More on Ganley

The Sunday Tribune has revealed that Declan Ganley 'would support a new European constitution "that is built on democracy, is legible and runs to no more than 20 or 25 pages that everyone can read." '. While he has avoided all reference to this in the announcement about Libertas acting as a party, given that it is essentially a one man show, his opinions are paramount. How can he have a party campaigning against the EU constitution, when he himself supports a 'different' EU constitution? He's not even against the concept of a constitution... and hence not against the formation of an EU superstate.

So what would Libertas MEPs be doing for their five year term? We have no idea. Like so many pressure groups, their arguments fall under even the most rudimentary examination. We could be voting for communists, fascists, or even former Labour party members. What agenda will they be pursuing?

Presumably the only thing that they will agree on is Ganley's support for a short new EU constitition. Which raises yet another question - who is going to vote for a party that has no policies other than to create a really short constitution for the EU?

What is baffling is that in the same article he accuses Sarkozy of breathtaking arrogance, and in the Telegraph claimed that "It's not just undemocratic, it's anti-democratic," in relation to Britain's signing of the treaty. It's as if he is a newcomer to the world of euroscepticism and is only just at the beginning of his journey; he still naively thinks that the EU is reformable.

His 'simple message' further unravels. The Tribune brifely tags in this at the end in reference to his support of the mini constitution: 'As a devout Roman Catholic would he insist on the inclusion of a reference to Europe's Christian roots'. As soon as you include one religion, you alienate all of the others, and the majority of rational people who think that you are mentally impaired for believing in ancient ritualistic hokum anyway.

LIbertas on the war path... but to where?

The Sunday Telegraph today revealed plans by Declan Ganley, the man behind Libertas and the Irish No Vote to launch a Europe wide party to fight the Lisbon Treaty.

On first impressions, this should be an exciting prospect for Eurosceptics. With the demise of UKIP and the Tories saying one thing in the EU and another in Britain, eurosceptics have been left without a credible, electible party to vote for. Combine that with promises of "£75 million" and it starts to look promising.

However, there are many, many questions here. First of all, Ganley isn;t a real eurosceptic. He is just against the Lisbon Treaty. What's more, he wants his new party to represent this extremely narrow political position; "We will tell people that Libertas is the box you put your X in if you want to vote 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty. It's clear, it's simple".

But will people really vote for this? It's a no vote to the Lisbon Treaty, but what does that really achieve? EU officials are fond of telling us that the treaty is necessary because the EU isn't working in its enlarged state. Eurosceptics will tell us that the EU just isn't working. So what's the solution? Ganley doesn't appear to have an answer. This is hardly an inspiring platform from which to fight an election.

The next issue is that of money. Closer inspection reveals that he is hoping to "raise £75 million from online donations". Well I am hoping to raise that much too, but it doesn't mean that I am going to get it. If he was putting £75 million in himself, then fair enough, but this is just a number he has plucked out of the air. He's not going to stop at £75 million is he ever gets that high, and more than likely he will never reach it... so what is the point of the number, other than for PR purposes?

And how far will £75 million go anyway? With 400 candidates promised, that is £187500 per candidate. Assuming that he fills all 78 potential slots in Britain (and there is no reason not to once the £6k deposit per region has been paid) hat would roughly translate to £14.6 million spent in Britain on the election. That's a lot of cash, if he can raise it. To put it in perspective, at the last EU elections, the Tories spent £3,130,265.00, Labour spent 1,707,224.00 and UKIP's impressive result cost £2,361,754.00. so the answer to the question is... a very long way.

More analysis on the EU Referendum blog.

British Taxpayers funding Bulgarian Mafia

Bulgarian mafia have been looting EU funding designed to help one of Europe's poorest countries. According to the Telegraph, the EU is actually going to withhold a further £475 million. If the EU is so worried about corruption that it is taking action, you know it must be serious; the EU is itself so corrupt that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for 12 years running.

What the Telegraph forgot to mention is that when they talk about "cash worth £1.7 billion from European programme", that is our money they are referring to. Last year British taxpayers contributed £4.7B to be used as subsidies in other EU nations. That's £156 from every working person in the UK that is sent off to foreign countries, a substantial proportion of which disappears via fraud and 'looting'.

And what is this Bulgarian mafia that we are funding? According to the Times, there have been over 150 mafia assassinations since 2001. Brilliant.

Government funds Muslim thinkers

People who base their moral code on fairytales and ancient hokum are scary at the best of times. However, religion is a modern mental illness and we have been told that there shouldn't be any stigma attached to admitting to such illness any more. With this in mind, I welcome the Government's latest offering; a Muslim quango/think tank.

The difference between Christian mental illness religion and Muslim mental illness religion is that a minority of Muslims are psychopathic murderers or at least supportive of murder, violence and intimidation in the name of their 'religion'. Hence what we need is state sponsored direction of the collective madness.That's the great thing about people mad enough to believe this crap in the first place; they are also mad enough to fall for Government propaganda.

While I would normally cringe at the prospect of state social engineering, or the notion of my money funding some religious nutjobs to preach to each other, the prospect of perhaps reducing the level of violence for potentially a comparatively small cost has to be worth it. Think of it like an open asylum offering some cognitive behavioural therapy.

"magnificent public sector strikes" - socialists working for a better Britain

As we head into recession and the Government is left in the impossible position of rising inflation combined with a weakening economy, one would think that all good socialists would be assisting the Government to stablise the situation and protect public sector jobs. Not so at the Socialist Worker, where they have gleeful blow by blow accounts of the latest "magnificent public sector strikes".

Anyone taking pleasure in bringing the public sector to a halt and wasting our tax money should be sacked anyway. There is nothing magnificent about striking for higher pay at a time when private sector workers are facing the same, or worse, conditions. These are tough times for everyone. Grow up.

Chakrabarti attacks Asian MPs over support for 42-day detention; witness the inherent racism

In another backwards step for Liberty, the Guardian reports that Shami Chakrabarti has specifically criticised Asian MPs for supporting 42 day detention without charge. While we should all support the Liberty position on the 42 day issue, the idea that an MP's views on civil liberties should be tainted by his/her race is not only repugnant in its inherently racist presumptions but also undermines the whole concept of representative democracy.

'Asian' MPs are not there to represent asians. They are there to represent everyone in their constituency, regardless of ethnic origin. Why do these politically corect types seek to undermine racial equality in Britain by constantly bringing it up and using it as a political tool?

Would taking points off kitchen knives stop stab deaths? Er, no.

According to a must read article on the BBC site, there is an easy solution to stopping knife crime; don't sell pointy knives. Apparently, "the proposal came from three emergency medicine specialists, and it's a simple one: getting rid of the points on the ends of longer kitchen knives." Yeah, that'll fix it. Without long pointy kitchen knives to buy, gangs will be completely flummoxed.

The sheer mind-numbing stupidity of this suggestion is bewildering. All we need to do next is ban everything metal and pointy. Although then, perhaps they might just consider using home made weapons instead, so we will need to ban all tools, nails, screws, snooker cues, cricket bats, baseball bats, hockey sticks and so on.

Did anyone else see that video on the telly that was used over and over, picturing a gang showing off their knives? The two main figures were both carrying cleavers anyway.