Libertas cries foul after losing European party status, reported EUbusiness and quoted a Libertas statement: "This case is a fine example of how anti-democratic the Brussels establishment can be."
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1235038622.9
Anti-democratic?
The lashing came as a reaction to the finding by the European Parliament Bureau that two of the signatures submitted by Libertas in their application for status and funding as a political party at European level were not valid.
Libertas did not have the required representation of elected politicians in at least seven member states. The European Parliament could hardly approve the application, could they?
The deadline for Europarty applicationas expired on 1 November 2008.
Should the European Parliament ignore the deadline and allow Libertas to dig up new representatives until they get it right?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
Ganley has adapted to become a politician, if not a good one, very quickly. In a democracy there are naturally rules to the game to ensure fairness, and there should be close scrutiny of parties receiving state money.
ReplyDeleteWhen these rules are ignored, there is criticism (and rightly so), but when they're followed, it's naturally a political conspirisy - but then so is everything with Ganley.
Of course I am assuming that Ganley has the minimum knowledge politicians should have and that he's just playing politics.
It's a mix of foul and foul-up. But Libertas is continuing as foul.
The attitude is depressing. Ganley is blaming 'Brussels' for his own failures.
ReplyDelete