Could American neo-cons manipulate Ireland's Lisbon debate?

[NotDevsSon]

The creation of what is now the European Union was strongly supported by the United States. The US had already pumped billions into Europe under the Marshall Plan. A number of European states in the 1950s already had strong communist parties, most notably France and Italy. Contemporary records show a widespread fear that the Communist bloc would spread to include both states, Austria, West Germany and into the Benelux countries. For that reason the US supported the regime of Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal and supported the royalist right wing in Greece, being involved in the coup that produced the Regime of Colonels and the eventual deposition of King Constantine II, whose ineptitude had allowed the right wing to take control and who then bungled a counter-coup before fleeing into exile.

While mainstream US opinion has supported the EU, the far right neo-cons have been critical of it. Some neo-con writers have described the EU almost as some socialist conspiracy to promote "unAmerican" principles. (Some neo-cons have described Ireland as 'socialist', with Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael all socialist parties! Even the PDs were too left wing for many neo-cons!)

In a speech at a regional meeting of the National Forum on Europe, Fine Gael ex-MEP John Cushnahan raised an interesting question: would a post-Lisbon Treaty EU prove a useful counter-balance to the aggressive American foreign policy as witnessed in recent years, in the way the Euro had proved an important counterbalance to the Dollar? Would Iraq have been different if there had been a stronger Europe able to say 'hold on a moment!' to the rampant neo-con policies of the Bush administration as embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld?

Whatever about mainstream US policy, there is a suspicion that the neo-cons are fearful that a Lisbon Treaty EU would weaken American control and be able to challenge the US in its analyses on the world stage. The question is, would American neo-cons and their American military industry supporters want to, or be able to, intervene in the debate in Ireland in effect to use the Irish as patsies to prevent the passage of the Lisbon treaty if they believe the treaty is not in American neo-con and military interests?

Discuss.

[corkman2007]

Sure you wouldn't know what those neo-con lads would be up to half the time, they probably don't know themselves either.

I wouldn't put anything past these neo-imperialists and those that are in their pockets.

As I've said on a related thread;

The Lisbon Treaty doesn't force member-states to act in concert on foreign policy; it enables them to do so when they're in agreement by allowing them to present their opinions to the world through a single spokesperson and advocate.

The new foreign representative position created by Lisbon isn't for a policy-maker, it's for someone who can present unanimously agreed policy.

That's a positive step for the EU - it allows member-states to retain their own foreign policies but enables them to speak with through a common representative when they're in unanimous agreement.

Having a single voice expressing that unanimity enhances the credibility of the EU without diminishing the sovereignty of any individual member-state.

It also allows the EU to present alternatives to policies supported by the US (and China, Russia etc.) - surely enhancing the ability of the EU to present an alternative perspective on issues of global concern (such as climate change) is a positive?

The EU has played a much more positive role than the US in formulating and implementing policies to mitigate the effects of climate change - giving it the ability to present unanimously agreed policy on this and other issues would be a great step forward.

Even this, and other relatively limited forms of co-operation among EU member-states which would be enhanced by Lisbon, seems to have the US neo-imperialists up in arms.

They don't want to see the EU presenting agreed policies with a single voice. They'd prefer not to have to deal with an EU that had reached agreement on foreign policy, a policy which would not merely be an exact imitation of US foreign policy, but would prefer to deal with individual EU countries, especially those like the UK which slavishly follow the US.

Lisbon allows the EU to present its foreign policy with a single voice when all the member-states are in agreement. That makes the EU's voice more effective while allowing each member-state to retain foreign policy independence.

That's one of the great positive aspects of Lisbon but one which US neo-imperialists can't stand because they know it will reduce their ability to deal with EU member-states individually and to sow dissension within the EU.

[Twin Towers]

Which are the huge European companies operating in Ireland and employing thousands. Name some?

US companies created the Celtic Tiger.

[seabhcan]

Which are the huge European companies operating in Ireland and employing thousands. Name some?

US companies created the Celtic Tiger.

Thats true. They came here to have access to the EU market.

But some EU companies here include: Axa, Rabobank, Spar, Tescos...

EU companies come here to sell to the Irish. US companies come to manufacture within the EU to avoid customs duties.

[ibis]

Which are the huge European companies operating in Ireland and employing thousands. Name some?

US companies created the Celtic Tiger.

Is this the same TT who claims that massive EU transfers didn't create the Celtic Tiger, and that anyone who says so is being servile?

[CookieMonster]

Of course if wee old Eire wasn't the only country out of 500million (odd) people to get a referendum we wouldn't have the possibility of the Neo-Cons using patsies (and who could they be do you think?) in the first place.

[seabhcan]

Of course if wee old Eire wasn't the only country out of 500million (odd) people to get a referendum we wouldn't have the possibility of the Neo-Cons using patsies (and who could they be do you think?) in the first place.

Damn those evil Eurocrats for banning everyone else from having a referendum!

[CookieMonster]

Of course if wee old Eire wasn't the only country out of 500million (odd) people to get a referendum we wouldn't have the possibility of the Neo-Cons using patsies (and who could they be do you think?) in the first place.

Damn those evil Eurocrats for banning everyone else from having a referendum!

Apart from Germany, nobody is banned form having one. It's just that nobody is required to have one (apart from ourselves) so they didn't. And the leaders of at least two countries (curious that they are both ones who previously rejected the constitution treaty) have said the reason for this is because they know it would be rejected again. A number of countries have thought about giving their people a choice, but decided against it too. Our neighbour for instance, under Tony Blain, promised their people a referendum on the treaty and now have decided against it. Democracy eah?!

[seabhcan]

Of course if wee old Eire wasn't the only country out of 500million (odd) people to get a referendum we wouldn't have the possibility of the Neo-Cons using patsies (and who could they be do you think?) in the first place.

Damn those evil Eurocrats for banning everyone else from having a referendum!

Apart from Germany, nobody is banned form having one. It's just that nobody is required to have one (apart from ourselves) so they didn't.

Denmark has to have one if a Treaty is determined by the Supreme Court to grant new powers to the EU. They decided Lisbon didn't.

Our neighbour for instance, under Tony Blain, promised their people a referendum on the treaty and now have decided against it. Democracy eah?!

I'd be really annoyed about that if I was English. It reflects very badly on them. It has no significants for the Irish Lisbon vote, though.

[ibis]

Of course if wee old Eire wasn't the only country out of 500million (odd) people to get a referendum we wouldn't have the possibility of the Neo-Cons using patsies (and who could they be do you think?) in the first place.

Damn those evil Eurocrats for banning everyone else from having a referendum!

Apart from Germany, nobody is banned form having one. It's just that nobody is required to have one (apart from ourselves) so they didn't. And the leaders of at least two countries (curious that they are both ones who previously rejected the constitution treaty) have said the reason for this is because they know it would be rejected again. A number of countries have thought about giving their people a choice, but decided against it too. Our neighbour for instance, under Tony Blain, promised their people a referendum on the treaty and now have decided against it. Democracy eah?!

Yes, such a pity there will be no way for the voters in those countries to punish their naughty politicians...oh, wait.