What do you think about Ganley's speech in Rome?

[McDave]

I've just read through Declan Ganley's Libertas speech: Libertas chairman Declan Ganley's speech at Rome convention. Personally, I've been waiting for Libertas to put some cards on the table for a long, long time. While the speech is naturally rhetorical and lacking in many specifics, it still gives some idea of what they have in mind. So from where I'm coming from, these would be some of the main points, and reactions of my own.

Democracy: DG makes much play of the lack of democracy in the EU and taking Europe back to democratic roots. Libertas's leaders are signing a solemn democratic pledge on behalf of the movement/supporters.
Is this not what the original "elitist" EEC signatories did.

The future of the EU: the speech speaks of the EU as a single family in the future.
Shared values, maybe. But a single family? Not even the separate nations constitute families.

The failure of Europe: Brussels is unable to respond to the current crisis.
As I see it laissez faire countries like the the US and UK have failed the test of international economics. Brussels cannot solve the EU aspect of the problem because it lacks the powers - and because of divisions in economic structures and philosophies of key players like the UK and Germany. This to me is a cheap shot by Libertas.

The farce of the Lisbon Constitution:
There'll be much heat and no light generated by this contention. The original attempt to create a legible enough draft constitution under Nice failed largely because of flaws in the proposed constitutional structure. Lisbon has reverted to piecemeal amendments to the various treaties. In no way can Lisbon be characterised as a constitution. IMO, Nice was only a first, flawed step along that path anyway.

Who rules? Unelected elites or the people?:
We are nowhere near a "we the people" scenario in the EU. The EU is not a state. Democracy is addressed through the action of sovereign states in the Council of Ministers and the limited role of the EP. If the people are to have a substantially more meaningful role in the EU, the EU needs to become more of a state. Watch that type of proposal sink like a stone.

There's more in the speech, and I understand in Ganley's book. On the basis of the Rome speech, all this material merits attention.

For my own part, I think Libertas misunderstands the role of democracy in a supranational non-state entity. The EU is not a state, and the institutions that operate in a state cannot work in the current manifestation of the EU. For democracy to truly flourish, the EU must become a state. I don't believe that's a role the peoples of Europe want the EU to play.

As far as politics goes, it probably doesn't matter much if Libertas adhere to any manner of convention. After all, the less of a difference they espouse, the less the reason for their existence. Their approach appears to me to be a pragmatic one, and the way European voters are feeling at the moment, there's a potential market of 10s of millions to play for. Plenty for now, but down the line... ?

Any other views out there?

[albaad060]

But isnt part of the argument about Lisbon that by creating EU Presidents and Foreign Ministers (though their official names are somewhat different), Europe is acquiring the characteristics of a state without any form of democracy or election for these officials?

We already have unelected EU commissioners. Why add more un-democratic entities to the EU? Least thats what I think Libertas is trying to say.

[CookieMonster]

That's exactly it, albaad, the EU is moving towards that. It's inevitable and in some respects its welcome, it's worked in many ways not least by installing the longest period of peace in European history.
But what is missing more and more from this is democracy, which is what Libertas is all about.

[lapsedmethodist]

But isnt part of the argument about Lisbon that by creating EU Presidents and Foreign Ministers (though their official names are somewhat different), Europe is acquiring the characteristics of a state without any form of democracy or election for these officials?

We already have unelected EU commissioners. Why add more un-democratic entities to the EU? Least thats what I think Libertas is trying to say.

" When I want to know Europes' opinions, I don't know who to phone. " Henry Kissinger.

[cavok]

I think he should have spoken in Italian...

[Bobert]

Actually it was "Who do I call when I want to call Europe?"

[McDave]

But isnt part of the argument about Lisbon that by creating EU Presidents and Foreign Ministers (though their official names are somewhat different), Europe is acquiring the characteristics of a state without any form of democracy or election for these officials?

We already have unelected EU commissioners. Why add more un-democratic entities to the EU? Least thats what I think Libertas is trying to say.

There's a world of a difference between the appearance of being a state and being one. The EU does a lot that states do, and it has institutions with a good deal more heft than, say, the UN. But it is always under the supervision of the actual states which form its basis (Council of Ministers). Even it's civil service is overseen by political appointees.

I personally have no objection to, say, the election of an EU President. However, those who argue for more elections and a stronger EP also have to be prepared to argue for the EU as a state. Incidentally, in such a scenario, the Commission would be reduced to an administrative body, and commissioners probably dispensed with as political players. An EU state with a President, Parliament (and some form of Senate) would see to that.

[Twin Towers]

A superstate with a mandate is never going to happen. Brussels knows this and has been attempting it by deceit. Libertas knows this and is attempting it by.