the future of 495 million people in one man's hand

Bob_Harris

thebman wrote: »

It will be funny to see the people that were harping on about democracy and the Irish voting twice, hoping that this one man can hold up the treaty for as long as possible.

Should reveal lots of hypocrites IMHO.

Is it not very un-democratic of the EU to want to rush this through as fast as possible so the British people can't get a say?

People want him to hold it up so the people can yet again say No.

Gordon Brown, a prime example of the failed concept of "elected representatives", promised the British people a vote on Lisbon, which he then went back on.

K-9

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Is it not very un-democratic of the EU to want to rush this through as fast as possible so the British people can't get a say?

People want him to hold it up so the people can yet again say No.

Gordon Brown, a prime example of the failed concept of "elected representatives", promised the British people a vote on Lisbon, which he then went back on.

A vote on Lisbon would be undemocratic.

A vote on the old EEC Membership or EEA membership would be more honest.

Lisbon isn't the issue in the UK as we found out when UKIP interfered here.

thebman

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Is it not very un-democratic of the EU to want to rush this through as fast as possible so the British people can't get a say?

People want him to hold it up so the people can yet again say No.

Gordon Brown, a prime example of the failed concept of "elected representatives", promised the British people a vote on Lisbon, which he then went back on.

Who says the EU wants to rush it through so the British don't get a vote?

I'd suggest they want the Lisbon treaty as soon as possible to gain the benefits it provides as soon as possible.

What people want him to hold it up? I don't. Any evidence that the majority of Czech people want him to hold it up?

He didn't promise them a vote on Lisbon, it was a vote on the constitution he promised as far as I remember.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

A vote on Lisbon would be undemocratic.

A vote on the old EEC Membership or EEA membership would be more honest.

Lisbon isn't the issue in the UK as we found out when UKIP interfered here.

That's very true - a UK vote on Lisbon would be a proxy vote on EU membership. Let them vote on that first - but no UK PM would do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Oxman

thebman wrote: »

lol!

http://www.radio.cz/en/current/curraffrs



Not everyone agrees that the Czech president even has the power to not sign.

PS, here you are talking about the will of the people:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62322017&postcount=136

I have to say, I'm finding it funny

I'm finding it hilarious that I live in a country whereby the will of the majority of the people is not respected and cast aside, IMO either last June or right now. And by right now, I mean the UNDENIABLE will of the people that this govt go.
It's bloody hilarious.

BTW, if Mr Klaus can be impeached, the Czech parliament will do so, it is not up to any link you provide.

I'd love if the Czech govt said they were holding a referendum to settle it once and for all...would you like that? I would, either Yes or No.

Sir Oxman

thebman wrote: »

Who says the EU wants to rush it through so the British don't get a vote?

I'd suggest they want the Lisbon treaty as soon as possible to gain the benefits it provides as soon as possible.

What people want him to hold it up? I don't. Any evidence that the majority of Czech people want him to hold it up?

He didn't promise them a vote on Lisbon, it was a vote on the constitution he promised as far as I remember.

Everybody with functioning senses. Including now, Cameron.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's very true - a UK vote on Lisbon would be a proxy vote on EU membership. Let them vote on that first - but no UK PM would do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lisbon is a side issue in the UK and we all know it, Yes and No side.

It isn't as if this has suddenly become an issue in the last couple of years. So, Nice isn't the issue.

God knows when it became an issue.

marco_polo

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Is it not very un-democratic of the EU to want to rush this through as fast as possible so the British people can't get a say?

People want him to hold it up so the people can yet again say No.

Gordon Brown, a prime example of the failed concept of "elected representatives", promised the British people a vote on Lisbon, which he then went back on.

The ulitmate goal of the Conservative party is as follows.

"We have also consistently made it clear that the restoration of our national control over social and employment legislation would be a major goal for a Conservative government."

Either way what is coming is a concerted effort by the Conservatives to pull back from even the current levels of EU legislation, since this is coming regardless of whether of not Lisbon comes into force, it is far better that the other 26 countries have a reform treaty that they are happy with (and that the current UK Labour government does as well). They can then negotiate a seperate treaty with the Conservative governement to pair back on their EU involvement if that is their wish.

The Lisbon treaty being in effect has no effect on the likelyhood of success of the Conservatives goals. Next May they will have their mandate to aim to achieve their real goal, and be under no illusions that that is even a Europe under Nice rules.

P. Breathnach

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Is it not very un-democratic of the EU to want to rush this through as fast as possible so the British people can't get a say? ...

The British have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and lodged formal notice with the EU.

thebman

gambiaman wrote: »

Everybody with functioning senses. Including now, Cameron.

So anyone that agrees with you. How meaningless.

Last I saw, Cameron wasn't in the Czech Republic, I don't think he should be trying to get another country to hold up ratification because he hopes to have power by then.

hopalong85

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's very true - a UK vote on Lisbon would be a proxy vote on EU membership. Let them vote on that first - but no UK PM would do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why do you do it? The ridiculously smug and self important sign off I mean. What is the reasoning behind it?

As for the original poster, does he/she really frustrate anybody else?

Smugly,
hopalong85

Scofflaw

hopalong85 wrote: »

Why do you do it? The ridiculously smug and self important sign off I mean. What is the reasoning behind it?

As for the original poster, does he/she really frustrate anybody else?

Smugly,
hopalong85

I've been doing it since I joined. I do find that it irritates a certain type of poster, but that's just a bonus. In general, though, I am a cordial person - I see no reason not to reflect that online.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hopalong85

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've been doing it since I joined. I do find that it irritates a certain type of poster, but that's just a bonus. In general, though, I am a cordial person - I see no reason not to reflect that online.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh. Well thanks for clearing that up. As an avid lurker I've often wondered if you did it for the specific purpose of frustrating people. The fact that you consider it a bonus that it annoys some people has helped me to form my opinion. But that's off topic!

On topic, is the op seriously implying that the wiki article he/she linked to is a reputable source of information on the Czech President? Baffling if so.

meglome

gambiaman wrote: »

I'm finding it hilarious that I live in a country whereby the will of the majority of the people is not respected and cast aside, IMO either last June or right now. And by right now, I mean the UNDENIABLE will of the people that this govt go.
It's bloody hilarious.

dear god how many times can I say this without going mental. 28% of the electorate voted no in the first Lisbon vote. Now 39% of the electorate voted Yes - a 61.7% Yes. So the people have spoken in a democratic election, they changed their minds, as it their democratic right to do so. Please stop whining about it.

You also seem to have trouble working out how democracy functions. The people undeniably voted in Fianna Fail for 5 years.

Hydrosylator

thebman wrote: »

It will be funny to see the people that were harping on about democracy and the Irish voting twice, hoping that this one man can hold up the treaty for as long as possible.

Should reveal lots of hypocrites IMHO.

Not really, he's not allowed pass until it's been decided that it's constitutional, because Czech law can't be contravened in this matter.

Where's the hypocrisy?

P. Breathnach

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Not really, he's not allowed pass until it's been decided that it's constitutional, because Czech law can't be contravened in this matter.

Where's the hypocrisy?

Like most people here, I am not well-versed in Czech law. I wonder if their system includes the idea of "abuse of process", because it looks to me as if that is what is happening there.

Hydrosylator

It's a fact that he's barred from ratifying it until the court case is over, it's out of his hands until then.

Is Czech Rep. the only country where Lisbon ratification needs someone's signature? No. So your sensationalist,

so the future of 495 million people depends on one man

is redundant.

If you think that a politician meeting with millionaires who have private agendas which don't involve the welfare of the populace is a bad thing, I agree with you. It's all too common.

All that said, the lad's a prick. I don't think he'd refuse to sign off on Lisbon if it's deemed sound in Czech Law, though, and president who opposes their parliament like that would be out like a shot, I imagine.

Scofflaw

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Not really, he's not allowed pass until it's been decided that it's constitutional, because Czech law can't be contravened in this matter.

Where's the hypocrisy?

Having spent hours of my life writing posts pointing out that the constitutional processes of the other member states are to be respected even when they don't involve referendums to ratify treaties, the sudden respect of No proponents for the constitutional processes of the Czech Republic rings more than a little hollow.

By rights, pretty much everyone on the No side ought to be arguing that leaving the decision in the hands of elites like Klaus is undemocratic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hydrosylator

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Like most people here, I am not well-versed in Czech law. I wonder if their system includes the idea of "abuse of process", because it looks to me as if that is what is happening there.

I don't believe it is abuse of process, it's a case being brought a group of senators who question whether the guarantees given to us for Lisbon 2 constitute a separate Treaty. If they're wrong, it's business as usual, if they're right, they're vindicated.

I wouldn't be surprised if their issue is actually with Lisbon itself rather than the guarantees, but in democracy you use what tools are available. Let's not forget that it's a similarly finicky court case that gave us referendums on major changes to the EU. As such I don't consider it an abuse of process, if it is, then every referendum we have on the EU is open to similar claims, perhaps?

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having spent hours of my life writing posts pointing out that the constitutional processes of the other member states are to be respected even when they don't involve referendums to ratify treaties, the sudden respect of No proponents for the constitutional processes of the Czech Republic rings more than a little hollow.

By rights, pretty much everyone on the No side ought to be arguing that leaving the decision in the hands of elites like Klaus is undemocratic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Unfortunately, it's been in the hands of elites in every member state that didn't have a referendum. And you have to realise, this isn't Vaclac's doing, it's a constitutional court case, which he is legally required to await the outcome of prior to ratification. You're blaming him for Czech law. That's silly.

That said, I do agree that leaving the decision in the hands of elites like Klaus is undemocratic, and that is why I believe that all member states should be made have a referendum on Lisbon.

If it's wrong for an elite to undemocratically stop a Treaty, it's equally wrong for an elite to undemocratically put a Treaty in place. QED.

Noreen1

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I do agree that leaving the decision in the hands of elites like Klaus is undemocratic, and that is why I believe that all member states should be made have a referendum on Lisbon.

If it's wrong for an elite to undemocratically stop a Treaty, it's equally wrong for an elite to undemocratically put a Treaty in place. QED.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Noreen

Scofflaw

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's been in the hands of elites in every member state that didn't have a referendum. And you have to realise, this isn't Vaclac's doing, it's a constitutional court case, which he is legally required to await the outcome of prior to ratification. You're blaming him for Czech law. That's silly.

That said, I do agree that leaving the decision in the hands of elites like Klaus is undemocratic, and that is why I believe that all member states should be made have a referendum on Lisbon.

If it's wrong for an elite to undemocratically stop a Treaty, it's equally wrong for an elite to undemocratically put a Treaty in place. QED.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, except No proponents for using the argument that one has to respect other countries' constitutional arrangements, which was an argument that was regularly waved away by No proponents. Now that another country's constitutional arrangements might deliver a No, suddenly they have to be respected.

You're welcome to defend that position, and I'm sure you won't lack for supporters, either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hydrosylator

Please explain:

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not blaming anyone for anything;
except No proponents for using the argument that one has to respect other countries' constitutional arrangements;
which was an argument that was regularly waved away by No proponents

Huh? Do you mean waved around?

What I'm saying is that it would be most democratic for a new treaty to only be ratified in the event of a positive result in a referendum in each member state.

As far as I know, there is no member state which has a law against referendums.

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now that another country's constitutional arrangements might deliver a No, suddenly they have to be respected.

You're welcome to defend that position, and I'm sure you won't lack for supporters, either.

Are you saying it would be reasonable for the EU government to only accept the opinion of elites who agree with them?

Scofflaw

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Are you saying it would be reasonable for the EU government to only accept the opinion of elites who agree with them?

No, in fact I'm pointing out that that's what No proponents are doing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Furious-Dave

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Are you saying it would be reasonable for the EU government to only accept the opinion of elites who agree with them?

The No side were harping on about it being undemocratic that every member state didn't have a referendum on Lisbon, even when it wasn't a constitutional requirement to do so. But now all of a sudden when an opponent of the treaty is left with the decision in his hands those same No voters are saying that instead of demanding referendum in the Czech Republic we should respect their method of ratifying a treaty. It's completely hypocritical and proves that democracy was never a consideration of a lot on the No side. Another LIE from the No side!

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, in fact I'm pointing out that that's what No proponents are doing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Maybe in your head. I've seen no evidence of that.

Hydrosylator

Furious-Dave wrote: »

The No side were harping on about it being undemocratic that every member state didn't have a referendum on Lisbon, even when it wasn't a constitutional requirement to do so. But now all of a sudden when an opponent of the treaty is left with the decision in his hands those same No voters are saying that instead of demanding referendum in the Czech Republic we should respect their method of ratifying a treaty. It's completely hypocritical and proves that democracy was never a consideration of a lot on the No side. Another LIE from the No side!

Who is saying that? Who that actually exists?
The fact remains that this matter is currently out of Vaclavs hands.
If the Czech courts approve the treaty which their parliament has approved the ratification of, and Vaclav then blocks it, you can expect anyone who respects democracy to not respect his actions. I wouldn't respect his actions and I voted No. Nobody I know who voted No would either.

You're getting upset over hypothetical people's hypothetical opinions, as far as I can see.

Scofflaw

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Maybe in your head. I've seen no evidence of that.

Evidently so. Here our observations diverge rather strongly, and more or less in line with our political opinions.

Let's break it down into two statements:

1. No proponents regularly (repetitively, even) claimed that it was undemocratic that other states didn't hold referendums, whatever their constitutions might dictate.

2. No proponents are now claiming that the reason we must respect Klaus' right to hold up Lisbon is because that's part of the constitution of the Czech Republic, and therefore to be respected.

I'm assuming you don't have any problem with (2), so presumably you're claiming that (1) is false? Even though we probably have mountains of evidence that it happened?

See, for example, the thread entitled "Should the rest of Europe get to vote on this Treaty?"

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Hydrosylator wrote: »

That said, I do agree that leaving the decision in the hands of elites like Klaus is undemocratic, and that is why I believe that all member states should be made have a referendum on Lisbon.

Who exactly do you have in mind that will ensure that "all member states should be made have a referendum"?

Unless you have a really big army there with you, no one is going to "make" the other member states violate their constitutions to keep you happy.