Klaus wants opt-out on Lisbon Treaty

P. Breathnach

Jim236 wrote: »

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.

I think you are trying to correct me on my understanding of the duties of the Irish President. Note that I said that "it would be improper in Ireland for the President to stall on signing an Act for political reasons"; I know that the President can delay signing for legal reasons.

The real question here, however, is whether Klaus is subject to the same sort of obligation.

Riddle101

I bet Declan Ganley is laughing at this somewhere.

Anyway I don't know what to say, is it me or does Klaus seem to think that an opt-out clause is not just for the charter, but also the Lisbon Treaty. For some reason I feel like he might be confused, but nonetheless it will be interesting to see what happens.

Jesuss

View wrote: »

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

Democracy at work.

One has to love it.

ghost_ie

Daftendirekt wrote: »

What's the point?

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

Read the Lisbon Treaty. EU Law overrides the constitution of a member state

ghost_ie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you are trying to correct me on my understanding of the duties of the Irish President. Note that I said that "it would be improper in Ireland for the President to stall on signing an Act for political reasons"; I know that the President can delay signing for legal reasons.

The real question here, however, is whether Klaus is subject to the same sort of obligation.

He's not. The Czech President can take all the time he wants before signing

evercloserunion

Pure stalling for time of course. The sooner he is impeached the better.

One man, unelected by his people, trying to dictate the course of the future of 500 million people. If that's not an "elite" I don't know what is.

MrMatisse

The man sticks to his convictions in the face of unreal pressure as he believes it is best for the citizens of his country. Fair play to him.

Neamhshuntasach

Well the people elected the members of the Czech Parliament to make decisions for them and one of them was making Klaus president. But yet people are calling for him to be impeached. A bit hypocritical since i remember a lot of yes voters using a similar defense for why other countries didn't have referendums.

evercloserunion

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

Well the people elected the members of the Czech Parliament to make decisions for them and one of them was making Klaus president. But yet people are calling for him to be impeached. A bit hypocritical since i remember a lot of yes voters using a similar defense for why other countries didn't have referendums.

The difference is that Klaus is abusing his mandate. He is specifically declining to perform his duty as president in order to negotiate on behalf of the Czech Republic at an international level, or worse still negate the decision of the democratically elected parliament to ratify the treaty, both of which are not in his power as President.

View

ghost_ie wrote: »

Read the Lisbon Treaty. EU Law overrides the constitution of a member state

Two referenda later and you still don't get this point, do you?

EU laws apply in the areas that the EU has been given competence by the member states of the EU. In the areas, that the EU has not been given competence, EU laws do not apply - the laws of the relevant member state apply instead.

View

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

Well the people elected the members of the Czech Parliament to make decisions for them and one of them was making Klaus president. But yet people are calling for him to be impeached. A bit hypocritical since i remember a lot of yes voters using a similar defense for why other countries didn't have referendums.

It is entirely a matter for the Czechs as to how they handle this. I'd imagine that their Government will wait for the ruling of their Supreme Court before deciding what to do. After all, what better authority to judge the validity of Klaus' claims then their Supreme Court?

Daftendirekt

ghost_ie wrote: »

Read the Lisbon Treaty. EU Law overrides the constitution of a member state

What View said.

Only where the member states have agreed to allow it to take precedence over national law.

Daftendirekt

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you are trying to correct me on my understanding of the duties of the Irish President. Note that I said that "it would be improper in Ireland for the President to stall on signing an Act for political reasons"; I know that the President can delay signing for legal reasons.

The real question here, however, is whether Klaus is subject to the same sort of obligation.

According to Wiki:

Absolute authority

The President of the Czech Republic has the authority to act independently in a number of substantive areas. One of his strongest powers is that of the veto, by which he can return a bill back to parliament. Although his veto may be overridden by parliament, his ability to refuse to sign legislation acts as a check on the power of the legislature. The only kind of bills a president can neither veto nor approve are acts which would change the constitution.[1]

Make of it what you will.

Can anyone put this into the context of Lisbon? Or does anyone have more knowledge of the Czech presidential system than Wikipedia seems to have?

Elba101

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Can anyone put this into the context of Lisbon? Or does anyone have more knowledge of the Czech presidential system than Wikipedia seems to have?

Well Lisbon will change the Czech constitution so he can't veto it then?

He asked for a "footnote" to be added which will require re-ratification by all 27 countires again...but he's now looking to get it in the form the guarantees the Ireland got... stalling until the conservatives come to power.

I doubt Cameron will hold a referendum on it. I think he's only saying that so joe dole will vote him in...

Scofflaw

Elba101 wrote: »

Well Lisbon will change the Czech constitution so he can't veto it then?

He asked for a "footnote" to be added which will require re-ratification by all 27 countires again...but he's now looking to get it in the form the guarantees the Ireland got... stalling until the conservatives come to power.

I doubt Cameron will hold a referendum on it. I think he's only saying that so joe dole will vote him in...

Neither Lisbon nor any other EU treaty has the power to change any national constitution.

patiently,
Scofflaw

Daftendirekt

Elba101 wrote: »

Well Lisbon will change the Czech constitution so he can't veto it then?

He asked for a "footnote" to be added which will require re-ratification by all 27 countires again...but he's now looking to get it in the form the guarantees the Ireland got... stalling until the conservatives come to power.

No, I think the need for a constitutional amendment to ratify Lisbon is just an Irish quirk, thanks to Crotty.

I was just wondering, does the quoted passage mean it's within his power to return any legislation back to the Parliament for review, but that ultimately, if the Parliament approve it, he has to sign?

Toiletroll

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6871365.ece

Looks like the EU will not be happy.

Lisbon delayed and Klaus has the backing of his government now to delay ratification.

A spokesman for Klaus has ruled out Irish style "guarantee's". They want the opt out inserted into the treaty which would require ratification from all states AGAIN:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6308540/EU-Lisbon-Treaty-Czech-Republic-government-caves-in-to-eurosceptic-president.html

Happy Days!

Toiletroll

evercloserunion wrote: »

Pure stalling for time of course. The sooner he is impeached the better.

One man, unelected by his people, trying to dictate the course of the future of 500 million people. If that's not an "elite" I don't know what is.

Well the people elected the parliment and the parliment elected him so it is democracy.

Also, the rest of europe didnt even get a vote on lisbon... Suits you now hyprocite, doesnt it.

meglome

Toiletroll wrote: »

Well the people elected the parliment and the parliment elected him so it is democracy.

Also, the rest of europe didnt even get a vote on lisbon... Suits you now hyprocite, doesnt it.

So going against the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people is democracy now?

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

So going against the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people is democracy now?

When parliaments around Europe ratified Lisbon, they were denounced as 'elites', unrepresentative and undemocratic - but when a single man elected by such a parliament opposes Lisbon, suddenly the No proponents are falling over themselves to call it democracy.

amused,
Scofflaw

Stark

What's the betting that the same people who wanted "best 2 out of 3" will throw a hissy fit when we're asked to vote again?

View

Stark wrote: »

What's the betting that the same people who wanted "best 2 out of 3" will throw a hissy fit when we're asked to vote again?

Don't worry - the Government will probably do something dumb and Lisbon III will be lost. Then we'll need to do Lisbon IV to get us back to where we are now. Oh, happy days - it could be two more referenda to look forward to!

PopeBuckfastXVI

His objection is the same sort of sh*te we saw plague our lamp posts and boards over the last few weeks. It's no different to the notion that the CFR would be ushering in hoards of 'asylum seekers' here, or whatever danger you might care to mention. No proof, no evidence, just some wild speculation. It's an abuse of power for personal reasons.

Perhaps the Czech Republic should walk away from the EU until they can put their house in order.

ejmaztec

The excuse that I heard, with regard to the ethnic Germans kicked out after the war, was the same excuse that the Czechs used initially to delay their EU membership in the first place. They wanted assurances from the Germans that the expelled ethnic Germans and their descendants would not be looking for compensation. The German government gave them that assurance and the Czechs signed up.

Klaus is an ultra-Eurosceptic and comes out with some real gems, one of which told the world that the EU is worse than the Soviet Union. This is a bit rich, given the old communist regime's habit of sending dissidents to work in the Czech uranium mines. The EU hasn't done that yet. When Klaus first started messing around with the treaty, there was even some talk of a charge of treason being brought against him, but I don't know how that's going.

The sooner he's gone, the better it will be for the Czechs, and the rest of us.

Boskowski

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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?

'Sudeten' were German speaking folks within the territory of the Czech Republic before WWII. Going back many hundreds of years actually. When Germany lost WWII the Czech government decided that the 'German Evil' includes those folks and they had to leave. Ethnic cleansing if you like and it is assumed these days that about 15-20k lost their lives in the process.

Any attempts of their heirs to reclaim their ancestors property is being viewed by the Czechs as reactionary / revanchism.

Same happened to large number of German people who lived in Prussia / East-Prussia before WWII which is now deemed Polish / Russian. My ancestors lived in East Prussia themselves and fled from the Red Army leaving everything behind.

A tricky one.

Germany or German people are deemed to have lost any rights to pursue cruelty against their people during WWII by having committed cruelty themselves first. A standpoint that is understandable on a wider, historical, international scale but debatable on a personal level all the same.
Germany itself is tiptoeing around this issue and would rather let this problem go away (as it does because of age obviously) as they don't want to upset Poland or the Czech Republic.

I don't know what to think of it myself. Don't want to drag this thread offtopic but would like to get a few opinions all the same.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

When parliaments around Europe ratified Lisbon, they were denounced as 'elites', unrepresentative and undemocratic

Is there any evidence that Vacklav Klaus's views of the Lisbon treaty are unrepresentative of the views of the Czech people?

Scofflaw wrote:

but when a single man elected by such a parliament opposes Lisbon, suddenly the No proponents are falling over themselves to call it democracy.

It's a disgrace the way the views of the Czech parliament are being ignored like that.

I'm sure the yes people will point out that the method by which other countries choose to ratify treaties is none of our business and that if the Czech people are unhappy about the behaviour of their president that they're free to take to the streets and demand that he be removed. Still though, it's a disgrace the way the Czech parliament's views are being ignored.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Is there any evidence that Vacklav Klaus's views of the Lisbon treaty are unrepresentative of the views of the Czech people?

EUBusiness wrote:

(PRAGUE) - More than six in 10 Czechs want their parliament to ratify the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the latest opinion poll published Wednesday show.

"The majority (64 percent) of Czechs believe that the parliament should ratify the Lisbon Treaty," said the STEM polling, which published the survey.

The Czech Republic currently holds the European Union six-month rotating presidency, but is the only country in the 27-member bloc that has not held a parliamentary vote or referendum on the text.

A poll last July found 53 percent of Czechs were against ratifying the treaty.

That was in January this year. I can't find a more recent survey yet. I'd imagine that in the usual way, the question doesn't really generate a lot of heat.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's a disgrace the way the views of the Czech parliament are being ignored like that.

I'm sure the yes people will point out that the method by which other countries choose to ratify treaties is none of our business and that if the Czech people are unhappy about the behaviour of their president that they're free to take to the streets and demand that he be removed. Still though, it's a disgrace the way the Czech parliament's views are being ignored.

As you say, Czech ratification is a matter for the Czechs. One might speculate on whether they were wise to build in quite so much power for their President, but then not everyone thinks referendums are wise. Fortunately, it's off our plate, so while I'll still be disappointed if his disruptive tactics are successful and yes, rather appalled that one man can derail a treaty in this way, it's not quite as vital for us as our own decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

Stark wrote: »

What's the betting that the same people who wanted "best 2 out of 3" will throw a hissy fit when we're asked to vote again?

We won't be asked to vote again. We have already amended our constitution to allow our government to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Whatever Klaus wants inserted in to the Treaty is unlikely to sufficiently alter the Treaty so that it further diminishes Irish national sovereignty or significantly alters the scope of the EU so there is no reason why we'd need another referendum to re-ratify.

IMHO.

Stark

Well the article inserted in the Constitution says:

"The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007 ('Treaty of Lisbon'), and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty. "

It would take a lawyer/judge to decide but imo, this means the government can only ratify the treaty as it was on 13/12/2007.

Sam Vimes

Stark wrote: »

Well the article inserted in the Constitution says:

"The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007 ('Treaty of Lisbon'), and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty. "

It would take a lawyer/judge to decide but imo, this means the government can only ratify the treaty as it was on 13/12/2007.

That would be my take on it too. If they can change any part of it then there's little point in having a vote because they could get us to vote on one document then come up with a completely new document, stick the same label on it and ratify that instead.