Talk:Libertas (political movement)/Archive 1

Neo-conservative funding of the No -vote

There has been an accusation from the French minister of European affairs that the Irish No vote was influenced by foreign neo-conservatives that financed the no campaing. As this accusation is coming from the French government, I think this is notable enough to be mentioned in the part of 'Funding and controversy'. If somebody is maintaining this article I would like to leave this to him or her judgment on to add or not. The article from Le Figaro: Non/Irlande: "rôle des néoconservateurs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.115.164 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add it in as a source for Jean-Pierre Jouyet's opinion, but there is no detail, no names, no amounts. If I was the "secrétaire d'Etat aux Affaires européennes" I might say much the same thing, in hopes of keeping my job.86.42.204.140 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy

This guy and his organisation are posing one of the greatest threats to Irish democracy in decades. His funding and his links with the US military and eurosceptic British Tories need to be emphasised much more. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point about their funding is that it was suggested in dark terms by their opponents but not actually proved, which is fine in the rough and tumble of politics, but not on wikipedia. The main reason that people voted no was the worsening economy, and several politicians who endorsed the Lisbon Treaty admitted that they hadn't actually read it. It's notable that their finances were investigated after their success; typical of sore losers everywhere.86.42.204.140 (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

their finances are still being investigated Opiumjones 23 (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party

Libertas is now a registered political party . there is also a huge amount of info on Declan Ganley about Libertas that should be added here. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An in the EU, as well -- http://euobserver.com/9/27286 indicates so. —Nightstallion 08:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

At some point the article Libertas (political party) will have to be written. I'm trying to avoid it because I am occupied with other articles, but if I find sources I'll drop them here. Here's one:

New right-wing party to emerge. Petr Mach, the head of the Centre for Economics and Politics and a close colleague of President Václav Klaus, said on Monday he would announce the formation of a new right-wing party at the end of the year that would work closely with the Libertas party of Irish eurosceptic Declan Ganley - Breakfast Brief, Prague Daily Monitor, Tuesday, 9 December 2008

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If/when Libertas (as a party) actually has some candidates and/or these candidates take part in an actual election (or the party actually progresses beyond the "planned"/"party in name only" phase)[1] then I wouldn't create a new article. It would probably be best to rename THIS article, and update the content to reflect. Guliolopez (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. There is a precedent for keeping stuff on one page: European Democrats covers the former EP group, present EP subgroup, and present PACE group. There are also guidelines on WikiProject Politics for when a political party becomes notable enough to merit its own article (from memory, if it gets elected members or receives a significant number of votes). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest this article and Libertas (political party) should be the same - no need for a separate article! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Links/Funding.

I've added a paragraph relating to comments from the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, made after a talk given at Trinity Colleg on November 17 2008.

A link to transscript of the session is here. I haven't been able to include it on the text on the main page if somebody could manage it I would be most appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.213.226 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

managed it figure it out myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.213.226 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to edits made 23:32, 12 January 2009 by Ssolbergj, removing the paragraph (now reinstated) relayting to US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte's comments that there was no CIA funding of libertas. The user "Ssolbergj" comments "(Very few people have think the US Gov has supported Libertas. The issue is whether Ganley has support in the pentagon and among "necons".)"

I have included below some links, comments made by Daniel Cohen-Bendit in the European Parliament 23-09-2008 suggesting links between the CIA (specifically stated) and Libertas

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/008-37707-338-12-49-901-20080922STO37692-2008-03-12-2008/default_en.htm

I also include a blog entry by the BBC's Mark Mardell which he comments on CIA links between Libertas and the CIA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/10/get_ganley.html

And also a blog entry by the Telegraph's Bruno Waterfield in which he too comments on supposed links between the CIA and Libertas.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2008/09/24/eu_claims_irish_are_cia_stooges

And finally a link to a story published by euobserver.com which comments on supposed Libertas - CIA links.

http://euobserver.com/9/27276

In light of this I think that it is clear that many people may believe that the Pentagon/CIA which is quite clearly part of the Bush Administration were involved in supporting Libertas. I think including comments by John Negroponte about this issue is relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.213.226 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much authority Negroponte has, of course he can't say that no one in the pentagon supports Libertas. He simply can't conclude or guarantee that he knows the answer (e.g. he doesn't control all banking accounts in Washington DC, it's impossible to know), i.e. it's just one subjective claim. It only creates an extremely slippery slope which can only lead to a crappy tabloid and unencyclopedic article, where everyone adds counterarguments. I don't like this use of unconclusive (or argumentive) quotes in Wikipedia. We should rewrite the whole section. - SSJ ☎ 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've rewritten the quote. I think it had a very pompous, conclusive and uncencyclopedic style. - SSJ ☎ 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Political Ideology: Libertas = pro-European?

Whether or not Libertas in fact is pro-european (or if it's a strategy), has been questioned. Without further comparison; NSDAP claimed to be 'pro-democratic.' The claim is controversial, and it doesn't hurt anyone to include "self-proclaimed." Of course all officially stated policies and ideologies of political parties are selv-proclaimed. But that doesn't make them undisputed de facto facts. - SSJ ☎ 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means put your point in the body of the article (and back it up with references). However the group claims to be anti-lisbon treaty but pro-european. Its a vaild position to have and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

It is completely POV to qualify the groups own stated political ideology with "self-proclaimed".--Trounce (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to wikipedia editors to find "evidence" for and against an argument. If you think an added "self-proclaimed" sounds suggestive, then fine, I understand that. I think we at least should add "stated" and perhaps a ref in front of both of the 'ideologies'. Libertas' pro-europeanism is disputed, and that's a fact. Therefore I don't think this infobox should take it as a real fact and pass the claim on without any notice what so ever. I don't want suggestive language; and i don't think an added "stated:" is suggestive. OK? - SSJ ☎ 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you "haven't seen any evidence" that would indicate that Libertas is not pro-European? Seriously? Everything Ganley talks about involves bashing the "unaccountable and anti-democratic super-elite in Brussels". He has said that he likes EU enlargement and the economic security of being an EU member, but he forgets that had the same "elite", (i.e. directly elected national governments in the EU Council) not existed, the European project wouldn't have existed. He claimed in a debate on TV3 that three-year olds would be detained if Lisbon is ratified.[2] And at the same time he calls himself pro-EU. He is using hard a core brand of UK eurosceptic rhetoric, but decorates it with a pro-european icing because he happens to be in Ireland. - SSJ ☎ 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[3] + Ganley's new Libertas friend in the Czech Republic is "fiercly eurosceptic" according to himself[4].- SSJ ☎ 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think a ref on the ideologies is fair enough. I think you may be missing the point, I don't have a problem with you putting your, quite valid (referenced) arguments into the article.

I disagree with you re. UK eurosceptics. I think that Libertas's position is fundamentally different to that of the UK eurosceptic. Anyway, I put a ref on the ideologies in the info box--Trounce (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant refs and the "as stated on website". - SSJ ☎ 14:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's hidden in the link to the bottom of the article, it just looks like a reference. - SSJ ☎ 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit clunky (belt and braces) having "as stated on website" in the infobox too..... but if it makes you happy I'll go along with it.--Trounce (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they say that are pro-Europe, make statements to that effect, strenuously deny being anti-EU/Eurosceptic if they were not, infact, pro-eu? That possible gain could they hope to achieve from that? It also makes the info box look awful and it's pretty self evident anyway given that it is wiki, an encyclopaedia a reference should sufice if it is actually needed at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.204.57 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganley and Libertas' claim to be pro-european has been questioned BECAUSE Ganley knows that he must be/pretend to be "pro-european" because the vast majority of Irish people like what the EU has done to their country. But at the same time, Ganley happens to be using using ludicrous, vague and unfounded arguments against the "anti-democratic Brussels" and telling scaremongering lies about the Lisbon treaty (Again, watch this TV3 interview + read what I've written above). I.e - For some reason, he is seen as a big hypocrite by many people. - SSJ ☎ 00:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First to declare my interest, I'm someone who is active in Libertas in the UK. Now, putting my wikipedia NPOV hat on, I would say that Libertas people are not happy being labelled "eurosceptic" or "anti-European". They/we want to make the EU more democratic, more responsive, more devolved and less corrupt and elitist. They/we would argue that the EU would be more successful, more influential in the world and more effective in what it does if this was the case; hence they/we are "pro-European". The problem we have is that most people associate "pro-Europeanism" with meaning that more things should be done at the European level - Libertas certainly aren't that kind of pro-Europeans. Personally I think it's pointless arguing about words, but that's just me. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, looking at the political ideologies of the national parties of the newly presented members of the pan-European Libertas, most of them are clearly national-conservatives: Timo Soini is the president of a party called "True Finns", Philippe de Villiers of the "Mouvement pour la France", and Georgios Georgiou's LAOS is a right-wing anti-globalization party defending that all Greeks should stand together like the fingers of a fist. No doubt that many base Libertas supporters are defending a more democratic EU. (Although the Libertas homepage doesn't really explain what it understands by that: more rights for the European Parliament instead of the national vetoes in the Council? Then I understand that one would have to support the Lisbon treaty... But that's another question.) Most of the party elite, in change, obviously has been defending until now a quite nationalistic world-view which doesn't really fit their stated pro-Europeanism.--El Duende (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

There are lots of independent articles and links to articles plus comment here Libertas? Nein Danke Blog Catapla (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move

I suggest this article is moved to Libertas (political party). The lobby group that campaigned against the Irish Lisbon vote is substantially the same as the political party campaigning in the 2009 european elections but the latter is more to the fore now. Comments? AndrewRT(Talk) 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this would happen! <grin>. Regardless of WP:POLITICS guidelines, Libertas (political party) meets the notability guidelines w.r.t. news coverage - it's being covered in the US[5], Ireland[6], Azerbaijan[7], Czechia[8], Finland[9], UK[10], Germany[11], Poland[12]...the list goes on. However this pans out, it'll have effects on how europarties are defined. I'd prefer it if Libertas (political party) was split off into its own article, and leave Libertas (lobby group) as an article in its own right, so we can put Libertas's (lobby group) actions concerning Lisbon II in one article, and Libertas's (party) campaign & performance in the 2009 elections in the other. Otherwise the article size will go ballistic. Would you like to do it? AIDE (not ALDE: different europarty) broke up and the same bureau meeting that assigned funding to Libertas defunded AIDE (no surprise: it's been a shell for some time now), so I've got to update the AIDE article, the articles of its affiliates and eurofoundation, and the europarty article, so I've got my hands full. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they divisible? The party is a private affair, the think tank is part of it still as I have seen nothing to prove othersie. The web addresses fro the think tank are now linking to the political party site so they are still the same entity. Catapla (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they divisible? Yes. Legally and conceptually, they are different entities. The details are:

Eurofoundation: LIBERTAS FOUNDATION [13]

Type Company, Number 463759, Name THE LIBERTAS FOUNDATION LIMITED, Address MOYNE PARK, TUAM, CO GALWAY, Registered 30/10/2008, Status Normal, Last AR Date N/A, Next AR Date 30/04/2009, Last Accounts To Date N/A

Advocacy group: THE LIBERTAS INSTITUTE LIMITED [14]

Type Company, Number 428569, Name THE LIBERTAS INSTITUTE LIMITED, Address MOYNE PARK, TUAM, CO GALWAY, Registered 24/10/2006, Status Normal, Last AR Date 24/04/2008, Next AR Date 24/04/2009, Last Accounts To Date 31/12/2007 (see also THE LIBERTAS INSTITUTE: :Type Business Name, Number 315950, Name THE LIBERTAS INSTITUTE, Address MOYNE PARK, TUAM, CO GALWAY, Registered 06/11/2006, Status Normal)

Party 1 (Europarty? Irish affiliate of Europarty?): THE LIBERTAS PARTY LIMITED [15]

Type Company, Number 463758, Name THE LIBERTAS PARTY LIMITED, Address MOYNE PARK, TUAM, CO GALWAY, Registered 30/10/2008, Status Normal, Last AR Date N/A, Next AR Date 30/04/2009, Last Accounts To Date N/A

Party 2 (Europarty? Brussels office of Europarty?): LIBERTAS.EU

Address Avenue de Cortenbergh 71, Brussels 1000, Belgium

So we have three, possibly four legally separate entities: foundation, advocacy group, party 1, party 2 (not sure about the separateness of the last two). All will have different birth date, accounts, and will be bound by separate legislation. They will no doubt have same/similar personnel and addresses, but legally yes, they are separate.

Incidentally, can anybody point me to the place where the brussels address is registered? I know libertas.eu (the party, not the website) give it as their headquarters here, but I need to know if that is a different party or just the Brussels HQ of the party registered in Tuam. I think it's the latter, but it'd be nice to get confirmation.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, it gets worse. 78.137.185.118 has updated the article to say that "Libertas can accept anonymous donation not exceeding €126.97, no other large donations to Libertas have been revealed" That limit[16][17] refers to the funding of the political party Libertas, (not the lobby group), but the preceding sentence refers to funding of the lobby group. See how badly wrong this article can go if we don't separate it out? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is a fair point, however the Libertas Think Tank ie Institute shared address, phone noumbers, and personnel with Rivada the Defence company Ganley runs from the Tuam address. Libertas does not have clear lines of demarcation. As Ganley is the 'leader' of all the above............ Catapla (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point: the legal & conceptual definitions make them different organizations de jure, wheras the personnel and same address make them the same organization de facto. But the problems regarding structure and article size will eventually require different articles.

How does this sound? We stay with the existing article at the moment, but rename it to something like Libertas (Declan Ganley). As the year progresses and the article grows thanks to the Euros and Lisbon II, we'll branch off new, separate articles about Libertas (advocacy group), Libertas (political party), Libertas (Eurofoundation), Rivada Networks, Controversies regarding the funding of Libertas and so on. By about November, we'll end up with this article as an umbrella, several associated articles, a hatnote looking something like this:

This article deals with the advocacy group founded in 2006 by Declan Ganley and based in Tuam. For the defense contractors founded in ???? by Ganley and based in Tuam, Colorado Springs and Arlington, see Rivada Networks. For the political party founded in 2008 by Ganley and based in Tuam and Brussels, see Libertas (political party). For the Eurofoundation founded in 2008 by Ganley and based in Brussels, see Libertas (Eurofoundation).

or something like this:

This article covers the organizations called Libertas founded by Declan Ganley and (part) based in Tuam, County Galway. For details about each individual organization, see Libertas (advocacy group), Libertas (political party) or Libertas (Eurofoundation). For the defense contractors founded by Ganley and part-based at the same address, see Rivada Networks.

and we'll need a navbox ("Topics on Libertas and Declan Ganley") to tie them all together.

As the first step (and returning to AndrewRT's point above), how do y'feel about renaming this article to Libertas (Declan Ganley) or Libertas (County Galway)? That way, we can carry on expanding this article 'til it gets too big, then bud off as necessary.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, my only worry would be that each page would need a little of the origin party. Libertas Institute is like the seed, but very little is different with the party except extra offices. We know nothing about who the officers are , diretcors , etc.

It could be that all we are dea ing with de facto organisation as I think comes out re leader and the Irish people still being inviolved. The reality may just be the original Libertas evoling whereas their are several legal entities. This is a bit like shell companies, at any moment one can jettison the past as it relates to eg Libertas Institute re Rivada etc which is part of the parties histories is hidden on an out of date think tank page. That would present problems perhapsCatapla (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know...the use of multiple companies makes it easier for him from an organizational sense as companies can be created/destroyed as needed whilst leaving the core intact, but it makes it difficult to write articles. It'll cause havoc when it comes to the Euros & Lisbon II: which Libertas will be doing what at any given moment, and which set of regulations apply? If Declan stands up and says "The EU wants to eat your babies and Barroso smells of poo", is he speaking as a lobbyist of Libertas (lobby group) and regulated by SIPO, or as a member of Libertas (political party based in Ireland) and regulated accordingly, or as a member of Libertas (Europarty) and regulated by the European Parliament, or as a member of Libertas (Eurofoundation) and separately regulated by the European Parliament? Aaargh!

But returning to the article problems, you OK with a rename of this article to Libertas (Declan Ganley), or Libertas (County Galway), instead of Libertas (lobby group)? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas (Declan Ganley) is clear re dis ambig, however depending on how things develop the euro party could be deemed the same thing. We can cross that bridge later. The other issue will be vandalism which has been light on the pages so far but in an election period it could get messy. Strict no unsourced should be adhered to as the pages progress to avoid a need to continually re-check info. Catapla (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we'll go with renaming the page to Libertas (Declan Ganley) at some date to be determined (unless AndrewRT objects), keep a weather eye out for vandalisation, and I'll try and sort out which piece of legislation applies to which incarnation of Libertas. Oh good. More European legislation to read. Tylenol on standby... Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wont object given I'm conflicted but it's not the solution I would go for. First, although the Libertas eurofoundation is legally a separate entity from the party I don't think legal status should drive article creation and I note there isn't a separate article for the EU Democrats eurofoundation, for instance. Second, I think the lobby group and political party are substantially the same organisation, albeit operating under different legal statuses. I think you should have one article covering the one organisation, call it Libertas (political party) to dismbiguate from the Roman Goddess and as the current dominant form is the political party and use {{main}} templates to spin off articles such as Funding of the Libertas campaign and Formation of the Libertas political party. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I agree with much of what you say, and the bits I don't aren't relevant to this discussion. Broadly speaking, the consensus seems to be:

Keep this article as the main umbrella article
Bud off "spin-off" articles as this article expands and use {{main}} templates to point to the spin-offs
Change the name of this article to Libertas (something) to reflect the fact that it ain't just a lobby group no more

The question is: what should that (something) be?

You state that the "lobby group and political party are substantially the same organisation". I disagree, but that's not the point. The point is that neither "Libertas (lobby group)" nor "Libertas (political party)" adequately describes this article. This article describes the multiple organizations called "Libertas" created by Declan to advance and advocate a view of the EU's future structure. So this article acts as the umbrella. Given that it's the umbrella, giving it the name of one of the individual subunits is unwise (Is Libertas (lobby group) the dominant one? Is Libertas (political party) the dominant one? Now? During Lisbon I? During the Euros? During Lisbon II?). Hence the suggestion that we name it something noncommital like "Libertas (Declan Ganley)". Otherwise we'l be renaming it left, right and centre as the year progresses and different Libertas's (Libertasi? Woah, cool name...) are deployed at different events.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Libertas (political movement)? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a party in name and with offices and has 600 odd facebook members , therefore it is hardly even a party, jumping that to "movement" is both factually and even fancifully inaccurate.Catapla (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I'm OK with Libertas (political movement). User:Catalpa has a point when he says that Libertas (the party) has some nice offices but few declared candidates, but Libertas (lobby group) certainly had a political effect with Lisbon I. Labeling Libertas as a "political movement" doesn't imply that Libertas is large, successful and mass membership, nor does it imply that Libertas is small, unsuccessful and can hold its conferences in a taxi: it just implies it exists as a political movement. And to be honest, it does. So yes, I'm OK with Libertas (political movement). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catalpa was kind enough to concur with the move to Libertas (political movement). As we now seem to have consensus, I will now make the move. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]