Czech president compares EU to Soviet Union

Vadrefjorde

Source Daily Telegraph:

Vaclav Klaus has just given a storming speech to the European Parliament - best I have ever heard in that place.
Many Euro-MPs booed or walked out as the Czech president appealed for a real debate over the meaning of Europe and the European Union.

"The most important task is to make sure that debate over problems is not silenced as an attack on the very idea of European integration. We have always believed that being allowed to discuss such serious issues, being heard, defending everyone's right to present a different that "the only correct opinion - no matter how much may disagree with it - is at the very core of democracy," he said.

"Since there is no European demos - and no European nation - this defect can not be solved by strengthening the role of the European Parliament."

Shocking stuff here in conformist Brussels, home of the mindless MEP.

Avril Doyle, a particularly fine example of Euro-MP mindset attacked, her voice trembling, President Klaus for trying to influence a second Irish referendum. Debate is a "recipe for chaos", she screeched.

AP release: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ic9abyCOfzUgpvHa7zfzLbFL4AfQD96ELNL00

I watched the speech this morning as they showed it live on Euronews, and thought he spoke the truth. Any comments on our own Avril Doyles performance?
More importantly does anyone actually agree with what he said or is it a case that the majority of pro-europe mindsets actually favour the undemocratic EU parliament at whatever cost?

turgon

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

We have always believed that being allowed to discuss such serious issues, being heard, defending everyone's right to present a different that "the only correct opinion - no matter how much may disagree with it - is at the very core of democracy,

Hes giving out like that about the EU, the home of co-decision and compromise.

You shouldnt swallow down all this trash the euroskeptics throw about about democracy Vadrefjorde, they just hate the EU and use it as their excuse. Its depressing to see people chalking it down.

Ironbars

How is that headbanger still getting press......

Vadrefjorde

ok......

Well thats settled then :P

We'll right Mr. Vaclav Klaus off as a euroskeptic or CT nut then shall we

Ironbars

The "gangster capitalist" has forgone any right to respect since his deal with the communists. His 2 faces because clear to anyone willing to look.
And disputing mans influence on climate change? The press he gets is similiar to Prince Phillip, only good for a laugh.

Vadrefjorde

So to put it into a black and white debate the views he expressed during the EU president's speech ar wrong then?
As in the lack of democracy that he highlighted is wrong, as is the shift of power from national to European level is not a good thing?

I think it's easy to shoot the messenger or dismiss him easily, citing some previous misgivings of his. But lets seperate the messenger from the message.

Irrespective of whatever you choose to smear him with, i personally agree with the statements he made.
The messenger only said what the majority of European citizens think, he made no bold anti EU statements, he did not denounce the EU. He did however highlight that there is no democratic accountability within the EU at the European parliament.
There is no opposition party within the EU who argue on behalf of the people or who hold the elected MEP's accountable.
Anyone who dares to mention this is branded a "euro-skeptic" or "anti EU" .

turgon

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

As in the lack of democracy that he highlighted is wrong, as is the shift of power from national to European level is not a good thing?

Are you saying you would prefer to keep power in Ireland with Fianna Fàil?

Vadrefjorde

To say that would be to say that's the only alternative. Quite the opposite, Fianna Fail are an integral part of the failings of this European Union.
Their years of sitting on the fence waiting for direction from Europe
Their fiscal policy that they threw out the window the day they joined the Euro.
Their current plan which is to hope that noone notices that they are making a balls of it and that Germany will eventually bail them out to save face for the European Union.
To name but a few...

The point the president of the EU raised was the complete absence of democratic debate on policy and the direction of the EU. Sure we have MEP elections :P
Given the performance of those elected representatives today it is pretty clear how they stand on democratic process... Fine to play the game to get elected, but once you're in you have to account to noone?
Getting back on point, yes i do believe that national government is the democratically elected body of this country, irrespective of what party that is. It's unfortunate to be lumbered with Fianna Fail but there you go, hopefully people will learn from that.
I would prefer the European Union to be about economic progress and prosperity, and i would prefer that process to be carried out democratically.
I do not want an enhanced Europe with more powers, that's my personal opinion seeing as you ask. I think the speech he made today was entirely accurate of the state of affairs within the European Union, regardless of the current recession. In essence he addressed what many people thought of the direction of Europe before any recession.

turgon

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

To say that would be to say that's the only alternative.

Well your either governed from Ireland or Europe or a mixture.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Their years of sitting on the fence waiting for direction from Europe

Like when Bertie Ahern was one of the main framers of the constitution?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Their fiscal policy that they threw out the window the day they joined the Euro.

This would appear to be a criticism of Ireland joining the monetary union?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

The point the president of the EU raised was the complete absence of democratic debate on policy and the direction of the EU.

So, seeming as your so interested in the future of the EU, how have you made an effort to influence its direction? Or are you one of these people who expects Barroso to come knocking on your door to ask you how you feel?

If you want your opinion heard then voice it. Thats what MEP's are for.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

Are you saying you would prefer to keep power in Ireland with Fianna Fàil?

What sort of argument is that, because our present govt sucks we should forfeit as much power as the EU asks us to?

Vadrefjorde

I was governed from Ireland when i lived there. I voted in national elections for the government of the country. I never voted for MEP's in my life. I have never been governed from Europe, nor have i ever considered Europe to be there to govern me.
If you are asking me what i would like to see as the future of the EU then i will quite happily answer.
I want to see the EU change from the current direction of being a superstate back to what it originally was, which is an economic community for prosperity.
I want to see democratic debate on the economic future and direction.
I want to see the pegging of Eastern European currencies disbanded and the role of the ECB held to accountability for it's decisions.
If you are asking am i critical of Ireland joining the Euro then yes i am. Not so much critical of Ireland persay but more critical of the Euro itself. There was never a necessity for a single European currency in the first place. In fact 10 years in and over 66% of trade within the EU is still conducted in the USD.
I entirely agree with this when it comes to EMU and the Euro:
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/ReflectionsonAmericansViewsoftheEuroExAnte.pdf


Thanks for having such an interest in my personal opinion on Europe

Scofflaw

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

I was governed from Ireland when i lived there. I voted in national elections for the government of the country. I never voted for MEP's in my life. I have never been governed from Europe, nor have i ever considered Europe to be there to govern me.

There is no opposition party within the EU who argue on behalf of the people or who hold the elected MEP's accountable.

Hmm, yes - this misses rather a major point. The job of the whole European Parliament is to act as a directly elected opposition to the Council and Commission, and as a directly elected representative body able to demand accountability from those bodies. The accountability of the MEPs themselves is provided by their regular free election.

We have 13 MEPs, of whom only 4 belong to the government party that sits in the Council, and that situation is similar in other countries. So the Parliament act as an opposition to the Commission just by virtue of existence, and to the Council by virtue of the way MEPs often represent national oppositions. A good example is provided by the EUP denunciation of those European countries involved in CIA rendition flights - what national parliamentary opposition would do that?

Democracy 101 - checks and balances, democratic oversight. Asking for an opposition within the Parliament itself is frankly silly, since all that would do is reduce its ability to oppose the Council and Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

Mr. Vaclav Klaus is not the only one to come up with this.

Vladimir Bukovsky: "The European Union the New Soviet Union?"

Vladimir Bukovsky spent many years in Russian labour camps and psychiatric
prisons for defending human rights. He came to Britain in 1976. He lectures and writes on the old Soviet system and the EU.

Clip from the documentary ‘Britain on the Brink’ Interesting Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

sink

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Mr. Vaclav Klaus is not the only one to come up with this.

Vladimir Bukovsky: "The European Union the New Soviet Union?"

Vladimir Bukovsky spent many years in Russian labour camps and psychiatric
prisons for defending human rights. He came to Britain in 1976. He lectures and writes on the old Soviet system and the EU.

Clip from the documentary ‘Britain on the Brink’ Interesting Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

I particularly like the way he describes the European Parliament as a rubber stamp for the commission with no real power and the commission as unaccountable to anybody. In 1999 the European Parliament forced the resignation of the Santer Commission.:rolleyes:

I could go on but that was the most glaringly obvious and easiest to refute and I couldn't be bothered replying to the rest.

Vadrefjorde

Thanks to those who actually addressed the questions i asked in the original post, and for those who have admirably tried to steer the thread towards my personal opinion on Europe. Which of course the topic is not about

So, Avril Doyle, a particularly fine example of Euro-MP mindset attacked, her voice trembling, President Klaus for trying to influence a second Irish referendum. Debate is a "recipe for chaos", she screeched. Any comments on our own Avril Doyles performance?

ChocolateSauce

(there is) no European nation

There was no US nation 250 years ago, no German nation before 1871, no Italian nation before the 1860's...what's his point?

Hitman Actual

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

So, Avril Doyle, a particularly fine example of Euro-MP mindset attacked, her voice trembling, President Klaus for trying to influence a second Irish referendum. Debate is a "recipe for chaos", she screeched. Any comments on our own Avril Doyles performance?

At the moment this is just hear say; you're expecting us to comment on something that only you seem to have seen, without any idea of the context of her supposed "screech" (but 10 out of 10 for the sensationalism, all the same). Any links to this video that only you have watched?

Vadrefjorde

Hitman Actual wrote: »

At the moment this is just hear say; you're expecting us to comment on something that only you seem to have seen, without any idea of the context of her supposed "screech" (but 10 out of 10 for the sensationalism, all the same). Any links to this video that only you have watched?

On the contrary in the first post i gave you the article from the Daily Telegraph.
Also i merely posted as was exactly printed in the same article.
10 out of 10 for a failed effort at attempting to discredit the article though

Here is the video by the way if you feel like watching it, google is everyone's friend.
http://www.euronews.net/en/article/19/02/2009/klaus-rocks-european-parliament/

Here is the source for Avril Doyle's reaction

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2009/02/19/meps_boo_call_for_free_speech_and_eu_debate

Here is the actual speech

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=88EY96UW9zlp

Hitman Actual

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

On the contrary in the first post i gave you the article from the Daily Telegraph.
Also i merely posted as was exactly printed in the same article.
10 out of 10 for a failed effort at attempting to discredit the article though.

Considering that I didn't try to discredit the article, I don't see how I've failed, but then again an article from an idiot-tabloid like the Telegraph doesn't have much credibility in the first place anyway.

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Here is the video by the way if you feel like watching it, google is everyone's friend.

When you provide an analysis of a video, or whatever, it's up to you to provide the source. That's not hard to grasp, now is it?

Vadrefjorde

I stand corrected

And as per the above post, video, speech and newspaper article for your perusal

Hitman Actual

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

I stand corrected

And as per the above post, video, speech and newspaper article for your perusal

The video link isn't working, and I'll read the speech properly when I get the time. I did give it a quick skim read and from first impressions I don't see what the parliament is getting so worked up about, apart from the supposed reference to the Soviet Union, which is laughable and just undermines Claus' credibilty anyway. He does seem to have a point on a few issues, but likewise his thinking seems muddled.

djpbarry

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

Irrespective of whatever you choose to smear him with, i personally agree with the statements he made.

You agree with everything he said? If not, what specific statements do you agree with?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

There is no opposition party within the EU who argue on behalf of the people or who hold the elected MEP's accountable.

Surely it is the responsibility of the electorate to hold their elected representatives accountable, no?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

I never voted for MEP's in my life.

:rolleyes: So you don’t actually partake in the democratic processes employed by the supposedly undemocratic “EU superstate”?

Vadrefjorde wrote: »

I want to see the EU change from the current direction of being a superstate…

The EU is not even a state, let alone a superstate. Feel free to attempt to demonstrate otherwise.

Kama

The EU is not even a state, let alone a superstate

su⋅per⋅state

[soo-per-steyt]

–noun 1. a state or a governing power presiding over states subordinated to it. 2. an extremely powerful centralized government maintaining close control or supervision over its member states and their inhabitants.

and:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union...or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, constitutes its subjects as citizens like a duck, and conducts international relations like a duck, and takes precedence oer the national constitutions of its constituent states...um...like...a duck...Maybe it could be described as a duck?

Spades should be called spades, no?

djpbarry

Kama wrote: »

1. a state or a governing power presiding over states subordinated to it. 2. an extremely powerful centralized government maintaining close control or supervision over its member states and their inhabitants.

The EU does not meet either of these criteria, although the second is rather subjective.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, constitutes its subjects as citizens like a duck, and conducts international relations like a duck, and takes precedence oer the national constitutions of its constituent states...um...like...a duck...Maybe it could be described as a duck?

Spades should be called spades, no?

If they are spades. Unfortunately, the EU doesn't 'preside over states subordinated to it', and lacks 'an extremely powerful centralised government maintaining close control or supervision over its member states and their inhabitants', so it is neither a duck nor a spade.

The former can easily be seen by the way the EU's legal and political frameworks are written and formed by the member states. The latter can be easily seen by the way the Commission, which is the only bit of the EU realistically describable as 'centralised government' is, again, subject to the member states and to the elected representatives of the inhabitants.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kama

To my admittedly-unsophisticated mind, precendence of European law per 29.4.11 appears as subordination of constituent nations, or would seem to be reasonably interpreted as such.

I'm not a strong nationalist by any means, but if I was, and I saw something saying 'no part of your constitution counts if EU or its competent institutions says otherwise', I'd be up in arms, so to speak...

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

To my admittedly-unsophisticated mind, precendence of European law per 29.4.11 appears as subordination of constituent nations, or would seem to be reasonably interpreted as such.

I'm not a strong nationalist by any means, but if I was, and I saw something saying 'no part of your constitution counts if EU or its competent institutions says otherwise', I'd be up in arms, so to speak...

European law is law agreed in common by the member states including Ireland, and Ireland agreeing its precedence over purely domestic law makes complete sense - what would be the point of rules agreed in common if nobody had to stick to them, and if every single law so agreed had to be examined minutely against every single member state's entire body of law in case it was accidentally overridden by some existing law?

A common market requires common rules to function, and the common rules have to take precedence.

On a side-note, EU law doesn't take precedence over the Constitution - it is immune to challenge on the basis of it, which is not quite the same thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Kama wrote: »

To my admittedly-unsophisticated mind, precendence of European law per 29.4.11 appears as subordination of constituent nations, or would seem to be reasonably interpreted as such.

It's a question of degrees really. Some people would argue the EU was a superstate so long as there was any delegation of sovereignty to it. Others, like me, wouldn't really consider the EU a superstate because not all sovereignty is delegated to it. It's all shades of grey though and people will use whatever definition fits their purpose.

If you want to paint a scary picture of the EU it's convenient to call it a superstate because it implies far more control over national issues than the EU actually has.

Kama wrote: »

I'm not a strong nationalist by any means, but if I was, and I saw something saying 'no part of your constitution counts if EU or its competent institutions says otherwise', I'd be up in arms, so to speak...

At that point we wouldn't have to have referenda to change our constitution and we'd kind of have to have a fairly major change to our constitution by referenda before that could happen. It's not the kind of thing that they could sneak up on you.

Kama

A common market requires common rules to function, and the common rules have to take precedence.

Such precendence being reasonably understood by some as 'states subordinated to it'.

On a side-note, EU law doesn't take precedence over the Constitution - it is immune to challenge on the basis of it, which is not quite the same thing.

Again, to my untutored eye, immunity to challenge on the basis of the Constitution, Crotty etc = somewhat resembling a spade/duck/etc.

It's a question of degrees really....It's all shades of grey though and people will use whatever definition fits their purpose...
If you want to paint a scary picture of the EU it's convenient to call it a superstate because it implies far more control over national issues than the EU actually has.

I agree. 'Superstate' is the current preferred pejorative term, but not one utterly devoid of descriptive content. In Lisbon discourse it's apparently interpreted as a scare word, but I remember the EU being discussed as a superstate quite rationally and without people losing the plot in European Politics lectures.

Just to add, I'm not inherently against a EU superstate, speaking descriptively, and find the binary is/isn't a bit of a hurrah-boo argument on both sides; the grey appears black to hardcore Whites, and vice versa...

nesf

Kama wrote: »

I agree. 'Superstate' is the current preferred pejorative term, but not one utterly devoid of descriptive content. In Lisbon discourse it's apparently interpreted as a scare word, but I remember the EU being discussed as a superstate quite rationally and without people losing the plot in European Politics lectures.

I'd agree, that's what makes it so insidious. Half-truths are far more powerful than outright falsehoods and so on. Personally I think it all comes down to context and what you define as a superstate to begin with but in your average anti-Lisbon diatribe it's not exactly comparable to the more sober setting of a European Politics lecture.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

A common market requires common rules to function, and the common rules have to take precedence.

Such precendence being reasonably understood by some as 'states subordinated to it'.

Were it not the case that those common rules are agreed by the state in question, that would make sense. However, the rules of the common market are in fact agreed by the member states, so what you're actually talking about is the 'states subordinated to the states'.

Agreeing to be bound by what you've agreed as a group over and above your individual preferences is a pretty standard way to run a group. It's not normally considered subordination unless you have no say in the group's decisions.

Kama wrote: »

Again, to my untutored eye, immunity to challenge on the basis of the Constitution, Crotty etc = somewhat resembling a spade/duck/etc.

Well, no, again it's an obvious and necessary corollary to agreeing to joint decision-making. Otherwise, again, every joint decision must be considered and tested against the whole corpus of constitutional law for every country before implementation, and passing the most trivial law would become the same monumental task as ratifying the actual treaties.

It's obviously not a good thing that EU law is immune from constitutional challenge. It is, however, a necessary compromise in order to run a common market. The Charter does make up for this deficiency to some extent, by providing a common and explicit set of rights that EU law must be tested against, and on the basis of which may be struck down. It's not as good as making EU law subject to Bunreacht in terms of allowing national preferences to be enforced, but unfortunately that's unworkable.


cordially,
Scofflaw