Barely in time for the 4 June 2009 vote, the UK Conservative Party has launched its campaign for the European elections ─ with David Cameron calling for a national election.
Incidentally, the Tories have also published a European Election Manifesto.
The Conservatives call for a modern European Union with pledges such as keeping Britain outside the euro, repatriating social and employment legislation and forming an anti-federalist political group in the European Parliament.
***
Neo-cons’ stooge
On Conservative Home, Sally McNamara of the US Heritage Foundation, writes a blog post: Cameron should take on the European issue now.
McNamara praises the Conservatives for promising a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (ratified by the United Kingdom) and for the promise to leave the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament.
Her further wish-list contains the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union, as a major issue of British political life, and crucial to the defense of Britain’s long-term interests.
Writing for a British public, McNamara is more tactful than when blogging on The Foundry at Heritage. She does not spell out that the crux of the defence of Britain’s long term interests lies in securing US leadership in the world.
In other words, the United Kingdom with a Conservative government is the neo-cons’ fifth column within the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label Heritage Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heritage Foundation. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Friday, 15 May 2009
Heritage Foundation saving Europe!?
With friends like these ...
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 14 May 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty “threatens the transatlantic relationship”
Ahead of the European elections Sally McNamara’s views on the Lisbon Treaty and the transatlantic relationship are worth reading. From the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:
“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”
***
Transatlantic relationship
The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.
In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.
The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.
The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.
Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.
Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.
In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.
If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.
McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.
Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.
***
There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?
Ralf Grahn
After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:
“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”
***
Transatlantic relationship
The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.
In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.
The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.
The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.
Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.
Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.
In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.
If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.
McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.
Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.
***
There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?
Ralf Grahn
Heritage Foundation: Dividing USA and EU
Yesterday evening the Irish blog Semper Idem drew my attention to one of the more astounding positions I have seen on the EU Treaty of Lisbon: The Heritage on the Lisbon Treaty (13 May 2009).
On the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, Sally McNamara presents her view on the relations between the United States and Europe: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
The last paragraph is worth reading on both shores of the Atlantic:
“The Lisbon Treaty is an affront to democracy that lacks any semblance of popular support or legitimacy. It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
Legitimacy of Lisbon Treaty
First, we look at the legitimacy and popular support of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Treaty of Lisbon was agreed by the democratically legitimate national governments of all 27 EU member states. It has been approved, according to their constitutional requirements, by the national parliaments in 26 of these member states.
The Lisbon Treaty does not alter the fundamental basis of the European Union.
Lisbon remains an international treaty and the European Union is still an organisation based on an international treaty between states.
Objectively, there was little cause to subject either the Constitutional or the Lisbon Treaty, of incremental reform, to a referendum.
It is absurd to contend that the Lisbon Treaty lacks legitimacy, where it has been approved.
Some national leaders had stupidly promised national referendums on the previous Constitutional Treaty, but these were settled during the parliamentary ratification processes concerning the slightly watered-down Treaty of Lisbon. The legitimacy point is moot.
The exception is Ireland, where a constitutional interpretation requires a referendum. A majority of the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, hoping for at “better deal”.
The No side never presented a credible formula for the better deal, but the second referendum in Ireland will be based on the “better deal” the Irish government has secured (although the finer details have not been published).
Popular support for the Lisbon Treaty as for many government measures is far from overwhelming, but we live under the rules of representative democracy. Governments are even expected to “do the right thing” for the long term, despite short term unpopularity.
The Lisbon Treaty is a complicated document, resembling a technical manual more than a rousing political document. It is hard to understand for ordinary voters, and much of the vocal opposition seems to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of its contents and implications. The less educated were more prone to vote No in Ireland.
Lacking “any semblance of popular support” is a wild exaggeration, but the political atmosphere in one major member state, the United Kingdom, can be described as Eurotoxic. Still, even there both Houses of Parliament approved the Lisbon Treaty and the ratification procedure has been formally concluded. Under the rules of representative democracy, the decision is legitimate.
If we want to discuss lack of democratic legitimacy, we have to move to the European level.
The Lisbon Treaty fails to bring about an effective and democratically legitimate government at EU level, but that is hardly what McNamara is complaining about.
Following the Golden Rule, she should advocate the Articles of Confederation for the United States, if she wants Europe to preserve the Treaty of Nice.
I find it astounding when someone extols the virtues of the US Constitution, but wants to deny Europeans even a pale shadow.
Ralf Grahn
On the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, Sally McNamara presents her view on the relations between the United States and Europe: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
The last paragraph is worth reading on both shores of the Atlantic:
“The Lisbon Treaty is an affront to democracy that lacks any semblance of popular support or legitimacy. It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
Legitimacy of Lisbon Treaty
First, we look at the legitimacy and popular support of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Treaty of Lisbon was agreed by the democratically legitimate national governments of all 27 EU member states. It has been approved, according to their constitutional requirements, by the national parliaments in 26 of these member states.
The Lisbon Treaty does not alter the fundamental basis of the European Union.
Lisbon remains an international treaty and the European Union is still an organisation based on an international treaty between states.
Objectively, there was little cause to subject either the Constitutional or the Lisbon Treaty, of incremental reform, to a referendum.
It is absurd to contend that the Lisbon Treaty lacks legitimacy, where it has been approved.
Some national leaders had stupidly promised national referendums on the previous Constitutional Treaty, but these were settled during the parliamentary ratification processes concerning the slightly watered-down Treaty of Lisbon. The legitimacy point is moot.
The exception is Ireland, where a constitutional interpretation requires a referendum. A majority of the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, hoping for at “better deal”.
The No side never presented a credible formula for the better deal, but the second referendum in Ireland will be based on the “better deal” the Irish government has secured (although the finer details have not been published).
Popular support for the Lisbon Treaty as for many government measures is far from overwhelming, but we live under the rules of representative democracy. Governments are even expected to “do the right thing” for the long term, despite short term unpopularity.
The Lisbon Treaty is a complicated document, resembling a technical manual more than a rousing political document. It is hard to understand for ordinary voters, and much of the vocal opposition seems to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of its contents and implications. The less educated were more prone to vote No in Ireland.
Lacking “any semblance of popular support” is a wild exaggeration, but the political atmosphere in one major member state, the United Kingdom, can be described as Eurotoxic. Still, even there both Houses of Parliament approved the Lisbon Treaty and the ratification procedure has been formally concluded. Under the rules of representative democracy, the decision is legitimate.
If we want to discuss lack of democratic legitimacy, we have to move to the European level.
The Lisbon Treaty fails to bring about an effective and democratically legitimate government at EU level, but that is hardly what McNamara is complaining about.
Following the Golden Rule, she should advocate the Articles of Confederation for the United States, if she wants Europe to preserve the Treaty of Nice.
I find it astounding when someone extols the virtues of the US Constitution, but wants to deny Europeans even a pale shadow.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Heritage Foundation: Lisbon Treaty risks US leadership
I want to thank Semper Idem for bringing it to my attention: The Heritage on the Lisbon Treaty.
Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation tells the whole world why the UK Conservatives should scrap the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Europe should be saved from challenging US leadership on the world stage.
I can hardly wait for the explanations from the EU disintegrator William Hague and the talented Mr Declan Ganley.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. While waiting, you can always read European elections: The Libertas Collection.
Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation tells the whole world why the UK Conservatives should scrap the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Europe should be saved from challenging US leadership on the world stage.
I can hardly wait for the explanations from the EU disintegrator William Hague and the talented Mr Declan Ganley.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. While waiting, you can always read European elections: The Libertas Collection.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
Do you remember the Libertas ‘no’ campaign spearheaded by Declan Ganley? Can you still recall the main reasons they put forward to vote ‘no’ on the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum?
Here is their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ (with, in my view, distortive and manipulative reasons added):
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
Incidentally, the latest on Libertas’ web site is still their thank you note from 17 June 2008. The eight reasons are accessible here:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/293/139/
***
Compare this with Declan Ganley’s appearance at the US Heritage Foundation, where he is introduced as a modern-day freedom fighter.
Yes, the Heritage Foundation, where the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom has been on a long crusade to drive a wedge between the US administration and its European allies.
What did Declan Ganley tell his hosts on 15 July 2008? Hardly anything to please his anti-European hostess:
Ireland and he are no Eurosceptics, but pro-European.
We need a strong and prosperous Europe.
The fundamental point of the ‘no’ campaign was democracy.
The European leaders have to offer Europe’s citizens democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The have to sell the vision of a democratic Europe to the people in order to succeed with the people.
Europe needs a 20 to 25 page Constitution, which can be read and understood by a 15 year old.
The Constitution has to be approved by the people.
If not, the politicians have to go back to the drawing-board.
A second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty would result in a bigger ‘no’.
You can look up the hour long event on the Heritage Foundation’s web site:
http://www.heritage.org/
***
Which Declan Ganley are we supposed to believe? The one spreading nationalistic fears before the referendum? The apostle of European level democracy and a strong Europe after the plebiscite?
Ralf Grahn
Here is their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ (with, in my view, distortive and manipulative reasons added):
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
Incidentally, the latest on Libertas’ web site is still their thank you note from 17 June 2008. The eight reasons are accessible here:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/293/139/
***
Compare this with Declan Ganley’s appearance at the US Heritage Foundation, where he is introduced as a modern-day freedom fighter.
Yes, the Heritage Foundation, where the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom has been on a long crusade to drive a wedge between the US administration and its European allies.
What did Declan Ganley tell his hosts on 15 July 2008? Hardly anything to please his anti-European hostess:
Ireland and he are no Eurosceptics, but pro-European.
We need a strong and prosperous Europe.
The fundamental point of the ‘no’ campaign was democracy.
The European leaders have to offer Europe’s citizens democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The have to sell the vision of a democratic Europe to the people in order to succeed with the people.
Europe needs a 20 to 25 page Constitution, which can be read and understood by a 15 year old.
The Constitution has to be approved by the people.
If not, the politicians have to go back to the drawing-board.
A second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty would result in a bigger ‘no’.
You can look up the hour long event on the Heritage Foundation’s web site:
http://www.heritage.org/
***
Which Declan Ganley are we supposed to believe? The one spreading nationalistic fears before the referendum? The apostle of European level democracy and a strong Europe after the plebiscite?
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
