Libertas: Are they to be taken seriously?

The Volt

I don't know whether to believe the hype that they are getting in the papers or not. Does anyone have ideas as to how much of a chance they have in taking some of our European seats?

Scofflaw

Voltwad wrote: »

I don't know whether to believe the hype that they are getting in the papers or not. Does anyone have ideas as to how much of a chance they have in taking some of our European seats?

I think that's an interesting question, and with slightly broader application than just their chance of getting seats. Will the Libertas "alliance" actually hold together after the elections? Even assuming Ganley wins a seat - I assume if he doesn't, then the project is over - there are so many disparate elements under the Libertas brand, and they've been together for such a very short time, that I can't see Libertas holding together in the Parliament for more than a few months.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tobias_wolf

God i hope not, the last thing europe needs is more extremists we already have Sinn fein

thebman

lol, I don't. If anyone does take them seriously, please can you give reasons why someone should take them seriously because I consider them a joke party.

molloyjh

Well let's take a look at some of their points:

1. Unelected Brussels Bureaucrats make up to 80% of laws - only elected officials should make the laws

FACTS: The laws are proposed by the Commission, who are not directly elected by the people. They are put forward by each countries Governments and can be rejected by the Parliament, both of whom are elected by the people. The laws are then voted on by the Parliament who are elected by the people. So the unelected (or if you like the indirectly elected) Commission can propose whatever they want, only elected officials have the power to pass these into law.

In addition most of these laws have no real impact on our day to day lives. They cover numerous things, like the sorts of materials allowed in particular types of buildings and other such minor peices of legislation. This in turn allows the domestic Governments to focus more on the bigger domestic issues.

CONCLUSION: Libertas' claim is factual from a certain point of view but neglects so many facts as to be quite obviously distorted and misleading.

190 Parties + 27 Unelected Commissioners = 1 Big Mess - Libertas is the only way to change it

FACTS: The Lisbon Treaty sought to reduce the number of Commissioners citing the fact that there are so many causes massive inefficiency and cost where there is no need for it. Libertas insisted that we keep "our" Commissioner full-time (and by default that all countries keep "their" Commissioner full-time also).

The 190 Parties are grouped into 7 different groups based on ideaologies with 1 "other" group containing about 30 (I think) of the 785 MEPs. I'm not sure how Libertas propose to change this given that there are 27 different countries that all need to be represented in some way with a certain number of MEPs each.

Libertas give no details on how they are going to change anything in the EU. There is a link from the site saying Read More, but there is no more on the point. No propositions, no ideas. Nothing.

CONCLUSION: Again Libertas ignore certain facts in order to present their case in the best possible way for them. Again they do state fact, however it is such a limited amount of fact as to misrepresent the truth. They also have no answers to the supposed problems they are hghlighting, yet state that they are "the only way to change it"

Libertas wants a strong Treaty

FACT: The Treaty is a legal document that is there to amend existing legal document. As a result it is not ever going to be easily readable. The Constitution was an attempt to avoid the complicated and confusing business of a Treaty, but that was not received favourably due, in part, to the connotations that the Constitution raises re sovereignty.

CONCLUSION: Libertas either do not understand the nature of international legal treaties or they are purposefully and willfully ignoring it in an attempt at gaining support from those who do not understand the complexities of these issues.


Basically they go on as though they are democracies last hope. Well for me one of the most important things any democratic organisation can do is assist in educating the electorate. Libertas make no effort to do that, in fact they prey on ignorance. They have great slogans all over the place, yet their policy page is 1 A4 sheet long. There is nothing of any substance what-so-ever there. They cannot, nor should not, be taken seriously as a political party.

oscarBravo

molloyjh wrote: »

Libertas' [80%] claim is factual from a certain point of view but neglects so many facts as to be quite obviously distorted and misleading.

Has anyone ever seen a primary source to back up this 80% claim?

Generation Yes claim to have researched this and come up with an altogether different figure: http://www.generationyes.ie/fight-the-lies/

_blank_

molloyjh wrote: »

Libertas give no details on how they are going to change anything in the EU. There is a link from the site saying Read More, but there is no more on the point. No propositions, no ideas. Nothing.

This is the most important part of this whole "Libertas" movement, in my opinion.

I went to their website this morning, and have not been able to find any policy direction other than some bluster about wanting to change things.

How?

Why?

When?

None of these questions are addresses, and they will not be getting my vote unless they present some proper policies.

molloyjh wrote: »

They cannot, nor should not, be taken seriously as a political party.

Not until we see some solid policies they shouldn't.

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen a primary source to back up this 80% claim?

Generation Yes claim to have researched this and come up with an altogether different figure: http://www.generationyes.ie/fight-the-lies/

I did look this up before (don't have time now, already past my lunch-break ) and the figure was taken from the amount of legislation introduced in Germany in one particular year if I remember right. Looking into what they were a lot were the sort of stuff described above. Really detailed specific peices of legislation that had little to no actual effect on the average Joe.

getcover

If Caroline Simmons is the best they can put forward, they cannot be taken seriously.
She is like an amalgam of the worst parts of Cullen, Dick Roche and Mary Lou McDonald. Avoid at all costs!

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

I did look this up before (don't have time now, already past my lunch-break ) and the figure was taken from the amount of legislation introduced in Germany in one particular year if I remember right. Looking into what they were a lot were the sort of stuff described above. Really detailed specific peices of legislation that had little to no actual effect on the average Joe.

Actually, the "primary source" is this - Roman Herzog, the former German President, said 80% of Germany's laws came from the Commission. Here:

Former President Roman Herzog said it here (translation of original article in Welt Am Sonntag, February 14 2007)

The information he was basing his figure on is on page 15 here: (April 29, 2005, in the German Parliamentary Journal 15/5434 of May 6, 2005)

This is State Secretary Parliamentary Undersecretary Alfred Hartenbach Hartenbach saying: From 1998 until 2004 167 EU regulations and 750 directives have been passed. During the same period the German Parliament has in total 1.195 laws (as well as 3055 Rechtsverordnungen) passed.
(“Rechtsverordnungen” are a wide category of binding acts by Parliament, government, administration)

Now, if you look at that, you'll see that the 80% is the result of dividing the (167 EU regulations and 750 directives) by 1,195 - leaving out the 3,055 Rechtsverordnungen - and rounding up the resulting 76.7%.

If you do the sum right it's 917 EU out of (1195+3055) - 21%, which accords very well with the 28% figure Generation Yes are showing for Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Volt

Kudos to molloyjh on that post, very informative

Hitman Actual

oscarBravo wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen a primary source to back up this 80% claim?

Generation Yes claim to have researched this and come up with an altogether different figure: http://www.generationyes.ie/fight-the-lies/

I read something a while back from, I think, an OECD report which stated that the figure is less than 50%, which compares well with the Generation Yes worst-case figure. I'll try to dig it out.

BlitzKrieg

also I read somewhere that the 80% figure comes from some report on the Enviroment laws from the US and the original statement was *in some cases up to 80% of enviromental law was introduced by the European Union*

Hitman Actual

As usual the Grahnlaw blog is a great place to go for EU analysis, and he's been picking through the bones of Libertas' policies over the last few weeks. Here's what he's covered so far:

Hold the EU Accountable- Only Elected Politicians should make the law.

Full Disclosure- All EP and Commission expenses must be published.

Save Money- €10 Billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.

A Lean EU- Cut the number of meetings in Brussels by 50% in 2010..

Libertas wants a strong Treaty.

Also, a collection of all his Libertas-related posts.

sink

Hitman Actual wrote: »

As usual the Grahnlaw blog is a great place to go for EU analysis, and he's been picking through the bones of Libertas' policies over the last few weeks. Here's what he's covered so far:

Hold the EU Accountable- Only Elected Politicians should make the law.

Full Disclosure- All EP and Commission expenses must be published.

Save Money- €10 Billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.

A Lean EU- Cut the number of meetings in Brussels by 50% in 2010..

Libertas wants a strong Treaty.

Also, a collection of all his Libertas-related posts.

AVG detected active threats on grahnlaws blog and has blocked access . I've visited it many times before this is the first time this has happened.

r14

sink wrote: »

AVG detected active threats on grahnlaws blog and has blocked access . I've visited it many times before this is the first time this has happened.

Libertas cyberspys at work

Hitman Actual

sink wrote: »

AVG detected active threats on grahnlaws blog and has blocked access . I've visited it many times before this is the first time this has happened.

Hmmm... I've AVG as well, and I've configured it as recommended in these guides. I have no problem getting access (Vista 64-bit, AVG Free 8.5).

P. Breathnach

sink wrote: »

AVG detected active threats on grahnlaws blog and has blocked access . I've visited it many times before this is the first time this has happened.

Odd. It didn't for me.

passive

r14 wrote: »

Libertas cyberspys at work

amazing what you can do with CIA funding

Scofflaw

Cough...on-topic, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

WIZE

Are you watching tha NIGHTLY NEWS on TV3 . Sh1t is hitting the fan

The Volt

passive wrote: »

amazing what you can do with CIA funding

I believe it's the funding from the American Arms Industry

Scofflaw

BVB wrote: »

Are you watching tha NIGHTLY NEWS on TV3 . Sh1t is hitting the fan

Can you (a) clarify that, and (b) reduce the width of your signature?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

its the vincent browne show and declan ganley's a guest, So I assume vincent is giving him the same treatment he gave caroline simmons but this time we'll get answers straight from the horses mouth.

Euro_Kraut

Not sure what was on Vincent Browne tonight. But this is Caroline Simons and other candidates from Dublin on last Thursday:

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?show_cal=1&newspanel=1&showspanel=&locID=1.65.169&date=2009-05-11

I love when Vincent gets like this. Best broadcaster in the country on his day. Simons comes across as a real light-weight. Can't believe she brought up the old 'curved banana' nugget..

BlitzKrieg

yeah Vincent Browne is talking with the north west candidates tonight, so hopefully that will be up tomorrow. Just confirmed it from their website.

Euro_Kraut

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

yeah Vincent Browne is talking with the north west candidates tonight, so hopefully that will be up tomorrow. Just confirmed it from their website.

Which candidates did he have? Would love to see Browne vs Ganley.

BlitzKrieg

http://www.scribblelive.com/Event/Vincent_Browne_TV3

Hitman Actual

Just a heads-up: The NW candidates will be on Pat Kenny on Radio 1 this morning as well. Not sure what time in the show though.

snubbleste

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Which candidates did he have? Would love to see Browne vs Ganley.

It was painful to watch, lots of shouting & accusations & "I'm a catholic" declarations
Marian Harkin, Jim Higgins, Paschal Mooney, Declan Ganley

P. Breathnach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Just a heads-up: The NW candidates will be on Pat Kenny on Radio 1 this morning as well. Not sure what time in the show though.

It's on now, and has been on for what feels like forever. I still have no problem with putting Ganley way down on my ballot, but I am finding it difficult to identify candidates that I want to vote for. It will come down to "least worst".

Libertas is a policy-free organisation, running on slogans.

Steviemak

From http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/european-elections-libertas-principles.html just in case people can't access

European elections: Libertas’ principles ─ what do they mean?
We are some 31 days from the start of the European elections. A few moments ago, the policies page of Libertas.eu still told us that:

“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”



***

First principle

The problem is that a simplistic slogan is actually much harder to understand than a detailed explanation, because it raises a number of questions: What do they mean by that? How are they going to achieve it? What are the consequences?

If Libertas is serious about its politics, it should start detailing its policies and their consequences immediately.

In the meanwhile, without a proper Libertas programme, we will have to make do with what is on offer.

Libertas tells us that it is committed to five core principles. We take one at a time, and try to figure out what they mean.

We start with the first one.


***

Hold the EU accountable: Only elected politicians should make the law, says Libertas.

Is Libertas smashing through an open door?

Council?

The supreme law-making body of the European Union is the Council, where the ministers of the EU member states approve the directives and regulations.

Most people would accept the ministers as elected politicians, although their mandate is national.

Is this the problem for Libertas? Should national level politicians be disqualified from EU level decisions?

If Libertas wants to abolish the Council, it should say so. Likewise, if it wants to turn the Council into a second chamber (Senate) of the European Parliament, with directly elected Senators.

**

European Parliament?

The slogan can hardly be directed against the directly elected European Parliament, which participates in many areas of EU legislation. The EP’s participation would increase and develop under the Treaty of Lisbon, so representative democracy at EU level improves during the next parliamentary term, if the treaty enters into force.

Presumably Libertas means to improve representative democracy further by its legislative action within the EP, since it is standing in the elections to the European Parliament.

**

Commission?

The rallying cry can hardly target the Commission, either. The Commission drafts legislative proposals, which are adopted by the Council and often the European Parliament.

I find it hard to believe that Libertas would want to ban the strictly limited cases of delegated legislation by the Commission. Any national or European political system would choke, if the daily fluctuating import values of vegetables or the latest food additive or other details of implementation would have to go the full parliamentary route.

Is Libertas against the Commission’s power to propose legal acts? If that is the case, why not say so?

The rationale for the Commission’s right of proposal is its task to look after the general interest. If Libertas wants to weaken the general interest, which interests does it want to strengthen?


***


National parliaments

National parliaments already make the domestic laws, so the aim of Libertas’ slogan has to be something else. And why should Libertas speak about domestic law-making in a campaign for the European Parliament?

***

Perplexing

As we see, the meaning and the implications of Libertas’ first core principle are far from clear. Honestly, I don’t know what to make of it.

If Libertas wants to maintain what we already have, why launch it as a battle cry, as the first principle of its campaign?

If they want something different, why not tell voters what it is and why it is important?

What do we vote for, if we cast our ballot for a Libertas candidate?

Libertas’ first principle leaves us hanging in suspense.

P. Breathnach

From Libertas's own website (and referred to in the Grahnlaw Blog cited above):

Policies
The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.

[See http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies ]

The five "principles" are:
- Hold the EU accountable
- Full disclosure
- Save money
- Have your say
- A lean EU

These are slogans, nothing more. They tell us nothing about where Libertas stand on economics, society, international relations, trade, consumer issues, and other questions that might interest me. The impression I get is that all they want is to cut things down.

Hitman Actual

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's on now, and has been on for what feels like forever. I still have no problem with putting Ganley way down on my ballot, but I am finding it difficult to identify candidates that I want to vote for. It will come down to "least worst".

Libertas is a policy-free organisation, running on slogans.

Marian Harkin seems the most impressive to me so far, both in this program and on TV3 last night (apart from the scary hand-waving thing! )

Interesting reaction to Ganley there today. One woman said that he "scared her", another person said that the whole debate was "a Punch and Judy show led by Declan Ganley", and I lol'd at the laughs from the crowd when he said his spending so far was only €70K. On this latter point, there's no way he'll ever have any credibilty over funding, even if SIPO were to acknowledge that the spending in the Lisbon referendum was above aboard (highly unlikely, I know). In general terms, nobody will ever trust him or Libertas, so as of now, I really don't see how he will be elected.

I notice he has a new catch-phrase as well: "Political Cartels" :rolleyes:. What a tool he really is.

sink

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Marian Harkin seems the most impressive to me so far, both in this program and on TV3 last night (apart from the scary hand-waving thing! )

I agree, she sits with the ALDE grouping which is the closest ideologically to my own position. It's the third largest grouping in the parliament but she is the only candidate in the whole country aligned with it that I'm aware of.

P. Breathnach

Not sure whether to add this here or on the other thread about Ganley running in my constituency.

I got a mailshot from the Ganley campaign, a postcard-style thing. Two thirds of the space is given to negative campaigning, attacking Fianna Fail and Labour in a general way, and attacking Jim Higgins and Marian Harkin by name.

The alternative he offers is a set of slogans, no real policy, and no specifics on how he might operate.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not sure whether to add this here or on the other thread about Ganley running in my constituency.

I got a mailshot from the Ganley campaign, a postcard-style thing. Two thirds of the space is given to negative campaigning, attacking Fianna Fail and Labour in a general way, and attacking Jim Higgins and Marian Harkin by name.

The alternative he offers is a set of slogans, no real policy, and no specifics on how he might operate.

Hm. Any chance of a scan?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hm. Any chance of a scan?

It's not something I have done before, so I don't know if you will get it. [It seems to have worked.]

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not something I have done before, so I don't know if you will get it. [It seems to have worked.]

Interesting stuff - you're right, it's pure negative campaigning. So Declan will "work to protect Ireland's competitive corporate tax rate"? Hmm, hmm. I wonder if that's what this is all about?

ponderingly,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Guess they didnt have much to say about labour

eightyfish

Libertas are opposed to gay marriage. Current evidence indicates that gay people are born gay, just as Irish people are born Irish. Ergo, there is no difference between homophobia and racism.

This is really all I need to know to ignore them. The lies over Lisbon and the bully-like attitude of Ganley help, though.

Iwasfrozen

@eightyfish, There is counter-evidence for anything.
I wish for wouldn't derail the topic with your nonsense about Homosexuality.

BlitzKrieg

I hate to keep ths off topic, but eightyfish's evidence an article from New Scientist from 2008 is a much more convincing piece of evidence over a letter to malaysiakini that was written in 2005.

But back on topic, An MEP's power over an issue like gay rights is minimal at best, the issue of gay rights lies firmly with the national government of each state so it shouldnt be an issue in a european election.

But many of the things declan ganley has brought up are not issues for a MEP so it could be seen as fair to throw such issues at him aswell.

Course if he responds that its not a topic for a MEP then one can start listing off the issues he has brought up that are not for MEPs.

eightyfish

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wish for wouldn't derail the topic with your nonsense about Homosexuality.

Nonsense? This is a thread about whether Libertas should be taken seriously, no?

Kotek Besar

I'll tell you why I can't take this party seriously, after one glance at this page of their website.

Page is entitled "Five Reasons Why the Lisbon Treaty is Bad for Europe". Just looking the last two there:

4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.

This is already the case!

5. You will have a common EU citizenship.

This is already the case!

How anyone could take this party seriously is beyond me. They've laughable.

Iwasfrozen

Nonsense? This is a thread about whether Libertas should be taken seriously, no?

Yes nonsense, your reason not to vote for Libertas is another mans reason to vote for Libertas. You said that Libertas's opposition to Homosexuality was a reason to condone the party, but how many Christain Democrat, Conservative parties exist that preach said message and do quite well in the polls as a result ?

I hate to keep ths off topic, but eightyfish's evidence an article from New Scientist from 2008 is a much more convincing piece of evidence over a letter to malaysiakini that was written in 2005.

It was just an example to prove that the debate on the nature of Homosexuality is still very much ongoing and no one medical research can be set in stone, I could find a better example but I don't feel like trawling through Medical Journals.

eightyfish

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I got a mailshot from the Ganley campaign, a postcard-style thing. Two thirds of the space is given to negative campaigning, attacking Fianna Fail and Labour in a general way, and attacking Jim Higgins and Marian Harkin by name.

The alternative he offers is a set of slogans, no real policy, and no specifics on how he might operate.

It's easy to point our problems, not so easy to fix them. Libertas were a one-issue organisation, a bit like a "no to bin tax" party. Now they're simply pointing out their perceived problems with the EU so that people get annoyed, and then asking for a vote. They have no track record at all. They seem, to me, like they're doing a very good job of taking advantage of a euro-sceptic gap in the market.

eightyfish

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes nonsense, your reason not to vote for Libertas is another mans reason to vote for Libertas. You said that Libertas's opposition to Homosexuality was a reason to condone the party, but how many Christain Democrat, Conservative parties exist that preach said message and do quite well in the polls as a result ?

Yes, but that is one stand-out reason that I will not vote for them. I am not gay, but a good friend of mine recently had to move to the UK in order to be able to marry his long term partner. As his partner is a non-EU citizen, they are now not allowed into Ireland unless he gets a visa. This is not a good situation, and it is a situation which Libertas would seem to support. This issue is therefore important to me and I will not accept your dismissal of it as nonsense.

Iwasfrozen

Yes, but that is one stand-out reason that I will not vote for them. I am not gay, but a good friend of mine recently had to move to the UK in order to be able to marry his long term partner. As his partner is a non-EU citizen, they are now not allowed into Ireland unless he gets a visa. This is not a good situation, and it is a situation which Libertas would seem to support. This issue is therefore important to me and I will not accept your dismissal of it as nonsense.

So you where perpared to publicly denonce the party becuase they disagree with a friend of yours ? If you are to publicly denonce every person/group of people that are anti-Homosexuality then you are going to be a very tired man by the time your finished denoncing.

humanji

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you where perpared to publicly denonce the party becuase they disagree with a friend of yours ? If you are to publicly denonce every person/group of people that are anti-Homosexuality then you are going to be a very tired man by the time your finished denoncing.

Eh, would a political party's wish to oppress a portion of a a populace not go against them in an election? You wouldn't consider that a reason to not vote for them?

Iwasfrozen

Eh, would a political party's wish to oppress a portion of a a populace not go against them in an election? You wouldn't consider that a reason to not vote for them?

I wouldn't, personally I am pro Civil Partnership [as long as that is as far as it goes, no marraige]. And as for working against them in an election tell that to the Republicans, Tories, Front National, CDU or even Fine Gael, all of which aren't exactly failing in the polls.