EU Parliament asked to investigate "patriot" Ganley-CIA-Pentagon plans to undermine the EU

First off I will fess up that I did my upmost in the past six months to see this day come to light. The Sunday World of all people had what Ganley's about in a nutshell. When I raised the same point months ago, the charming folks at politics.ie - threats of libel suits aside- claimed I was some conspiracy theory nut.
Now the Sunday World is saying Ganley says vote NO cos to vote Yes may at some stage in the future (nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty per se) lead to a stronger more cohesive Europe that may decide to have an armed force (so we don't have to fiddle while Sarajevo burns) and, unlike NATO, that armed force may not have to use US weaponry. And where does Dec make his money. And where does his friend McEvaddy make his money. McEvaddy of the mid-air petrol stations (ref Dow Jones). McEvaddy who will not discuss whether he refuels rendition flights.
While we are "getting it every Sunday", our friend from '68 Dany Cohn Bendit is asking the EU Parl to set up a committee to see if Plastic Paddy Dec is actually working with elements of the CIA and the Pentagon and no doubt his neo-con buddies in promoting a NO vote to undermine the EU to the advantage of the US military industrial complex.
NOTE: WE ARE NOT HAVING A BED SIT DEBATE. THIS IS FOR REAL.

Meanwhile we await with interest the enquiry into allegations of misdeeds in Iraq by Ganley's contract awarding buddy Shaw.

And when we have found the Iraqi skeletons. Perhaps it may be time to shine the light on Albania. Ever been to Albania Dec? Who were you with? And what did you get up to?
God it was awful seeing all those poor Albanians losing their money in those financial scams.
No doubt Dec, you were there doing "relief" work like after Katrina. Fill us in. Have a few NGO friends there who would love to know.


Anyhow, enjoy the ride.

Declan Ganley's generously self-funded campaign for a No vote still remains quite mysterious. Politically he is not much different to plenty of people, including his friend Gurdieff, who advocated voting Yes.

I am not bothered if he has dual UK Irish citizenship. The extent to which he has courted and employed members of the US military is another matter altogether. Relationships with the rightwing UK eurosceptics are also cosy. Add this up with a current public political posture which is complete empty guff and demagoguery hooked on patriotism and the church, and to his deregulatory ambitions in relation to the economy and you have a picture of someone of the old brown shirt/black shirt dress code.

As we are in for a hell of a time with unemployment, and people may be feeling more than usually vulnerable and confused, the threat of a hard right emerging in Ireland should not be shrugged off.

So, what is suggested is basically that the Americans backed Ganley in an effort to undermine the EU's future prospects?

For my part, I would need an explanation as to why such a dastardly plan - and the Americans trying to undermine their European friends is pretty dastardly - wasn't really covered up. If I were the head of the CIA, I would have thought up a legitimate sounding source for Ganley's funding, rather than leaving him with suspicious-looking money. Also, were I interfering in Europe's affairs, I would have used someone who wasn't so easily linked to the US' military. Unless it's all a double-bluff, which won't really work either as I've just spotted it.

cactus flower wrote:

As we are in for a hell of a time with unemployment, and people may be feeling more than usually vulnerable and confused, the threat of a hard right emerging in Ireland should not be shrugged off.

As should the threat of a hard left which is an equally malign force.

cactus flower wrote:

I am not bothered if he has dual UK Irish citizenship.

Precisely. It is xenophobic to lift this matter out and use it as some form of indication of his motives. There are plenty of people in this country, including me, who hold dual citizenship and are entirely committed to the politics of this country. There are also millions of people in Britain who fully support the European Union.

As you say, there are a gazillion reasons to be concerned about Declan Ganley's intentions other than this. People who drag this out for a cause of suspicion only serve to erode their own arguments against the man.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I am not bothered if he has dual UK Irish citizenship.

Precisely. It is xenophobic to lift this matter out and use it as some form of indication of his motives. There are plenty of people in this country, including me, who hold dual citizenship and are entirely committed to the politics of this country. There are also millions of people in Britain who fully support the European Union.

As you say, there are a gazillion reasons to be concerned about Declan Ganley's intentions other than this. People who drag this out for a cause of suspicion only serve to erode their own arguments against the man.

This is not about Brit-bashing, however much Libertas would like to make it so. It's not about the use of Mr Ganley's dual nationality, or the existence of it, but the denial that it has been used as Mr Ganley has provably used it. He had put down British on official documents, changed it in 2006 to Irish, but - vitally - denied having done so when asked. So, the problem is that he has chosen to wrap himself in the Irish flag, and then chosen to support that image at the expense of the facts. The judgement that Libertas have generally chosen spin over facts is rather neatly illustrated by his denial of something he did because it doesn't fit the PR image he's trying to create .

Certainly I would like to know a lot more about Mr Ganley and any possible support from the CIA or anywhere else.

At the nub of this is what do you consider US foreign policy objectives in relation to the EU? We tend to assume that we have common purpose, I strongly doubt that we do. In the decades ahead I can see our interests and those of the USA diverging.

Of course we are going to diverge from America and so we should. America is in denial of its crumbling empire and is tetchy because it wants to hold onto it. Whilst America has dominated the world financially, militarily and in some manners culturally throughout the last century Europe has still maintained itself as one of the most important regions of the world for a millenium. This is owing to the fact that Europe and European countries have allowed themselves to evolve in order to address and embrace the new modern era of each age.

This must continue and we must not allow ourselves to remain static. There are a thousand opportunities for Europe in the new developing era. Whilst colonialism was in many ways far more destructive than it was constructive, it has established a link between Europe and many of the rapidly developing parts of the world that are going to be vital for the next 100 years.

Who needs America when we can have key commercial and social partnerships with Brazil spearheaded by links to the Iberian Peninsula, with India through strong links which remain with Britain and a continued engagement with Australasia.

905 wrote:

So, what is suggested is basically that the Americans backed Ganley in an effort to undermine the EU's future prospects?

For my part, I would need an explanation as to why such a dastardly plan - and the Americans trying to undermine their European friends is pretty dastardly - wasn't really covered up. If I were the head of the CIA, I would have thought up a legitimate sounding source for Ganley's funding, rather than leaving him with suspicious-looking money. Also, were I interfering in Europe's affairs, I would have used someone who wasn't so easily linked to the US' military. Unless it's all a double-bluff, which won't really work either as I've just spotted it.

Following on from this question and the Squire's about US motives and behaviour, my own view would be that there is no single US view of the EU and how to intervene in it. Plus, if an agency or state is disposed to intervene in another state's politics, there is no reason to believe they would act consistently or only adopt a single strategy. If you wanted to trawl through the history of the last 50 years you could find all kinds of dubious clowns with "dodgy" written on their foreheads who have either been courted by the US or have courted the US looking for backing for their political aspirations. Chalabi in Iraq would be one example coming to mind.

The US point of view, if such a thing exists, changes over time and is always based on the perceived self interest of the US.

There has been a debate in the US amongst neoconservatives on whether a strong or a feeble EU (from a military point of view) would be most advantageous to US interests. A strong EU army might be expected to act in accordance with the US against Russia and other designated "enemy" states and reduce costs to the US. There is resentment that european countries don't spend more on military build-up.
On the other hand, there is wariness that a strong, united EU would contest control of oil and resource rich areas and in particular the middle east and Africa.There is an EU point of view that says an integrated EU army would reduce the necessity for NATO and allow greater independence from the US.

The US also has a highly visible strategy of building its own influence and military presence in the "Balkans" as a staging ground for control/influence on both Russia and the Middle East.

On the other hand Sarkozy has recently launched a plan for a lean and high tech French army prior to rejoining NATO looks very like current US army modernization plans.

Would that it was straightforward.

Ganley's political ambitions in Europe may be entirely self-motivated and he may be glad to get financial support from wherever he can garner it.

Interestingly, the Austrian elections are showing the same kind of coincidental opposition to Lisbon by the left and right as happened in Ireland. Right wing parties and groups are well in evidence there. I've no idea if they have any external backing.

The French army is going to modernise? That'd be a first, perhaps they'll rebuild the Magniot Line?

johnfás wrote:

The French army is going to modernise? That'd be a first, perhaps they'll rebuild the Magniot Line?

http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Marcel_H_Van_Herpen_SARKOZY_FRANCE_AND_NATO.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/18/france


I've heard it said that Sarkozy would like to emulate the US model of neoliberalism, which, as we have seen, is very willing to have state intervention in the economy when its suits. He sees military development as a way of developing technology and exports, as well as a defence.