European Elections 2009: Afterthought

This is a bit late (I took yesterday off blogging-wise), but the results in Ireland were only finalised after I wrote my analysis, so I think I'll add a few afterthoughts.

First of all, it was a great result for the PES in Ireland - they've now got 3 seats in the Republic, which is a surprise win, really. It puts them only one behind the EPP. ALDE have done well in Ireland too - they're up 3 to 4 MEPs, due to Fianna Fáil joining ELDR in this parliament (the other ALDE MEP is an independent that isn't an ELDR member).

For pro-Lisbonites, it was a good election, even though Lisbon wasn't really an issue, since the anti-Lisbon MEPs did quite badly. Kathy Sinnot (InDem co-leader) lost her seat in Ireland South - online glee here (http://stephenspillane.com/blog/index.php/2009/06/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead/) - and Mary Lou McDonald (SF/GUE-NGL) lost her Dublin seat. Though Joe Higgins (Socialist) is equally as anti-Lisbon as MLM, her scalp is of higher value given her prominence in the Lisbon I campaign.

Of course, the failure of Ganley to win a seat is the clearest victory. He had called for a recount (during his appearance on the BBC he made out as if the officials had spotted a problem and called for a recount rather than him being the one to demand it), and the result of this has produced my favourite line of the elections:

"However, that recheck found that Mr Ganley had been awarded 3,000 extra votes in error."

Around Europe, Libertas were defeated left, right and centre - they've only managed 1 of their desired 100 seats, and that was de Villiers in France, who was an outgoing MEP, and likely to have been re-elected simply on the local support he had there, rather than on the strength of the Libertas brand.

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....

Eurosceptic, moi?

Libertas have tired to portray themselves as pro-European, but anti-Lisbon, though many aren't convinced due to some of his continental EP election allies (for example, French politician Philippe de Villiers). Combined with their general rhetoric and lack of policy alternatives (honestly, if you can't come up with any policies and your website counter says there's under 19 days to the election, why not just remove the line promising to reveal your policies in the coming weeks?), it's not surprising that most people consider Libertas a Eurosceptic party - apart from other Eurosceptic parties of the "Better Off Out" variety.

Still, with Ganley's vague musings on wanting a 25-page constitution, and perhaps an elected president (though I think this has been dropped recently), there was something there that could be spun into a critical yet pro-European image; a brand for those who don't hate the EU, but are still uncomfortable with it. Ganley has waxed lyrical on the single market, saying how he himself has benefited from the EU; the implication being that Libertas doesn't have a problem with the fundamentals of the EU.

Yet, with around 3 weeks left, the Irish Times have reported that Libertas have an immigration policy, both for EU and non-EU citizens coming into Ireland. They want a "blue card" system:

"[Caroline Simons, Libertas' Dublin candidate has been] calling for the adoption of a “blue card” throughout the European Union that would allow a citizen of the EU to live in another member state for up to two years as a guest worker as long as they were not a burden on the receiving state."

It's not just Simons:

"Her comments followed similar comments on Thursday by Libertas East candidate Raymond O’Malley, who said the time had come to stop the tide of workers coming from accession states."

Given that the single market has at its core the free movement of goods, capital, services and people, this represents a major attack on the single market. Hardly a pro-European policy.

This latest lurch deeper into right-wing populism may be a result of recent opinion polls which show that the 3 main parties are likely not to face any major challenge by Libertas - indeed, the current prediction is that Libertas will win no Irish seats. So even Ganley's chances are slim, despite having the advantage of being the sole candidate living in Galway, the most populous area of his constituency.

Considering that immigration has never been an issue in Ireland before - at least, not one where the main parties are prominent - it will be quite interesting to see how this goes down with the electorate. Speaking very generally, the economic boom and a certain sympathy for immigrants due to Irish history has ensured that the few grumbles there have been over immigration have been largely overwhelmed by appeals to the Irish people's image as a friendly and hospitable people.

I doubt it will be very effective for 2 reasons (beyond that of the historical sympathy):

(1) a reaction to the economic crisis was an increase in emigration. Not all of it is to the EU, and the degree of it may have been talked up by the Irish media since the image of people leaving invokes the pre-boom Ireland and can be seen as a symbol of the collapse. However, restricting emigration opportunities may not go down too well. I'd say people will still look at the restrictions such a policy would impose on them as well as other EU citizens as not being a factor unworthy of consideration.

(2) this stance shows desperation on Libertas' part. They have already portrayed themselves as ring-wing and Catholic, so I can't see how many extra votes this will get them. At the same time, Libertas needs to get more voters to embrace it by being more moderate and less of a fringe party. In other words, the Irish are still quite pro-European and any Eurosceptic party will need to be seen as somewhat respectable to get any sort of significant vote. The further right Libertas goes, the more it inhibits its ability to gain a wide base of support.

Of course, Libertas' support could get a boost in the next 3 weeks. Walesa will probably give another Libertas address, this time in Ireland, and Libertas will get a publicity boost if nothing else. (If Walesa gives this address, it will be his 3rd paid appearance for Libertas after Rome and Madrid, despite his son running under an EPP-aligned Polish party and despite saying that he doesn't support Libertas; he just values their role as a democratic opposition [or something along those lines]).

And interesting question would be: if no Libertas candidates are elected in Ireland, how long will Libertas hold together without/with a weak Ireland-based leadership?


On a wider note, here's some analysis in the Irish Times on the election: link. Interestingly, it seems to show that voters are distinguishing between candidates and current MEPs on one hand, and their opinions of the government and opposition on the other, despite the lack of a developed pan-European campaign. Perhaps not so much identification of European issues as opposed to national one, as identification with candidates and current MEPs, and a willingness to see them (slightly) separately from their parties. It's great to read that candidates are being judged on an individual level, and a pity that not all member states give their citizens this opportunity.

Dublin EP Elections on TV3's Nightly News

Vincent Browne hosted a debate between some of the candidates in the race for 3 Dublin EP seats. (People Korp's site flagged this up).

Only one of them was a sitting MEP (Proinsias de Rossa - Labour/PES), but the programme was interesting none the less, with a Green candidate (and current Sentator - one of eleven who had been appointed by Bertie when he was still Taoiseach) Deirdre de Burca and a former Green Patrica McKenna (who lost her EP seat in the last election and campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum) arguing over their independence from the government should they win a seat. Caroline Simons, the Dublin Libertas candidate was also there, and gave a lamentable performance when Browne tried to pin her down on policy.

The debate raised 3 issues: the independence of MEPs from their parties when they're in government, MEPs expenses, Libertas' lack of policies.

De Burca and McKenna battled over the issue of independence. McKenna has just left the Green Party (she is at odds with the party's decision to go into government with Fianna Fáil) and is standing as an independent, and claims that she will be better placed to press for Ireland to properly implement environmental directives and fight for environmental and social policies when a Green candidate would be pressured into following the government line. De Burca rubbished this, but I think that all national party executives exert pressure on their EP contingent - especially when they're in government. I don't know how the Green party is in this area, but, as Jon Worth has explained, national party executives have divided the PES and effectively wrecked moves to run a socialist candidate for the Commission Presidency.

De Rossa and De Burca also highlighted the importance of political groups within the EP, and De Burca said she encourages people to check out the groups. It's good to hear candidates trying to communicate the politics of the EP, and De Burca deserves credit for calling on voters to support the left leaning parties to ensure an EP that will be strong on Green and social issues. It's not exactly a strong European campaign, but it's good to hear that some candidates are trying to communicate what votes can mean for the make up and policies of the parliament.

Simons was torn to shreds by Browne. It took a lot of waffle and increasingly impaticent interjections from Browne for Simons to give an example of what kind of powers the EU should return to member states - she settled on labelling: she believes it burdens businesses with too much cost. Browne wasn't impressed, and De Rossa easily asserted the value of labelling rules for consumer protection and the free movement of goods. It was a very poor choice by Simons - there are undoubtedly arguments for and against regulation in many areas, but it's a different argument to at what level the power to regulate should be vested.

Later, Simons went on the attack over the actions of the ECJ. She didn't do well here either - after raising the issue, Browne pressed for an example, which she had to admit she hadn't prepared and couldn't think of one off the top of her head. This is very damaging - after all, Simons is supposed to be a solicitor, and I imagine she was choosen as a candidate to lend credibility to Libertas' claims in areas of EU law. Not that's she's been very good on the subject before - as her performance in front of the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe shows.

She did a bit better attacking De Rossa over expenses, but the blows didn't really land. De Rossa wasn't great at explaining his position over expenses, but he defused the issue by asserting that he's put information on his expenses on his website (here). It was still quite shocking to find out that he received €300,000 in expenses. It raises a lot of questions of the worth/need for this level of expenses. (The video showing this is the second half here).

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.

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?

An achievable ambition?

Libertas aims to field over 100 candidates in the upcoming European elections, but is it an achievable ambition? After all, in Ireland, Libertas' home base, so far Ganley is the only announced candidate.

So how will Libertas do it? According to Irish Election, Libertas has sent out emails to those who subscribed to their email list, asking all those who are willing to apply to be candidates or nominate candidates. (This strikes me as a bit desparate, but who knows - if they actually do get good talent, it could work. You can never rule out a 1 in a million chance).

In this sort of situation, how do we analyse Libertas? Its claims to be pro-European are somewhat tainted by his association with far-right nationalist and eurosceptic candidates (notably in France). And the structure of the party makes it even more confusing. It seems to be run like a business, almost franchising the name out with the basic policy of anti-Lisbonism attached. So is run in a top-down fashion? To some extent, I would say so (though I'd say allied parties in other member states need to be appeased in some policy areas in order to imbue Libertas with the pan-European aura), but the manifesto will be interesting to read in this regard.

Will it be decided on by Libertas' members/candidates? Will it be drawn up by the Irish core or will there be a pan-Europe party conference which will vote on a manifesto? Such a conference would be great publicity, but it could also be a PR disaster - what if (as I suspect) Libertas doesn't attract enough pro-Europe yet anti-Lisbon members to balance out the plan eurosceptics? Will top-down control be imposed/reasserted in this event?

Another question is the risk of fielding 100+ candidates (enough for almost a 1/7 of EP seats under Nice). Libertas will be judged to some extent on its percentage of successful candidates, though this pressure will not be too great for such an experimental party. So how will its success/failure be measured? And will fielding so many candidates stretch out the party's resources, assuming that funding will not just be limited to the member state in with it is raised?

This quote stood out for me in the EUobserver article:

Mr Ganley... said it was "disgraceful" that taxpayers money was to be used to "inform the Irish people" about the treaty when they had already rejected it.

Damn information campaigns would only confuse people. They wouldn't know if they didn't know so they could vote no, you know?

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.

Ireland-EU News Round-up

There have been several Europe-related developments in Ireland recently, so here's what I've noticed over the last few days:

Story 1: The Greens want Ireland to pull out of the EDA, apparently to placate their membership, as the Greens didn't get enough party support to campaign on the pro-Lisbon side in the June Referendum (I think they required 2/3 of party members to vote for a pro-Lisbon campaign strategy). Ireland's membership of the EDA was a stumbling block, it seems (I didn't hear about this at the time, but I may have missed it). Cowen has been reported as wanting some sort of compromise.

The EDA is supposed to make it cheaper for European governments to buy good quality military hardware. If you want to make the argument that it's good for arms dealers, so therefore it's bad, then that's up to you. Personally, I support the EDA - I find it hard to believe that the idea of getting the same defense at a lower cost (or better defense at the same cost) could be a bad thing. Since the Greens seem to be pushing this because they realise that it would be bad for Ireland to pull out of the ESDP, it looks like they just want to pull out of something, just to be seen to be doing something.

Story 2: Libertas are involved in yet more membership shenanigans, with the revelation that they may have offered an eurosceptic Swedish party almost €1 million for its support and some sort of joint platform in the European elections. No response to these allegations on their website yet; can they not get someone to run their website properly or deal with Libertas' online presence if they have as much support as they claim? It will be interesting to see how they respond - I can't see any way they have of turning this into a Brussels conspiracy. (Picked up here and here and here by Peoplekorps (apparently talks about the €1 million did take place...) and reported here by the Irish Times).

Story 3: Well, more of a continuation of one I've already written about. The Liberals in the EP are going to accept Fianna Fáil's application to join their group, and will assist them with money in the second Lisbon referendum if they need it. I'm not too happy with Watson's alarmist comments about the referendum being an in-or-out decision for Ireland. It's this kind of talk that comes across as scaremongering, which should be left to Libertas.

There's an interesting article about Ireland and Germany by the Irish Times here. I wonder if I can find Our Farm on the internet?

Catholicism, Ireland and the EU

Ireland is a much more liberal and secular country than it has been in the past, but religion still plays a bigger role in Ireland than in some other European countries (though it's debatable whether or not this is due to conservative religious views being widely held, or if religious conservatives are just well organised and good at promoting their message). The idea of "Christian Europe" is alive in some quarters (though my impression that defining Europe as Christian is limited to a few groups), and I have even heard Dana (who almost got to run for the Presidency, but didn't even have enough support to force an election) talking on RTÉ radio about how the EU "discriminates" against Christians. It was a very strange debate, with her opponents rightly rubbishing her claims, but they also pointed to the Catholicism of some of the EU's founding fathers, as if the EU can (and should) be claimed as some sort of Catholic creation.

I would stress that this is a very minor issue; most concerns are based on sovereignty issues (tax & defence) rather than religion - Coir didn't really mobilise many voters to the No side based on family law issues (a stance which directly contradicted the Church's position), though it was able to protray itself as a success in the light of a No victory.

(Still, I would have thought that the response to such arguments would be based more on the "faith should be divorced from the state" line, since Ireland hasn't exactly had a great experience under official and semi-official Churches, both Anglician and Catholic.)

Now the archbishop of Ireland has backed a more positive view of Europe, and even considers the duty of the Church to set right the misinformation of "fundamentalist Catholics" (his words). To be fair, the Church has generally been pro-to-neutral on Europe, but its silence when misinformation on family law is being spread has meant that the EU has been protrayed mostly by small groups as being hostile to Catholic interests (perhaps some form of religio-patriotism to boost the profile of the conservative side on family issues?).

So an ethical issue for those who believe in the separation of religion and politics (as hard as it is to do so): do religions have a duty to intervene in a political debate when groups outside their control are using misinformation of the facts and of the religion's position to influence politics?


And if the Catholic Church steps in to dismiss anti-Lisbon Treaty claims, will this have much impact on Libertas, which Ganley is turning increasingly into a right-wing traditionalist/religious political platform?

Fianna Fáil go Liberal

The Fianna Fáil party in Ireland (the senior party in the governing coalition) is going to join the Liberal group in the European Parliament, after delegates voted in the party's Ardfheis (party conference) to accept the move. Provided that the Liberals accept them of course. It is unlikely to be much of a boost to the Liberals in the coming election, though as support for the party has collapsed in Ireland recently. Though since the party did so badly at the last European elections, there may not be a massive drop in the size of its delegation to the EP.

There are also plans to tighten rules about campaign funding for groups engaged in referendum campaigns. The move is clearly targeted at Libertas, whose funding has been a source of controversy and speculation ever since Lisbon I.

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?

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.