Libertas a pan European Project : Read OP Intro Carefully - Mod

cactus flower wrote:

So Libertas is going to have different policies depending on the direction the wind is blowing in each of the different countries.

This was indicated by the rag bag of extreme right wingers (including one with a criminal record and another who is a member of the modern equivalent of the Freikorps) assembed as the "signatories" of Libertas. I would wonder if the agglomeration of conflicting policies and programmes could possibly be described as a political party.

If Libertas is not a conventional programme and policy-based party, what exactly is it?

With Europe increasingly economically destabilised and politically fragile, the appearance of a "strong man" party with military/state forces involvement was almost inevitable.

Yeah, and they're going to get YOU!

*insert spooky music here*

A strong man with "party with military/state forces involvement "? Do you actually read what you're writing? Libertas is a political party, empowered by votes collected democratically. You can make all the wild nonsense references to Hitler, Stalin and Freikorps you want. It's all hyperbolic nonsense.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I can see why Cookie did not want to tell us who Lt Col Robin Matthews, chef de cabinet oof Libertas, is/was. peopleKorps has him as a former British Army spin doctor in charge of spinning the Brits actions in Helmund Afganistan . See Libertas Nein Danke

How many army guys are on Ganley's payroll ?

Perhaps they met when they were both in Iraq.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2008/0705/1215184125729.html

Cookie, does Libertas intend to have Pan European policies to match its status as a Pan European Party? If so, when can we see these policies? This is a matter I raised several weeks ago and yet I seem no nearer to hearing them.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Art wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

extansive access to military types

Extensive not extansive.


Yes, during the treaty debates, he talked about conscription and the threat to Irelands neutrality.

Where? When? What did he say?

Quote :

He refused to disassociate himself from the wild claims made by No
campaigners to the effect that the Lisbon Treaty would impose on
Ireland abortion, conscription
to a European army, the death penalty and higher corporation tax.
(Presumably what he meant when he said that in the referendum campaign
"every angle was looked at"). Interestingly, in the same room I
glimpsed an article by an American academic Andrew Moravcik, if
anything a slightly Eurosceptical commentator on European affairs,
whose verdict of Ganley's campaign is: "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted".

above from Richard Corbett. I like the last line from Andrew Moravcik" "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted" Good job blogs like Libertas Nein Danke, maman Poulet and Cedar Lounge spread the truth even faster and get higher google positions than say Cookie monsters blog

I'm sorry, I'm actually looking for a quote from Ganley on Conscription and Neutrality, not some random nonsense from other people.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So Libertas is going to have different policies depending on the direction the wind is blowing in each of the different countries.

This was indicated by the rag bag of extreme right wingers (including one with a criminal record and another who is a member of the modern equivalent of the Freikorps) assembed as the "signatories" of Libertas. I would wonder if the agglomeration of conflicting policies and programmes could possibly be described as a political party.

If Libertas is not a conventional programme and policy-based party, what exactly is it?

With Europe increasingly economically destabilised and politically fragile, the appearance of a "strong man" party with military/state forces involvement was almost inevitable.

Yeah, and they're going to get YOU!

*insert spooky music here*

A strong man with "party with military/state forces involvement "? Do you actually read what you're writing? Libertas is a political party, empowered by votes collected democratically. You can make all the wild nonsense references to Hitler, Stalin and Freikorps you want. It's all hyperbolic nonsense.

That's childish, Cookiemonster.

What do you mean by "empowered by votes collected democratically" ? Libertas has never stood for election.

johnfás wrote:

Cookie, does Libertas intend to have Pan European policies to match its status as a Pan European Party?

Yes.

Quote :

If so, when can we see these policies?

When they are launched in March.

Thanks. Is it intended that there will also be jurisdiction specific policies?

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So Libertas is going to have different policies depending on the direction the wind is blowing in each of the different countries.

This was indicated by the rag bag of extreme right wingers (including one with a criminal record and another who is a member of the modern equivalent of the Freikorps) assembed as the "signatories" of Libertas. I would wonder if the agglomeration of conflicting policies and programmes could possibly be described as a political party.

If Libertas is not a conventional programme and policy-based party, what exactly is it?

With Europe increasingly economically destabilised and politically fragile, the appearance of a "strong man" party with military/state forces involvement was almost inevitable.

Yeah, and they're going to get YOU!

*insert spooky music here*

A strong man with "party with military/state forces involvement "? Do you actually read what you're writing? Libertas is a political party, empowered by votes collected democratically. You can make all the wild nonsense references to Hitler, Stalin and Freikorps you want. It's all hyperbolic nonsense.

That's childish, Cookiemonster.

What do you mean by "empowered by votes collected democratically" ? Libertas has never stood for election.

Whatever about me being childish, you are being a paranoid fantacist.

Libertas hasn't stood for election yet because there hasn't been an election yet. You might have been too busy under your bed hiding from the Freikorps but Libertas intends to stand for election in every EU country. If we get our candidates elected we will have a democratic mandate. If not, we wont.

They are launching their candidates in Rome ae on the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome cue dramatic music. New referendum would have clear majority 61% according to new poll Red C poll

cactus flower wrote:

Art wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

If I was only preoccupied with Ganley that might be a point, but I'm not. Following what Ganley stands for in Europe and identifying the US opposition to Lisbon has helped to clarify for me where Lisbon comes in terms of the underlying hostility between the US - EU and has helped to clarify for me and strengthen my opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU.

We have different standpoints. Apparently you want a Lisbon defeat at any cost and dont mind who you ally yourself with to get that. Im opposed to Lisbon and the EU because I'm opposed the the building up of big mutually hostile capitalist powers and in favour of an international alliance between working people.

We can all throw the word naive around. You think I have naive idealism and I think you have naive opportunism

Quote :

Wow Castus that is naive. You oppose the Lisbon Treaty because you want a weak Europe which will avoid a confrontation with the USA. I'd hate to have you watching my back in a tricky situation. How exactly will a weak Europe help us to negotiate with Russia over oil/gas? How will a weak Europe stop human rights abuses in China and Gaza? The world is changing from a unipolar world and in the future the EU will be only one block among many i.e. China, India, US etc. It will need to be strong, for example to stand up for democracy against the many threats (with the US). It needs to be strong to stand up for its citizens and their way of life. The Lisbon Treaty will help make the EU stronger politically. The EU already has a larger population and GDP then the USA, you have missed the boat if you think the EU is weak compared to the US.

The current recession and banking crisis showed us that the unrestrained capitalist model is in need of a rethink, personally I think the European socialist model is the answer. A stronger Europe will protect this way of life.

I didn't set out my stall in full, so I can't complain that you haven't got what I am saying. But am I understanding you rightly that you are a socialist, and you think the USA is standing up for democracy internationally?

I would believe in type of social capitalism. Basically free markets but with built-in protection for workers and citizens, enforced regulations, but with an emphasis on creating employment and protecting the environment. This model nearly exists already in France, Denmark and others. I think the American model of unrestrained capitalism and might is right is not suitable anymore and should be left in the last century where it belongs. In principal, I would like to see a future where everybody ends up being able 'work to live and not live to work'.

At present, I think, America thinks its standing up for democracy but isn't doing a good job at all. But with the Lisbon treaty passed I think the EU can better influence the US. In the future if China (or Russia etc) keeps getting stronger, and doesn't reform, I can see a time when the EU and US will need make a stand together to defend democracy, but as equals.

New referendum would have clear majority 61% majority according to new poll Red C poll. That is not going to bode well for Libertas

johnfás wrote:

Thanks. Is it intended that there will also be jurisdiction specific policies?

Quite possibly. If the candidates are existing political figures (either Local, National or MEP) then it would be unfair to make them cast aside the issues on which they have focused throughout their careers. But the main focus of Libertas policy would most certainly be at a European level focusing on increasing accountability, transparency and democracy in the EU.

Right. So, assuming that Libertas are going to field candidates in Ireland, is it the case that there will be jurisdiction specific policies regarding Ireland? Can we also expect that these will be announced in March?

johnfás wrote:

Right. So, assuming that Libertas are going to field candidates in Ireland, is it the case that there will be jurisdiction specific policies regarding Ireland? Can we also expect that these will be announced in March?

I can't say for sure. As I said, it would entirely depend of the candidate.

So it is expected that the candidates will enjoy significant freedom from the organisation to extent of the formulation of their own specific policies?

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Thanks. Is it intended that there will also be jurisdiction specific policies?

Quite possibly. If the candidates are existing political figures (either Local, National or MEP) then it would be unfair to make them cast aside the issues on which they have focused throughout their careers. But the main focus of Libertas policy would most certainly be at a European level focusing on increasing accountability, transparency and democracy in the EU.

Thats funny, Libertas is not accountable, its not transparent and its not democratic. Its a one man band. Thats the problem Cookie, many people have said it already, Ganley demands increased transparency from the EU while he keeps the source of his funding hidden. I admire his workrate but what a hypocrite.

johnfás wrote:

So it is expected that the candidates will enjoy significant freedom from the organisation to formulate their own specific policies?

The main focus of Libertas is bring more democracy, accountability and transparency to how the European Union is run. Any candidates mian focus would have to be working towards that aim. Libertas was created with that focus front and centre, it's members and candidates would have to believe in that and would have joined to promote that goal as their primary focus. Whatever views they have outside of that would be secondary to that central poing and policies which foster those ideas.

Art wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Art wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

If I was only preoccupied with Ganley that might be a point, but I'm not. Following what Ganley stands for in Europe and identifying the US opposition to Lisbon has helped to clarify for me where Lisbon comes in terms of the underlying hostility between the US - EU and has helped to clarify for me and strengthen my opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU.

We have different standpoints. Apparently you want a Lisbon defeat at any cost and dont mind who you ally yourself with to get that. Im opposed to Lisbon and the EU because I'm opposed the the building up of big mutually hostile capitalist powers and in favour of an international alliance between working people.

We can all throw the word naive around. You think I have naive idealism and I think you have naive opportunism

Quote :

Wow Castus that is naive. You oppose the Lisbon Treaty because you want a weak Europe which will avoid a confrontation with the USA. I'd hate to have you watching my back in a tricky situation. How exactly will a weak Europe help us to negotiate with Russia over oil/gas? How will a weak Europe stop human rights abuses in China and Gaza? The world is changing from a unipolar world and in the future the EU will be only one block among many i.e. China, India, US etc. It will need to be strong, for example to stand up for democracy against the many threats (with the US). It needs to be strong to stand up for its citizens and their way of life. The Lisbon Treaty will help make the EU stronger politically. The EU already has a larger population and GDP then the USA, you have missed the boat if you think the EU is weak compared to the US.

The current recession and banking crisis showed us that the unrestrained capitalist model is in need of a rethink, personally I think the European socialist model is the answer. A stronger Europe will protect this way of life.

I didn't set out my stall in full, so I can't complain that you haven't got what I am saying. But am I understanding you rightly that you are a socialist, and you think the USA is standing up for democracy internationally?

I would believe in type of social capitalism. Basically free markets but with built-in protection for workers and citizens, enforced regulations, but with an emphasis on creating employment and protecting the environment. This model nearly exists already in France, Denmark and others. I think the American model of unrestrained capitalism and might is right is not suitable anymore and should be left in the last century where it belongs. In principal, I would like to see a future where everybody ends up being able 'work to live and not live to work'.

At present, I think, America thinks its standing up for democracy but isn't doing a good job at all. But with the Lisbon treaty passed I think the EU can better influence the US. In the future if China (or Russia etc) keeps getting stronger, and doesn't reform, I can see a time when the EU and US will need make a stand together to defend democracy, but as equals.

I think such a 'social' capitalism cannot survive over an appreciably long time frame unless you have global democracy and regulation to keep it in check. Otherwise national ameliorated forms of capitalism are prone to being out-competed in the global marketplace.

(As an ancillary point, I can't understand why capital is global but democracy stands at the border with its' passport in hand. )

Having said that, even if you had such a system of global democracy --in tandem with all the defining features of capitalism,-- it would still fall under the effects of that very same capitalism over the much longer term. Or in other words I think you'd still end up with neoliberalism or even worse.

I fear, it is still, capitalism or a habitable and civilised planet....

Right, so the central aim of the candidate must be to ensure greater democracy, accountability and transparency in Europe. However, I would point out that these are structural rather than policy, social or economic based issues. Assuming what you ay above is accurate, is it then the policy of Libertas to allow individual candidates to establish individual and jurisdiction specific policies regarding issues of social and economic concern? This, lack of a whip, for want of a better word, seems to detract from the idea of a Pan European Party. I would have thought that any such undertaking would also have a consolidated direction on issues social, political and economic. No?

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So Libertas is going to have different policies depending on the direction the wind is blowing in each of the different countries.

This was indicated by the rag bag of extreme right wingers (including one with a criminal record and another who is a member of the modern equivalent of the Freikorps) assembed as the "signatories" of Libertas. I would wonder if the agglomeration of conflicting policies and programmes could possibly be described as a political party.

If Libertas is not a conventional programme and policy-based party, what exactly is it?

With Europe increasingly economically destabilised and politically fragile, the appearance of a "strong man" party with military/state forces involvement was almost inevitable.

Yeah, and they're going to get YOU!

*insert spooky music here*

A strong man with "party with military/state forces involvement "? Do you actually read what you're writing? Libertas is a political party, empowered by votes collected democratically. You can make all the wild nonsense references to Hitler, Stalin and Freikorps you want. It's all hyperbolic nonsense.

That's childish, Cookiemonster.

What do you mean by "empowered by votes collected democratically" ? Libertas has never stood for election.

Whatever about me being childish, you are being a paranoid fantacist.

Libertas hasn't stood for election yet because there hasn't been an election yet. You might have been too busy under your bed hiding from the Freikorps but Libertas intends to stand for election in every EU country. If we get our candidates elected we will have a democratic mandate. If not, we wont.

What do you mean by "empowered by votes collected democratically" ?

Art wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Thanks. Is it intended that there will also be jurisdiction specific policies?

Quite possibly. If the candidates are existing political figures (either Local, National or MEP) then it would be unfair to make them cast aside the issues on which they have focused throughout their careers. But the main focus of Libertas policy would most certainly be at a European level focusing on increasing accountability, transparency and democracy in the EU.

Thats funny, Libertas is not accountable, its not transparent and its not democratic. Its a one man band. Thats the problem Cookie, many people have said it already, Ganley demands increased transparency from the EU while he keeps the source of his funding hidden. I admire his workrate but what a hypocrite.

It's far from a one man show.
Libertas have always said that their funding of the No to Lisbon campaign was above board, John Gormley said Libertas acted lawfully under the rules. Libertas isn't required to disclose the name of donors under the limit set by SIPO and would be doing a great disservice to those donors if they did.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So Libertas is going to have different policies depending on the direction the wind is blowing in each of the different countries.

This was indicated by the rag bag of extreme right wingers (including one with a criminal record and another who is a member of the modern equivalent of the Freikorps) assembed as the "signatories" of Libertas. I would wonder if the agglomeration of conflicting policies and programmes could possibly be described as a political party.

If Libertas is not a conventional programme and policy-based party, what exactly is it?

With Europe increasingly economically destabilised and politically fragile, the appearance of a "strong man" party with military/state forces involvement was almost inevitable.

Yeah, and they're going to get YOU!

*insert spooky music here*

A strong man with "party with military/state forces involvement "? Do you actually read what you're writing? Libertas is a political party, empowered by votes collected democratically. You can make all the wild nonsense references to Hitler, Stalin and Freikorps you want. It's all hyperbolic nonsense.

That's childish, Cookiemonster.

What do you mean by "empowered by votes collected democratically" ? Libertas has never stood for election.

Whatever about me being childish, you are being a paranoid fantacist.

Libertas hasn't stood for election yet because there hasn't been an election yet. You might have been too busy under your bed hiding from the Freikorps but Libertas intends to stand for election in every EU country. If we get our candidates elected we will have a democratic mandate. If not, we wont.

What do you mean by "empowered by votes collected democratically" ?

I mean - WHEN PEOPLE VOTE FOR LIBERTAS CANDIDATES THEY WILL HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MANDATE.

In fairness Cookie, you did use the present rather than future or future conditional tense. There is a vast difference.

johnfás wrote:

In fairness Cookie, you did use the present rather than future tense.

Yes, and in fairness I did clarify what I meant the first time I answered the question.

You didn't really, you spoke about a democratic mandate in your initial clarification whereas in your initial response you spoke of the Libertas Party being "empowered", which I assume is different to a mandate, from votes collected democratically, which presumably implies already.

Also:

Quote :

Right, so the central aim of the candidate must be to ensure greater democracy, accountability and transparency in Europe. However, I would point out that these are structural rather than policy, social or economic based issues. Assuming what you ay above is accurate, is it then the policy of Libertas to allow individual candidates to establish individual and jurisdiction specific policies regarding issues of social and economic concern? This, lack of a whip, for want of a better word, seems to detract from the idea of a Pan European Party. I would have thought that any such undertaking would also have a consolidated direction on issues social, political and economic. No?