Irish Pro-EU Party Says “US Opposes EU”

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2008-04-30 13:25

A quote from The Washington Times, 30 April 2008

Lucinda Creighton, a spokeswoman for Ireland's largest opposition party, Fine Gael, says in a Web posting that "U.S. foreign policy has traditionally been opposed to EU integration."

"The U.S. supports the EU as an economic bloc but nothing more. The idea of a politically strong EU, acting as a check or counterbalance on the U.S. does not sit well with our trans-Atlantic friends," says the spokeswoman, a member of Ireland's Parliament. She also claims in the posting that the U.S. consistently opposes NATO expansion.

The Fine Gael statement targets two prominent Irish businessmen, who are funding a nationwide campaign for a "no" vote, claiming they represent "U.S. strategic interests."

"The businesses of both Ulick McEvaddy and Declan Ganley are heavily dependent on contracts from the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S. government agencies. I believe that these men are a lot less concerned about Irish sovereignty and the wording of the Lisbon treaty than they are about the potential hit to their own personal business interests," Ms. Creighton writes in the Web posting.

The businessmen lead a campaign group called Libertas, which is campaigning against the treaty's ratification. […] Fine Gael is the main opposition party in Ireland's legislature, and has been the traditional rival to the incumbent Mr. Ahern's Fianna Fail, with both parties conventionally depicted as "center-right." […] Fine Gael's anti-American statement might come as a surprise to some observers, but it could also be an attempt to test the water on any growth of disaffection with the U.S. in Ireland.

@ traveller

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-05-01 00:12.

What an interesting proposition, and maybe you are right about London, but unfortunately,I just don't see it happening.

@ Atlanticist911 and marcfrans

Submitted by traveller on Wed, 2008-04-30 20:52.

I have been extremely busy lately and didn't really read this article and comments before.
Discussing the "strong political European unity" is like discussing the gender of the angels, it won't happen anytime soon and the present actions of the European "leaders", definitely not worth to be named as such, makes it very possible that countries start to doubt the necessity of being a member of it.
I for one would advise an independent Flanders to withdraw and start a tax-haven with Antwerp and Zeebrugge free trade zones and gas-supply hub.
Antwerp can also be a financial center, or a Switzerland in the European geographical center. You want to bet London would join us immediately?

Boogeyman # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-04-30 17:41.

@ Atlanticist

What do I make of it?  Well, she certainly 'looks' like meeting Armor's 'celtic-skin' criteria for being a worthy fellow-citizen (despite the blond hair, which is more 'germanic'). 

As to her 'culture', sorry her mind, well that is entirely a different matter. On that score, she would probably better fit Kappert's criteria.

 

Boogeyman

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-04-30 16:24.

@ Atlanticist

The Great Satan used as 'boogeyman' in Ireland.  It is rocket science!

The fact is that the US has supported 'European integration' for decades after WW2.  From the very beginnings of the European Coal and Steel Community.  The underlying reason was to strengthen Europe as a "counterweight" to the Soviet Union, and as a partner in promoting 'liberal' Western values throughout the world.

If Ms Creighton is surprised that the US would not want a politically-strong EU to act as a "counterweight" to the US, she obviously is not ready for rocket science!   She is ready for some socialist utopia or perhaps a Eurabian gulag.

P.S. Fascinating article today in the WSJ ("Foreign Law and the First Amendment" by Floyd Abrams, page A15) on how Britain's libel law and courts are undermining free speech.  

 

 

What's the crack?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-04-30 15:19.

Lucinda Creighton would appear to be posing three separate questions here, and it is for the Irish people to decide which, if any, are worthy of their collective attention.

 

Q1 Is Irish EU integration a good thing, or a bad thing for the USA, and do we care?

 

 

Q2 Is Irish EU integration a good thing, or a bad thing for the two Irish businessmen mentioned in the article, Ulick and Declan, and do we care about that either?

 

 

Q3 Is Irish EU integration a good thing, or a bad thing for the Irish nation, and can we afford NOT to care about that?

It's not rocket science, is it?

Most voters of Ireland have no clue what Lisbon Treaty is about

Submitted by Marvin Brenik on Wed, 2008-04-30 14:28.

It is quite amazing how far the supporters of this unreadable federal constitution are trying to justify their unjustifiable Lisbon Treaty.
Rather than playing the ball, i.e giving information on the Treaty itself (its text and implications), they keep kicking the players. This fact itself speaks volumes about them.

As a result of this ongoing blind propaganda, most voters in Ireland are not aware what the Lisbon Treaty is about. They are not aware either that the Lisbon Treaty is much longer than 272 pages.

The advocates of the "official truth about the Lisbon Treaty", including the political class of Ireland, elegantly ignore the fact that the new text only contains the modifications, deletions and additions to the existing EU treaties, but the whole of the Lisbon Treaty the Irish voters will have to decide about altogether add up to ca 3000 pages. None of the voters will ever be able to read this treaty, for the reason that the text is not readable in a linear way. The only choice the voters have is to rely on what their politicians say on the treaty, although the politicians have not read the treaty either, for the very same reason: because it is not readable.

As we all know this by now, this new form of the old EU Consitution was intentionally designed to be unreadable, otherwise it would be naturally rejected by the voters of Europe, who rejected its former readable version.

The National Platform has launched a new site with detailed information on the Treaty, both explaining its text and implications.
"Lisbon Treaty Irish Referendum Blog - National Platform" http://nationalplatform.wordpress.com/