The term Euroskeptic (or Eurosceptic) has been used misleadingly to lend adversaries of European integration an aura of intellectual respectability.
Here are a few suggestions for a new and more accurate political EU vocabulary in a UK context, ahead of the European elections.
***
Constructive
Liberals
Stronger Together Poorer Apart
***
Euroskeptic
Labour Party
Behind the slipstream of Europe, paring down the Lisbon Treaty and approving it with four opt-outs.
***
Anti-European
Libertas
Campaigns to take the European Union back to the Treaty of Nice and to put an end to free movement.
Conservative Party
Wants to wreck the Lisbon Treaty, leave the mainstream EPP-ED parliamentary group and commence integration in reverse. The ones who love French wine and cheese and holidays on the Riviera may object to being called anti-Europeans, which however refers to their political views.
***
Eurotoxic
UKIP and BNP want Britain to exit.
***
Reasoned suggestions are welcome.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label Libertas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertas. Show all posts
Friday, 22 May 2009
Sunday, 17 May 2009
European elections: Coming soon (to Libertas)
Today the policies page of Libertas.eu still tells us that the Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on their site in the coming weeks.
The front page reminds us that some 17 days remain until the start of the European elections.
Luckily, the term “week” can still be used in the plural.
***
When Libertas says something, like being the most visited political party web site in the world, it is impossible to get credible information to back it up, as told on Irish election: Libertas Says They Dominate The Interwebz (15 May 2009).
***
Because of the lack of credible and substantial information, you can read the posts on The Libertas Collection instead.
Ralf Grahn
The front page reminds us that some 17 days remain until the start of the European elections.
Luckily, the term “week” can still be used in the plural.
***
When Libertas says something, like being the most visited political party web site in the world, it is impossible to get credible information to back it up, as told on Irish election: Libertas Says They Dominate The Interwebz (15 May 2009).
***
Because of the lack of credible and substantial information, you can read the posts on The Libertas Collection instead.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 15 May 2009
Heritage Foundation saving Europe!?
With friends like these ...
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Heritage Foundation: Lisbon Treaty risks US leadership
I want to thank Semper Idem for bringing it to my attention: The Heritage on the Lisbon Treaty.
Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation tells the whole world why the UK Conservatives should scrap the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Europe should be saved from challenging US leadership on the world stage.
I can hardly wait for the explanations from the EU disintegrator William Hague and the talented Mr Declan Ganley.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. While waiting, you can always read European elections: The Libertas Collection.
Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation tells the whole world why the UK Conservatives should scrap the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Europe should be saved from challenging US leadership on the world stage.
I can hardly wait for the explanations from the EU disintegrator William Hague and the talented Mr Declan Ganley.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. While waiting, you can always read European elections: The Libertas Collection.
Merriment at FT Brussels blog
Tony Barber’s post at the Financial Times Brussels blog catches the mood: Barroso’s impotent EU critics hop with fury (13 May 2009).
What else can they do?
A sizeable portion of the heads of state or government have shown that their union is not going to concede even the presidency of the Commission to the voters in the European elections (out of the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty).
Well in advance of the elections to the European Parliament, they have – as national party leaders – across party lines incapacitated the Europarties, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only declared candidate: a renewed mandate for José Manuel Barroso.
Impotent fury or realistic assessment of the state of the union, Adam Smith comes to mind (with minor alterations):
Heads of state or government seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to undermine democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The sadness of the situation is in no way lessened by the populist quality of much dissent, as shown in the post European elections: The Libertas Collection.
What else can they do?
A sizeable portion of the heads of state or government have shown that their union is not going to concede even the presidency of the Commission to the voters in the European elections (out of the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty).
Well in advance of the elections to the European Parliament, they have – as national party leaders – across party lines incapacitated the Europarties, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only declared candidate: a renewed mandate for José Manuel Barroso.
Impotent fury or realistic assessment of the state of the union, Adam Smith comes to mind (with minor alterations):
Heads of state or government seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to undermine democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The sadness of the situation is in no way lessened by the populist quality of much dissent, as shown in the post European elections: The Libertas Collection.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
European Union: A short and readable basic law?
Is a short and readable basic law for the European Union pure fantasy, or could it become a reality?
***
Piecemeal amendments and minute compromises between member states under veto threat have resulted in detailed treaties. They are unsystematic, hard to read and contain redundant material.
The draft Constitution by the European Convention and the Constitutional Treaty by the intergovernmental conference made an attempt at reform of the institutions, but they produced updated and more systematic texts as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon meant a backward step, but many of the substantial and systematic improvements were preserved. In the end, the Lisbon Treaty is more readable than the existing treaties.
***
Structure
The Lisbon Treaty is structured in a more logical way than the current treaties. Basic provisions are situated in the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), while more technical details and policy areas are found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which replaces the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Clarity is added by abolishing the distinction between the European Union and the European Community.
But the latest intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) baulked at placing the whole of external action into the TFEU. Not only did it preserve the intergovernmental character of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP); the provisions remained in the TEU, together with general provisions on the European Union’s external action.
The substantial limitations mean that, despite incremental improvements, the European Union will remain unable to speak with one voice in the world.
But here we are more interested in the supposition that the European Union could have a short and readable basic law.
***
Technically possible
Leaving the Table of Contents outside, and shifting the external action including the CFSP and the CSDP to a second order document would leave us with us with a basic document of less than twenty pages.
Even as it is, the TEU text proper is only about thirty pages long.
As a literary document the TEU is nowhere near the level of the US Constitutions, but tolerably readable if ridded from the references to the TFEU and Protocols.
If the US Constitution could be re-written today, including the amendments, it would get rid of redundant provisions, and it would be even more elegant the existing one.
***
Political difficulties
The main problem is not technical, but political. The European Union is based on international treaties between member states, not a union by the people.
About 200 pages of treaty text and about 160 pages of protocols and declarations follow from the member states’ desire to control events in minute detail.
This is the old covenant, European Union 1.0 based on diplomats and technocrats.
The Lisbon Treaty is version EU 1.1 with added powers for the European Parliament and other reforms.
To demand, as Libertas does, a strong TREATY, but short and readable, is not realistic. Where should the detailed provisions be placed? Would the member states suddenly let go their grip?
As long as the basic documents are international treaties between member states, I see no inherent reason to accept the calls for referendums. (Ireland, due to a domestic constitutional interpretation, happens to be the odd man out.)
***
Solution
If the power is vested in the people, the European Union could have a strong, short and readable basic document.
It would not be a treaty, but a basic law or constitution. This would be the new covenant, EU 2.0.
The shift from the old covenant to the new – from EU 1.0 (or 1.1) to EU 2.0 – would leave the detailed legislation to be approved by the European Parliament and the policies to be pursued by an accountable government.
The federation’s Constitution could be short and clear for all to understand.
The move from EU 1.0 (or 1.x) to EU 2.0 would be groundbreaking. Therefore, as a union of people, the new European Union would need the consent of the governed.
In my view, the willing electorates would form the new union, and the states with negative referendum results would stay outside the new union.
But afterwards the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament, probably by a qualified majority. Representative democracy is the norm; referendums the exception.
Ralf Grahn
***
Piecemeal amendments and minute compromises between member states under veto threat have resulted in detailed treaties. They are unsystematic, hard to read and contain redundant material.
The draft Constitution by the European Convention and the Constitutional Treaty by the intergovernmental conference made an attempt at reform of the institutions, but they produced updated and more systematic texts as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon meant a backward step, but many of the substantial and systematic improvements were preserved. In the end, the Lisbon Treaty is more readable than the existing treaties.
***
Structure
The Lisbon Treaty is structured in a more logical way than the current treaties. Basic provisions are situated in the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), while more technical details and policy areas are found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which replaces the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Clarity is added by abolishing the distinction between the European Union and the European Community.
But the latest intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) baulked at placing the whole of external action into the TFEU. Not only did it preserve the intergovernmental character of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP); the provisions remained in the TEU, together with general provisions on the European Union’s external action.
The substantial limitations mean that, despite incremental improvements, the European Union will remain unable to speak with one voice in the world.
But here we are more interested in the supposition that the European Union could have a short and readable basic law.
***
Technically possible
Leaving the Table of Contents outside, and shifting the external action including the CFSP and the CSDP to a second order document would leave us with us with a basic document of less than twenty pages.
Even as it is, the TEU text proper is only about thirty pages long.
As a literary document the TEU is nowhere near the level of the US Constitutions, but tolerably readable if ridded from the references to the TFEU and Protocols.
If the US Constitution could be re-written today, including the amendments, it would get rid of redundant provisions, and it would be even more elegant the existing one.
***
Political difficulties
The main problem is not technical, but political. The European Union is based on international treaties between member states, not a union by the people.
About 200 pages of treaty text and about 160 pages of protocols and declarations follow from the member states’ desire to control events in minute detail.
This is the old covenant, European Union 1.0 based on diplomats and technocrats.
The Lisbon Treaty is version EU 1.1 with added powers for the European Parliament and other reforms.
To demand, as Libertas does, a strong TREATY, but short and readable, is not realistic. Where should the detailed provisions be placed? Would the member states suddenly let go their grip?
As long as the basic documents are international treaties between member states, I see no inherent reason to accept the calls for referendums. (Ireland, due to a domestic constitutional interpretation, happens to be the odd man out.)
***
Solution
If the power is vested in the people, the European Union could have a strong, short and readable basic document.
It would not be a treaty, but a basic law or constitution. This would be the new covenant, EU 2.0.
The shift from the old covenant to the new – from EU 1.0 (or 1.1) to EU 2.0 – would leave the detailed legislation to be approved by the European Parliament and the policies to be pursued by an accountable government.
The federation’s Constitution could be short and clear for all to understand.
The move from EU 1.0 (or 1.x) to EU 2.0 would be groundbreaking. Therefore, as a union of people, the new European Union would need the consent of the governed.
In my view, the willing electorates would form the new union, and the states with negative referendum results would stay outside the new union.
But afterwards the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament, probably by a qualified majority. Representative democracy is the norm; referendums the exception.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 9 May 2009
European elections: The Libertas Collection
If contradictions are the stuff of drama, Declan Ganley and Libertas are well endowed. Chairman Ganley posed as pro-European, but his campaign sowed fear among the Irish against the European Union.
Ganley still calls himself a pro-European, but his spending spree has bought up bunches of narrow-minded rejectionists from the fringes of respectable politics.
In practical terms, Libertas does not to take the European Union back to the people of Europe, but back to the Treaty of Nice.
For the lovers of European dissonance, starring Declan Ganley, here is the vintage Libertas Collection.
EU’s Irish future – The Libertas model
To Libertas: Where is the better deal for Ireland and Europe?
The latest from Libertas
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
Declan Ganley and European elections 2009
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Europarties
For a strong and democratic Europe?
Is Libertas a European level party?
Soini owns up to joining Libertas
Libertas: Foul or foul-up?
European Parliament: Bureau – spider in the web
The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty
European elections: Soini LIbertas candidate?
EU : Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas: What you can’t get
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is …?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
Who are Libertas? And what?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
European elections: Libertas’ principles – what do they mean?
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
European elections: LIbertas saving our money?
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
***
There was an alternative. If Declan Ganley had been serious about building a strong and democratic European Union, he could have used his talent and resources to forge a constructive alliance, practicing the virtues it preaches.
Ralf Grahn
Ganley still calls himself a pro-European, but his spending spree has bought up bunches of narrow-minded rejectionists from the fringes of respectable politics.
In practical terms, Libertas does not to take the European Union back to the people of Europe, but back to the Treaty of Nice.
For the lovers of European dissonance, starring Declan Ganley, here is the vintage Libertas Collection.
EU’s Irish future – The Libertas model
To Libertas: Where is the better deal for Ireland and Europe?
The latest from Libertas
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
Declan Ganley and European elections 2009
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Europarties
For a strong and democratic Europe?
Is Libertas a European level party?
Soini owns up to joining Libertas
Libertas: Foul or foul-up?
European Parliament: Bureau – spider in the web
The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty
European elections: Soini LIbertas candidate?
EU : Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas: What you can’t get
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is …?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
Who are Libertas? And what?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
European elections: Libertas’ principles – what do they mean?
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
European elections: LIbertas saving our money?
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
***
There was an alternative. If Declan Ganley had been serious about building a strong and democratic European Union, he could have used his talent and resources to forge a constructive alliance, practicing the virtues it preaches.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 8 May 2009
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
Only some 26 days remain before the first polling stations open in the European elections, and we see that the new contender Libertas has stepped up its increasingly shrill campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, now approved by the parliaments of 26 EU member states.
Let us turn to the policies Libertas offers voters for the following five year term of the European Parliament.
It is getting late in the European election campaign, but we are still offered the same text on the Policies page: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
That should be enough to disqualifiy Libertas from pretending to be a serious challenger to the existing EU order.
But we have pledged to study the so called core principles on which Libertas’ case rests.
The fifth and final one tells us:
“A lean EU: Cut the number of meetings in Brussels by 50 % in 2010.”
***
You’re kidding?
You don’t need much sophistication to know that the European Union is a complex structure. The briefest ABC book on the EU tells you that much.
If you splash millions on creating a new political force intent on representing EU citizens in the European Parliament, you can be expected to familiar with at least the basics.
If you really want to cut the number of meetings and create a lean European Union, you have to give the union a simpler design.
This is not going to happen in 2010, although ideas concerning the future would be most welcome.
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it is only going to improve the functioning of the European Union in an incremental way, without simplifying the basic structure.
If you campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, you work to preserve the current Treaty of Nice. It is hard to be more anti-lean than that.
Demanding Formula 1 performance from a horse cart is a joke. Elevating this slogan to the status of core principle reveals the paucity of knowledge and ideas.
This opens up two possible interpretations: Either you are (perhaps in good faith) ignorant bumpkins, or you are cynical enough to know full well what you are doing, assuming that your potential voters are gullible dupes, ready to be taken for a ride.
***
Where are the details?
Libertas offers no clues as to which 50 per cent of meetings in Brussels should be scrapped next year.
Since no serious treatment of their proposal is possible, let us play along with their joke or scam.
Only meetings in Brussels are targeted. This could mean that the European Parliament is free to continue its hated monthly sessions in Strasbourg. Libertas has conjured up a mythical “Brussels” of axis of evil proportions, so perhaps the EP would have to sacrifice its convenient mini-sessions in Brussels to fill its part of the quota.
I am at a loss to propose which meetings the part executive and civil service of the EU, the Commission, should cancel. It is hard to prepare, to manage and to coordinate public bodies without meetings, even if they consume time and resources. I have to leave it at this: If Libertas has a working solution, I am sure that every government on earth will be queueing up to hear it.
Most of the “behind closed doors” dealings Libertas is foaming about take place within the Council structures, where the representatives of the member states meet and where the national administrations send committee members to steer the Commission.
If Libertas wants to undo the iron grip of the member states on the running of the European Union, it should say so. What I am fairly sure of is that such a reform is incompatible with a quest to maintain the current Treaty of Nice.
***
Without serious proposals, Libertas idea is mush. Elevating the reduction of meetings to a core principle only tells us where the rot is.
Cynicism or stupidity, it’s your choice.
Ralf Grahn
Let us turn to the policies Libertas offers voters for the following five year term of the European Parliament.
It is getting late in the European election campaign, but we are still offered the same text on the Policies page: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
That should be enough to disqualifiy Libertas from pretending to be a serious challenger to the existing EU order.
But we have pledged to study the so called core principles on which Libertas’ case rests.
The fifth and final one tells us:
“A lean EU: Cut the number of meetings in Brussels by 50 % in 2010.”
***
You’re kidding?
You don’t need much sophistication to know that the European Union is a complex structure. The briefest ABC book on the EU tells you that much.
If you splash millions on creating a new political force intent on representing EU citizens in the European Parliament, you can be expected to familiar with at least the basics.
If you really want to cut the number of meetings and create a lean European Union, you have to give the union a simpler design.
This is not going to happen in 2010, although ideas concerning the future would be most welcome.
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it is only going to improve the functioning of the European Union in an incremental way, without simplifying the basic structure.
If you campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, you work to preserve the current Treaty of Nice. It is hard to be more anti-lean than that.
Demanding Formula 1 performance from a horse cart is a joke. Elevating this slogan to the status of core principle reveals the paucity of knowledge and ideas.
This opens up two possible interpretations: Either you are (perhaps in good faith) ignorant bumpkins, or you are cynical enough to know full well what you are doing, assuming that your potential voters are gullible dupes, ready to be taken for a ride.
***
Where are the details?
Libertas offers no clues as to which 50 per cent of meetings in Brussels should be scrapped next year.
Since no serious treatment of their proposal is possible, let us play along with their joke or scam.
Only meetings in Brussels are targeted. This could mean that the European Parliament is free to continue its hated monthly sessions in Strasbourg. Libertas has conjured up a mythical “Brussels” of axis of evil proportions, so perhaps the EP would have to sacrifice its convenient mini-sessions in Brussels to fill its part of the quota.
I am at a loss to propose which meetings the part executive and civil service of the EU, the Commission, should cancel. It is hard to prepare, to manage and to coordinate public bodies without meetings, even if they consume time and resources. I have to leave it at this: If Libertas has a working solution, I am sure that every government on earth will be queueing up to hear it.
Most of the “behind closed doors” dealings Libertas is foaming about take place within the Council structures, where the representatives of the member states meet and where the national administrations send committee members to steer the Commission.
If Libertas wants to undo the iron grip of the member states on the running of the European Union, it should say so. What I am fairly sure of is that such a reform is incompatible with a quest to maintain the current Treaty of Nice.
***
Without serious proposals, Libertas idea is mush. Elevating the reduction of meetings to a core principle only tells us where the rot is.
Cynicism or stupidity, it’s your choice.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 7 May 2009
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
Libertas.eu has expanded its web presence during the last days. Some of the posts offer crude indications of where Libertas stands on political issues, although the emphasis is more on doom and gloom than on useful information for informed voters. Here is a brief descriptive list of a few themes:
• Public access to documents
• Lech Walesa’s speech to the Convention in Rome, which despite the halting English translation seems to exhort Libertas (Declan Ganley) to recruit more judiciously
• Apprehensions ahead of the European Parliamnet’s vote on the Telecoms package
• Vituperative comments about the European Parliament’s debates on preparatory issues for the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (by now approved by the parliaments of 26 member states)
• Criticism against the Czech Senate for its approval of the Lisbon Treaty by a qualified majority
• A few new critical blog entries and links to web sites of national Libertas chapters
My impression is that Libertas’ marketing has become active and professional, although the contents can be described as hyperbolic populism.
***
Plebiscite democracy
In the footsteps of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chavez, Libertas has embraced plebiscite democracy as its distinct plank with regard to the European Union.
The fourth “core principle” of Libertas is:
“Have your say: Every country must hold a referendum on any Constitution.”
The petition or pledge Libertas made such a show of signing in Rome and wants citizens to sign, actually goes further:
“We, in the name of a stronger Europe, pledge that no new European treaty can be implemented without a referendum.”
***
Additional information
Some 22 days from the beginning of the European elections, we are still offered the same text on the Policies page: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
But there is actually some additional information about the fourth core principle, with regard to the Treaty of Lisbon:
“Libertas wants a strong Treaty: The Lisbon Treaty would ensure that those who govern Europe are even less accountable to the people than they are now. Europe needs a strong treaty. A treaty that is clear to Europe’s people and that is supported at the ballot box by Europe’s people. A short and readable basic treaty, no longer than 25 pages. A treaty that motivates people to read it, understand it and vote on it.
The Lisbon Treaty is bad for the people of Europe
The Lisbon Treaty - both in its content and in how its masters planned to enforce it – would do nothing to bring the European Union closer to its people. Despite earlier promises of referenda from many country leaders, Ireland was the only Member State that asked its people to reject or accept the Treaty. Libertas led the ‘no’ campaign in Ireland. With an unexpectedly high voter turnout, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. According to European Union law, this means that the Treaty will not come into power.
The EU does not respect democracy
In an appalling rejection of the democratic choice of the people, the EU has refused to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead. Instead the Irish government, encouraged by elites in Brussels and throughout European capitals, want to ask the people to vote again. And this time, they want the people to accept what will be bad for them and bad for the future of the European Union.”
***
What does it mean?
Despite the added explanations, the motives behind Libertas’ demands remain unclear, the resoning seems flawed and there is a need for more exact answers concerning the implications.
Here are some of my doubts and questions waiting for answers:
Even if the Lisbon Treaty resembles a repair manual more than an arousing political manifesto, one of its strong points is that it strengthens the role of the directly elected European Parliament and hence the democratic legitimacy of much EU lawmaking. (Incidentally, the amending treaty also tidies up the existing treaties; the text is more systematic and readable than the current one.)
A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty means acceptance of the Treaty of Nice. This could hardly be called an accomplishment.
The Treaty of Lisbon has been agreed between 27 nationally accountable governments and approved by the elected parliaments in 26 member states, representing about 485 million Europeans. Representative democracy is the norm; the Irish referendum and its outcome are exceptions.
The Constitutional Treaty was and the Lisbon Treaty is about incremental change, far from qualitative leaps to a “federal superstate”. The European Union remains a treaty based organisation, despite supranational elements.
A European Constitution could be short and readable, if written like the federal US Constitution, which includes the powers to amend the Constitution. If and when a number of European countries agree to establish a new union, based on its citizens, it would be fair to arrange a referendum on the transition to this new stage. The new union would require a majority of the votes, and it would enter into force between the states where it finds the support of the voters.
The new European Union would not be based on a treaty, but on a proper Constitution. It would not be held hostage to a minuscule proportion of voters. The new union would function according to the principle of representative democracy.
Libertas is far from clear. Its fourth core principle speaks about a referendum on a Constitution. The pledge seems to extend this requirement to any treaty and every single amendment.
Does Libertas want to retain the veto powers too? In that case it is hard to see Libertas as a progressive force for the strong and successful Europe chairman Ganley is fond of talking about.
Ralf Grahn
• Public access to documents
• Lech Walesa’s speech to the Convention in Rome, which despite the halting English translation seems to exhort Libertas (Declan Ganley) to recruit more judiciously
• Apprehensions ahead of the European Parliamnet’s vote on the Telecoms package
• Vituperative comments about the European Parliament’s debates on preparatory issues for the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (by now approved by the parliaments of 26 member states)
• Criticism against the Czech Senate for its approval of the Lisbon Treaty by a qualified majority
• A few new critical blog entries and links to web sites of national Libertas chapters
My impression is that Libertas’ marketing has become active and professional, although the contents can be described as hyperbolic populism.
***
Plebiscite democracy
In the footsteps of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chavez, Libertas has embraced plebiscite democracy as its distinct plank with regard to the European Union.
The fourth “core principle” of Libertas is:
“Have your say: Every country must hold a referendum on any Constitution.”
The petition or pledge Libertas made such a show of signing in Rome and wants citizens to sign, actually goes further:
“We, in the name of a stronger Europe, pledge that no new European treaty can be implemented without a referendum.”
***
Additional information
Some 22 days from the beginning of the European elections, we are still offered the same text on the Policies page: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
But there is actually some additional information about the fourth core principle, with regard to the Treaty of Lisbon:
“Libertas wants a strong Treaty: The Lisbon Treaty would ensure that those who govern Europe are even less accountable to the people than they are now. Europe needs a strong treaty. A treaty that is clear to Europe’s people and that is supported at the ballot box by Europe’s people. A short and readable basic treaty, no longer than 25 pages. A treaty that motivates people to read it, understand it and vote on it.
The Lisbon Treaty is bad for the people of Europe
The Lisbon Treaty - both in its content and in how its masters planned to enforce it – would do nothing to bring the European Union closer to its people. Despite earlier promises of referenda from many country leaders, Ireland was the only Member State that asked its people to reject or accept the Treaty. Libertas led the ‘no’ campaign in Ireland. With an unexpectedly high voter turnout, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. According to European Union law, this means that the Treaty will not come into power.
The EU does not respect democracy
In an appalling rejection of the democratic choice of the people, the EU has refused to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead. Instead the Irish government, encouraged by elites in Brussels and throughout European capitals, want to ask the people to vote again. And this time, they want the people to accept what will be bad for them and bad for the future of the European Union.”
***
What does it mean?
Despite the added explanations, the motives behind Libertas’ demands remain unclear, the resoning seems flawed and there is a need for more exact answers concerning the implications.
Here are some of my doubts and questions waiting for answers:
Even if the Lisbon Treaty resembles a repair manual more than an arousing political manifesto, one of its strong points is that it strengthens the role of the directly elected European Parliament and hence the democratic legitimacy of much EU lawmaking. (Incidentally, the amending treaty also tidies up the existing treaties; the text is more systematic and readable than the current one.)
A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty means acceptance of the Treaty of Nice. This could hardly be called an accomplishment.
The Treaty of Lisbon has been agreed between 27 nationally accountable governments and approved by the elected parliaments in 26 member states, representing about 485 million Europeans. Representative democracy is the norm; the Irish referendum and its outcome are exceptions.
The Constitutional Treaty was and the Lisbon Treaty is about incremental change, far from qualitative leaps to a “federal superstate”. The European Union remains a treaty based organisation, despite supranational elements.
A European Constitution could be short and readable, if written like the federal US Constitution, which includes the powers to amend the Constitution. If and when a number of European countries agree to establish a new union, based on its citizens, it would be fair to arrange a referendum on the transition to this new stage. The new union would require a majority of the votes, and it would enter into force between the states where it finds the support of the voters.
The new European Union would not be based on a treaty, but on a proper Constitution. It would not be held hostage to a minuscule proportion of voters. The new union would function according to the principle of representative democracy.
Libertas is far from clear. Its fourth core principle speaks about a referendum on a Constitution. The pledge seems to extend this requirement to any treaty and every single amendment.
Does Libertas want to retain the veto powers too? In that case it is hard to see Libertas as a progressive force for the strong and successful Europe chairman Ganley is fond of talking about.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
After the adoption of the EU Treaty of Lisbon by the Czech Senate, 26 member states of the European Union have concluded the parliamentary ratification process.
The following loose ends remain:
• In the Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus seems bent upon doing all he can to disrupt the procedure despite ratifications in nearly all member states and an amending treaty now approved by two chambers of the national parliament.
• In Poland President Lech Kaczynski has withheld his signature from the Lisbon Treaty approved by both houses of parliament.
• In Germany the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) is expected to ponder the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty for a month or two.
• Although Finland has formally concluded the ratification process, the Aland Parliament has still not produced the committee report needed for a vote on the application of the new treaty in the territory of the Åland Islands.
• Ireland has been given political assurances about maintaining the oversized Commission and assurances concerning sensitive areas, if the Lisbon Treaty is approved in the second referendum, probably in October.
Loose cannon
Libertas has rejected the better deal for Ireland, in practical terms in favour of a costly campaign to retain the Treaty of Nice. A certain disdain for representative democracy can be noted.
The unclear situation complicates the European elections (number of MEPs) and the election of Commission President and Commissioners, and time is wasted before the reforms foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty can be put into practice (if ever).
Ralf Grahn
The following loose ends remain:
• In the Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus seems bent upon doing all he can to disrupt the procedure despite ratifications in nearly all member states and an amending treaty now approved by two chambers of the national parliament.
• In Poland President Lech Kaczynski has withheld his signature from the Lisbon Treaty approved by both houses of parliament.
• In Germany the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) is expected to ponder the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty for a month or two.
• Although Finland has formally concluded the ratification process, the Aland Parliament has still not produced the committee report needed for a vote on the application of the new treaty in the territory of the Åland Islands.
• Ireland has been given political assurances about maintaining the oversized Commission and assurances concerning sensitive areas, if the Lisbon Treaty is approved in the second referendum, probably in October.
Loose cannon
Libertas has rejected the better deal for Ireland, in practical terms in favour of a costly campaign to retain the Treaty of Nice. A certain disdain for representative democracy can be noted.
The unclear situation complicates the European elections (number of MEPs) and the election of Commission President and Commissioners, and time is wasted before the reforms foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty can be put into practice (if ever).
Ralf Grahn
European elections: Libertas saving our money?
Someone might see an ironic contradiction in the two announcements we see today on the web pages of Libertas.eu:
1) The European elections begin in some 28 days.
2) Policies: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
***
Waiting for Godot, we turn to what Libertas has on offer regarding the future of Europe and the next five years of legislative work in the European Parliament.
The third core principle of Libertas is:
“Save money: €10 billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? At least until you take a closer look. Let’s do that.
***
Long term budget
The European Union lives by the multiannual financial framework essentially set by the heads of state or government of the member states, currently from 2007 to 2013, although formalised by an agreement between the institutions.
Income and expenditure hover around 1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) annually, far from a federal budget of proportions.
***
Annual budget
The framework is the basis for the expectations of the EU member states and for recipients of EU funds until the end of 2013.
The annual budgets are prepared within this framework by the Commission, and approved by the Council and the Euroepan Parliament.
Based on the existing framework and legitimate expectations, the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget for 2010 on 29 April 2009.
Mainly within the framework constraints, but with new measures towards an economic recovery, the proposed sum total of expenditure grows to € 139 billion. This translates into about 284 euros per EU resident.
How does a radical proposal for savings fit the economic circumstances and the timetable?
Even if the final vote on the budget takes place in December, the financial framework is in place until the end of 2013, and the European Council has given green light to certain recovery measures.
The budget exercise for 2010 is well under way. The Commission will take the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament into account before its final proposal. The Council and the EP will then fix their positions, before having to reconcile their views before final approval.
Nothing tells me that any of these institutions is going to veer off course to heed calls for unspecified budget cuts.
Libertas’ “core principle” is a figment of their imagination, meant to be swallowed by uninformed voters.
***
Who is responsible?
We have to admit that calls for profound change, including budget reform, can be justified even if they have no immediate chance of success. Every reform starts from modest beginnings until it gains acceptance.
What makes Libertas’ call hypocritical and cowardly is that they don’t even try to tell us where to cut. The savings should be identified by the Commission, without Libertas taking any responsibility.
In the realm of sanctimonious bluster, this is worth an Oscar.
The draft budget contains € 59 billion spending on agriculture and € 49.4 billion on structural funds. This is about 78 per cent of the total budget, and it is mainly spent in the member states.
Does Lisbertas want to cut back our dependence on subsidy-driven farming? Do they want to terminate “cohesion” funding in rich member states, or deprive the new member states of their structural funds?
Surely, a new political party with a “pan-European vision” knows where to save and has the guts to tell us(?)
The rest of the proposed budget (about 21.8 per cent) is shared between competitiveness, citizenship, freedom, security and justice, external action and administrative expenditure.
Even if the sums are minor in comparison, we need to be told about possible savings.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. A few observations outside the theme of this post: Libertas has introduced a certain professionalism and dynamic in its campaigning techniques during these last days. They contact people through e-mails and social media. Today there are several additional posts on their central web pages. Behind language barriers activists in different member states seem to be free to concoct wildly diverging messages without much outside notice.
In terms of (inter)active campaigning, the competition is still in the starting blocks. Despite the fact that the policies we have looked at this far have been shown to be populist rubbish, the established Europarties ignore Libertas at their peril.
1) The European elections begin in some 28 days.
2) Policies: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
***
Waiting for Godot, we turn to what Libertas has on offer regarding the future of Europe and the next five years of legislative work in the European Parliament.
The third core principle of Libertas is:
“Save money: €10 billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? At least until you take a closer look. Let’s do that.
***
Long term budget
The European Union lives by the multiannual financial framework essentially set by the heads of state or government of the member states, currently from 2007 to 2013, although formalised by an agreement between the institutions.
Income and expenditure hover around 1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) annually, far from a federal budget of proportions.
***
Annual budget
The framework is the basis for the expectations of the EU member states and for recipients of EU funds until the end of 2013.
The annual budgets are prepared within this framework by the Commission, and approved by the Council and the Euroepan Parliament.
Based on the existing framework and legitimate expectations, the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget for 2010 on 29 April 2009.
Mainly within the framework constraints, but with new measures towards an economic recovery, the proposed sum total of expenditure grows to € 139 billion. This translates into about 284 euros per EU resident.
How does a radical proposal for savings fit the economic circumstances and the timetable?
Even if the final vote on the budget takes place in December, the financial framework is in place until the end of 2013, and the European Council has given green light to certain recovery measures.
The budget exercise for 2010 is well under way. The Commission will take the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament into account before its final proposal. The Council and the EP will then fix their positions, before having to reconcile their views before final approval.
Nothing tells me that any of these institutions is going to veer off course to heed calls for unspecified budget cuts.
Libertas’ “core principle” is a figment of their imagination, meant to be swallowed by uninformed voters.
***
Who is responsible?
We have to admit that calls for profound change, including budget reform, can be justified even if they have no immediate chance of success. Every reform starts from modest beginnings until it gains acceptance.
What makes Libertas’ call hypocritical and cowardly is that they don’t even try to tell us where to cut. The savings should be identified by the Commission, without Libertas taking any responsibility.
In the realm of sanctimonious bluster, this is worth an Oscar.
The draft budget contains € 59 billion spending on agriculture and € 49.4 billion on structural funds. This is about 78 per cent of the total budget, and it is mainly spent in the member states.
Does Lisbertas want to cut back our dependence on subsidy-driven farming? Do they want to terminate “cohesion” funding in rich member states, or deprive the new member states of their structural funds?
Surely, a new political party with a “pan-European vision” knows where to save and has the guts to tell us(?)
The rest of the proposed budget (about 21.8 per cent) is shared between competitiveness, citizenship, freedom, security and justice, external action and administrative expenditure.
Even if the sums are minor in comparison, we need to be told about possible savings.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. A few observations outside the theme of this post: Libertas has introduced a certain professionalism and dynamic in its campaigning techniques during these last days. They contact people through e-mails and social media. Today there are several additional posts on their central web pages. Behind language barriers activists in different member states seem to be free to concoct wildly diverging messages without much outside notice.
In terms of (inter)active campaigning, the competition is still in the starting blocks. Despite the fact that the policies we have looked at this far have been shown to be populist rubbish, the established Europarties ignore Libertas at their peril.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
Was Libertas’ Convention in Rome a successful exercise in internal democratic procedures and the adoption of a credible political platform ahead of the June 2009 European elections?
Some 29 days from the start of the European elections the policies web page of Libertas offers us the same promise as before:
“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”
***
Full disclosure?
Full disclosure: All EP & Commission expenses must be published, is the second core principle of Libertas.
A great sound bite, but what does it mean?
***
Expenses only?
Freedom of information and public scrutiny are wide and fundamental issues.
The material scope of Libertas’ call seems unduly restrictive. Expenses are but a minuscule although important part of EU documents important for accountability and openness.
Later today the European Parliament is going to give its final vote on the Cashman report, more exactly Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast), based on the preliminary EP vote 11 March 2009 (resolution P6_TA-PROV(2009)0114).
Knowing that there are differences between the EU institutions, a responsible European level political party should have a clear policy on the access to documents as a whole, not only a detail.
In general terms, the European Parliament came out in favour of transparency. Amendment 85 on Article 13 offers the basic rule on financial transparency:
Article 13
Financial transparency
Information relating to the EU budget, its implementation and beneficiaries of EU funds and grants shall be public and accessible to citizens.
Such information shall also be accessible via a specific website and database, searchable on the basis of the above information, dealing with financial transparency in the EU.
***
It is true that a majority of the European Parliament voted for Amendment 116 to exempt documents of MEPs from the scope of the Regulation, as stated in point 23 of the Preamble. I assume that Libertas would have voted with the ALDE group against this exemption and will do so if the saga continues during the next parliamentary term:
(23) Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament excludes the documents of Members of the European Parliament from the scope of the definition of "document" used in this Regulation. These documents, when transmitted to the institutions outside the legislative process, are still protected by Article 6 of the Members´ Statute. Therefore the interpretation of this Regulation should take due account of the protection of the political activities of Members of the European Parliament, as enshrined in the Members" Statute in order to protect the democratic principles of the European Union. [Am 116]
***
Institutions concerned?
I wonder why Libertas targets only the European Parliament and the Commission.
Why does Libertas’ slogan leave out the Council and the Agencies and bodies of the European Union, which the European Parliament wants to include in the Regulation on public access to documents?
***
Admittedly, billboard phrases cannot cover every detail, but they should be crafted considering the underlying facts and given more detailed explanations elsewhere.
The Golden rule tells us to apply the same standards to ourselves as we demand from others.
Constructive criticism should be countered, not by invective, but by improved action and reasoned discussion. We are waiting for Libertas to start showing positive signs.
Ralf Grahn
Some 29 days from the start of the European elections the policies web page of Libertas offers us the same promise as before:
“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”
***
Full disclosure?
Full disclosure: All EP & Commission expenses must be published, is the second core principle of Libertas.
A great sound bite, but what does it mean?
***
Expenses only?
Freedom of information and public scrutiny are wide and fundamental issues.
The material scope of Libertas’ call seems unduly restrictive. Expenses are but a minuscule although important part of EU documents important for accountability and openness.
Later today the European Parliament is going to give its final vote on the Cashman report, more exactly Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast), based on the preliminary EP vote 11 March 2009 (resolution P6_TA-PROV(2009)0114).
Knowing that there are differences between the EU institutions, a responsible European level political party should have a clear policy on the access to documents as a whole, not only a detail.
In general terms, the European Parliament came out in favour of transparency. Amendment 85 on Article 13 offers the basic rule on financial transparency:
Article 13
Financial transparency
Information relating to the EU budget, its implementation and beneficiaries of EU funds and grants shall be public and accessible to citizens.
Such information shall also be accessible via a specific website and database, searchable on the basis of the above information, dealing with financial transparency in the EU.
***
It is true that a majority of the European Parliament voted for Amendment 116 to exempt documents of MEPs from the scope of the Regulation, as stated in point 23 of the Preamble. I assume that Libertas would have voted with the ALDE group against this exemption and will do so if the saga continues during the next parliamentary term:
(23) Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament excludes the documents of Members of the European Parliament from the scope of the definition of "document" used in this Regulation. These documents, when transmitted to the institutions outside the legislative process, are still protected by Article 6 of the Members´ Statute. Therefore the interpretation of this Regulation should take due account of the protection of the political activities of Members of the European Parliament, as enshrined in the Members" Statute in order to protect the democratic principles of the European Union. [Am 116]
***
Institutions concerned?
I wonder why Libertas targets only the European Parliament and the Commission.
Why does Libertas’ slogan leave out the Council and the Agencies and bodies of the European Union, which the European Parliament wants to include in the Regulation on public access to documents?
***
Admittedly, billboard phrases cannot cover every detail, but they should be crafted considering the underlying facts and given more detailed explanations elsewhere.
The Golden rule tells us to apply the same standards to ourselves as we demand from others.
Constructive criticism should be countered, not by invective, but by improved action and reasoned discussion. We are waiting for Libertas to start showing positive signs.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 4 May 2009
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.
Ralf Grahn
“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.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
Declan Ganley has gone further in his desire for detailed scrutiny than customary exchanges between political competitors. As far as I have been able to ascertain, he has repeatedly initiated or threatened to commence court proceedings against media and journalists, who have published critical views about his endeavours.
On Libertas’ web pages chairman Declan Ganley is now quoted as saying:
“Our candidates are actively trying to usher in a new era of accountability and are not scared to have their actions scrutinised by the people they are seeking represent.”
***
I welcome this new era of accountability, on two conditions:
1) Declan Ganley includes himself and Libertas in this promise of accountability.
2) Libertas starts detailing its political positions and their consequences.
Rigorously complying with these two simple conditions would do the European Union and the European elections a service. To say nothing about Libertas.
Ralf Grahn
On Libertas’ web pages chairman Declan Ganley is now quoted as saying:
“Our candidates are actively trying to usher in a new era of accountability and are not scared to have their actions scrutinised by the people they are seeking represent.”
***
I welcome this new era of accountability, on two conditions:
1) Declan Ganley includes himself and Libertas in this promise of accountability.
2) Libertas starts detailing its political positions and their consequences.
Rigorously complying with these two simple conditions would do the European Union and the European elections a service. To say nothing about Libertas.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
Since I am for democratic EU reform, I should welcome the general drift of chairman Declan Ganley’s statements about what Libertas stands for.
Why do I need convincing?
It started with the campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.
Their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ were:
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
I was writing about a number of the relevant Lisbon Treaty provisions at the time, and I found a number of Libertas’s justifications and assertions distortive and manipulative.
This opened up a credibility gap.
***
Alleged Irish interests, most narrowly defined, seemed to fuel the campaign.
Where were the pro-European or pan-European visions for a strong and prosperous Europe?
The better deal for Ireland was quickly discarded after the referendum.
Ireland has been given political assurances by its EU partners, but Ganley has expanded his anti-Lisbon campaign to the whole European Union, ahead of the European elections.
Was a better deal ever a serious option or just hogwash?
***
Veracity and credibility are the most important assets of a political party in its quest for hearts and minds.
The claims, programmes, recruitment, financing and procedures of a political party – especially on a moral crusade - require analysis and constructive criticism.
The right way for Libertas is not to lash out at critical comments, but to show tangible proof of improvement.
I checked Libertas’ web site this morning to find new and positive signs, but there was nothing of the kind.
Ralf Grahn
Why do I need convincing?
It started with the campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.
Their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ were:
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
I was writing about a number of the relevant Lisbon Treaty provisions at the time, and I found a number of Libertas’s justifications and assertions distortive and manipulative.
This opened up a credibility gap.
***
Alleged Irish interests, most narrowly defined, seemed to fuel the campaign.
Where were the pro-European or pan-European visions for a strong and prosperous Europe?
The better deal for Ireland was quickly discarded after the referendum.
Ireland has been given political assurances by its EU partners, but Ganley has expanded his anti-Lisbon campaign to the whole European Union, ahead of the European elections.
Was a better deal ever a serious option or just hogwash?
***
Veracity and credibility are the most important assets of a political party in its quest for hearts and minds.
The claims, programmes, recruitment, financing and procedures of a political party – especially on a moral crusade - require analysis and constructive criticism.
The right way for Libertas is not to lash out at critical comments, but to show tangible proof of improvement.
I checked Libertas’ web site this morning to find new and positive signs, but there was nothing of the kind.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Who are Libertas? And what?
The Libertas web pages tell us that chairman Declan Ganley spoke at the Rome convention yesterday, but I have seen no record of when he was elected or by whom.
Was it the incoming chairman speaking, or the outgoing one?
Naturally, the convention is the place to elect the party leadership, its board or council and other officials and to approve its bylaws, as well as its political programmes.
At least in a movement obsessed by the alleged unaccountability and lack of transparency, openness and democracy of others.
The Libertas About Us page gives us a Brussels address and a telephone number, but not a word of the needed information about the party or its officials.
Did the convention vote? Who were voted in, and who failed? Where are the records of the votes?
Are there democratically legitimate office-holders?
It is astonishing. Reading the information provided by Libertas, we are unable to tell if it is a political party which follows democratic procedures or if it is the private puppet theatre of Mr Declan Ganley.
Democracy starts at home, even in the European Union. EU citizens have a right to require some proof of credibility from Libertas, intent on saving our continent in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
Was it the incoming chairman speaking, or the outgoing one?
Naturally, the convention is the place to elect the party leadership, its board or council and other officials and to approve its bylaws, as well as its political programmes.
At least in a movement obsessed by the alleged unaccountability and lack of transparency, openness and democracy of others.
The Libertas About Us page gives us a Brussels address and a telephone number, but not a word of the needed information about the party or its officials.
Did the convention vote? Who were voted in, and who failed? Where are the records of the votes?
Are there democratically legitimate office-holders?
It is astonishing. Reading the information provided by Libertas, we are unable to tell if it is a political party which follows democratic procedures or if it is the private puppet theatre of Mr Declan Ganley.
Democracy starts at home, even in the European Union. EU citizens have a right to require some proof of credibility from Libertas, intent on saving our continent in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
There is still so little material on the web pages of Libertas after the 1 May 2009 congress in Rome that it is difficult for an outsider to evaluate this newbie political party.
Most of the congress was geared towards pontification from the podium, with little policy developed by the congress or its grassroots delegates.
Many of the “national delegations” looked like estranged individuals from the outskirts of national politics. It is difficult to assess how magnetic the papist undercurrent is, or how much it will mobilise voters.
The big catch of the congress was the guest of honour, Lech Walesa. Described by Wikipedia as a devout Catholic, Walesa is a legendary man of international stature: Founder of the Solidarity movement, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President of Poland, the man of scores of orders, medals and honorary doctorates.
Walesa is a consummate communicator, and his speech made waves in the Polish media. No interpretation was given while he spoke in Polish, and a translation of his speech has yet to appear on Libertas’s web page.
Besides Walesa, there seem to be Libertas activists of national political stature in a few Central European countries, such as the Czech Republic, but there is a puzzling contradiction between their outspoken anti-integration policies and Declan Ganley’s professed pro-European opinions.
Here, too, we have to wait for speeches and translations to appear.
Ralf Grahn
Most of the congress was geared towards pontification from the podium, with little policy developed by the congress or its grassroots delegates.
Many of the “national delegations” looked like estranged individuals from the outskirts of national politics. It is difficult to assess how magnetic the papist undercurrent is, or how much it will mobilise voters.
The big catch of the congress was the guest of honour, Lech Walesa. Described by Wikipedia as a devout Catholic, Walesa is a legendary man of international stature: Founder of the Solidarity movement, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President of Poland, the man of scores of orders, medals and honorary doctorates.
Walesa is a consummate communicator, and his speech made waves in the Polish media. No interpretation was given while he spoke in Polish, and a translation of his speech has yet to appear on Libertas’s web page.
Besides Walesa, there seem to be Libertas activists of national political stature in a few Central European countries, such as the Czech Republic, but there is a puzzling contradiction between their outspoken anti-integration policies and Declan Ganley’s professed pro-European opinions.
Here, too, we have to wait for speeches and translations to appear.
Ralf Grahn
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Most of Libertas’s political message seems to be cloned on the age-old platform of American populist movements and politicians: Vote for us to clean up Washington!
The only real difference is that Brussels has replaced Washington.
After muckraking demands for disclosure of EU expenses, budget cuts and reducing the number of meetings, there is not much policy left.
Interestingly, Libertas has been extremely shy of disclosing its own affairs. As long as no credible information is given, the only reasonable assumption is that Libertas is a vanity project of Declan Ganley and that its courtiers and national chapters depend on his largesse.
***
Policies
The Libertas web site reminds us that the European elections start in some 33 days, but we are still greeted by this disclaimer about policies:
“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”
For a new political movement, there may have been excuses for this message until its great gathering, but it remains posted on the web page even after the first Libertas congress in Rome.
Ralf Grahn
The only real difference is that Brussels has replaced Washington.
After muckraking demands for disclosure of EU expenses, budget cuts and reducing the number of meetings, there is not much policy left.
Interestingly, Libertas has been extremely shy of disclosing its own affairs. As long as no credible information is given, the only reasonable assumption is that Libertas is a vanity project of Declan Ganley and that its courtiers and national chapters depend on his largesse.
***
Policies
The Libertas web site reminds us that the European elections start in some 33 days, but we are still greeted by this disclaimer about policies:
“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”
For a new political movement, there may have been excuses for this message until its great gathering, but it remains posted on the web page even after the first Libertas congress in Rome.
Ralf Grahn
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
Declan Ganley + Libertas = 1 big mess?
Wasting Ganley’s money?
Making up claims?
When are we going to see a coherent programme for a better Europe?
Are Libertas’s calls for accountability and democracy a reactionary recipe for gridlock or a ticket to profound EU reform?
***
Ahead of the European elections, Libertas raises many questions, but offers few answers.
At this moment, very little in the way of credible policies has come out of Libertas’s first congress. This makes rational analysis difficult, which begs the question if it is the unintended result of amateurism or the chosen mode of operation for a disparate populist movement.
Despite the dearth of materials, I am going to dedicate a few blog posts to aspects of what Libertas is offering voters ahead of the European elections, to the extent that rational analysis is possible.
Sadly, I come to the conclusion that there is not enough material open to rational discussion. Don’t blame me, if voids have to be filled by speculation.
***
Venue
The chosen venue was Rome, officially where the EEC and Euratom Treaties of Rome were signed.
But Ganley’s recruitment drive and largesse seem to have attracted mostly nationalists, rejectionists and conservative Catholics from the hard line right of national politics. Thus, the seat of the Bishop of Rome may have resonated at a deeper level with many of the star performers and participants.
***
Membership
By the looks of it, there were hundreds of participants. Libertas, which has become known for presenting nice round figures, claims 1,000.
On Friday Declan Ganley made the following claim:
“Over a million of you have joined us through libertas.eu so far.”
A million Libertas members is an astonishing claim. It would be nice to see such an assertion substantiated with a suitable breakdown between national chapters.
Ralf Grahn
Wasting Ganley’s money?
Making up claims?
When are we going to see a coherent programme for a better Europe?
Are Libertas’s calls for accountability and democracy a reactionary recipe for gridlock or a ticket to profound EU reform?
***
Ahead of the European elections, Libertas raises many questions, but offers few answers.
At this moment, very little in the way of credible policies has come out of Libertas’s first congress. This makes rational analysis difficult, which begs the question if it is the unintended result of amateurism or the chosen mode of operation for a disparate populist movement.
Despite the dearth of materials, I am going to dedicate a few blog posts to aspects of what Libertas is offering voters ahead of the European elections, to the extent that rational analysis is possible.
Sadly, I come to the conclusion that there is not enough material open to rational discussion. Don’t blame me, if voids have to be filled by speculation.
***
Venue
The chosen venue was Rome, officially where the EEC and Euratom Treaties of Rome were signed.
But Ganley’s recruitment drive and largesse seem to have attracted mostly nationalists, rejectionists and conservative Catholics from the hard line right of national politics. Thus, the seat of the Bishop of Rome may have resonated at a deeper level with many of the star performers and participants.
***
Membership
By the looks of it, there were hundreds of participants. Libertas, which has become known for presenting nice round figures, claims 1,000.
On Friday Declan Ganley made the following claim:
“Over a million of you have joined us through libertas.eu so far.”
A million Libertas members is an astonishing claim. It would be nice to see such an assertion substantiated with a suitable breakdown between national chapters.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 17 April 2009
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is…?
The European liberal democrats (ELDR) launched their campaign for the June 2009 European elections and held their Council meeting yesterday. Here is the information they offer on the Council page:
“The ELDR Council Meeting will take place on the 16 April 2009 in Brussels, Belgium (from 11h00 to 14h00 followed by a lunch)
More info will follow in due course.”
The home page tells us that the Irish Fianna Fail has joined the liberals and that the ELDR has replied to the open letter by the Party of European Socialists (PES).
***
Commission President
But the most important question for EU citizens is the name of the liberal candidate to head the European Commission for the next five years.
On this, nothing.
Richard Laming of Federal Union fared no better in his search. In his blog post Silence speaks louder than words Laming concludes that the ELDR are not alone in European politics in ducking this issue, but that was not his understanding of what liberal politics was meant to mean.
***
Quisling Prime Ministers
They have all politically agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon, but they feel no obligation to act in the spirit of the two miserly concessions they made directly to the citizens of the European Union: To take account of the EP election results when appointing the candidate to become the President of the Commission and to put into practice the limited citizens’ initiative.
Long before the elections, the PES has been undermined, most notably by prime ministers Socrates, Zapatero and Brown.
The ELDR affiliated members of the European Council come from smaller countries such as Finland and Estonia, so their defection from the cause of European level democracy has gone largely unnoticed.
But the Quisling mechanism is the same: Overt or covert support for a second term for José Manuel Barroso (EPP), without interference from voters.
They did not even have the guts to support Barroso, if that is their intention.
Their subliminal message is: The European Union is their project, not ours. Solidarity between heads of state or government, but not towards the citizens of the European Union. The European elections do not matter.
A docile and less legitimate Commission strengthens the hand of national leaders in their ineffective and increasingly intergovernmental dealings at EU level, at a time when the world cries out for effective European solutions.
***
Results of deception
Catastrophic numbers of voters look set to abstain from voting in June, despite umpteen million euros plowed into awareness campaigns.
Paper or web pages – it doesn’t really matter: You cannot campaign on election manifestos or open letters, without flesh and blood candidates competing for at least one top spot.
The political parties at European level are abject failures, and I am still eagerly waiting for the first noteworthy contribution from their foundations (think-tanks), despite massive funding.
***
Alternatives?
It is extremely sad that Libertas is the only political party with pan-European ambitions, which has been able to attract attention even in media specialised on European affairs. Libertas has made a hash out of its launch.
If successful, a campaign against the Lisbon Treaty boils down to an expensive manoeuvre to retain the failed Treaty of Nice. It like opting for quicksand instead of progress.
There is no political programme for the coming five years, just strings of complaints and vague statements of pro-Europeanism contradicted by the recruited anti-European nationalists (and worse).
***
The state of this Union is bleak.
Ralf Grahn
“The ELDR Council Meeting will take place on the 16 April 2009 in Brussels, Belgium (from 11h00 to 14h00 followed by a lunch)
More info will follow in due course.”
The home page tells us that the Irish Fianna Fail has joined the liberals and that the ELDR has replied to the open letter by the Party of European Socialists (PES).
***
Commission President
But the most important question for EU citizens is the name of the liberal candidate to head the European Commission for the next five years.
On this, nothing.
Richard Laming of Federal Union fared no better in his search. In his blog post Silence speaks louder than words Laming concludes that the ELDR are not alone in European politics in ducking this issue, but that was not his understanding of what liberal politics was meant to mean.
***
Quisling Prime Ministers
They have all politically agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon, but they feel no obligation to act in the spirit of the two miserly concessions they made directly to the citizens of the European Union: To take account of the EP election results when appointing the candidate to become the President of the Commission and to put into practice the limited citizens’ initiative.
Long before the elections, the PES has been undermined, most notably by prime ministers Socrates, Zapatero and Brown.
The ELDR affiliated members of the European Council come from smaller countries such as Finland and Estonia, so their defection from the cause of European level democracy has gone largely unnoticed.
But the Quisling mechanism is the same: Overt or covert support for a second term for José Manuel Barroso (EPP), without interference from voters.
They did not even have the guts to support Barroso, if that is their intention.
Their subliminal message is: The European Union is their project, not ours. Solidarity between heads of state or government, but not towards the citizens of the European Union. The European elections do not matter.
A docile and less legitimate Commission strengthens the hand of national leaders in their ineffective and increasingly intergovernmental dealings at EU level, at a time when the world cries out for effective European solutions.
***
Results of deception
Catastrophic numbers of voters look set to abstain from voting in June, despite umpteen million euros plowed into awareness campaigns.
Paper or web pages – it doesn’t really matter: You cannot campaign on election manifestos or open letters, without flesh and blood candidates competing for at least one top spot.
The political parties at European level are abject failures, and I am still eagerly waiting for the first noteworthy contribution from their foundations (think-tanks), despite massive funding.
***
Alternatives?
It is extremely sad that Libertas is the only political party with pan-European ambitions, which has been able to attract attention even in media specialised on European affairs. Libertas has made a hash out of its launch.
If successful, a campaign against the Lisbon Treaty boils down to an expensive manoeuvre to retain the failed Treaty of Nice. It like opting for quicksand instead of progress.
There is no political programme for the coming five years, just strings of complaints and vague statements of pro-Europeanism contradicted by the recruited anti-European nationalists (and worse).
***
The state of this Union is bleak.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
