Swimming lessons urgently needed in Brussels

Swimming lessons are urgently required in Brussels, where our MEPs appear to be drowning in their own excess. Luckily, MEPs have just approved a new nine million Euro swimming pool for themselves to practice in.

Gerard Onesta, the French MEP who proposed the centre claimed that "It is not a swimming pool. It is an aqua gym." 

Libertas has issued a statement condemning the move:

“At a time of economic crisis and rising unemployment it is an outrage that MEPs should vote to spend taxpayers’ money in this way. It shows how out of touch and unaccountable current MEPs are” said Libertas Chairman, Declan Ganley.

The issue was also covered in the Telegraph by Bruno Waterfield, where there is a priceless quote at the end:

Senior MEPs discussed plans for the new fitness facilities on Wednesday night after they were tabled by Gerard Onesta, a French Green and vice president of the parliament.

Mr Onesta insisted that the new gym would have "nothing to do with luxury" and that the facilities would save money by cutting staff absenteeism by up to 30 per cent.

They are paying nine million euros to reduce 'absenteeism'? In the real world, outside the Ivory Towers in Brussels, if employees aren't turning up to work they don't get a new swimming pool, they get the sack. 

Isn't it time we brought an end to this kind of gross mismanagement of our money and institutions?

How to make a million in five years

There was an interesting article in the Times on Sunday by David Craig, author of 'The Great European Rip-Off', looking at the many and varied ways in which MEPs can (and apparently do) generate vast amounts of cash for themselves above and beyond their hefty salaries.

He claims that MEPs can pocket up to a million pounds over a five year term, even while living the high life, and even after the so-called expense reforms introduced recently:

Becoming an MEP is a bit like joining a millionaires’ club – you can easily live like royalty and still walk away with more than £1m saved up in your bank account from serving just one five-year term at the European parliament.Get elected twice or more and you can become a multi-millionaire.

While it is indeed very revealing, I think that the emphasis of the article is in the wrong place. Yes there are going to be some MEPs who employ their wives/husbands and others who abuse their expenses. These are indeed deplorable, but it's the system we should be attacking more. Why is it that the EU is so frivolous with our money? How have they convinced themselves that this is an acceptable system? 

If they can't be trusted to look after our money in an area of such public and media interest (politicians' expenses), where they are likely to be scrutinised closely, what horrors await in the less public areas where billions of euros are spent away from prying eyes?

One aspect of EU reform that Libertas will be tackling is 'Value for Money'. It's time that the elites in Brussels remembered that they are servants of the people, not a European nobility entitled to be pampered, chauffeured and deferred to. We have to bring an end to the culture of financial mismanagement and indifference in the EU. Every penny (or cent) of our money should be used properly and give value for money. We need a new culture of thriftiness.

 

There was a similar article in the Telegraph by Matthew Elliott, the other author of 'The Great European Rip-Off', that revealed that a leaked auditor's report showed widespread corruption in the Parliament. 

"Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and if anyone is stealing from them. The EU Parliament must publish the full details of all MEPs' expenses and allowances, and name the people this report found to be ripping taxpayers off."

So not only does the Parliamentary system allow wide spread abuse, it is now hiding the names of those it has discovered milking the system. How are we ever supposed to trust the EU when it harbours crooks in its ranks? Yes, it will be damaging to the EU in the short term, but not as damaging as protecting MEPs who are scamming the system in the long run.

Remember the cautionary tale of  UKIP MEP Tom Wise. He unwittingly boasted to an undercover reporter about how much cash he was making.  This is how the public see our MEPs, and unless action is taken to stop this kind of excess, the EU is going to continue to damage public trust in politicians. At the moment they simply don't deserve our trust. It's time for some fresh blood in Brussels. 

[Addition]

There is an interesting addition at the end of the Telegraph  article:

Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat MEP who last year exposed some of the report's findings, last night said..."Honesty doesn't pay in this system and the temptations are great. No-one knows who is cheating and who is not, and it is a disgrace that the Parliament has voted to keep auditors' reports secret."

This is a laudable sentiment, but entirely at odds with his own party leader's declaration that the European Parliament should "stymie" its critics. So which is it? Is it OK to criticise the EU as long as you are a Liberal Democrat, or is Mr Davies parting ways with his party leader, Graham 'ever-so-popular' Watson? 

Baroness Ashton? Who she?

In a recent article I mentioned Baroness Ashton, to which I received a response 'who is she?' 

The answer is that she is the EU Commissioner for Trade who took over from Peter Mandelson in October 2008. Why do we care? Because she is yet another example of what we are campaigning against (not her personally, but what she represents).

There are in fact three levels of democracy lacking between her appointment as a Commissioner and the public she supposedly represents.

Firstly, it doesn't look like she has ever stood for election. In other words, she has never received public support, or any political mandate in any capacity. While it isn't a requirement for the position, Commissioners perform a very political role and one might reasonably expect someone who has been approved by the British public at some point in their career.

Secondly, she is unelected to the post. She was appointed as the UK's primary EU representative by Gordon Brown (our Prime-Minister-without-mandate), and rubber stamped by the European Parliament. Even our own House of Commons didn't get to vote on her appointment.

Thirdly, she is a Labour peer appointed by the Labour Government. This sounds about right, until it is pointed out that the Conservative party won the last EU elections. Why then does the Labour party, without a mandate, have the power to appoint our Commissioner? The democratic choice of the British public in the EU elections was for the Conservative Party policies, not Labour... yet we still have a Labour Commissioner. Where's the democracy?

Isn't it about time that Commissioners, and every one else making major decisions and laws on our behalf, are elected directly by the people? Please support Libertas in June to end this anti-democratic system.

Voting No to Lisbon causes death and devastation

In the increasingly hysterical political discourse surrounding the Lisbon Treaty one can always depend on Dick Roche to bring calmness and reason to the debate. At a meeting of the European Affairs Oireachtas committee on Thursday, the Irish Commissioner claimed that Irish voters had a "death wish" and that voting No in the second referendum would "be absolutely devastating for Ireland". He then went on to link a No vote to higher unemployment, less foreign investment and asserted that Ireland would be relegated to a second tier position in the EU.

But the absolute best part of his statement came towards the end:

He insisted the Government would have to make sure voters were adequately informed, without using the fear tactics of the 'No' side.

It's actually very difficult to comment on that, other than to reiterate that the Brussels elites will literally say anything in their desparation to push the anti-democratic EU superstate.

I would urge the Irish electorate to vote him out for making such ridiculous statements, but like all Commissioners, he is an unelected bureaucrat. So they are stuck with him whether they like it or not.

Running scared in Poland

EUobserver is reporting today that the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, is so concerned about the popularity of Libertas that he has asked the Polish EU Commissioner, Danuta Hubner,  to run against us in June.

While obviously we feel that Libertas is going to cause a political storm in June, it's always nice to see that the opposition feels the same way! Wouldn't you just love to see Peter Mandelson running on the Labour MEP lists too? *

Ms Hubner said she considered the June elections of particular importance, because it would be the first time they would be about Europe, not just national issues.

"This is because of the treaty and the new political group - Libertas - which will raise issues to which we will have to react strongly. "

I would rather that she actually listened to what we are calling for and tried to implement some of it. Why do these Brussels elites insist on  circling the waggons instead of bringing us in to discuss how we can rescue the future of Europe? Do they really not understand that they have no right to continue with the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty after it has been rejected by the public in three member nations?

Libertas is offering a positive alternative vision for how Europe should be run, and the EU would be wise to listen. The Commissioners shouldn't be 'reacting strongly', they should be rethinking the whole EU model from scratch as we are proposing.

On the plus side, she is crediting us with making the elections about European issues, or more accurately what kind of EU we have, instead of about national issues.

But who elected her anyway? No one is the answer. She is an unelected bureaucrat taking a very active political role; exactly the kind of thing that we are fighting against.

Could it be that she is frightened that she would be out of a job if we got our way and ditched all of the unelected Commissioners perhaps?

* Yes, I know that Peter Mandelson is no longer our EU Commissioner, but he is a far better representative of everything wrong with the EU than Baroness Ashton, who you've probably never heard of.

"Aren't you offering the same as the Tories?"

I have seen this question come up a few times now, so it obviously deserves some attention. I tried to look up Conservative policy for the coming European Elections, but all I could find was a single page on the issue. However, it does summarise their position nicely:

We believe in an open, flexible Europe in which countries work to achieve shared goals rather than the ever greater centralisation of power in Brussels.

We believe that in democracies nothing lasting can be built without the people's consent - and yet people have been denied their say on the renamed EU Constitution.

I can't disagree with any of that, and it could easily have come from the Libertas website. But this is where the similarity ends.

If the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force at the time of the next general election, and a Conservative Government is elected, we would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a 'no' vote. If the British people rejected the Treaty, we would withdraw Britain's ratification of it.

Well... then what? If Britain stops the Lisbon Treaty, just as the Irish have, then what happens next for Europe? Are the Tories really suggesting that the EU should remain how it is? Even the EU claims that it is broken, which is why they pushed the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty to 'make it work'. 

And NONE of that is relevant to the EU elections - it is all dependent upon a Tory Government being elected at some time in the future (probably 2010 ) and that the Lisbon Treaty hasn't been ratified by then. So what will their MEPs be doing for the next five years?

The EU must adapt to the times we live in - and it should act where European countries together can achieve things they cannot do alone. So our priorities for the EU are today's challenges of global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

That means:

• Ending the remaining barriers to free trade within the EU
• Taking back control of social and employment policy so we can make our own decisions in these vital areas for Britain's prosperity and social well-being
• Improving the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme
• Reforming the EU's aid policy so that it is more focused on poverty reduction and less entangled by bureaucracy and administrative short-comings.

It would be hard to argue with any of that, but there is no mention of reform at all. Not even a nibblet of change.  The Tories are happy to keep the EU as it is. 

One only has to look at the voting record of Conservative MEPs to see that they consistently support the EU's anti-democratic policies and structures. Most people don't seem to realise that the Conservative MEPs are members of the EPP-ED, home to both Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, and José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. That's right, the Tories are part of the largest group in the European Parliament.

So what difference would it make if all 72 of Britain's MEPs were Conservatives for the next five years? None, because the Tories have no plans for reforming the EU, and no means of actually implementing them anyway.

This is NOT what the British public want.

This is why Libertas and the Conservatives are offering completely different positions to the electorate. Libertas is not just saying 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty, we are offering a pan-European solution to make the EU more democratic, more accountable and more transparent. We want to return national sovereignty. We want to ensure that everyone making major decisions and forming European law should be directly elected and accountable to the public.

So if you are happy with the EU as it is, then vote for the the Tories in June. 

However if, like most people in Britain, you think that the EU is over centralised, authoritarian, corrupt and anti-democratic, and you want to change it, then please support Libertas.

Watson can't leave it alone

After his hypocritical comments telling Declan Ganley to return to the "political hinterland", one might have expected MEP Graham Watson to keep quiet on the topic of Libertas. Instead, the Lib Dem MEP for the South West has gone on the offensive again, or, rather, he has gone offensively wrong again.

When asked in an interview for his opinion of Libertas he claimed:

I think they will be a short-lived phenomenon, in the sense that I would be very surprised if they fought the election campaign in 2014. They failed to establish a party in the Czech Republic, they failed to establish a party in the UK, 

Failed to establish a party in the UK, Graham? Is that euro-speak for "haven't launched yet", or are you just lying? Just how desperate do you have to be to resort to claiming that your opposition doesn't even exist!

they will try to establish a party and they might get seven or eight countries. 

We are well beyond that already, and Libertas hasn't even started yet. Whose nerves are you trying to calm?

They’re getting publicity. I think there will always be people who are either opposed to or very skeptical about the development of the European Union. But to have a movement which is actually dedicated to wrecking treaties and so on. I don’t think it will get much public support.

Dedicated to wrecking treaties? No, Graham, we are offering a positive alternative future for Europe based on democracy, transparency and accountability instead of the anti-democratic, authoritarian nightmare that you and your kind are trying squeeze the life out of Europe with under the pretence of being 'pro-European'.

We will even be standing on a platform promoting a new brief, readable treaty for the EU.  That's not 'wrecking', it's disagreeing with their vision of a post-democratic EU. Unfortunately this is a foreign* concept to the Brussels elites; disagreement will not be tolerated.

Still, it's nice to know that we have him so rattled that he will spout any old nonsense.

* Foreign = anywhere outside the Ivory Towers in Brussels = the real Europe where real people live.

A reminder of what we are fighting against

I came across an article in the Kilkenny Advertiser today, and had to share it with you. It's a perfect example containing all of the classics; propaganda, misdirection, bullying, denial, false statistics, bare faced lying, doublespeak and calls for the end of democracy. Yes, it's an article supporting the Lisbon Treaty.

For the political geeks out there, like me, this article is a dissection in detail. Readers with a sensitive disposition towards the truth should look away now.

It begins with:

I detect one tiny slice of silver lining on our dark clouds. A recent Red C opinion poll found that 58 per cent of respondents would vote Yes if there was a second Lisbon Treaty held this year.

Readers of this blog will already know that the poll the author is referring to says no such thing. It actually states that 58% think that the Irish people, as a whole, would vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty in a second vote. One should only interpret that as a resignation to the 'inevitable', rather than renewed support for a completely unchanged treaty. Reality aside, this is a useful tool for Lisbon propagandists; pretend that people have changed their minds and now support it.

While the value of opinion polls is as durable as our recent snow, it does indicate some hope that the public realise the economic importance of our relationship with the European Union.

Did you spot the not-so-subtle propaganda technique - 'belittle your opponents'?  People who voted against the Treaty apparently don't "realise the economic importance of our relationship with the European Union". If you voted No, you must be financially illiterate.

I believe the No result last year damaged Ireland’s vital national interests. Investment sentiment towards Ireland is dependent on our full commitment to the EU. This is reflected in 90,000 multinational industrial jobs.

Now we are into scaremongering; vote No and you could cost 90,000 jobs. 'Investment sentiment' is based on many factors, but in Ireland's case it's due to favourable tax rates, tax breaks that most of the EU do not get, and the combination of the Euro currency and an English speaking work force. It's the ever-encroaching tax harmonisation efforts of the EU that will damage investment prospects for Ireland. 

While multinationals are attracted by our low corporation tax rate and a well educated labour market, they are fundamentally here because of access to the EU consumer market. 

Here's a piece of total misdirection; multinationals can access the EU consumer market from anywhere in the EU - it's completely irrelevant to their choice of Ireland....

Similarly, our preferential AAA credit rating is underwritten by being part of the Euro zone.

...swiftly followed by another bit of misdirection: the claim that saying No to the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is somehow linked to Ireland being in the eurozone. Is the author really suggesting that saying No to the Lisbon Treaty a second time would push Ireland out of the eurozone? Is that a threat by the EU to keep the Irish in line? 

The No campaign successfully sold the voters a pup. The myth was that if we rejected the Treaty it would not proceed and would be renegotiated. 

Myth? It hasn't proceeded, and the only reason that Ireland is voting again is because the Irish  Government who ran the Yes campaign is making the Irish vote again! If Cowen had any respect for the Irish public he would have stood by the decision and told the EU to start again from scratch.

Events since June have shown this to be untrue. European political leaders have respected our sovereign right to choose, but they will not agree to one per cent of the EU population dictating to the other 26 states.

So they respected it, but rejected it? You can choose, but only if you choose the right way? Doublespeak alert.

Maths isn't my speciality, but given that the French and the Dutch have already said No, and other countries, such as Britain have been denied a vote because they would certainly say No, I am not sure how the author arrives at 'one per cent'. The Irish aren't dictating; they saved the rest of us from the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty nightmare. 

The EU Council has told us bluntly that we can have clarifications to preserve our national policies on neutrality and taxation, but the Treaty text will not be amended.

And this is a good reason to support it? Ireland voted no, but the EU refuses to change the treaty at all... so the Irish should count themselves lucky to have the opportunity to vote correctly this time? On what planet is this an incentive to support it?

...Their subsequent links with the UK Independence Party and other mavericks confirm their true euro sceptic credentials.

What? Bare-faced lying as well! This article has it all. Libertas has no links at all with the UK Independence Party. None. 

Even Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, stated that there was "absolutely no common ground on Europe" between Libertas and UKIP. The parties have completely opposing aims; UKIP wants Britain out of the EU, Libertas wants Britain to take a leading role in a much improved EU. 

Anti-democracy supporters will say anything in their desperation. 

The context of the next vote has to be based on realism. Given that the 26 other states are likely to proceed with ratification the future of Europe is not at issue. Instead it’s the future of Ireland and our relationship with the EU. Whatever the respective merits on the debate about the future of the EU, we have to ask what’s best for Ireland?

"The future of Europe is not at issue"? Chalk this one up to denial. Of course the future of Europe is at issue. The Irish No vote was the third stake through the heart of the Constitution. The EU is out of ideas and has no where to go. Never has the future of the EU been more undecided. Why are all the EU leaders in such a fluster, if not because they can see that their vision of a post-democratic Europe isn't wanted?

...There is a case for not determining such matters by way of a public vote. The referendum commission added to the confusion. Most EU states allow their parliament to scrutinise such turgid legal text and decide.

And there it is - the Irish people can't be trusted to vote on their own future. The anti-democrats always show their true colours in the end.

The author also seems to forget that both Brian Cowen, Ireland's Taoiseach, and Charlie McCreevy, Ireland's EU Commissioner admitted that they hadn't read the treaty. I know that they do things differently in Ireland, but usually 'scrutiny' would involve reading it. 

...The impetus for this Treaty is to modernise EU procedures to cope with enlargement from 15 to almost 30 states. It is probably less significant than the Maastricht or Nice treaties.

Is this a Jedi mind trick? 

"This isn't a treaty that you need to vote on. Move along."

The growth of Europe eastwards is not entirely to our benefit. However, we have to face the reality that this train is leaving the station – with or without us.

More Faintheart than Braveheart isn't it? Don't bother fighting for anything decent Ireland, just cave in and don't cause a fuss. It's a message to inspire all generations. Don't expect a movie any time soon though.

The Yes campaign was inept. McCreevy and Cowen’s comments about not having read the document were ill-advised.

Has it occurred to you that they shouldn't even be talking about, let alone promoting, a treaty that they haven't even read? Admitting that they hadn't read it was the least inept part of their support for the anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty! At least they were being honest.

The article rather weakly finishes with:

...The EU is not a panacea for our ills, but without it we are doomed.

"Doomed. Doomed I tell you!"

Just one last little scare tactic; vote No and Ireland will be kicked out of the EU into the void.

It's definitely worth reading articles like this to remind ourselves what kind of people we are fighting against. The future of Europe is hanging in the balance and we have to do everything we can to rid ourselves of the anti-democratic, lying, corrupt elite and their supporters who are destroying everything that could be good about the European Union.

Germany has 'enormous potential'? So does the UK!

There were two Libertas articles in quick succession on Wednesday from Euractiv. The first is an interesting interview with Declan Ganley. The second is a more in-depth look at Declan's declaration that Germany has 'enormous potential' for Libertas.

As the site put it:

Ganley's gift for spotting a gap in the market is well-known in business circles, and he believes he has spotted a similar gap in Germany's political landscape. "Here is a place which doesn't have one single party that raises serious questions about the anti-democratic disposition of the current EU institutions," he claimed.

While this is true in Germany, it is also true in the UK. There isn't a single party offering a reformist agenda for the EU here. As I have stated in previous articles, their debate is simply about 'more or less' integration into an EU superstate. There is almost no debate about what kind of EU we want.

A recent poll on the British view of the EU showed that 45% of people think that none of the main parties represent their view on the EU; an astonishing number. And that's before Libertas has even started campaigning and the other 55% realise that there could be an alternative! 

Just 22% of people in Britain are happy with our relationship to the EU at the moment, and one would be hard pressed to find one of those who thinks that the EU works as well as it should.

Libertas is not only going to be taking votes in large numbers from the established parties, it is going to be providing an outlet for those 45% who don't like the EU policies of any of the main parties. The potential for Libertas in the UK is beyond 'enormous'.

Trying to 'wrong-foot' Libertas

The Irish Independent paper today revealed that the Irish Government is considering running the anti-democratic second vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty on the same day as the EU elections. Why would they bring it forward from the already announced October date? According to the Independent:

Proponents maintain that the idea has merits, not least that it would completely wrong-foot Libertas.

Yes, you read that correctly. 

They want to move it to damage the No vote. 

Is this really the dire state that Irish politics has fallen to, where its own Government resorts to stunts rather than debate to try to force through legislation that the public have already voted against?

And given that they have already announced the reason for it, what makes them think that the Irish public would be more likely to support it now? Just how much contempt do they have for the Irish public?

On a more encouraging note, it demonstrates just how scared they are of Libertas and its positive message for change. If they have to resort to dirty tricks (just like the EU is in Brussels), it is an admission that they have already lost the debate on the real issues.

The cheek of it

ALDE group leader, Graham Watson MEP, yesterday declared that Declan Ganley "should return to the political hinterland from whence he came". Ignoring his xenophobia against Hinterlanders, this is an almightily cheeky challenge, for Mr Watson is a Liberal Democrat. That's the party that came fourth in the last EU elections. Not first, not second, not third, but fourth, behind UKIP. That's right, Graham, you are less popular than Robert Kilroy-Silk.

What's more, even the Lib Dem voters don't really like Mr Watson's rabid support for the abolition of Britain and absorption into a Euro super-state; nearly a third of them dumped the Lib Dems in the last EU election, compared to their General Election result. So from what pinnacle of public support does Graham Watson think he can safely attack Libertas?

But we can forgive him. He's bound to be scared of us, because he is exactly the kind of Brussels elite that we are campaigning against. You know, the ones who see that the French, Dutch and Irish all said 'No' to the Constitution but continue in their unrelenting support for it anyway. 

Last month, for those who don't know, the ever-so-popular Graham Watson launched his campaign to become the next President of the European Parliament. Is he looking to tackle all of the problems of the EU as part of his proposed Presidency? Apparently not...

Watson said that one of the challenges facing parliament in the upcoming European elections was to “stymie” critics of the institution...

I had to look up 'stymie' to see if it had an alternative meaning, but no, the dictionary defines it as 'to hinder or foil'. So Graham's big plan is not to do anything about the massive problems of the EU or to tackle the concerns of the vast majority of British voters, but to hinder or foil critics of the EU. Astonishing, but true. I doubt that this is what the Liberal Democrats and ALDE group really want from their leader.

If, unlike Graham, you want a better EU, then Libertas is waiting in the hinterland for your vote.

EU Red Tape Cost Us £100 Billion In 10 Years

The Sunday Express took a good look at an Open Europe report on EU over-regulation  last weekend. You may recall that Open Europe launched its previous study on EU propaganda at the new Libertas office in Brussels. I really hope that Libertas will continue to work with this excellent organisation in the future. 

Anyway, back to the article. The crux of it is that unnecessary Brussels legislation is costing us taxpayers vast amounts of money. While the EU seemed to get away with this in the 'good times', wasting money and hampering businesses with interfering regulations in a recession is unforgiveable. Libertas is committed to not only dramatically cutting back on new EU legislation, but slashing many of the unwelcome 100,000 pages of EU regulations that add no value to UK governance.

Shockingly, the Open Europe report concludes that 

If the current rate of legislation continues for the next decade, EU rules will cost Britain £356billion – equivalent to £14,300 per British household, or enough to abolish income tax for two years. 

Interestingly though, the paper tries to suggest, by associaton (that's a bit desperate!), the Tories are taking a stand on this:

Mr Wolfson, a close ally of Tory leader David Cameron, said: “Small businesses in particular need all the help they can get. There has never been a more important time to confront the torrent of regulations shackling their ability to operate effectively.  

“The mindset of government must change. Policymakers must accept the radical idea that the law should only be used to regulate our endeavours where there is an overwhelming case for state intervention.  “Secondly, Ministers must be far stronger in resisting new regulation from the EU.   

“They must use all the power at their disposal to stem the tide of regulation coming from the EU, regardless of the unpopularity it may cause us in Brussels. In the long run, the whole of Europe will thank us for taking a stand.” 

That all sounds good, doesn't it? But what the paper forgot to mention is that under the existing EU rules, that the Conservative party have continuously supported and voted for, there is nothing that British Ministers can do about EU legislation. 

If you want to end this madness, then Libertas is the only party offering a realistic way out. We will change the entire way the EU is run to place national sovereignty at the heart of all European governance. 

The only way that Europe can work is for nations to willingly cooperate. The EU's endles march towards a superstate that imposes its "post-democratic" bureaucracy on unwilling nations is already killing Europe. Please support Libertas to help us put an end to it.

Update: Declan NOT on Newsnight tonight

Apologies, but Declan Ganley's appearance on Newsnight has been moved back to the 24th February.

Declan Ganley on Newsnight tomorrow

Declan Ganley, founder of the Libertas pan-European party will be interviewed on Newsnight tomorrow (Monday, 10.30pm BBC2).

Libertas is not eurosceptic

Eurosceptics accuse us of being europhiles. Europhiles accuse us of being eurosceptics.  The truth is that we are neither.

The problem is that politicians and pundits simply don't understand where Libertas sits in the political spectrum. There is a very simple reason for this: Libertas isn't in the existing political spectrum.

The EU debate, especially in Britain, is one dimensional. At one end, we have the extreme UKIP view of total withdrawal from the EU. At the other end, the Lib Dems favour total integration into a European superstate. The Tories and Labour sit somewhere in between, arguing over how many powers to give away.

The common theme is that all four parties are simply talking about the EU in terms of "more or less". 

But Libertas isn't talking about "more or less"; we are talking about "better".

We want a different system of European cooperation. And so do most of the citizens of Europe. There is no reason at all why we have to accept the future for Europe set out in the abysmal Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Nor should we have to put up with the awful anti-democratic system we have now.

What we want is a system of willing cooperation between sovereign nations, founded upon real democracy. We are pioneers forging a new kind of Europe.

That's pro-European. 

They're at it again!

There is a tradition in the European Union that if at first your scheme fails miserably and makes you look stupid, the best plan is to try exactly the same thing again. You might recall from way back earlier today that Igor Grazin, assisted by British Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff, tried to claim that he had not signed the Libertas application to be recognised as a pan-European political party, after immense pressure was applied to him by his Liberal group. It didn't take long for this unusual claim to be disproved via the publication of a photo of the document that he really did sign.

It takes a special kind of thinking to attempt a stunt like this. Presumably Andrew Duff, an MEP for the Eastern region of the UK, was trying to claim that Libertas had put Igor Grazin's name on the form, forged his signature and then hoped that no one would notice. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Not quite as ridiculous as trying the same stunt again. EU traditionalist MP, Mincho Kuminev from Bulgaria, another signatory on the application, today claimed that he hasn't signed it either:

 

Bulgarian MP Mincho Kuminev, who is one of seven signatories to Libertas’s application to the European Parliament for some €200,000 in funds, said he never signed an application for Libertas to receive funds and was surprised his name was on the list of Libertas supporters.

“I have no intention of leaving the Bulgarian party system to join a foreign party. My only contact with Libertas was when I met Jens Peter Bonde at a conference in Bulgaria . . . I never signed any application or document in relation to Libertas,”

Perhaps what adds even more of a comedy value to this nonsense is that the story appeared after Libertas had already published a photo of the document showing his signature on it....

[UPDATE]

It appears that Mr Hristov even gave an interview, and is pushing this charade so far that he claimed: 

"if somebody has falsified my signature, I will ask for an inquiry. The whole thing is a lie."

Judging by the photo of the documentation someone must have forged his passport as well. We look forward to the investigation.

[UPDATE 2]

It now looks like the EU is going to investigate, and if these two politicians (both of whom provided their passports to Libertas!) have in fact just suffered from SWA (Spontaneous Willful Amnesia, common amongst politicians placed in stressful positions), they will grant the application anyway.