Klaus wants opt-out on Lisbon Treaty

ei.sdraob

Czech President Vaclav Klaus wants an opt out on the charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the EU's Lisbon reform treaty as a condition to his signing it.

Britain and Poland have an opt-out regarding the rights charter, which means that they have an exemption from application of some labour rights.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus is the sole European leader to hold out against the EU reform treaty.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1009/eulisbon.html


so he objects to the Charter of Human Rights :eek:



why?

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so he objects to the Charter of Human Rights :eek:



why?

More to the point, what makes him think he has any right to single-handedly dictate his country's stance on it?

ei.sdraob

if anyone is interested the charter can be viewed here

i don't understand what article in there he might object to? very strange of all the arguments against Lisbon, anything bad about the Charter was barely ever mentioned here on boards during the debates

is he clutching at straws here?

View

Klaus seems determined to prove the Federalist view that EU Treaties should not require unanimity to come into force.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the Czech Republic.

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if anyone is interested the charter can be viewed here

i don't understand what article in there he might object to? very strange of all the arguments against Lisbon, anything bad about the Charter was barely ever mentioned here on boards during the debates

is he clutching at straws here?

Klaus has probably been reading the posts by "Future Taoiseach". You know the ones that all are premised on the assumption that the ECJ's judges are all pyschotic lunatics hell bent on ignoring the text of the EU Treaties when making their rulings.

ei.sdraob

more here

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1009/breaking34.htm

and here

http://eubusiness.com/news-eu/treaty-czech-sweden.vt/view


seems its something to do with the article 21 - Non-discrimination

article mentions something about objections to gay rights

free to prosper

Polish daily Rzeczpospolita quotes a Czech source saying, "We have expertise, which shows that in accordance with the Charter it will be possible to reclaim property rights in Czech Republic. We cannot allow judges from Malta or Spain, who know nothing about our history, to decide whether Sudeten Germans have right to their property."

P. Breathnach

free to prosper wrote: »

... decide whether Sudeten Germans have right to their property."

I don't know enough about the issue to comment knowledgeably (although I note that lack of knowledge is not an inhibition that affects all posters here). I am, however, rather taken with the language: if it's "their property", why should they not have a right to it?

P. Breathnach

Surely this is an issue that could be resolved by the treaty "self-amending"? Or was that all a fiction?

Rb

The sooner he is impeached, the better.

Martin 2

I don't really know enough about Czech democracy but one would have thought he'd need parliamentary approval (in spirit or letter) for an opt-out and if he has that and it can be arranged quickly then the EU should give him opt-outs as with Poland and the UK and get this treaty ratified. It'd be nice to start the new year / decade under Lisbon.
If he doesn't have parliamentary approval he may have to avoid open windows as someone jokingly suggested before.

Elba101

Trying his best to hold out untill British election?

I'd say he'll sign by the end of the year.

squod

oscarBravo wrote: »

More to the point, what makes him think he has any right to single-handedly dictate his country's stance on it?

The people who elected him might have a different opinion.

Elba101

squod wrote: »

The people who elected him might have a different opinion.

Prime Minister runs the country, not the President. And to my knowledge the people are all for the treaty, no?

Stark

It would be like Mary McAleese refusing to sign off on Lisbon after the Irish electorate and the Dáil both approved it. And not signing off because he would prefer workers to have less rights is the icing on the cake.

View

squod wrote: »

The people who elected him might have a different opinion.

The Czech President is elected by members of the Czech parliament. The Czech parliament has already approved the Treaty.

MikeC101

ei.sdraob wrote: »

seems its something to do with the article 21 - Non-discrimination

article mentions something about objections to gay rights

He vetoed a bill allowing civil union for same sex couples a few years back, though his veto was overturned by parliament shortly afterwards, so maybe that's it.

I think there were concerns in Poland over the possibility of the Charter meaning they'd have to allow gay marriage, weren't there? (Surprised Cóir weren't all over that)

Daftendirekt

What's the point?

Since the Charter only applies to EU law, what would the benefit of having an opt-out be?

Since he wants an opt-out, is this not one of those things that would require a change to the treaty and therefore require it to be ratified again?

K-9

Karsini wrote: »

Since he wants an opt-out, is this not one of those things that would require a change to the treaty and therefore require it to be ratified again?

Probably be able to do a guarantee on the concerns, so no Treaty.

prinz

He's clutching at straws in my book. A couple of days ago he wanted a clause added, now he's talking about an opt-out for the Charter, next week it will be something else.

ghost_ie

Elba101 wrote: »

Trying his best to hold out untill British election?

I'd say he'll sign by the end of the year.

Klaus will hold out till Britain holds a referendum next year

K-9

ghost_ie wrote: »

Klaus will hold out till Britain holds a referendum next year

That's why his name is Klaus.

callig

Anxious times for the yes men.

dny123456

not really. The Czech parliament can just vote him out, and put someone else in instead. It will be ratified before the British gov collapse

P. Breathnach

dny123456 wrote: »

... The Czech parliament can just vote him out, and put someone else in instead...

Can they? I don't mean this as a challenging or as a rhetorical question, but as a simple enquiry.

The impression I have is that the Czech President has an office very similar to the Irish one: largely a ceremonial head of state, without executive or policy-making functions. It would be improper in Ireland for the President to stall on signing an Act for political reasons. Is it equally improper in the Czech Republic?

Macha

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is it equally improper in the Czech Republic?

I'm not sure but I would also be under the impression that the Czech President wouldn't have the power to suggest changes to international treaties.

As far as I can tell, he wants this change because it would result in the ratification process of every other country to start all over again.

Ceartgoleor

The News channels are reporting that the French government are already objecting to the Czech opt-out on the Charter, and pointing to the fact that negotiating the Irish guarantees (even if the EU leaders were of a mind to grant the Czech wishes) took six months, so unless there is a change it doesn't look like being ratified before the end of the year

Jim236

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The impression I have is that the Czech President has an office very similar to the Irish one: largely a ceremonial head of state, without executive or policy-making functions. It would be improper in Ireland for the President to stall on signing an Act for political reasons. Is it equally improper in the Czech Republic?

Whatever about the Czech President, its not improper for the Irish President to not sign a bill into law, as long as they see legitimate reason to do so. But they don't just not sign it, if they see reason to not sign the bill they refer it to the Supreme Court who will make a ruling on it, and if theres no issue then the President must sign it. Thats their role. President Klaus didn't refer the treaty to the Czech Constitutional Court though, Czech Senators did. Klaus is just inventing reasons to avoid signing it, so he has no good reason to not sign it, so in that context its improper what he's doing, but as long as theres legitimate reason to not sign it its not improper. Again the role of our President is to consider whether a bill is in line with the constitution, and its for them to decide if it should be referred to the Supreme Court or signed into law.

jhegarty

I don't even think a guarantee would help with this. It should have to re-ratified by all countries.


I think we all know he is only stalling for time till the UK goes to vote.

jhegarty

I don't even think a guarantee would help with this. It should have to re-ratified by all countries.


I think we all know he is only stalling for time till the UK goes to vote.