Libertas and Free Trade

cactus flower wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

i've search for mcevaddy but i can't remember seeing or reading this


Omega has significant experience with the unsolicited bid. The
company won its
Navy contract after volunteering a proposal, and it also has offered
planes to
the U.K. in case the Ministry of Defence's main tanker plan doesn't
work out.
Industry insiders say the company has even approached U.S.
intelligence agencies
about tanking services for detainee transfers, to reduce dependence
on foreign
air fields.

gobsmacking

Where is this a quote from, lostexpectation?

The Omega Men, from the Dublin Opinion blog - about McEvaddy's attempts to get Knock Airport opened to US military use. That issue, in turn, was also covered here.

Quote from the Examiner article:

"KNOCK airport board has not ruled out
allowing US troops to fly in there. Ulick McEvaddy has said he saw no
reason why Knock should not benefit from the revenue of US military
flights.


He is one of the owners of Omega Air, a
company with a fleet of converted Boeing aircraft that have gained
lucrative contracts for mid-air refuelling of US military and air force
warplanes.

These warplanes have helped to destroy Iraq and
Afghanistan in wars that have caused the deaths of over 660,000 people.
The airport board, including the Archbishop of Tuam and the parish
priest of Knock, acknowledged “Mr McEvaddy’s wealth of experience and
integrity in the aviation and business world”. Mr McEvaddy’s response
to the board’s announcement was: “Never say never. I have huge
connections with the US military, and if it came to using them, I
would”. "

Ibis wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty brings various aspects of European counter-terrorism activity under parliamentary scrutiny - not something the current US administration (or more generally the US military/intel departments) wants.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the treaty. But you might clarify this for me: To my knowledge, the only effect the Lisbon Treaty would have on current intelligence gathering would be to compel members to submit information as opposed to offering it voluntary. I'd humbly suggest, that any information gathered by a member that contained knowledge of a threat to another member would be handed over anyway, without either quibble or delay.

Again, if so-called 'counter-terrorism' measures are followed through to the letter as dictated by the US, by individual members. Why should this change when the individuals form a collective?

It's a mistake, I think, to believe that the EP is against the US in any field, particularly so with regard to counter-terrorism. The enquiry into rendition should not be considered to be strong evidence that the EU could or would stand up to the US. I've no doubt, that Dick Marty is a very decent and driven man, my doubt is that if the Lisbon Treaty had existed prior to this enquiry, it would never have existed. As it is, the enquiry doesn't turn up new information, it colates information already in existence. Fair enough, we in the various anti-war groupings will cite this enquiry at every given opportunity, but only because it is seen as an authoratative source. In great fairness, most of the arguments that it advances, we've been offering for years. A parallel to this is that our own Government are suddenly bemoaning that rendition is a bad thing - but there's not a singular shred of action taken to prevent it. The same can be said of the EU.

Currently the member states of the EU bow to US will. But because each member state is autonomous it would take but one member to come to its senses and upset the whole applecart. If the members were a collective and acted under majority rule, the lone dissenter could and would be quelled before a problem arose.

The argument could be advanced I suppose, that the EU would offer a credible threat to the US via trade and other financial entities. I reckon, that in the large, this is a red herring argument. The US financial situation is heading for the toilet, regardless as to the formation of an EU superstate and in truth, the financial players remain the same regardless as to whether the Lisbon Treaty goes through or not.

The one and only true concern, in my opinion is whether the EU becomes a more credible military force. If the treaty goes through, I think it fair to say, that the EU will become a very credible military force to be reckoned with. Is this bad for the US though - that's the question. I'd argue no. We'd represent more of a threat to US enemies than we would to the US. If anything, becoming such a force would inject much needed capital into a collapsing economy, via purchases through the arms/industrial complex.

Hermes wrote:

Ibis wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty brings various aspects of European counter-terrorism activity under parliamentary scrutiny - not something the current US administration (or more generally the US military/intel departments) wants.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the treaty. But you might clarify this for me: To my knowledge, the only effect the Lisbon Treaty would have on current intelligence gathering would be to compel members to submit information as opposed to offering it voluntary. I'd humbly suggest, that any information gathered by a member that contained knowledge of a threat to another member would be handed over anyway, without either quibble or delay.

Actually, I hadn't considered the intel aspect - more that insofar as that anti-terrorism measures will be undertaken through the EU, those measures will be subject to European Parliament scrutiny and co-decision.

Practically speaking, that removes a whole range of options from US bilateral deals.

Hermes wrote:

Again, if so-called 'counter-terrorism' measures are followed through to the letter as dictated by the US, by individual members. Why should this change when the individuals form a collective?

For the same reason the EU is a trade collective. The ability of the US to put pressure on Ireland individually is enormous. The ability of the US to put pressure on the EU is much much more limited.

One can argue that the US can still put pressure on the individual member states to try and stop legislation they don't like, or to pass legislation they want - but the very fact that such legislation can also be passed through the EU means that the US will have to pressure every member state - otherwise the Irish can shrug and say 'unfortunately the Germans have a proposal in front of the EU at the moment, so there's nothing we can do'.

Hermes wrote:

It's a mistake, I think, to believe that the EP is against the US in any field, particularly so with regard to counter-terrorism. The enquiry into rendition should not be considered to be strong evidence that the EU could or would stand up to the US. I've no doubt, that Dick Marty is a very decent and driven man, my doubt is that if the Lisbon Treaty had existed prior to this enquiry, it would never have existed. As it is, the enquiry doesn't turn up new information, it colates information already in existence. Fair enough, we in the various anti-war groupings will cite this enquiry at every given opportunity, but only because it is seen as an authoratative source. In great fairness, most of the arguments that it advances, we've been offering for years. A parallel to this is that our own Government are suddenly bemoaning that rendition is a bad thing - but there's not a singular shred of action taken to prevent it. The same can be said of the EU.

It's more a question of the Parliament here, I think. The Commission and the Council are made up of the same people who make the bilalteral deals with the US. The Parliament is not.

Hermes wrote:

Currently the member states of the EU bow to US will. But because each member state is autonomous it would take but one member to come to its senses and upset the whole applecart. If the members were a collective and acted under majority rule, the lone dissenter could and would be quelled before a problem arose.

That argument I find very strange. You're saying, by analogy, that collective bargaining is worse than individual bargaining?

While the EU member states are certainly bound by EU decisions once they're made, they are rather involved in the process of making them!

Hermes wrote:

The argument could be advanced I suppose, that the EU would offer a credible threat to the US via trade and other financial entities. I reckon, that in the large, this is a red herring argument. The US financial situation is heading for the toilet, regardless as to the formation of an EU superstate and in truth, the financial players remain the same regardless as to whether the Lisbon Treaty goes through or not.

The one and only true concern, in my opinion is whether the EU becomes a more credible military force. If the treaty goes through, I think it fair to say, that the EU will become a very credible military force to be reckoned with. Is this bad for the US though - that's the question. I'd argue no. We'd represent more of a threat to US enemies than we would to the US. If anything, becoming such a force would inject much needed capital into a collapsing economy, via purchases through the arms/industrial complex.

I don't think the Lisbon Treaty does very much at all in the way of making the EU a credible military force, but that's a separate argument.

Hermes wrote

Quote :

The Yanks honestly don't want us all unified?

Seeing that every single nuance of their desires are catered to in Europe, including the international crime against humanity of extraordinary rendition etc. - why wouldn't they just tell us all not to form this alliance?

The relationship between the US and Europe looks a lot different from the US direction. The US is the pre-eminent world military power,wishes to stay that way to protect its interests, and is generally contemptuous of a Europe that in its eyes expects to be protected, whilst purporting to stand on higher moral ground. Europe has some leeway from the US, and makes tactical alliances with the US, but I would say it is rationed in how much it can kick up before major backlash/retribution would set in.
The US also views Europe as a trading nut to be cracked.

The Project for the New American Century "think tank" is always a good port of call to find these things spelled out.

This link supports what Ibis says, but in relation to the International Criminal Court.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-063002.htm Kagan – Europeans courting international Disaster

For an explicit account of the reasons why some Americans want a No vote, William Kristol Chairman of the Project for a New American Century wrote in relation to the French No vote:

Quote :

This is a moment of hope--for the prospects for a strong, pro-American, pro-liberty, more or less free-market and free-trade, socially and morally reinvigorated Europe.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/europe-20050531.htm

In military terms, the Balkans are considered a "US protectorate" and south east europe an essential location for a substantial permanent US military presence -

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

A more cohesive and independent Europe in terms of military decision-making does not suit US strategy.

Ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Currently the member states of the EU bow to US will. But because each
member state is autonomous it would take but one member to come to its
senses and upset the whole applecart. If the members were a collective
and acted under majority rule, the lone dissenter could and would be
quelled before a problem arose.

That argument I find very strange. You're saying, by analogy, that collective bargaining is worse than individual bargaining?

While the EU member states are certainly bound by EU decisions once they're made, they are rather involved in the process of making them!

That's true if one compares both methodologies using a common denominator for comparison. I'd say that if the treaty is implemented we get a top-down style of bargaining. Now it's a bottom-up style. So undoubtedly, the ability to put a singular argument across is increased. However, the ability to arrive at such a position is decreased, via the reversal of the control mechanism. The result would be, for the most part, unchanged, with regard to getting a good deal. A small amount of players, on the other hand, would require less influence and resources to control, should a body have such resources and needs. The US does.

Hermes wrote:

Ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Currently the member states of the EU bow to US will. But because each
member state is autonomous it would take but one member to come to its
senses and upset the whole applecart. If the members were a collective
and acted under majority rule, the lone dissenter could and would be
quelled before a problem arose.

That argument I find very strange. You're saying, by analogy, that collective bargaining is worse than individual bargaining?

While the EU member states are certainly bound by EU decisions once they're made, they are rather involved in the process of making them!

That's true if one compares both methodologies using a common denominator for comparison. I'd say that if the treaty is implemented we get a top-down style of bargaining. Now it's a bottom-up style. So undoubtedly, the ability to put a singular argument across is increased. However, the ability to arrive at such a position is decreased, via the reversal of the control mechanism. The result would be, for the most part, unchanged, with regard to getting a good deal. A small amount of players, on the other hand, would require less influence and resources to control, should a body have such resources and needs. The US does.

Hmm. Your reading of the Treaty is completely different from mine - where do you see Lisbon as introducing a top-down rather than bottom-up structure? I would say it was very much the other way round.

I hear what you're saying Cactus Flower. I think it a mistake to consider that the PNAC has the last say on anything. They might be allowed to drive the car, but by and large, they don't decide the route.

Take the few Palast posts I linked to the other day. If PNAC had had their way, oil would now be gushing from Iraq in unprecedented amounts and would be at least as cheap as it's ever been. That's not the case though, the oil barons cracked the whip at the right moment and the plan was stopped in its tracks. Oil is instead more expensive than ever before.

Ibis wrote:

Hmm. Your reading of the Treaty is completely different from mine -
where do you see Lisbon as introducing a top-down rather than bottom-up
structure? I would say it was very much the other way round.

I think we both agree that currently the situation is a bottom-up entity?

If we cede any degree of sovereignty, then surely this process begins to be reversed?

Hermes wrote:

I hear what you're saying Cactus Flower. I think it a mistake to consider that the PNAC has the last say on anything. They might be allowed to drive the car, but by and large, they don't decide the route.

Take the few Palast posts I linked to the other day. If PNAC had had their way, oil would now be gushing from Iraq in unprecedented amounts and would be at least as cheap as it's ever been. That's not the case though, the oil barons cracked the whip at the right moment and the plan was stopped in its tracks. Oil is instead more expensive than ever before.

Agreed, but to go back to thread topic here, we are talking about Libertas and US interests and intention, particularly in relation to Lisbon, rather than what they actually achieve.

Hermes wrote:

Ibis wrote:

Hmm. Your reading of the Treaty is completely different from mine -
where do you see Lisbon as introducing a top-down rather than bottom-up
structure? I would say it was very much the other way round.

I think we both agree that currently the situation is a bottom-up entity?

If we cede any degree of sovereignty, then surely this process begins to be reversed?

That puzzles me equally. There's very little sovereignty being ceded in this Treaty. Separate thread, maybe?

Ibis wrote:

That puzzles me equally. There's very little sovereignty being ceded in this Treaty. Separate thread, maybe?

My apologies, both yourself and Cactus are right, I'm pulling this thread off course. It wasn't my intention to do so, but it has happened. I think for clarity's sake, on this thread, that we agree to disagree and take it up elsewhere?

Hermes wrote:

Ibis wrote:

That puzzles me equally. There's very little sovereignty being ceded in this Treaty. Separate thread, maybe?

My apologies, both yourself and Cactus are right, I'm pulling this thread off course. It wasn't my intention to do so, but it has happened. I think for clarity's sake, on this thread, that we agree to disagree and take it up elsewhere?

What sort of thread title were you thinking? I could set you up a thread and split related posts.

Howdy AT, Ibis has already started a thread. There's been no splitting of threads though, which might be better as it allows an unlimited perspective to wage battle from.

Link

i wish they'd hurry up with the transcripts over at national forum on europe site, im trying to find the merkel quote about eu being strong to compete with the us...

was this one of yas?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mcevaddy-needs-to-clear-the-air-1367545.html

lostexpectation wrote:

was one of yas?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mcevaddy-needs-to-clear-the-air-1367545.html

On MacEvaddey -

In the late 1990s, he had a five-year boxing match with the European Union because the EU had originally brought out a noise directive which would have taken a lot of Mr McEvaddy's ageing Boeing cargo aircraft out of EU skies because these aircraft would breach EU noise limits.

Mr McEvaddy took the European Commission to the European Court of Justice and he won. The original noise directive was amended and Mr McEvaddy's aircraft could continue to fly in EU airspace.

But it now appears that Mr McEvaddy has got an even greater problem on his hands with the European Union.

The EU commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas, is reviewing the operation of the EU CO2 emissions trading directive.

At present, the EU aviation sector is exempt from the terms of this directive. But it is most likely that airplanes, which are at the higher level of C02 emissions, such as the ageing Boeing cargo aircraft operated by Mr McEvaddy's Omega company, will not be able to beat the terms of this new EU directive.

Hence, a substantial amount of Mr McEvaddy's Boeing cargo aircraft will not be able to fly in EU airspace, thus devaluing the stock of Omega airlines.

These aircraft are at least 30 years old and emit heavy levels of CO2.

In other words, Mr McEvaddy beat the EU on the noise reforms but he may not be able to beat the EU on CO2 emissions.

Another example of the effective corporate lobbying system in the EU.

cactus flower wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

was one of yas?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mcevaddy-needs-to-clear-the-air-1367545.html

On MacEvaddey -

In the late 1990s, he had a five-year boxing match with the European Union because the EU had originally brought out a noise directive which would have taken a lot of Mr McEvaddy's ageing Boeing cargo aircraft out of EU skies because these aircraft would breach EU noise limits.

Mr McEvaddy took the European Commission to the European Court of Justice and he won. The original noise directive was amended and Mr McEvaddy's aircraft could continue to fly in EU airspace.

But it now appears that Mr McEvaddy has got an even greater problem on his hands with the European Union.

The EU commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas, is reviewing the operation of the EU CO2 emissions trading directive.

At present, the EU aviation sector is exempt from the terms of this directive. But it is most likely that airplanes, which are at the higher level of C02 emissions, such as the ageing Boeing cargo aircraft operated by Mr McEvaddy's Omega company, will not be able to beat the terms of this new EU directive.

Hence, a substantial amount of Mr McEvaddy's Boeing cargo aircraft will not be able to fly in EU airspace, thus devaluing the stock of Omega airlines.

These aircraft are at least 30 years old and emit heavy levels of CO2.

In other words, Mr McEvaddy beat the EU on the noise reforms but he may not be able to beat the EU on CO2 emissions.

Another example of the effective corporate lobbying system in the EU.

Er, why? He took them to court.

Told yis all ages ago that he possibly had a beef over the EU and it had to be in regard to his business

Chaps like him dont worry much about politics as long as it doesnt effect their bottom line.

I would wager that the reason he has signed up for Libertas bandwagon is that he knows he hasnt a snowballs chance in hell of getting around this one and thus hes going to try to give them a bloody nose for all hes worth.

Edo wrote:

Told yis all ages ago that he possibly had a beef over the EU and it had to be in regard to his business

Chaps like him dont worry much about politics as long as it doesnt effect their bottom line.

I would wager that the reason he has signed up for Libertas bandwagon is that he knows he hasnt a snowballs chance in hell of getting around this one and thus hes going to try to give them a bloody nose for all hes worth.

You were so right.

anybody recognise the name of the author of that letter i bet its another blogger/poster from the irish nerdy-politico-sphere doing the job of the media again.

await another fg press release...