Libertas still scaring politicians

Thursday 12 March 2009 |

Politicians from around the country are lining up to attack Libertas following the launch on Tuesday. While we find this mightily encouraging, it's always interesting to look at how the domestic parties are trying to misrepresent us. One thing is clear; they still don't really know what to make of us. Libertas is the first pan-European party, standing on a pro-European reform ticket; clearly this is a concept beyond some of the intellectual giants masquerading as politicians in Britain.


First up we have Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, who was at pains to point out that "Libertas is not a Eurosceptic party". I am not sure how that constitutes a criticism, but it has the advantage of being accurate, unlike many of his other claims. For example he also stated:
There's a rather bewildering assumption that because Declan campaigned so successfully for a No vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that he's therefore against further integration, ever closer union and the rest of the federalist claptrap.... It's really just the Lisbon Treaty he doesn't like.
It seems that UKIP is deliberately trying to present Libertas as being in favour of a superstate, even though it is our stated aim to avoid this (as I have said many times on this blog). But the truth is irrelevant when you are as scared as Farage is. The problem for UKIP is that their dream of leaving the European Union isn't supported by the vast majority of the public. Libertas is offering a positive, realistic solution to the anti-democratic EU superstate in a way that UKIP never can, and it's going to appeal to many disillusioned UKIP voters. 

Next into the ring was Liberal Democrat MEP, Andrew Duff. It is a little known fact that Tuesday was also National Cattle Excrement Day, and Duff, who is a keen supporter of excreta, claimed that "anti-European voters in Britain are being spoiled for choice". Is it too much to ask our politicians to engage in discourse within the realms of realism? This isn't  just a lie, it's an anti-truth. It's a mystery why Duff is allowed out of the house unaccompanied, let alone allowed a public platform.

But this appears to be the official Liberal Democrat line on Libertas. Our good friend, Lib Dem MEP, Graham 'President' Watson has also accused Libertas of being 'anti-European' even though the party is entirely about creating a new democratic European Union.

Not content with that lame and transparent anti-truth, Duff blundered on:
"Ganley wants the EU to stick with the present, clumsy and inefficient Nice treaty but voters want a stronger and reformed EU," said Duff.
I can't even bring myself to comment on that. 

Finally, the publicity shy Labour MEP, Richard Corbett, was wheeled out with plenty to say:
UK Socialist deputy Richard Corbett branded the group's plans a "farce", saying it was "a personal vanity project" for Ganley.
It might seem like a fair criticism at first; Declan Ganley is certainly a central identifiable figure for Libertas, but he is a roaming Chairman representing 27 countries. Although he was at the UK launch, his input  into the UK arm of Libertas has been minimal; we are a home grown party. On top of that, Declan has publicly stated that he will not be putting any money into Libertas and that we will be funded entirely from donations (which is a legal requirement for parties anyway!).
The fact that their 'party leader' has been personally appointed by Ganley demonstrates that Libertas is nothing more than a personal vanity project – a pressure group masquering as a party."
Indeed, Robin Matthews was appointed to set up the party in the UK, but there is simply no other way for this to work; he was the person who brought the rest of us in and actually made it happen. The organisation required to establish a serious political party in time for the June elections doesn't allow for three months of leadership elections. 

Someone had to pick up the baton and start running. Robin Matthews is the person who has made all of this possible in the UK, and he has done a phenomenal job of it so far. One only has to look at the media coverage of the launch, and the panic amongst politicians like Corbett to see evidence of this.

What Corbett also conveniently forgot to mention is that the Libertas UK party constitution requires a leadership election within six months of the June elections. Democracy is at the core of Libertas.
"That is what he is about - slick propaganda, myth-making and playing on people's fears. If he doesn't spend his own money, then he will be using someone else's."
Phone the police! Libertas might be using someone else's money to fund itself. We sometimes call this dubious source of funding 'donations'. 

In conclusion, the sum total of attacks on us is a steaming pile of gibberish.


4 comments:

Unknown said...

One Question. If at some point in the future the party members decided that Declan Ganley was no longer suited to be party leader for whatever reason, does party policy allow a vote of no confidence to be cast to allow a successor be appointed to this post? Kevin. Wicklow Ireland

Libertas Insider said...

I am not sure what the constitutional arrangements are for Libertas as a pan-European party. In the UK we have a robust constitution that depends upon elected regional representatives to keep tabs on the party leader. I would hope that the same arrangement will be put in place for Libertas as a pan-European organisation.

Unknown said...

My concern with Libertas is that it is not structured in a Democratic way. Declan Ganley calls the shots full stop. He is the unmoveable boss of an organisation that was created not on a democratic political foundation but rather a business style model over which Ganley is the supreme ruler. I fail to see how this model can be transformed into a political party and speak strongly of democracy in Europe when Libertas is not democratic by its very nature.

Libertas Insider said...

There is of course an element of business management within Libertas at the moment, but that is the only way that it could possibly begin. If we were still arguing the toss over a constitution or trying to run a pan-European leadership election, we wouldn't even be standing. All new parties start this way; start-up by committee just doesn't work.

Having said that, after the election it will change. The party will then have time to bed in and form a model system. Interestingly, because we have a pan-European base, we are going to have to come up with a pan-European system of managing ourselves in a democratic manner. To some extent, I would expect us to form ourselves around the model we would want to see from the EU itself.

Post a Comment