Klaus wants opt-out on Lisbon Treaty

finbar10

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

I very much doubt there would need to be another referendum, for example if Klaus just got a few opt outs attached to the treaty as protocols which just affected the Czech republic. We've already implicitly given our government permission to ratify the existing Lisbon treaty. If our government just went ahead and ratified the slightly amended treaty any Crotty type challenge would almost inevitably fail. Of course if things were tagged on that there were unenvisaged by the first version that would be a different story. But can't see a few special Czech opt outs making any difference. The people would be deemed to have given their permission.

evercloserunion

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 is a good point but as you say it would have to be decided by a court for us to be sure. It would be an interesting case. If the state is constitutionally permitted to sign Treaty A, it doesn't make sense that they would be disallowed to sign Treaty B which is, for all intents and purposes, the same.

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.

No, that's not what I was saying. Obviously if the Treaty was changed so that it significantly altered the scope of the EU it would require a new referendum. That was what was laid down in Crotty.

Sam Vimes

finbar10 wrote: »

I very much doubt there would need to be another referendum, for example if Klaus just got a few opt outs attached to the treaty as protocols which just affected the Czech republic.

Then there wouldn't have to be one

cabinteelytom

Vaclav Klaus has identified one of the most toxic components of the the Lisbon Treaty.
One had to read the Treaty-related literature very carefully to notice that the UK and Poland had, more skillfully than Ireland and the Czech Republic, negotiated opt-outs from this.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is an eclectic gallimufry of rights and entitlements in different Articles for 'citizens', 'everyone', 'all natural persons', 'workers' which are judged by the european courts not the courts of the Republic of Ireland.

evercloserunion

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Vaclav Klaus has identified one of the most toxic components of the the Lisbon Treaty.
One had to read the Treaty-related literature very carefully to notice that the UK and Poland had, more skillfully than Ireland and the Czech Republic, negotiated opt-outs from this.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is an eclectic gallimufry of rights and entitlements in different Articles for 'citizens', 'everyone', 'all natural persons', 'workers' which are judged by the european courts not the courts of the Republic of Ireland.

Oh noes!

The Charter applies only to EU law and not domestic law, and does not extend the competences of the EU or alter the function of any of its institutions in any way. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what the opt-outs will actually achieve. In any case it's hardly as scary as Euroskeptics try to make it out to be.

All rights are interpreted by a court somewhere. I don't really see how it matters whether it's an Irish court or a European court.

cabinteelytom

Article 41.3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; " Every person has the right to have the Community (sic) make good any damage caused by it's institutions and it's servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States."

I do not know what this means. Whose institutions and servants? 'Make good any damage caused'; can the clock be turned back to reverse the disadvantageous decision? can I yet buy that lottery ticket which would have made me a multi-millionaire, had I not been delayed by 'security'?
If the 'Community' means the European Community, the Republic of Ireland would be wise to keep clear water between our State institutions and Community institutions [legislators please note].
If this article means nothing except legal restitution remains a duty of Member State law, why leave this Article in an international Treaty as a last resort of lawyers?

MarkK

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Article 41.3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; " Every person has the right to have the Community (sic) make good any damage caused by it's institutions and it's servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States."

I do not know what this means. Whose institutions and servants? 'Make good any damage caused'; can the clock be turned back to reverse the disadvantageous decision? can I yet buy that lottery ticket which would have made me a multi-millionaire, had I not been delayed by 'security'?
If the 'Community' means the European Community, the Republic of Ireland would be wise to keep clear water between our State institutions and Community institutions [legislators please note].
If this article means nothing except legal restitution remains a duty of Member State law, why leave this Article in an international Treaty as a last resort of lawyers?

Community means the European Community.
Section 41 is "Right to good administration"
All this means is that you are entitled to compensation if the EU mistreats you in the same way as you are entitled to compensation from the state if you are mistreated by the state.
e.g. Hep C, Army Deafness etc.

Stark

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Vaclav Klaus has identified one of the most toxic components of the the Lisbon Treaty.
One had to read the Treaty-related literature very carefully to notice that the UK and Poland had, more skillfully than Ireland and the Czech Republic, negotiated opt-outs from this.

Ireland has opt-outs too.

prinz

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Vaclav Klaus has identified one of the most toxic components of the the Lisbon Treaty..

Some genius he must be. The only person to spot thistoxic clause out of hundreds of millions of EU people, the experts, lawyers, politicians that were involved in negotiating it, the Constitutional Courts who examined it etc..

cabinteelytom wrote: »

One had to read the Treaty-related literature very carefully to notice that the UK and Poland had, more skillfully than Ireland and the Czech Republic, negotiated opt-outs from this. ..

No one did not have to. This has been mentioned in any respectable news item on the Treaty.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is an eclectic gallimufry of rights and entitlements in different Articles for 'citizens', 'everyone', 'all natural persons', 'workers' which are judged by the european courts not the courts of the Republic of Ireland.

Not rights and entitlements :eek:

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Article 41.3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; " Every person has the right to have the Community (sic) make good any damage caused by it's institutions and it's servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States."

I do not know what this means. Whose institutions and servants?

Of the Community. I thought you read this stuff very carefully?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

'Make good any damage caused'; can the clock be turned back to reverse the disadvantageous decision? can I yet buy that lottery ticket which would have made me a multi-millionaire, had I not been delayed by 'security'??

If you get insurance and the insurance company promises to reimburse you for any loss you suffered... does this mean they are going to turn back the clock before your car gets robbed.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

If the 'Community' means the European Community, the Republic of Ireland would be wise to keep clear water between our State institutions and Community institutions [legislators please note].

Why? The State institutions already operate under these practices.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

If this article means nothing except legal restitution remains a duty of Member State law, why leave this Article in an international Treaty as a last resort of lawyers?

It doesn't mean that. It means the Commmunity also has a duty.

View

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Vaclav Klaus has identified one of the most toxic components of the the Lisbon Treaty.

Klaus' "claim" relates to potential claims by the Sudeten Germans against the Czech Republic. Offhand, I can't recall the Sudeten Germans having any issues with Ireland. I doubt most people here would regard this as constituting a "toxic component"...

turgon

"Klaus vows never to sign Lisbon Treaty on Moscow visit"

A worrying development...

K-9

turgon wrote: »

"Klaus vows never to sign Lisbon Treaty on Moscow visit"

A worrying development...

It is getting to the stage of a joke.

Bloody elites!

evercloserunion

K-9 wrote: »

It is getting to the stage of a joke.

Bloody elites!

Klaus? A joke? Never...

CptMackey

turgon wrote: »

"Klaus vows never to sign Lisbon Treaty on Moscow visit"

A worrying development...

What a plank. He definitely has some other agenda. He talks about the EU becoming the new USSR but then he announces this in Moscow hmm...

View

Conspiracy Theory Mode On

Klaus isn't as crazy as he comes across. Rather he is really a closet European Federalist who is determined to prove to all and sundry that having an unanimity method for approving treaties is clearly silly. Following his intervention the member states will be forced to abandon the unanimity method in favour of a super-majority (of the member states and people) method. And, it'll be hard for anyone to argue against such a change after Klaus' one-man hijack of the EU, won't it?

Conspiracy Theory Mode Off

Euro_Kraut

turgon wrote: »

"Klaus vows never to sign Lisbon Treaty on Moscow visit"

A worrying development...

This is a transcipt of Klaus' press conference from here:

VACLAV KLAUS: The Lisbon Treaty was the subject of our detailed discussions. On the one hand, I want to say that I see no reason to send a major signal to the EU from Moscow concerning what my next steps might be. Of course I cannot say anything new about this here. No reasonable person would expect me to do otherwise.

On the other hand, I tried to explain my approach to the President and his delegation. I explained that I am concerned - and it’s not only I who am concerned - about deepening integration within the EU. I feel it – for me this is a serious question. So when they dismiss such things as tactical obstructions they’re making a fundamental error. For me, this thing is really vital, absolutely basic. In this regard, my contribution to the dialogue on what the EU will look like in the future will continue. I explained to the President what stage we are at now in the dialogue with Brussels. From my point of view, the conditions that I outlined for our signing the Lisbon Treaty were serious conditions. And there is no reason to think that I might forget in the next few days what I have just said.

I can't see how The Examiner are interpreting his as meaning that he has no intention to ever sign the Treaty.

valdie

Support Vaclav Klaus! Stop the Lisbon treaty!
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?sptklaus

Dinner

valdie wrote: »

Support Vaclav Klaus! Stop the Lisbon treaty!

The guy who started that 'petition' has no ****ing idea what he's talking about. But you don't care about the truth, do you valdie?

Why let the facts get in the way of outrage.

valdie

I don't. I just want to stop soviets.

Dinner

valdie wrote: »

I don't. I just want to stop soviets.

Good news! Lisbon doesn't even come close to forming some sort of 'soviet' superstate.

It is very refreshing to see an anti-Lisbon poster admit that they don't care about the truth.

valdie

I'm not Irish, I'm Polish, but last 8 years I spend here and I like it.
This discussion (about Lisbon or Klaus) is for me like from a space.
Maybe for twenty years old or 25 it does not matter who has the power, so long as there was peace.szukaj
They do not remember and can be deceived. What about the rest of the population?

Of course, in Poland the majority of people is watching TV, how often? Similar.

Stark

You're about 18 years too late for defeating the USSR.

valdie

too late for fight against USSR. Only.

callig

Sarkozy takes a swipe at Klaus

"Decision time is coming for him and it will not be without consequence," Mr Sarkozy said in an interview that appears in today's Le Figaro newspaper.

But other leaders have so far avoided publicly attacking Mr Klaus, fearing such criticism could prove counter-productive.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/47e2e6f0-b9eb-11de-a747-00144feab49a.html

ei.sdraob

valdie wrote: »

I don't. I just want to stop soviets.

the irony of this is delicious

Funglegunk

callig wrote: »

But other leaders have so far avoided publicly attacking Mr Klaus, fearing such criticism could prove counter-productive.

Probably correct. It was counter-productive when the same thing was being said about the Irish electorate last year, not a good idea for European leaders to be seen interfering with domestic politics (particularly when the word 'consequences' is used in such on ominous tone).

Does Klaus actually have anything to lose (personally) by doing this I wonder?

Noreen1

Funglegunk wrote: »

Probably correct. It was counter-productive when the same thing was being said about the Irish electorate last year, not a good idea for European leaders to be seen interfering with domestic politics (particularly when the word 'consequences' is used in such on ominous tone).

Does Klaus actually have anything to lose (personally) by doing this I wonder?

I believe he can be impeached.

I have to say that I personally find Mr Sarkozys' attitude to be less than Democratic.

First, he disregards the French electorates decision in the European constitution referendum.

Next, his attitude to Lisbon 1 in Ireland was less than diplomatic, to say the least. (Despite assurances pre-Lisbon 1, that should any country refuse to ratify the treaty, then it would not be ratified.
It may be justifiably argued that the Lisbon treaty was not ratified having been rejected by the Irish electorate, however, to respond to the Democratic decision of a nation, with veiled threats, is very questionable "Democracy")

Now he decides to threaten the Czech President Vaclav Klaus! :eek:

Democratic or Dictatorial?

Noreen

Funglegunk

Noreen1 wrote: »

I have to say that I personally find Mr Sarkozys' attitude to be less than Democratic.

First, he disregards the French electorates decision in the European constitution referendum.

Next, his attitude to Lisbon 1 in Ireland was less than diplomatic, to say the least. (Despite assurances pre-Lisbon 1, that should any country refuse to ratify the treaty, then it would not be ratified.
It may be justifiably argued that the Lisbon treaty was not ratified having been rejected by the Irish electorate, however, to respond to the Democratic decision of a nation, with veiled threats, is very questionable "Democracy")

Now he decides to threaten the Czech President Vaclav Klaus! :eek:

Democratic or Dictatorial?

Noreen

I don't think its undemocratic that he is putting pressure on Klaus, after all what Klaus is doing himself is dreadfully undemocratic. I would, however, consider his response to Ireland's first vote to be as such (though I can't actually remember Sarkozy himself saying anything like that, I thought it was one of his ministers).

Stark

Noreen1 wrote: »

First, he disregards the French electorates decision in the European constitution referendum.

Oh you mean the European Constitution came into effect? Well no-one told me.

Martin 2

Noreen1 wrote: »

I believe he can be impeached.....

Given his erratic behaviour (see link) would sectioning be a more appropriate measure;)