline Simons's the Libertas anti abortion candidate for Dublin refused to say how much she was intending to spend or where the money would come from. .She even went red in the face when she was trying to evade answering the question on every-one's lips. Where do you get the cash Libertas. Eventually under intense questioning she said she would spend the legally allowed 200,000 to 250,000 and that she was getting donations from "around the country".
Can one person who has given money to Simon's please let me know.............

Caroline really messed up again when she said Roman Herzog had been the "prime minister" of Germany. Eh NO Caroline try Wikipedia your party edit it enough Germany has Presidents not prime minsters.

When she brought up the Lisbon Treaty she was completely nutty.

She said that Ireland had been "given a constitution in the early part of the last century" and this was "fine". Does she mean that we should return to the 1922 Anglo Irish Treaty that ended the Irish War of Independence and led to the Civil war 1922-23?
Does she mean that we should replace the Lisbon Treaty and Ireland's two subsequent constitution's? The 1937 abolished the Irish Free State and links with constitutional links with the United Kingdom the 1948 constitution and created the modern Irish Republic? Libertas are pushing a nutty idea.
It would seem that Libertas want Ireland to return to being called the Irish Free State and that our elected representatives would swear allegiance to the British royal family. This would tie in with Ganley's own love for the British military and their personnel who he has employed to run Libertas in Northern Ireland.

At the end of the show Simon's came out in favour of tightening up Ireland's immigration laws and seemed to be crestfallen that the country can't close its doors to EU citizens. The more Libertas are forced to answer questions the more far right their stance is shown to be.

Irish Free State of Xenophobia anyone?

The idea that Libertas believe that Ireland should return to being The Free State is not out of touch with Declan Ganley's hagiographer Bruce Arnold who recently signed a letter demanding that Ireland return to being part of the British Commonwealth . http://www.irelandandthecommonwealth.com/

Bruce Arnold accused of "act of publishing fellatio" over Ganley book

The new issue of Ireland's Phoenix magazine likens Bruce Arnold's collaboration on a book on and with Declan Ganley to a humiliating "act of publishing fellatio". ("Declan Ganley's Boswell", The Phoenix, May 8 2009). Ganley has printed at least 25,000 for free distribution in Ireland and it is reported that 75,000 more are being produced for in translation for foreign distribution. However this bloggger has been informed that 100,000 were ordered for Irish distribution alone.

This was another story first reported here on the home of Declan Ganley news, Libertas Nein Danke

First report on Libertas Nein Danke Here
And in the Irish Newspapers here
See more posts on Bruce Arnold and his participation in Ganley's Big Lie

Ganley on the run as Village magazine action struck out read full articles here

Declan Ganley has caused his action against the Village Magazine to be struck out this morning at the High Court in Dublin. The action arose over an article by Kevin Barrington in which issues were raised about Ganley's attempts to get mobile phone licences in Iraq in 2004.

An agreement reached between Mr Ganley and the Village magazine allowed for an interview with Mr. Ganley to be publishes in the last issue,.

Howver Bruce Arnold who was one of the journalists on Mr Ganley's list wrote an article about Mrt. ganley alleging all sorts of smearing tactics. The article did not fall within the agreement with the Village which was that Mr. Ganley would answer in an interview the substantial allegations and assertions raised in the Village piece.

Michael Smith editor of the Village in a two page article that immediately followed Arnold's rant stated that Arnold's piece in no way dealt with or adhered to the agreement that the Village magazine had with Ganley and he would therefore NOT pay Arnold his sought fee of 500 euro.

The gauntlet appeared to have been laid done for Ganley , however today he backed down from pursuing the matter further in court.

The Village/Ganley saga. Declan Ganley withdraws proceedings

April 28, 2009 by Michael

Today 28 April Declan Ganley agreed in the High Court to withdraw proceedings he had taken against Village over the article displayed immediately below. Village paid no damages to Mr Ganley and the article remained on the shelves, despite Mr Ganley’s threats to have it removed in February. The article - among other things - quoted Minister for Europe Dick Roche saying Mr Ganley was a liar. Village agreed to publish an interview with Mr Ganley in its April edition but the chosen interviewer, Mr Bruce Arnold, submitted a piece which gave no evidence he had interviewed Mr Ganley for Village but was instead a paean to him. We published it anyway.

Below we also publish Bruce Arnold’s (non)-interview and our response to that article - making three articles in total!

Declan Ganley, Snakeoil Salesman (Feb Village by Kevin Barrington)
Did everyone at the back get their snakeoil?

The honeymoon is over for Declan Ganley and brand “Libertas”. And the brand ‘s keeper, having being carried grinning over the publicity threshold by the positive if not sycophantic initial media coverage, is none too happy about it. In fact he seems to verging on paranoia as one of the latest “successful applicants” to join “team Libertas”demonstrates. Kevin O’Connell, a former deputy director of Europol, has been taken on board to represent Libertas in the UK. O’Connell was employed by Declan Ganley’s group last year as a “security advisor” whose role included “vetting staff and potential candidates”, as well as monitoring the press coverage that was becoming of mounting concern to Ganley. Ganley was troubled by what he labelled “conspiracy theories” surrounding his American business contracts and the funding of his Lisbon treaty campaign. O’Connell, obviously unperturbed by any possible conflict of interest, concluded that Ganley “has been the subject of a sustained and co-ordinated information campaign intended to destroy his political credibility”. “I looked into the matter and was concerned at what I found - and decided that if Libertas would have me as a candidate, I would run”, he added. O’Connell obviously passed his own vetting and was taken on board. This, however, was not the first time O’Connell had been involved with Ganley. As Deputy Director of Europol, O’Connell spoke at Ganley’s First Annual Forum On Public Safety In Europe and North America. The conference, which Ganley has hosted several times, along with the University of Limerick, generally lures big names, Al Gore being the most glittering catch so far. And in between the talks on general defence-related issue by such luminaries, Ganley and a host of senior ex-US-military Rivada Network employees, plug their own security-related communications products., O’Connell’s 2007 talk centred on how “the requirements of law enforcement and public safety professionals are falling behind the potential of the technology” – a theme very much music to the ears of Rivada’s marketing department., All a happy coincidence? Perhaps. The motivation, however, behind the conferences is not humanitarian but is the real-life actualisation of Ganley’s Entrepreneurial Rules [see previous article]. The rules are appropriate, or at least normal, in internatonal commerce. However, Ganley was entering a different battlefield with his new brand “Libertas “, a battlefield where Transparency and Accountability - the toxic Unique Selling Points (USPs), were required. We are now well used to the plummy voice of Declan Ganley railing against the “unaccountable elites” in Brussels and calling for greater transparency.

Time and time again Ganley responded to interviewers’ questions as to what he and Libertas stood for: Transparency and accountability, now wrapped in a right wing social agenda, became an integral part of the brand. The problem with such a USP is that it presupposes a standard of behaviour – in its proponents. And therein lay the start of Declan Ganley’s major problem, the potential seeds of his own destruction. Little did he realise he was now setting himself up for the scrutiny that he had avoided. And as the Celtic Tiger died so too did blind adulation for the buccaneer entrepreneur. The positive became the probing, mystery was seen as murk.

A few postings on the web had alluded to Ganley’s role in Iraq around the time of the launch of Libertas. But it was after the referendum that the unsightly picture got a fuller, more public unveiling. Ganley was part of a consortium chasing the untapped and hugely lucrative Iraqi mobile-phone market. Having failed, he picked himself up and went after a police network. Assisting him was the now-disgraced Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens who had slipped his Eskimo loophole into the Iraqi reconstruction effort. Stevens had introduced positive discrimination legislation to boost the Eskimo economy by allowing them non-competitive tenders for government contracts: get an eskimo front going and you have a one-way ticket to boomtown. But Declan Ganley wanted a bigger boom for his buck, so he covertly inserted a new clause into the police contract stating it would be the first step in a move to roll out a nationwide civilian network, the very network he had just been refused. Like those he now criticises, Ganley wasn’t taking No for an answer. His covert clause, however, was spotted by vigilant officials. And the contract was rescinded. But the officials, later completely vindicated, were accused by Ganley of corruption and fell foul of his Washington big-hitter allies - forcing their resignation. But Ganley and his partners’ scheming for more money led to a two-year delay in the police network at a very critical time. “During that time thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi police officers were killed, at least some of whom could have been saved had they been able to pick up a phone and call for help”, author T Christian Miller states in his book “Blood Money. Wasted Billions, Lost Lives and Corporate Greed In Iraq”.And in a scathing indictment of unaccountable elites, Miller continues: “The whole episode was a shameful victory of narrow business interests over a vital strategic policy”. Ganley, for his part, denies the contract was revoked and says he walked away due to murky affairs he is unable to elaborate on. Stevens’ Eskimo loophole has continued to pay Ganley dividends through “sweetheart” contracts with the US National Guard and other federal bodies. Not illegal. But the exploitation of positive discrimination legislation is hardly the foundation for his transparency and accountability platform. Further erosion to the platform is provided by the fact that Ganley’s wife Delia , operating under her maiden name, contributes to Senator Stevens. As she does to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Rivada got lucratives communications contracts with the National Guard. Nothing wrong there either. Delia Ganley is entitled to use her maiden name and contribute to these two Senators. But what have both senators got in common? They both chart this year in the Citizens for Good Governance Top Twenty Most Corrupt politicians. Transparency/Accountability?

It seems someone out there is calling the elites to account but it’s sure not Declan Ganley. As such stories circulate, Ganley’s personal bog to mansion story comes under closer scrutiny by the day. “He’s a liar, a self-mythologiser, a snake-oil salesman”, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche told Village Magazine. The truth was slowly emerging. There is no way Ganley can keep the lid on such a catalogue of lies and dirty deeds, Minister Roche added.

“INTERVIEWING DECLAN GANLEY (current April Village by Bruce Arnold)
A Lesson for the Uninitiated”

Declan Ganley launched his undeniably ambitious political career five years ago as a sponsor of The Forum to Debate the Constitution for Europe 2004. The two-day event, held in Galway, contains many of the seeds that sprouted into Libertas. Anyone seriously interested in interviewing Declan Ganley and finding out the main points in his career, needs to start here.

So, it was an international project involving participants from around the world and, yes, among them was Dick Roche, later to become Ireland’s Junior Minister for Europe and both a self-declared as well as an exclusive expert on the Lisbon Treaty.

Roche was later responsible for the delivery of abusive and dishonest slurs on Declan Ganley’s character and motivations, notably in Village Magazine, where he called him – without offering any basis for the slander – ‘a liar, a self-mythologiser, a snake-oil salesman’. Roche has collaborated more closely than is admitted by Village Magazine, with Kevin Barrington and was in the offices of the magazine on the morning Ganley’s solicitors delivered their legal documents.

Barrington also works as a copywriter in an advertising agency which has been awarded Government contracts dealing with pro-Lisbon material. Is there a conflict of interest here? One of several?

The articles are full of personal sneers, inaccuracies and allegations about corrupt actions that are not supported by facts and were not checked by any interview with the subject of the sustained attack. The editor, Michael Smith, who also offered in the first issue of Village Magazine to pay €10,000 for ‘verifiable information’ on Libertas funding in the Referendum – a requirement not followed in the articles – has admitted that this was wrong. I have checked the allegations and do not even consider them worthy of further consideration. They are part of the history of rumour that is used to denounce people. If an ounce or two of them had been delivered against Bertie Ahern by the brave men in Irish politics when the explanations he gave became dubious and contradictory in 2006, when first I wrote of them, we would not now be in the mess we are in.

Let us move on. In 2007 Declan Ganley launched the Libertas Website. His approach was businesslike, clearly focused and it emphasised the seriousness of the main issues facing the ordinary people of Ireland in coming to terms with what Ganley thought of as a huge European swindle contained in the incomprehensible Lisbon Treaty. Whether he was right or not remains to be seen, but he took up vital public issues over the planned Referendum, which only Ireland was holding.

The first of these was the Government’s outrageous changing of the law in order to stop the Referendum Commission from issuing a booklet telling voters what the for-and-against arguments were, in the case of the Lisbon Treaty a crucial requirement.

The Ahern Government is guilty of extraordinary and deliberate confusion over Lisbon by this quite improper change in the Referendum legislation. As a result, the Commission never did deal with this satisfactorily. Instead, it offered a superficial babble about the Treaty. This was far from being fair and balanced. The Commission is likely to do exactly the same again, the second time round. Ironically, even if it wanted to, it cannot easily rectify its position and tell the truth because the law stops it from being fair and balanced.

Ganley also attacked the use of State and Government resources in promoting a Yes Vote. The Government view in favour was all right. State funding was not. Ganley was also sharply critical of Dick Roche. Roche had attacked ‘bringing in people from outside to influence the referendum campaign’. This attack was made nonsensical by Brian Cowen. Quite improperly he invited President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel to help the Yes Vote campaign, thus starting a process that looks as though it will thoroughly abuse the use of outsiders and their money if the Referendum is run again. It seems when the government brings in people to support its policies it is all right; when others do the same it is condemned as disloyal or improper.

Ganley went on, in the early months of 2008 to deal with the subjugation of the Irish Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty – itself a new and supreme ‘Constitution’ for Europe – and raised repeatedly unanswered questions on tax reforms that would damaged investment here and the loss of Ireland’s World Trade Organisation veto. The first of these issues was subsequently reinforced by the French Finance Minister’s confirmation that France would push for equalisation of European tax positions.

By April the early salvoes on the EU democratic deficit – the simple fact that the Lisbon Treaty confirmed the creation of a European Federal State without democratic authority – was receiving unintentional support from Barroso and the Commission Vice-President, Margot Wallstrom.

There was a leaked Department of Foreign Affairs email. It was becoming increasingly evident that concealment was going on. The Referendum Commission was not being even-handed. The Government were appalled at the fate of Bertie Ahern at the hands of the Tribunal into his money. He was unlikely to win the Lisbon contest, and was disposed of by the Party.

It became clear – thanks to a gaffe by Dick Roche – that the Referendum would be Ireland’s last on Europe. That is, of course, so long as the vote was Yes. But Dick Roche and the Government got the wrong result.

At the beginning of May 2008, the campaign was distorted into one about how much gratitude we owed to membership of the European Union, with the implicit and dishonest message that we would lose out. Here was a Treaty no one understood, here were taxation threats, a WTO veto that the Forum on Europe confirmed was removed, farmers and workers getting jittery and the new and untried Taoiseach taking up the cry that a No Vote would be disastrous. We would learn, soon enough, that it is politicians who are disastrous.

Declan Ganley confronted this with his Libertas campaign. He won. He carried the popular vote. Others helped but he was the mainspring of analytical and forceful political opposition. Not for the first time, do I assert that, in a world of turbulence that was to lead into crisis during that turnaround year of 2008, he was the most successful Irish politician.

At the very least, this was the material for major interviews by anyone interested in the phenomenon of an Irish politician with a new organisation, no political party machine to back him but a set of unarguable convictions that weighed with the Irish voting public.

Instead, there were several serious, if inept, attempts to undermine his credibility with a mire of untried, untested and often inadequately researched allegations, some of which contained deliberate obscuring of the true facts.

The government continued to contribute to this negative approach by floundering its way into European Summit negotiations which contained public relations ‘performance’ by Michéal Martin and Brian Cowen, who tried to pass off a few opinions about what might be done before a second Referendum Vote as ‘massive achievements’.

They were no such things. Government strategy almost completely ignored all the Libertas issues. Instead they sought to persuade the relatively small group of voters in the first Referendum who had fears over neutrality, abortion and other social or moral issues, and presented this as ‘an achievement’, and ‘a landmark day for Ireland’ in which ‘after intense negotiation’ Ireland’s position in the European Union, which of course was never in doubt, had been ‘secured’!

The Government, represented by Micheál Martin and the Taoiseach, secured nothing whatever to satisfy doubts about democracy in the EU. They did little better over taxation and other issues raised during the campaign.

Declan Ganley had made the running on these issues, which had produced such a convincing No Vote six months ago and they were set aside in an adroit and entirely meretricious way. The truth is that Michéal Martin has buried a hatchet in his own head on the Lisbon Treaty since he has not addressed any of the major issues. One of the reasons is that they cannot be addressed. This was my considered view at the time and continues so to be. It will cause any Yes Campaign, however much European money is poured into it, to unravel.

What happened then, in terms of Declan Ganley’s level of political achievement, was that he began to make history with his impact in Europe. For the first time in the political annals of this country, one of its more dynamic figures has spread his own political impact over more than half the countries in Europe. Declan Ganley now has 50 candidates for Libertas in Germany, more than 30 in France, 72 in the United Kingdom, eight in Latvia, three in Malta of all places, and 50 in Poland. He has groups working for the election of Libertas candidates in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This too has been the subject of further attempts to rubbish him.

He argues – in the interviews I have had with him about this – that the achievement and its potential impact on the European elections, is what interviewers should be asking him about. I agree with him on this.

Instead, as the last issue of Village Magazine showed, enormous energies are being expended in trying to find out things about Declan Ganley that, if they were true, would be decidedly detrimental to everything he has done. Any old slur will do.

This displays a tortured and relentless animosity, damaging, because people like to hear bad things about other people, and they are often easier to deliver than good things. This line of journalism, taken by Village Magazine and also by the RTE Prime Time Programme on Declan Ganley, was, in my personal view, not only unfair and unbalanced but malicious as well.

Declan Ganley, Liar? (current April Village by Michael Smith)
Village and Declan Ganley

Village published material about Declan Ganley in its February-March edition. Mr Ganley initiated proceedings for defamation, saying he wanted to get all copies of that magazine taken off the shelves. In the end he agreed to an adjournment of his action until after the publication of this, current edition which meant the February-March edition stayed on the shelves. In return Village and he agreed a statement:

The Statement

Village Magazine strongly upholds the right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest. Mr. Ganley not only supports, but advocates this right. The Village however acknowledges that, given the opportunity, it would have been preferable to have interviewed Mr. Ganley before publishing serious allegations about him. It has now been afforded this opportunity and will in the next edition record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr. Ganley in a wide ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr. Ganley and to the public.

Attempts to get an interviewer

We attempted to commission a number of Ireland’s most respected journalists including Fintan O’Toole, Keelin Shanley, Michael Clifford, Justine McCarthy and Olivia O’Leary to carry out this interview but for contractual or other reasons they could not do it. We also suggested Frank Connolly, Harry Browne and Damien Kiberd who were willing to do it but Declan Ganley was unwilling to be interviewed by them. He was willing to be interviewed by Vincent Browne or me but Vincent could not do it and I, as editor, felt I should preserve some distance from this legally-driven interview. Declan Ganley wanted to be interviewed by Bruce Arnold. He suggested a list of seven names including George Hook, Jason O’Toole, David Quinn, Eamon Dunphy, Matt Cooper, Richard Waghorne and Hermann Kelly. We were happy with Eamon Dunphy and he generously agreed to do the interview but in the end could not, for contractual reasons. Time was moving on so we felt the best thing in the circumstances was to hear from Mr Ganley in close to his own terms, from a journalist of integrity who is well disposed to him. Bruce Arnold it was.

Bruce Arnold and the interview

We forwarded to Bruce Arnold the affidavit which included Village’s defence to the libel proceedings. Much of the substance of that affidavit is outlined below. Readers will make their own minds up about how well Bruce Arnold has delivered on the requirement, agreed between Village and Mr Ganley to “record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr. Ganley in a wide ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr. Ganley and to the public”. He informed me that he had conducted a telephone interview with Mr Ganley but there is no evidence in his filed copy that he did in fact conduct the interview. For this and other obvious reasons, Village will not be paying him the €500 fee he sought.

Mr Arnold also delayed publication of Village by a day by spuriously claiming he had not been sent a copy of the February-March article.

What Village said about Ganley and the truth

This is the substance of what Village said about Mr Ganley and the Truth in my affidavit, which was not opened in court:

Dick Roche, Minister for European Affairs has maintained that he was accused by Declan Ganley of telling untruths to the general public regarding Mr Ganley’s nationality. However, since those accusations have since been proven to be untrue, it is clear that it is Mr Ganley who has a most unhappy relationship with the truth.

Mr Ganley confronted Minister Roche, live on air during RTE’s News at One in September 2008 accusing him of falsely stating that Mr Ganley had, on occasion, chosen to describe himself as a British national. While Dick Roche acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with being a British national, he considered it odd that Mr Ganley, who sought to proclaim himself as an Irish businessman should choose to describe himself as British, on documents filed with the British Company Registration office. For his part, Mr Ganley denied ever having described himself thus, and accused Minister Roche of spreading falsehoods.

Minister Roche subsequently obtained photocopies of documents filed with the British Company Registration Office, to prove his position. When confronted by Irish Times journalist, Colm Keena for comment in relation to this, Declan Ganley responded that he must have “ticked the wrong box”. In fact, that portion of the relevant documents is either typed or written, showing beyond doubt that either he, or his wife, if she filled out these forms, knew that he had described himself as a British national on the relevant documents.

The foregoing example, where Mr Ganley’s vigorous denials and accusations against Minister Roche ultimately rang hollow, demonstrate his cavalier attitude to the truth, transparency and moral conduct. Indeed, Minister Roche maintains that there are many examples which cast a similar shadow on the Mr Ganley character.

In particular, Minister Roche points to Mr Ganley’s claims that he became Foreign Economic Affairs Advisor to the first Republic of Latvia Government. It has since been shown, including during a lengthy and detailed “Prime Time” programme on RTE television, that Declan Ganley held no such position.

Minister Roche has also pointed to Mr Ganley claims, throughout Libertas’ campaign on the Lisbon Treaty, that a “No” vote in the Lisbon referendum would entitle Ireland to retain its Commissioner. This was manifestly not the position since a “No” vote under Lisbon would pave the way for the provisions of the Nice Treaty to apply, wherein Ireland’s Commissioner would be lost in 2009. In fact, had the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, that date would have been pushed back to 2014.

Similarly, and by way of further example, Minister Roche has pointed to Mr Ganley’s claims, through Libertas, that the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty could lead to the legalisation of abortion in Ireland. Once again, this was, and is, manifestly not the position. In fact, this very point was addressed by Judge O’Neill, chairman of the referendum commission, during a speech dated the 4th June, 2008 where he stated:

“In regard to abortion, Protocol no. 35 to the Treaty of Lisbon on Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland states that nothing in the Treaties or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland.

Protocols have full legal force – they have the same legal status as an Article of the Treaties. This Protocol is EU Law and it explicitly excludes Article 40.3.3 of Irish Constitution from any other EU law. This means Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion would not be affected by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty”.

The foregoing examples, taken together or in isolation, are stark reminders of Mr Ganley’s deplorable attitude to the truth, transparency and moral conduct.

Ganley printing 100,000 books for free distribution. Bruce Arnold must be put out to grass now

Declan Ganley is currently having 100,000 copies of a book by his pet journalist Bruce Arnold printed. the books will be distributed for free in Ireland from next month.

This adds another large chunk of cash to the money he is already spending and places Sunday Independent hack Bruce Arnold in a unique position as a journalist. He is being paid to write a hagiographical vanity publication which will be given out for free. He is also using his column in the Sunday Independent to promote Ganley and Libertas.

The Independent Group of newspapers should now bar Arnold from any further pronouncements on behalf of Ganley and Libertas in their group of newspapers. Indeed they should go further and put the senile old goat out to grass.

Irish TV tells Bruce Arnold his claims of Ganley smearing are proven false.

RTE lash out at Libertas hack Bruce Arnold's comments in last weeks Sunday Independent. In a letter published today in the Irish Independent
Ken O'Shea of RTE points out to Arnold that his biased point of view was directly contradicted by the findings of Ireland's independent broadcasting complaints authority.

RTE's Declan Ganley profile was fair

Bruce Arnold's assertion in last Saturday's Irish Independent that RTE's 'Prime Time' profile of Libertas founder Declan Ganley, broadcast on November 27, last was "unbalanced, ill-researched and... malicious" was an unacceptable slur on a comprehensive work of investigative journalism.

The programme was painstakingly researched over several months and was a balanced and considered profile of a fascinating and controversial political figure, undertaken as a matter of public interest.

Mr Arnold's attack was all the more curious, given that it came just days after the independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) published its adjudication on a complaint by a member of the public against the programme.

In their judgment, the BCC stated: "Mr Ganley has risen to the forefront of Irish politics. The funding of Libertas has been, and continues to be, widely debated and discussed in political, media and public forums. In entering such a political arena, Mr Ganley could expect his business past and political aspirations to be held up to scrutiny. It is common practice in democratic societies to scrutinise and question political people in such a manner. This edition of 'Prime Time' set out to examine in a serious manner the background of a public political figure."

The commission noted that the programme-makers offered Mr Ganley a fair right-of-reply. Further, the commission noted that the report was interspersed with contributions which were supportive of Mr Ganley. And they finished by saying: "Mr Ganley represented himself on the programme and was afforded ample opportunity to refute allegations and to express opinion. The commission was of the opinion that the subject matter was treated fairly and was fair to all interests concerned. There was no evidence of editorial bias in this broadcast."

As a columnist, Mr Arnold is under no obligation to apply the balanced, investigative journalism which we believe was evident in this programme. However, your readers deserve all of the information. The programme is available to view on www.rte.ie/primetime

Ken O'Shea
Editor, Current Affairs, RTE