lisbon in other countries

conchubhar1

has it been fully ratified by all other parliments?

sceptre

Yes. Ratified by 26 from 27, though it's missing presidential assent in the Czech Republic. 23 of the 27 countries have deposited it with the Italian government, which is the final step.

Full list of dates from each country here if you want to track it's ratification progress so far.

conchubhar1

thats what i thought

will the czech ratify it if the lisbon 2 gets through?
ie, is that his only quam with lisbon?

conchubhar1

sceptre wrote: »

23 of the 27 countries have deposited it with the Italian government, which is the final step.

which countries havent deposited it? and why?

why the italian govt?




thanks

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

thats what i thought

will the czech ratify it if the lisbon 2 gets through?
ie, is that his only quam with lisbon?

It's a bit of a gray area, but if Klaus decided to not sign the Treaty, it would be referred back to the Czech constitutional court. There, it could be ratified without his compliance. But there's no precedence for any of this, so it's impossible to say what would happen.

But I think political pressure would make him sign it anyway.

conchubhar1

is he now president of something in europe?

if he believes it shouldnt be signed, he should give it to the people to decide or not sign it

lostexpectation

on sky news conservative spokesman said if the treaty is not ratified by everyone by the time they get into government they'll immediately call for a referendum on renegotiation

unlikely, it would suit them most not to have to tackle it.

conchubhar1

when is the next general election in the uk (planned or if browns gov collapses - speculation -)

is it before the referendum here?

Hitman Actual

The Czech's have the 6-month chair of the presidency of the EU, but the presidency doesn't give a country (or any single person) any real authority. For all the talk by eurosceptics about the power that an EU president would have (i.e. through Lisbon), it really is a relatively empty role.

wrote:

if he believes it shouldnt be signed, he should give it to the people to decide or not sign it

Well, it's been approved by both houses of parliament in the Czech Republic, so he really has to sign it. Not signing it would be about as undemocratic an act as you could get.

lostexpectation

no next year

conchubhar1

ok, thanks all


undemocratic well that depends on your outlook, not giving a vote to the people is undemocratic on such a pivotal piece of legislation (yes they are elected governments but most people dont agree with their leaders on every issue - and on such a huge item as this a vote should be mandatory)

lostexpectation

of course will have to wait for another acession treaty to put our mysterious guarantees into law, that was supposed to be 2010 but thats up in the air now with disputes between serbia and croatia

conchubhar1

true

not to mad on the way we get garuntees, not actual changes to the text (rock solid changes)

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Well, it's been approved by both houses of parliament in the Czech Republic, so he really has to sign it. Not signing it would be about as undemocratic an act as you could get.

Sorry, I'm a bit puzzled by this. Why is it undemocratic when President Klaus declines to sign in exercise of the constitutional powers conferred on him by the Czech people when they elected him, but not undemocratic when President Sarkozy declines to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

conchubhar1

excelent point ^

molloyjh

I think the point is that their Parliament is more representative of the people. Given that it's a large number of people elected by the same electorate as opposed to just one person, it should more accurately represent the views of the Czech people as a whole. When it was put to a vote by those people it passed, and no it is being stopped by a single individual.

That being said I do take your point and he has every right to do it by their system. It's a Czech matter and just as they should respect how we do things, we should respect how they do things.

gizmo555

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the point is that their Parliament is more representative of the people. Given that it's a large number of people elected by the same electorate as opposed to just one person, it should more accurately represent the views of the Czech people as a whole. When it was put to a vote by those people it passed, and no it is being stopped by a single individual.

That being said I do take your point and he has every right to do it by their system. It's a Czech matter and just as they should respect how we do things, we should respect how they do things.

It is not in the least bit undemocratic - it is the exercise of a legitimate constitutional power by a democratically elected president. I'm amused at the double standards being applied here to Klaus and Sarkozy, another "single individual".

molloyjh

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is not in the least bit undemocratic - it is the exercise of a legitimate constitutional power by a democratically elected president. I'm amused at the double standards being applied here to Klaus and Sarkozy, another "single individual".

Sarkozy didn't go against anyone though so its not double standards. Klaus went against the Parliament. All I was doing was explaining the logic, and it is logical. The Parliament ARE more representative of the people as a whole and he went against them.

Before you go on about this though it is worth pointing out that Klaus was not elected by the Czech people directly. He was elected by the Parliament, who were elected by the people. Therefore the Parliament is more-so the voice of the people than Klaus, therefore it could easily be argued that he is being undemocratic. Would you agree?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Look he's acting within his role, according to the Czech Constitution.

Can we all wind our necks in a little and stop throwing about the 'this is democratic, but that isn't' nonsense.

Representative, Constitutional Democracy is still Democratic.

How the Czechs manage that is their business, and it's not the place of anyone on this forum to accuse them of being 'undemocratic' when everyone involved acts according to their constitution.

conchubhar1

the french people rejected the constitution
he did not go against anyone

both these cant be true - one has to be false. my money is on the second

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the french people rejected the constitution
he did not go against anyone

both these cant be true - one has to be false. my money is on the second

*sigh*

Lisbon is not the Constitution....

conchubhar1

i know

but

either way it legaly replaces the other treaties and therefore changes how the eu works

that needs or should have a referendum!

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i know

but

either way it legaly replaces the other treaties and therefore changes how the eu works

that needs or should have a referendum!

In Ireland we are constitutionally bound to have one. It doesn't *need* it anywhere else, that is obvious by the fact it didn't have one. That it *should have* one is merely your opinion.

Germany is prohibited from holding referenda, by law, for one thing...

conchubhar1

yes i know ireland has - so lucky we have two (ah great leaders)

it is my opinion - but if they are certain they are fufiling what people want why won't they hold referenda?

in a democracy it is needed - on an issue like this which changes the eu.

germany is a special case - can't go against their laws, obviously.

gizmo555

molloyjh wrote: »

Klaus went against the Parliament. All I was doing was explaining the logic, and it is logical. The Parliament ARE more representative of the people as a whole and he went against them.

Before you go on about this though it is worth pointing out that Klaus was not elected by the Czech people directly. He was elected by the Parliament, who were elected by the people. Therefore the Parliament is more-so the voice of the people than Klaus, therefore it could easily be argued that he is being undemocratic. Would you agree?

No, I would not. Is President Obama Sarkozy a more "democratic" head of government than our Taoiseach because Mr Cowen was "only" elected by a vote of the Dáil and not directly by the people? Representative democracy comes in many different flavours.

The logic of the Czech constitution is that it must have been envisaged that the President wouldn't necessarily always agree with Parliament, otherwise there would have been no point in giving the presidency this power.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, I would not. Is President Obama a more "democratic" head of government than our Taoiseach because Mr Cowen was "only" elected by a vote of the Dáil and not directly by the people? Representative democracy comes in many different flavours.

The logic of the Czech constitution is that it must have been envisaged that the President wouldn't necessarily always agree with Parliament, otherwise there would have been no point in giving the presidency this power.

Actually Obama was also indirectly elected, by the electoral college...

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes i know ireland has - so lucky we have two (ah great leaders)

it is my opinion - but if they are certain they are fufiling what people want why won't they hold referenda?

in a democracy it is needed - on an issue like this which changes the eu.

germany is a special case - can't go against their laws, obviously.

Again, it's obviously not needed, by the fact that it didn't happen.

You think it *should* happen in every country, but with respect, that's not your responsibility or business. It's up to the electorates in each country, to modify or not modify their constitution to require referenda on EU treaties.

I dare say most electorates just don't care enough about EU treaties to want a vote on it, and may see it as something of an imposition if they are forced to.

conchubhar1

much like when you vote for a td - in a specific party you know who their leader is
and in a way you vote the taoiseach in power

except in america when you vote for an elector you know they have stated to vote for a specific candidate - so more direct

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Again, it's obviously not needed, by the fact that it didn't happen.

You think it *should* happen in every country, but with respect, that's not your responsibility or business. It's up to the electorates in each country, to modify or not modify their constitution to require referenda on EU treaties.

I dare say most electorates just don't care enough about EU treaties to want a vote on it, and may see it as something of an imposition if they are forced to.

to say smething was not needed by the fact it didnt happen is a very ridiculous argument

no its not my responsibility - but with how our vote was rejected i have become angered at the lack of democracy in the eu

they are not forced to vote in the referendum - it will be no imposistion on them, should it take place they have a choice to vote or not

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually Obama was also indirectly elected, by the electoral college...

pfft that pesky representative system standing in a way of real democracy

btw this representation system of electoral college's gives some very small US states larger representation than huge states like California

sort of similar how Ireland punches above its weight in the EU, in a full representative system, Ireland would be irrelevant in the EU as there isnt many of us

but once again lets not get these pesky facts get in the way

conchubhar1 wrote: »

much like when you vote for a td - in a specific party you know who their leader is
and in a way you vote the taoiseach in power

except in america when you vote for an elector you know they have stated to vote for a specific candidate - so more direct

but the voter in that state next you gets higher weight on his vote, so much for "democracy"

.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

to say smething was not needed by the fact it didnt happen is a very ridiculous argument

no its not my responsibility - but with how our vote was rejected i have become angered at the lack of democracy in the eu

they are not forced to vote in the referendum - it will be no imposistion on them, should it take place they have a choice to vote or not

We're going to start running around in circles here, so I have your points and disagree with them, and vice versa...