Barroso at Shannon is appropriately inappropriate, or something

After reading Hugh's article on PANA's campaign style, I came across this Irish Times article on PANA's reaction to Barroso appearing in Shannon later today, and it gives us another example of the kind of strange arguments PANA is coming up with:

"Pana's international secretary Dr Edward Horgan said: “In view of the fact that Ireland was specifically criticised for its unwillingness to co-operate with EU Parliament’s investigation in to the rendition for torture activities of the CIA, it is very appropriate that the EU Commission President should be reminded that this is the airport that was heavily involved in that rendition programme"."

 So the government's to blame for not co-operating with the European Parliament's investigation, and is responsible for the policies it pursues. With you so far.

""The fact that he is holding this meeting in Shannon Airport in particular is also disturbing since the airport has been, and continues to be, the scene of a gross abuse of Irish neutrality in spite of the so called legally binding guarantees on Irish neutrality promised by EU leaders,” Dr Horgan said."

 Wait a minute - the guarantees were only drawn up months ago; how were they supposed to have an effect here? Also, my reading of this seems to suggest a hint of the idea that PANA would like to see something in the Treaty to tie down Ireland's foreign policy to a certain stance. Because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a Treaty isn't preventing a state from taking certain actions in foreign policy unless you want that treaty to have a great impact on foreign policy...

"The former Irish Army Commandant added: “And, no doubt, while Mr Barroso is holding his meeting in Shannon, some of the US troops who pass through Shannon every day on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan will be in the airport at the same time. What more evidence does he need that Irish neutrality continues to be compromised while there is nothing in the Lisbon Treaty to suggest that this will change even after another referendum?”"

Ok, and what exactly is Barroso supposed to do here? Should the Commission have the legal power to intervene and reverse foreign policy decisions made by the Irish government? Should Ireland's ability to set its foreign policy be changed in a future EU treaty; is the fact that this one doesn't the problem?

Past - and current - foreign policy decisions made by the Irish government aren't affected or caused by the Lisbon Treaty, and its ability to make those decisions in the future won't be affected by it either.