Klaus wants opt-out on Lisbon Treaty

Noreen1

Funglegunk wrote: »

I don't think its undemocratic that he is putting pressure on Klaus, after all what Klaus is doing himself is dreadfully undemocratic..

That's a fair point. On the other hand, if he believes that the majority of the electorate don't want to see the Lisbon treaty ratified, then he may well see himself as a champion of Democracy. I honestly don't know what the truth is, except for this:
Without an actual referendum in each country, it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty what is truly Democratic. There will always be vested interested or groups giving their interpretation of the facts.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth. (probably nothing!:D)

Noreen

Noreen1

Stark wrote: »

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

I'll rephrase.

When the French electorate rejected the European Constitution, it would be reasonable to assume that they would have concerns with the Lisbon Treaty, given the similarities between them.
I understand that under French Law, a referendum is not necessary to implement a Treaty. However, in the interest of the Spirit of Democracy, where such concerns exist - it would be reasonable to expect a Government to try to ascertain the wishes of the electorate, whether by referendum or some other mechanism.
eg. Though a referendum was not necessary, in legal terms, was there, for instance, any statute preventing one being held?

Noreen

seamus

Noreen1 wrote: »

eg. Though a referendum was not necessary, in legal terms, was there, for instance, any statute preventing one being held?

If a referendum is not necessary, then holding a referendum is nothing more than holding a nationwide poll, at the expense of the taxpayer and without any particular outcome.

Any politician who held such a referendum would be an idiot.

Scofflaw

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a fair point. On the other hand, if he believes that the majority of the electorate don't want to see the Lisbon treaty ratified, then he may well see himself as a champion of Democracy. I honestly don't know what the truth is, except for this:
Without an actual referendum in each country, it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty what is truly Democratic. There will always be vested interested or groups giving their interpretation of the facts.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth. (probably nothing!:D)

Given that Klaus was sceptical about EU accession (which he described as a "marriage of convenience, and not of love"), which was supported at referendum by 77% of the vote, it's unlikely that he and the electorate are particularly in line. However, as you say, you can't really tell without a referendum.

It's hard not to see Klaus as wielding what is essentially a personal prerogative, though. I wonder if the Czechs were aware that they'd written quite so much power into their Constitution for their President?

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wonder if the Czechs were aware that they'd written quite so much power into their Constitution for their President?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed. Or quite so little in the way of accountability.

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ez00000_.html

Article 54 [Head of State]

(1) The President of the Republic is the Head of State.
(2) The President of the Republic is elected by Parliament at a joint session of both Chambers.
(3) The President of the Republic is not accountable for the discharge of his office.

Article 62 [Functions]
The President of the Republic:
a) appoints and dismisses the Premier and other members of the Government and accepts their resignation, dismisses the Government and accepts its resignation,

Article 63 [Powers]
(1)......
(2) The President of the Republic is also entitled to exercise powers which are not expressly specified in the constitutional law, if it is stipulated so by law.
(3) .....
(4) The Government is responsible for decisions of the President of the Republic which require the signature of the Premier or a member of the Government authorized by the Premier.

To me some of that seems very strange, especially Article 63 Section 2. Why would you have a President appointed by the Parliament, who can dismiss the Government, exercise powers not in the Constitution and not be accountable for his/her actions???

Funglegunk

Don't forget

Article 65 [Immunity]

(1) The President of the Republic cannot be detained, exposed to criminal prosecution, or prosecuted for a misdemeanor or other administrative offence.
(2) ...
(3) Criminal prosecution for criminal acts committed while discharging the office of the President of the Republic is rendered
impossible forever.

RedPlanet

Oh, there's an irony in this.
Here are a bunch of YES supporters whom were long-winded about how we cannot tell other countries how to conduct their affairs regarding ratifying the treaty; and yet here you all are, throwing barbs at the Czech president whom is not ratifying the treaty in the manner you so desire.
:rolleyes:

According to the Examiner, Klaus can without his signature until his last day in office, which btw is 4 years away.
Cue the Tories in the UK and maybe just maybe this treaty will be junked yet.

View

Noreen1 wrote: »

I understand that under French Law, a referendum is not necessary to implement a Treaty. However, in the interest of the Spirit of Democracy, where such concerns exist - it would be reasonable to expect a Government to try to ascertain the wishes of the electorate, whether by referendum or some other mechanism.

The "some other mechanism" used is called elections. Sarko campaigned on the basis that he would NOT hold another referendum. His opponent campaigned on the basis she would hold another one. The electorate chose Sarko.

But, let me guess, it doesn't matter what the French want, does it? Our No campaigners are going to insist they use referenda even if they don't want them...

View

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh, there's an irony in this.
Here are a bunch of YES supporters whom were long-winded about how we cannot tell other countries how to conduct their affairs regarding ratifying the treaty; and yet here you all are, throwing barbs at the Czech president whom is not ratifying the treaty in the manner you so desire.
:rolleyes:

Many of us Yes supporters are actually waiting to see what the Czech constitutional court has to say on the matter. In the absence, of a judgement by them, we're doing our best to wait and see.

Personally, I am interested to see what will happen if Lisbon fails due to Klaus' actions. If it does, Klaus will effectively force the EU member states to abandon the unanimity rule on EU Treaty changes. All of which will be very interesting to see happen...

Dinner

Noreen1 wrote: »

When the French electorate rejected the European Constitution, it would be reasonable to assume that they would have concerns with the Lisbon Treaty, given the similarities between them.

Not really. If Lisbon is 95% the same as the Constitution then it's reasonable to assume that the 5% is the parts that the French and Dutch objected to, ie State like symbols etc.

Thats the only logical answer since the 5% that was removed didn't subvert a trigger in either countries constitution to get around a referendum so there would be no point in removing anything but the parts that the public objected to.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh, there's an irony in this.
Here are a bunch of YES supporters whom were long-winded about how we cannot tell other countries how to conduct their affairs regarding ratifying the treaty; and yet here you all are, throwing barbs at the Czech president whom is not ratifying the treaty in the manner you so desire.

Is this a similar irony to that of an anti-Lisbon person claiming that the whole process is undemocratic because the government held another referendum yet championing the cause of Santa Klaus to ignore the decision of the democratically elected parliment?

molloyjh

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh, there's an irony in this.
Here are a bunch of YES supporters whom were long-winded about how we cannot tell other countries how to conduct their affairs regarding ratifying the treaty; and yet here you all are, throwing barbs at the Czech president whom is not ratifying the treaty in the manner you so desire.
:rolleyes:

According to the Examiner, Klaus can without his signature until his last day in office, which btw is 4 years away.
Cue the Tories in the UK and maybe just maybe this treaty will be junked yet.

I wouldn't dream of telling other countries how to conduct their affairs. All we're doing here is commenting on what is actually happening. I haven't seen anyone state that Klaus must sign the Treaty because we say so. He must because by Czech law he is required to. And noone here has said he must do it in a particular timeframe either. So the irony you're desperately looking for isn't there I'm afraid.

The set-up re the powers and accountability you must admit is interesting.

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh, there's an irony in this.
Here are a bunch of YES supporters whom were long-winded about how we cannot tell other countries how to conduct their affairs regarding ratifying the treaty; and yet here you all are, throwing barbs at the Czech president whom is not ratifying the treaty in the manner you so desire.
:rolleyes:

According to the Examiner, Klaus can without his signature until his last day in office, which btw is 4 years away.
Cue the Tories in the UK and maybe just maybe this treaty will be junked yet.

If that is so, then we've certainly changed sides in the dance, since the No sides claims that they're on the side of "democracy" and "sovereignty" ring rather hollow when they're prepared to support one Czech rendering the Irish vote void.

It also rather suggests that the EU is hardly the unstoppable and fearsome juggernaut of No side mythology, when one man can halt the march of a continent.

amused,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

If that is so, then we've certainly changed sides in the dance, since the No sides claims that they're on the side of "democracy" and "sovereignty" ring rather hollow when they're prepared to support one Czech rendering the Irish vote void.

It also rather suggests that the EU is hardly the unstoppable and fearsome juggernaut of No side mythology, when one man can halt the march of a continent.

amused,
Scofflaw

3 referendum victories
3 referendum defeats.

Or alternatively 1 referendum victory
1 referendum defeat.

Democracy woo!

evercloserunion

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a fair point. On the other hand, if he believes that the majority of the electorate don't want to see the Lisbon treaty ratified, then he may well see himself as a champion of Democracy. I honestly don't know what the truth is, except for this:
Without an actual referendum in each country, it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty what is truly Democratic. There will always be vested interested or groups giving their interpretation of the facts.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth. (probably nothing!:D)

Noreen

Untrue. In each (and every) country in the EU, people elect who they want to represent them both domestically and internationally. Do you think letting those people do what they were elected by the people to do is democratic or undemocratic?

molloyjh

evercloserunion wrote: »

Untrue. In each (and every) country in the EU, people elect who they want to represent them both domestically and internationally. Do you think letting those people do what they were elected by the people to do is democratic or undemocratic?

Of course by Noreens logic we should all be voting on all legislation passed by the Dail, otherwise how would we know those decisions were democratic!?

Noreen1

molloyjh wrote: »

Indeed. Or quite so little in the way of accountability.

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ez00000_.html







To me some of that seems very strange, especially Article 63 Section 2. Why would you have a President appointed by the Parliament, who can dismiss the Government, exercise powers not in the Constitution and not be accountable for his/her actions???

That's a very unusual arrangement, surely?
Not one I'd feel at all comfortable with, personally speaking - it sounds like there is far too much potential for abuse.
Far be it from me to tell anyone else how to run their country, though.

Noreen

Noreen1

molloyjh wrote: »

Of course by Noreens logic we should all be voting on all legislation passed by the Dail, otherwise how would we know those decisions were democratic!?

Actually, I never proposed that each and every piece of Legislation passed by the Dail should be voted on. That would lead to too much instability.

I do, however, believe that it is not unheard of for Governments to pass legislation, or take economic decisions (NAMA, for example) that a significant proportion of the Electorate are completely opposed to.

Therefore, I am suggesting that it would be to desirable to have a mechanism where, in extreme economic circumstances, or where previous referenda etc. made clear the wishes of the majority of the electorate, that a Government could be made more accountable to the people.

I am fully aware that this would be extremely difficult to Legislate for in a balanced fashion, (Economic and Political stability v. Democratic accountability) and if anyone can come up with other suggestions to make Government more accountable, I'd be more than interested in hearing them.

Noreen

Dinner

Noreen1 wrote: »

I do, however, believe that it is not unheard of for Governments to pass legislation, or take economic decisions (NAMA, for example) that a significant proportion of the Electorate are completely opposed to.

Why should I, a computing student, get a vote on something like NAMA?

I don't know enough about it to make an educated decision. And I'd wager that if people were asked to say what NAMA does they'd say "It's something to do with giving the banks money". We are not qualified to make that decision. The only people that should be consulted by the government on this issue are economists and other people who know what they are talking about.

Asking the public on issues like divorce, abortion etc. is a great idea. But after that it should be up to the government and experts in a particular field to determine the best course of action, not Joe Blogs sitting down the pub.



And we're off topic again, sorry Scoff!

finbar10

Noreen1 wrote: »

Actually, I never proposed that each and every piece of Legislation passed by the Dail should be voted on. That would lead to too much instability.

I do, however, believe that it is not unheard of for Governments to pass legislation, or take economic decisions (NAMA, for example) that a significant proportion of the Electorate are completely opposed to.

Therefore, I am suggesting that it would be to desirable to have a mechanism where, in extreme economic circumstances, or where previous referenda etc. made clear the wishes of the majority of the electorate, that a Government could be made more accountable to the people.

I am fully aware that this would be extremely difficult to Legislate for in a balanced fashion, (Economic and Political stability v. Democratic accountability) and if anyone can come up with other suggestions to make Government more accountable, I'd be more than interested in hearing them.

Noreen

I'd be nervous of too much direct democracy. Ancient Athens has been about the only example and, while that worked in its own way, it was a hell of a roller coaster ride. I'm a fan of the Swiss democratic system which has a reasonable mix of both representative and direct democracy. They have a citizens' initiative process but this has quite a few checks and balances. A certain large number of signatures is required (100,000 I think), a referendum on an initiative isn't held for two to three years after it is proposed, and the government can also put forward an alternative proposal side by side with the original. The vast majority of proposals are defeated. Such a process would definitely have to be carefully constructed to avoid too much instability. A lot too depends on the maturity of the electorate. To resort to stereotypes the Swiss are a fairly conservative and serious minded bunch. I'm not entirely sure the same could be said for us Paddys! Would make me wonder how such a system would work here. Perhaps the most negative observation that could be made about this setup in Switzerland is that women didn't fully get the vote until 1971. Men just kept denying them this in referenda (the rotters! ) California is another place which for a long time has had a strong initiative process since the start of the 20th century and it certainly hasn't been a disaster over that period. But the process probably has too much power there. There isn't really any time limit restriction. Practically anything there can be subject to initiatives, including state budgets (or failure to pass them) as has been seen recently. There's probably too much interference in the day to day running of the state there.

The Irish constitution actually has a provision for a type of consultative referendum for bills of national importance. This has never been used probably because the requirements to trigger this process are quite hard to reach. If a third of Dáil TDs and a majority of Seanad members petition the president on a bill of national important the president at her discretion can decide to put the matter to a binding referendum. It's likely the NAMA bill would meet this requirement (i.e. being a bill of national importance). But given that the Seanad is usually dominated by members affilated with the government of the day a majority is usually is a tough requirement to meet. Perhaps if only a 1/3 of the Seanad was also required this provision would have been used far more often.

There was actually a provision for a citizens' initiative process in the Free State Constitution. But after a campaign to abolish the oath of allegiance was organized by republicans this mechanism was hastily removed while still provisional and not yet permanent.

On balance I think I'd like to see such a provision in the Irish constitution to allow constitutional amendments but with several checks and balances: keeping the number of signatures required high (100,000 perhaps), a 2-3 year delay on actually holding a referendum (to ensure the process is not too subject to current whims of voters and they don't interfere too much in day to day matters), and maybe require at least 1/3 of registered voters to turn out for a valid vote. And maybe give the Oireachtas some power to block an initiative. Perhaps a 2/3 majority in the Dáil could block a passed proposal unless there was also a more than 2/3 majority in the referendum itself.

Scofflaw

I'd be nervous of too much direct democracy. Ancient Athens has been about the only example and, while that worked in its own way, it was a hell of a roller coaster ride. I'm a fan of the Swiss democratic system which has a reasonable mix of both representative and direct democracy. They have a citizens' initiative process but this has quite a few checks and balances. A certain large number of signatures is required (100,000 I think), a referendum on an initiative isn't held for two to three years after it is proposed, and the government can also put forward an alternative proposal side by side with the original. The vast majority of proposals are defeated. Such a process would definitely have to be carefully constructed to avoid too much instability. A lot too depends on the maturity of the electorate. To resort to stereotypes the Swiss are a fairly conservative and serious minded bunch. I'm not entirely sure the same could be said for us Paddys! Would make me wonder how such a system would work here. Perhaps the most negative observation that could be made about this setup in Switzerland is that women didn't fully get the vote until 1971. Men just kept denying them this in referenda (the rotters! ) California is another place which for a long time has had a strong initiative process since the start of the 20th century and it certainly hasn't been a disaster over that period. But the process probably has too much power there. There isn't really any time limit restriction. Practically anything there can be subject to initiatives, including state budgets (or failure to pass them) as has been seen recently. There's probably too much interference in the day to day running of the state there.

The Californian system has thrown up various problems - mostly, that people will vote for proposals that simply aren't affordable, and that the referendum system can be used by larger power blocs. Imagine if the unions here had the power to put forward proposals that blocked reform.

The Swiss system, on the other hand, seems to really work. However, their attitudes are somewhat different from ours - I recall a survey on the proposed location of a waste incinerator, where local people fully accepted the proposal on the basis that "it has to go somewhere, and if it weren't in our neighbourhood, it would be in someone else's". Compare that with the Irish attitude to similar projects...

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

The potential for a snowball effect was one of the reasons that a number of member states were reluctant to agree to our guarantees originally.

Slovakia may try to negotiate an opt-out clause in the European Union's Lisbon treaty to protect itself from potential post-war property claims if the Czechs manage to do so first, its prime minister said yesterday.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the only EU leader who has not ratified the treaty, threw up a last minute hurdle last week when he said he would not sign it until the bloc added such a footnote to the Czech version.

He said his demand's main aim was to prevent families of some three million Sudeten Germans expelled after World War Two from circumventing Czech courts and seeking EU high court rulings on claims concerning land seized under the so-called Benes Decrees.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico yesterday said his government may ask for a similar clause if their former federation partners Czechs succeed. Czechoslovakia split peacefully into the Czech and Slovak republics in 1993.

"We will not leave Slovakia in uncertainty if we feel that one of the seceding countries of former Czechoslovakia has negotiated an exception," Fico told television channel CT24.

"For us the Benes Decrees are such an important part of the rule of law, that we cannot allow for Slovakia to be left in any kind of legal uncertainty."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/slovakia-to-follow-prague-in-opt-out-on-lisbon-1.926920

Noreen1

finbar10 wrote: »

On balance I think I'd like to see such a provision in the Irish constitution to allow constitutional amendments but with several checks and balances: keeping the number of signatures required high (100,000 perhaps), a 2-3 year delay on actually holding a referendum (to ensure the process is not too subject to current whims of voters and they don't interfere too much in day to day matters), and maybe require at least 1/3 of registered voters to turn out for a valid vote. And maybe give the Oireachtas some power to block an initiative. Perhaps a 2/3 majority in the Dáil could block a passed proposal unless there was also a more than 2/3 majority in the referendum itself.

That sounds reasonable, though I'm not too sure that the 2-3 year delay would work - it would simply allow the offending legislation to be passed before the referendum, or possibly delay the passing of passing of necessary legislation, and create a whole new set of problems. There is also the issue of possible prolonged propaganda campaigns to consider...

On the other hand, too short a time frame would permit far too much interference in the day to day running of the state.

Personally, I'd suggest a 12 month delay before holding a referendum might be adequate? It should allow any temporary fits of public pique to pass, hopefully.

Noreen

Noreen1

Dinner wrote: »

Why should I, a computing student, get a vote on something like NAMA?

I don't know enough about it to make an educated decision. And I'd wager that if people were asked to say what NAMA does they'd say "It's something to do with giving the banks money". We are not qualified to make that decision. The only people that should be consulted by the government on this issue are economists and other people who know what they are talking about.

!

That's a reasonable suggestion.
The only problem, as I see it, is that we've had quite a few "experts" giving advice on matters such as electronic voting, and the port tunnel, to name but two - and they weren't exactly a raging success

There is also the issue of "Cronyism" to be guarded against in any potential legislation.

So, how can the people be assured that they are getting genuinely expert, impartial and fair advice?

I do agree that qualified experts are the best people to make financial decisions - but given the kind of absolute rubbish we've been subjected to as "Economic projections" from leading experts lately, how do we safeguard the public interest?

It is three years since I advised my brother not to buy his retiremet home here. I'm no economist, but I predicted a property crash a full three years ago, based on basic common sense.

Some economists have spoken out against The Economic policy being pursued by the Government over the last year or two - and they have been proved to have been correct.

So, how do we ensure that the voice of reason is listened to?
How do we get the best possible advice?

Noreen

Sam Vimes

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a reasonable suggestion.
The only problem, as I see it, is that we've had quite a few "experts" giving advice on matters such as electronic voting, and the port tunnel, to name but two - and they weren't exactly a raging success

There is also the issue of "Cronyism" to be guarded against in any potential legislation.

So, how can the people be assured that they are getting genuinely expert, impartial and fair advice?

I do agree that qualified experts are the best people to make financial decisions - but given the kind of absolute rubbish we've been subjected to as "Economic projections" from leading experts lately, how do we safeguard the public interest?

It is three years since I advised my brother not to buy his retiremet home here. I'm no economist, but I predicted a property crash a full three years ago, based on basic common sense.

Some economists have spoken out against The Economic policy being pursued by the Government over the last year or two - and they have been proved to have been correct.

So, how do we ensure that the voice of reason is listened to?
How do we get the best possible advice?

Noreen

There's no way we can be assured that the advice the experts are giving us is 100% right, especially with economists who are essentially predicting the future. As with everything else in life we try to make the most sensible decision based on the information available and hope for the best.

I think it's ironic though that you're calling into question the practice of allowing experts to decide these things because they sometimes get it wrong while at the same time saying that you'd prefer these things were put to referendum so that the decision is made by people who know absolutely nothing about the issue at hand. Whatever fears we might have about the judgement of any experts, their judgement is far more likely to be sound than random people off the street.

I wonder if you were sick would you go to a doctor or just take a vote in your community as to what they think might be wrong with you

P. Breathnach

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a reasonable suggestion.
The only problem, as I see it, is that we've had quite a few "experts" giving advice on matters such as electronic voting, and the port tunnel, to name but two - and they weren't exactly a raging success ...

We don't know if the reasons why they (and some other large projects) weren't a raging success was due to the advice of the experts. The actual decisions on such big matters are made by politicians, and they do not always follow expert advice.

Dinner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We don't know if the reasons why they (and some other large projects) weren't a raging success was due to the advice of the experts. The actual decisions on such big matters are made by politicians, and they do not always follow expert advice.

Especially true in the case of e-voting, where the Irish security community was not consulted when the decision to buy the machines was made.

Scofflaw

Dinner wrote: »

Especially true in the case of e-voting, where the Irish security community was not consulted when the decision to buy the machines was made.

Having been a scientific 'expert' when much younger, albeit briefly and at a low level, I would say that the politicians treat expert advice as, at best, a rough guideline to what they can get away with.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funglegunk

The fairly respectable foreignpolicy.com posted this article a few days ago:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/16/klaus_is_right

Indeed, the cause of an "ever closer union" excites almost religious passions among EU enthusiasts. To be against the EU project is portrayed as not simply wrong, but evil. Opponents of integration are often dismissed as nationalists or xenophobes. In fact, it is the lack of open discussion about the European Union that pushes some people whose voices are consistently ignored to the extremes of the political spectrum. It is no coincidence that the increasing power of the European Union has been accompanied by increasing polarization in the European Parliament -- the only EU body that reflects the preferences of European electorates.

Completely misrepresents the Lisbon Treaty and paints Klaus as the only sane man in a house of lunatics. Anybody else notice the hostility towards European integration from the American media (at least the media that actually pay attention to it)? Or does this deserve another thread?

EDIT: The guy who wrote this works for the Cato Institute...who I think are a right-wing think tank?

prinz

Funglegunk wrote: »

Anybody else notice the hostility towards European integration from the American media (at least the media that actually pay attention to it)? Or does this deserve another thread?

It's been that way for a long time. Wall Street Journal has been giving space for Ganley to spread his usual nonsense, the Foreign Policy Research Institute to which Ganley first proposed his Libertas party years ago, the conservative right-wing US are completely against any sort of stable integration process in the EU which may be detrimental to the US hegemony over here. Is it any coincidence that the one place that outside interference could be easily disguised ( Ireland due to our referendum requirement ) sees Ganley popping up with his party just in time to throw a spanner in the works of the Treaty....

evercloserunion

Funglegunk wrote: »

The fairly respectable foreignpolicy.com posted this article a few days ago:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/16/klaus_is_right



Completely misrepresents the Lisbon Treaty and paints Klaus as the only sane man in a house of lunatics. Anybody else notice the hostility towards European integration from the American media (at least the media that actually pay attention to it)? Or does this deserve another thread?

EDIT: The guy who wrote this works for the Cato Institute...who I think are a right-wing think tank?

Most of the American and right-wing media are severely Euroskeptic. It's not all that surprising I suppose, since a weakened EU is in the US's interests.

Check this out... great laugh