Originally Posted by Petrina:
It will be interesting to see if Libertas links up with the new party which Jens Bonde (ex co president of the I&D Group ) is setting up ,

BONDE.COM - Jens-Peter Bonde's website


Extract:
"Our main task is the fight for referendums or/and rejections of the Lisbon treaty. I will also work for establishing more lists of critical and constructive candidates in more countries before the upcoming European elections in June 2009.
People with ideas are welcome to write me a mail at: jp@bonde.dk
We have a website to be found at eudemocrats.org"



Draw your conclusions....
[Rep]

Well if Ganley does intend to work with Bonde ,as seems likely ,I hope that he goes into it with his eyes well open to the sort of behaviour that appears to be the norm in the Brussels corridors of power .............
[Rep]

This is from Richard Corbtt's blog... I would say it is a fairly accurate representation. The UKIP smiles did go a bit wobbly as Ganley laid out his stall...




Declan Ganley and the Irish No

Declan Ganley, the Anglo-Irish millionaire who led the No campaign to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, spoke at a public meeting in the European Parliament today. The meeting was hosted by the Tory Eurosceptic, Dan Hannan MEP.

To the horror of the UKIP members present, Ganley presented himself as a pro-European, waxing lyrical about how good Europe was to Ireland, how the EU was the most successful peace process in history and how the last thing he wanted was for the EU to break up. The big smiles quickly disappeared from the UKIP faces as he said that.

Yet Ganley was stupendously vague as to what he did believe in and as to what he objected to in the Lisbon Treaty. He simply said that he wanted to replace Lisbon with a new Europe which would be "prosperous, democratic, free and legitimate" as if the supporters of the Lisbon Treaty wanted a Europe that was undemocratic and/or illegitimate.

He said he was against the Lisbon Treaty because having read it he didn't see how any democrat could support it, yet did not said what he found undemocratic in a treaty which seeks to extend the powers over the EU system of both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. He said he that the No campaign wants transparency, democracy and accountability to be at the heart of the European Union - precisely the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty - but offered no alternative way of achieving it.

He refused to answer questions as to where his "Libertas" No campaign obtained its massive financial resources. He peddled yet again the myth that the European Parliament had voted not to accept the result of the Irish referendum and that it had kept secret the plans to implement the treaty. (On this last point, he was particularly disingenuous as it was the Eurosceptics who had objected to the European Parliament discussing implementation before it was ratified, yet when such a postponement was agreed, they claimed it was an attempt to conceal.)

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".

He squirmed when reminded of previous writings of his calling for a fully federal European with a directly elected President.

When he rightly said that when a majority vote on a subject you have to accept the result, he was particularly reluctant to discuss the outcome of the Spanish, Luxembourgish and Romanian referenda which gave majorities for the Constitutional Treaty. When I questioned him on how to reconcile the divergent verdicts given by different European countries, in order to find a reform to the European Union acceptable to all, he simply avoided responding by repeating that Lisbon was dead - and presumably nothing it contained should ever be supported by Ireland or anybody else, even if it is ratified by the overwhelming majority of member states.

Well, if Mr Ganley is a Euroenthusiast, than I am a Eurosceptic!
[Rep]

It doen`t look like UKIP should have anything to do with him .Bonde and co are welcome to him .
[Rep]

I agree with that Petrina.
I find it confusing that Farage has been reported as being in some kind of talks with Mr Ganley,
I can't understand why Farage and Ganley would do so though because it seems that they are miles apart.
Farage,anti EU and Ganley pro EU.
The only reason these two would meet would be to iron out a plan for REFORMING the EU from within.
Then, perhaps thats the new Farage plan for UKIP,just as its the old plan of the Conservative Party?
What's next from Farage?
"UKIP,IN EUROPE,BUT NOT RUN BY EUROPE".
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Jeff:
Then, perhaps thats the new Farage plan for UKIP,just as its the old plan of the Conservative Party?
What's next from Farage?
"UKIP,IN EUROPE,BUT NOT RUN BY EUROPE".

Jeff, If you're UKIP friendly you know that is just not going to happen. If that was the plan Nigel would no longer have a political party to lead, end of career! I've never met a UKIPPER ( and I've met a few) who would accept 'in Europe but not run by Europe'! The reason they joined was to get Britain out, not stay in! They could have saved their money and stayed with the 'Traitor parties' they were in!
[Rep]

Below is a quote from Richard North`s EU Referendum blogspot ,he is of a similar view to
Jeff and GC.


in the keynote conference speech given by Farage, where he spoke of needing a "21st Century relationship between Britain and our European neighbours." UKIP's line, he said, "needs to be less about what's wrong with the EU… It needs to be positive messages about what we stand for and positive messages about what our MEPs will do."

Although larded with references to the UK being outside the EU, this does not sound like a party committed with anything like the same fervour to the policy of withdrawal it has previously espoused.

For an explanation of this, one must look to Farage's recent meeting(s) with Declan Ganley. There, it was made clear to Farage that UKIP's open hostility to the EU stood in the way of a closer relationship.

With the party all but bankrupt, marginalised in national politics and facing a poor showing in the euro-elections, with insufficient cash to finance an effective campaign, the promise of the Ganley millions was enough to spur Farage on to deliver his coded message from the conference podium.

With a covert alignment in the wings, we will indeed hear "less about what's wrong with the EU…" from Farage. And, with The Independent offering stories of dark and sinister plots against the great leader inspired by la Fuller, the stage is set for bagman Nuttall to crack the whip against the real dissenters – the more dangerous of whom were not "fingered" by Fuller.

Hilariously - if you are that way inclined - the Independent, so keen to see the downfall of UKIP, has helped cement it in place, although it will not be UKIP as we know it. But, in that, the paper has perhaps unwittingly achieved precisely what it wanted, neutering the eurosceptic voice. Only time will tell.
[Rep]

Richard Allen: Are you still of the opinion that UKIP, an anti-EU party, will not grab the first opportunity to merge with Ganley? What is this 21st century political reality, that our leader say's that we must recognise and accommodate?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier:
Richard Allen: Are you still of the opinion that UKIP, an anti-EU party, will not grab the first opportunity to merge with Ganley? What is this 21st century political reality, that our leader say's that we must recognise and accommodate?

£££££££££££££
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier:
Richard Allen: Are you still of the opinion that UKIP, an anti-EU party, will not grab the first opportunity to merge with Ganley? What is this 21st century political reality, that our leader say's that we must recognise and accommodate?

I have absolutely no idea what Farage is planning and have never claimed otherwise. If however he betrays are raison d'etre he will face civil war in the party.

My point is a simple one. Ganley is not a major threat to UKIP and should largely be ignored. If we can come to a deal where by he doesn't put up candidates in Britain I am fine by that but our position on withdrawal must be unconditional. If Ganley doesn't accept that he can stand against us.
[Rep]