Ganley's Back

A few days ago, @stevenconlon found some indications in the Wall Street Journal that Declan Ganley would return to the referendum debate on Lisbon despite saying that he would not campaign if he wasn't elected to the European Parliament in June (and since he wasn't elected...).

"His name is Declan Ganley. He was one of the driving forces behind the No campaign the last time around, and he's back to do it again. Your correspondent recently sat down with him to find out what he's fighting for in trying to see to it that Ireland once again votes No to Lisbon"

And yesterday he announced his return to the campaign:

"“It’s anybody’s right and privilege to change their mind,” he said yesterday. The Yes side were asking the Irish people to change their mind on Lisbon. “I didn’t want to re-engage in this debate. It wasn’t something that I relished.”

But he continued: “This isn’t about me, I’m not important in this. This is about Ireland’s place in the European Union . . . it’s about my country, a country that I love and it’s about standing up for the truth when people are telling huge lies, and the truth does not require a mandate.”

He said that “listening to this cacophony of half-truths and misleading campaigning – it’s just become unbearable”. He said the European Commission had “crossed a line that should never have been crossed and started to interfere in a constitutional debate in a member state”."

"The truth does not require a mandate"* - a fun line that simultaneously tries to reverse the relevance of his electoral defeat, while also claiming legitimacy from an abstract value. Ganley mandated by truth to campaign for a No? Well, it's good to know that someone has access to universal truths (well, treaty-related ones anyway).

Hopefully he won't be too adverse to the Referendum Commission answering questions.



*Sadly unlikely to work in everyday life situations.

The Dangers of Nationalism in a Pan-European Campaign

Jamie [The Irish Time's Europe correspondent] has blogged on the reaction to Libertas' blue card scheme in Poland.

...Where Libertas are campaigning on reducing the restrictions to the free movement of workers....

Former Libertas Director turns Pro-Lisbon

Naoise Nunn was a Rivada employee and the director of Libertas during the first referendum campaign, but now (as I found out through People's Korps) he publicly supports the Lisbon Treaty. Why?

“The circumstances have changed: internationally, economically, financially and domestically. We don’t have the luxury of doing anything else. I am glad that we had a referendum. We were the only member state to do so, to have a proper debate, or something like a proper debate.”

Perhaps the "something like a proper debate" is one of the most revealing parts of this quote - he must have been quite unhappy with Libertas' direction, and he stepped down from his position there in September.

The circumstances have changed, but while they may highlight the need for reforming the EU to make it more effective, there was always the need for reform there.

He was also quoted as saying:

Both sides were guilty, he said, of “scare-mongering and misinformation” during the referendum campaign.

He's right here. There are wide ranging disputes over the validity of some of the No campaign's arguments, but the Yes side is guilty of being very vague about the risks of voting No, rather than debating the merits of the Treaty. Some on the Yes side are guilty of "playing the man rather than the ball", though Libertas doesn't seem adverse to using this strategy either.

Nunn's public support for the Lisbon Treaty is a blow to Libertas, and his position within Libertas during the referendum undermines Libertas' claim to being a grass-roots organisation whose members are independent from Ganley's business operations (their manifesto will be interesting to see if Libertas is still a one-man show [or at least Irish-directed] or more pan-European in its input and structure, rather than just a temporary anti-Lisbon alliance). Nunn also seems to accept that the guarantees can serve the purpose of allaying the public's fears and concerns, rather than aiming to start from scratch - which goes against exactly what Libertas are arguing when it comes to the legitimacy of a second referendum.

Edit: some more reaction here.

Fianna Fáil MEP not to contest election

The FF MEP for Ireland North West, Seán Ó Neachtain will not contest the election as expected. He said that he was not going to run for the European Parliament for health reasons. This will put FF in a awkward position in the North West as they don't have anyone with the same profile/electoral base, and it is current FF policy not to risk putting a serving TD (MP) in the race for fear of losing the by-election and whittling down the government's majority.

The Irish Times has reported that this will boost Declan Ganley's chances of getting elected - he is running in the same constituency.

No room at Liberty Hall for Libertas

The Irish Times has reported that Libertas has been denied use of a room in Liberty Hall by SIPTU, an Irish Union. Libertas had planned to launch its election campaign in Dublin with its candidate, Caroline Simons, but SIPTU refused to let Libertas use the room because:

1. When the room was booked, there was no indication given that it would be used for the Libertas launch.

2. Because it did not agree with SIPTU's policies (I haven't read what SIPTU's policies exactly are in this area).

Libertas' response?:

“This extraordinary and last-minute U-turn by the authorities at Liberty Hall raises very interesting questions. Caroline Simons spent a large portion of her career working with the trade union movement to secure equality for women. She adopted the same position on the Lisbon Treaty as an overwhelming majority of trade union members.”

For SIPTU's part, it suspects that the whole thing was a stunt, and claims that the purpose of the booking was not given to them:

"The union said the room was booked by a person who was a Siptu shop steward, but who gave no indication that it would be used by Libertas for the launch of Ms Simons’s campaign.

If it had known the purpose of the meeting, permission would never have been granted. “We suspect that this was a stunt from the beginning,” said a spokesman."

Which makes me wonder... It must be hard being populist with tax-cutting rhetoric in a country that is facing a big deficit and needs to raise taxes (indeed, the public discussion is on how to make tax hikes fairer rather than questioning the need for more taxation), so could this be an attempt to set up a situation to make Libertas seem like the underdogs? Either that or they or utterly incompetent when it comes to filling out forms or communicating their intentions to others - they've failed to get enough support to be eligible for EU funding, they've failed to get enough signatures in time to be registered for the elections in Germany, and now they've failed to properly go about booking a venue for their campaign launch...? Of course, SIPTU would have denied them access anyway, but surely they should have told SIPTU what they were planning. Unless SIPTU didn't make it clear what information it required for room bookings - though you'd think that union members would know what would be permitted.

And Caroline Simons?

She launched her campaign by (from the article) criticising the EU for:

1. generating 80% of Ireland's laws (this figure seems to get bigger every time, does anyone know where I can find information on this?).

2. Costing €130 billion each year.

3. The threat to Ireland's corporation tax - for proof of this threat, Angela Merkel's comment that Ireland's corporation tax needs to be revisited was cited (though, my impression was that this would have been part of any bail-out of Ireland by Germany. And I thought the citation for the comment was just a German official, though Simons may have been referring to something else - can anyone point me anything that backs up her point? Anyway, if Germany wants it changed, then that's Germany's policy towards Ireland, not an EU policy - and in any case, Ireland retains a veto under the Lisbon Treaty in such matters). Simons is reported to view this as: "the greatest threat to Ireland’s independence".

4. The institutions waste money - the money the EP has spent on upgrading their fitness facilities, etc. was highlighted.

Though it was repeated that Libertas is not Eurosceptic, no alternative vision of the EU was put forward (or reported), and there was no reason given why they think the EU is necessary. I'm not sure how well their rhetoric will go down - they seem to be running a very British-style anti-Brussels campaign about footing the bill and not getting anything in return ("What do we get here? The bill."). I don't think that that line of argument will be very successful when everywhere you look there are billboards saying that "This [infrastructure project] was jointly funded by the EU", and the general consensus is (and the fact is), that Ireland has been a net beneficiary of the EU.

If the money is being misspent (and I mean the overall EU budget here), then does Libertas have a budget policy? Or will it have one?

The League of Polish Families and Drink-Driving

The leader of the League of Polish Families has been charged with drink-driving. There have been reports that Libertas have distanced themselves from the party because of this, but Libertas deny ever being allied with them.

Personally, I've classed the LPR as being close to Libertas, but maybe I'm reading to much into the leader of Libertas Poland having served as a LPR MP. I would have thought of them as being prime candidates for Libertas allies, since Ganley seems to share a very conservative view of the role of family life and the Church in society. And Ganley has appeared with LPR politicians in the past, so it definitely gave me the impression of closeness, if not alliance.

Though perhaps the LPR wouldn't be as attractive an ally when their leader has not only been charged with drink-driving, but LPR may loose its political appointee as as a director in a Polish TV channel (TVP).

Handy Libertas Round-Up

I know I post too much on Libertas, but the EUobserver has a handy article which acts as a good summery of the Libertas story so far.

Confirmation

Ganley will stand for the EP himself in the June elections. Irish Times article here.

His economic ideas sound similar to Republic ideas in America - small government, tax-cutting, etc. I'd say that that's very against the grain of political thinking in Ireland today - people are crying out for leadership and expect to be taxed (not that they'll like it). How is Ireland to have sound finances if it doesn't tax more to fill the shortfall (since a huge part of the tax revenue came from consumer spending, which has collapsed).

And it's Dublin that sets Irish tax policy, not Brussels, so how is any of this relevant anyway?

To Minister Roche: Please just shut up. Please?

I have often complained at Libertas' conspiracy rhetoric: it's Brussels, out to get us; it's the Irish establishment - they hate us, etc., etc. Look, it's politics - a battle of ideas. If you can't make a case, then how can you win support. Obviously, you must know what your case is first, but you can't plead conspiring elites hate you and the "silent majority" support you (and the not-so-silence majority in Ireland, if you believe that the No voters will translate into Libertas voters), if you can't get even the minimum 7 MEPs/MPs to support you in a Europe full of eurosceptic/euro-reformist parties.

BUT:

There are those who give Ganley & Co this drum to bang in the first place - and first among these is Irish Minister for Europe Dick Roche. EUobserver has reported another twist in the Libertas referendum funding saga - Libertas hasn't fully co-operated with the Standards in Public Office Commission (Here in the Irish Times, with Libertas' response here). Naturally, Roche pounces on this as an opportunity to attack Libertas. It's not proof of anything except a lack of openness on Libertas' side (this is the party of transparency remember, who don't like unelected elites from manipulating the democratic process), yet Roche bangs on about conspiracies too.

Why? It's so easy to attack Libertas over its ideas and its membership. Not only is it made up of far-right and ultra-conservative eurosceptics, but Ganley has lurched to the right himself. Libertas will be against the Lisbon re-run even if the concerns it raise are met through protocols, etc. (though I personally don't believe the Lisbon Treaty affected these areas of concern apart from the Commissioner point) - why? If amendment is as good as drawing a new treaty from scratch, why do it when our leaders have enough on their plates with the economic crisis? If our parliaments re-wrote from scratch every piece of legislation when it was amended, we'd be rightly furious in the costs of time and money. And alternatives? Libertas still hasn't come up with anything.

Fight Libertas on its ideas (or lack thereof), don't play into its demented and self-centred paranoia trip.

So Dick Roche: give the pro-Lisbon side a chance, and shut up.

Ganley Committee Video

People Korps has flagged up a video on Ganley/Libertas' appearance before the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe. It's very long, at almost 3 hours.

In it, Ganley emphasises that the EU needs to be more democratic and citizens need to have a bigger stake in it. A position which I support.

However, he was reluctant to spell out what he would like to see changed, insisting that he didn't have a mandate, despite the fact that it was a Committee that was looking for suggestions on how to proceed. He did eventually, when asked as a private citizen, say that more elected EU posts would be part of the solution. Ok so far.

But the Lisbon arguments didn't add up when compared with his European vision. The ECJ is too strong and too activist, but an EU constitution should be only about 25 pages along (and 15 pages would be "even better"). Subsidiarity is also very important. Yet reducing a complex set of inter-institutional and state relationships on competency and powers that needs to be understood in 23 different languages to 25 pages is an invitation for litigation, misunderstanding and judicial activism.

Subsidiarity is strengthened in the Lisbon treaty, giving national Parliaments more scrutiny of EU legislation and of the appropriateness of exercising power/legislating at the European level. The competence areas of the EU are more clearly defined. On top of this there is the increase in EP power and control over EU legislation.

Ganley insisted that his assertion that those who say that there's no political will to come up with a new treaty should step aside wasn't intended for elected national leaders, yet these are the people who negotiate and set out new treaties and treaty changes, and it is their political will which sets the pace of EU reform, which has been extremely slow (the lack of courage for a big leap forward in the democratization of the EU is reflected in the piecemeal approach in the frequent treaties since the early 1990s). There is nobody else this could refer to except the national leaders.

Some of Ganley's statements seem federalist (indeed some of his past writings seem to be federalist too), but in the absence of any clear policy, and in the presence of so many far-right, ultra-conservative and arch-Eurosceptic Libertas members/supporters, it is impossible to take Libertas seriously as a pro-Europe democratic reform party. Even if Ganley is a democratic reformer as he claims, it takes one than one member of a party, even if he leads it, to work successfully to that end. Or does he plan to unilaterally set the party's manifesto?

Is Germany Ripe for the Libertas brand?

There's a good article on EurActiv about Libertas and Germany. With the Bundesverfassungsgericht throwing doubt on the Lisbon Treaty's democratic credentials, there may well be a niche there that Ganley can exploit, if it was done well.

Even more interesting though, is the assertion that Libertas is not just a one-issue party: something that the pronouncements about making the elections into a "referendum on Lisbon" indicated. This would seem to run counter to the strategy of picking up extreme right-wing conservatives as supporters, though if he really has as big a list of candidates as he claims, then this might not be such a big deal. But then why risk the image by enlisting such right-wing support...? Perhaps Ganley is just that right-wing on his own convictions. If so, are his candidates as well?

Anyway, considering Libertas' gaff-ridden start, it will be a big test to come up with an actual manifesto, and it will be very interesting to see what's in it, and how it will be viewed. It would have to be a lot more moderate than the supporters he's gained (well, kind of gained) so far if he's to gain any support of significance beyond the anti-Lisbonites dissatisfied with national Eurosceptic parties. And how cohesive will the party be? I thought that Libertas was a one-issue party; do the current candidates? Will they have much input into this manifesto? Will they promote it, agree with it, etc? Or will it be centrally set and cause a loss of candidates?

Ganley also protests that Libertas is not all about him. Well, since there's so much uncertainty about him running, and there is no sign of a deputy chairman who can runs if Ganley doesn't, there is a distinct lack of a viable substitute candidate if he doesn't run. And the Fine Gael poll in the article doesn't sound too promising for Mr. Ganley. A second problem for Ganley running for election himself is that the leader of the opposition and Fine Gael, Enda Kenny has challenged him to run in his constituency. Will Ganley run there if he decides to run or risk being called a coward if he runs in a different constituency?

Anyway, there is a distinct lack of a strong "front bench" Libertas team for it to be seen as anything but a one-Ganley show. There are not even any candidates trying to build up a public image which will be vital in the elections.

Also: Libertas has updated their site with this article. Still no sign of a Finland page in Finnish, though.

They are "mildly amused that the other Libertas signatories have not been persuaded to suffer from amnesia"? I'm a bit confused over the choice of "mildly amused" as a choice of words - why not praise them for upholding democracy, etc, etc? The article isn't exactly a very mature and considered sounding rejection of the allegations, and the proof of Kuminev's signature is... well, I can't see it well enough to judge (I can't even see his name there in print, though I can see "Sofia"), and I don't know enough about Cyrillic alphabets and Kuminev's signature to judge either. And the allegation was that if they had a signature, it was forged.

I will take a look at the Libertas manifesto when (if) it comes out, and who knows, I may change my mind about them. However, I have little faith that there'll be a big change (not even I am that naive), so I'll stick to my position 'til then.

Libertas... They're radioactive!

This was made by People's Korps who runs a sort of UKIPwatch for Libertas. A very anti-Libertas blog, but I'm hardly going to condemn that, am I?

I suppose this is the official confirmation, if any was needed, that I'm now firmly anti-Libertas (and probably also that I'm a bit childish?).

Ganley lurches further right - perhaps Brussel's elite is to blame for this too?

Eh? Who is this Ganley now and where is he coming from? He was speaking at a panel discussion hosted by a pro-life Catholic group. Here's a long quote from the Irish Times:

He also assured delegates of his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, referring to earlier opening remarks in which he quoted from Pope Benedict’s recent encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi , “with their message of God’s love”.

Reflecting on Ireland’s history he continued, “our faith and our rights are strong today because we have suffered the yoke of oppression . . . we grew stronger and we grew free”.

He queried whether “we have lost something” and noted the address of the pope at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome immediately prior to his election in April 2005. There, the pope criticised a “dictatorship of moral relativism . . . in a world where faith in God is seen as a threat”, Mr Ganley said.

He went on to criticise “a media obsessed with breaking down the domestic church . . . and the family” and reminded delegates that “the essence of our faith is that all life is sacred”. He concluded: “Yes we must, we must take risks for truth.”

In the later question-and-answer session, he said any guarantees given by the EU on social and ethical issues “were not worth the paper they are written on”, where the European Court of Justice was concerned.

Ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church itself, upon examining the Lisbon Treaty, found that it would not effect family law and issues such as abortion (well, it is what right-wing Catholic pressure group Coir did during the referendum campaign - but who says that Catholicism needs to be coherent?), and ignoring that the Treaties post-Lisbon explicitly state that family law is to remain a matter for the member states, why exactly should the Catholic Church have a central role in Ireland?

We tried that before, and it wasn't exactly fun. Does Ganley want the "dictatorship of moral relativism" to be replaced with Church authority? He would probably deny that, but modern societies are diverse, with many groups with different views - and such an idealised version of religious and family life can't even be attempted to be maintained without a the Church being in a position of great authority in society. It seems perverse that someone who claims to want the EU to be democratized and rails against Brussels elites, at the same time criticises the press for not showing enough deference to Church authority and advocates an idealised, conservative model of society which would exclude so many others.

The media is right to be critical of the Church, and the Church has only itself to blame. Ganley, raised in England, may not fully appreciate the sway the Church had on society here, but he should be well aware of how it has been abused. Child abuse is only the most extreme example.

Faith should be private.

On a probably more relevant political note:

"The party was now recognised in all 27 EU countries, he said, and referred delegates to its website www.libertas.eu."

The website is another thing. It has not been updated in ages, has no mention of who has given Libertas support (I had to find that out elsewhere), and seems to mainly exist to issue howls of righteous indignation against the government, other parties and Brussels whenever they say anything against him, or he suffers a setback. There are some who have reacted by trying to smear him (and he reacts by smearing them back), which is totally the wrong way to go about it. His ideas and his "party" are so riddled with weaknesses that it should be easy to take him on. Wild rhetoric on the pro-Lisbon side is a sign of weakness, and brings the debate down.

And despite support from a Finnish MP, I note that Libertas' Finland page is still in English...

Libertas' EU funding halted

Just after Libertas was recognised as a pan-European party eligible for just over €200,000 of EU money, an Estonian MP - needed to confirm Libertas' pan-European credentials (it must have the backing of a certain amount of other national parties in a number of member states) - has distanced himself from Libertas. Igor Grazin has denied signing anything backing Libertas' attempt to gain recognition as a pan-European political party. Libertas has claimed that Grazin did sign a document in its Brussels office.

Meanwhile, Liberal MEP Andrew Duff has called for the decision to give Libertas official recognition to be reviewed.

It's an embarrassing incident for Libertas, and it will be interesting to see if they can prove that they got Grazin's signature at some point (could Grazin withdraw his support even if he has signed a document of support earlier, or is he locked into it? I would assume so, but I'm not certain on that). More important would be if Libertas will be able to attract enough support without Grazin.

Libertas Campaign Launched (Again?)

Libertas has launched it's campaign in Poland. I have to admit, I'm not sure if this is a recent event or not - the Irish Times has just reported it today, but the Libertas website sets Ganley's Polish rally on the 11th of January, but I think I visited the site between now and then and didn't notice it... Perhaps it was a different event.

Anyway, the candidates I've read about seem right-wing and rabidly eurosceptic, a philosophy which doesn't seem to be reflected in how Libertas likes to portray itself. And while this theoretically shouldn't impact on what is supposed to be a single issue party, Libertas' target audience in Ireland during the referendum was the wavering middle class - not a group likely to be courted successfully by the candidates and viewpoints on offer. Of course, this doesn't mean the same tactics will be used across Europe, but Ganley has shown some desire to project Libertas as a pro-European movement, if only with an eye on how Libertas abroad will reflect on Libertas at home. Though it would be the first time that the Polish resistance against the Nazis was invoked in the name of a "pro-European" cause. Isn't "Europeanism" supposed to have good-neighbourliness at its core? I wonder if his comments on the Siege of Vienna 1683 reveals anything about his views on Turkish membership prospects?

Libertas has also gained access to EU funding as it was granted pan-European party status. Ganley has stated that this money (€202,823) will not be spent by Libertas until it has gained a mandate from the voters. A German pro-Europe think tank also called Libertas is threatening to sue Ganley's Libertas for "usurping its name to campaign against the Lisbon Treaty".

Libertas in the Czech Republic

Libertas has found someone to head its operations in the Czech Republic, in the form of Vladimir Zelezny. Or if not to head, at least join.

Mr. Zelezny is already an MEP, and is currently under investigation for tax fraud. He has also described himself as a Eurosceptic, something which was apparently an issue for Libertas with Mr. Mach (although perhaps that was only after Mach said that he wouldn't run on the Libertas platform).

Libertas is still incoherent ideologically, though this may not be a problem if it only runs as a one-issue party.

Ireland and Lisbon

It has been reported that there is a poll showing a majority in favour of Lisbon:

"The Sunday Independent / Quantum Research survey carried out last Friday showed that 55 per cent of the 500 people asked would support the treaty while 37 per cent said they would oppose it and 15 per cent said they were undecided."

However, as the article also points out, confidence in the government and the Taoiseach has collasped (and with good reason in my opinion).

While Fianna Fáil have been the senior partner in the government for more than a decade now, leading to the natural political reaction of blaming them for the state of the economy (and it is in a state, with reports that the government will have to borrow €45 million a day to sustain its budget this year), I think the collapse in support for the government has little to do with Lisbon (not that this was implied in the article). Most of the backlash began in September when budgetary proposals threatened to slash public spending in very uncomfortable ways (the issue of means-teasting free medical care for over 70s (Ireland isn't famous for it's "welfare state" in the first place) led to particularly bitter protests). The poor leadership of the government since hasn't improved matters, and probably indicates a collapse of confidence in itself, never mind on the side of the voters.

So the big question is can the referendum be won dispite this. The Irish public are very... sensitive, or rebellious if you want to put a more glamourous spin on it (and I make this generalization as an Irishman), so there are a lot of things for us to take "offence" at. (I will try to post later about the Irish Referendum in detail). The organisation and effectiveness of the No side (which is very good) in making the appeal to this side of the public will probably be the deciding factor. Though never underestimate the incompetence of the Yes side...

In other news, Declan Ganley has failed to find a local to wear the Libertas badge in the Czech Republic, at least so far. The Free Citizen's Party has been set up by Petr Mach to campaign on an anti-Lisbon platform. Ganley has declared that he is pro-EU, while Mach is eurosceptic, so that's ok then.

Of course, I know nothing about how their talks were carried out, but that they were talking about Mach running on a Libertas platform come election time gives me the impression that the "vetting" stage should have already taken place. So if it's important that Libertas is both "pro-europe" as well as anti-Lisbon, then it has clearly only become important recently.

Mind you, vetting isn't really needed when all they have to do is get elected, and then... well, nothing. Libertas sets itself up explicitly as a protest vote (and supposedly a very specific one at that), nothing more.

Besides all the arguments based on democracy,* why should taxpayers pay people not to do their jobs for 5 years?



*Including, but not limited to: Shouldn't the people have a voice during the 5 year term of the EP? Does it not damage the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the EP if its members are sent there without any policy platform? For a party which claims to want the EU to be reformed to have more democracy, is it not counter-productive to say the least to stand on a platform which will dent the effectiveness of the only directly elected institution in the EU?