Czech government loses confidence vote

jhegarty

This is a big set back for lisbon ratification.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/czechrepublic.html

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

This is a big set back for lisbon ratification.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/czechrepublic.html

Perhaps, although the Czech lower house has already ratified Lisbon, and it's due to go to the upper house in April - while the government has resigned, I don't think that changes the number of supporters in the Senate. I don't think it changes Klaus' position either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jhegarty

As I understand it Klaus now get to put in his own temporary government. Which can reverse what is already done.

leitrim lad

that could be another scandal that could bring ireland to its knees ,wasnt he over here on a business holiday a few weeks ago ,o god help us what next another even greater famine

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

As I understand it Klaus now get to put in his own temporary government. Which can reverse what is already done.

I'd be very surprised if that were the case - indeed, amazed. First, it would be bizarre for a President elected by the Parliament to be able to appoint a government of his own choosing after a vote of no confidence. What would be normal would be for the government to continue in office until a new government is formed.

Second, he certainly can't remove any elected member from the lower house, nor appoint someone to it, so the deputies voting on the "deratification" would be exactly the same people that voted for the ratification. So, even if Klaus can appoint a caretaker government (which I doubt, any more than McAleese could appoint one by virtue of her assent), it makes no difference to the complexion of the chamber.

Were you under the impression that the government of the Czech Republic ratified Lisbon? They didn't - it was the lower house of the parliament, which is a different thing, however synonymous the two appear in Ireland.

What would cause trouble for Lisbon is if either the vote in the upper house (their Senate) is derailed, or if a new government cannot be formed, and a general election changes the entire picture. Otherwise, Lisbon goes forward for a ratification vote to the Senate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jhegarty

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if that were the case - indeed, amazed. First, it would be bizarre for a President elected by the Parliament to be able to appoint a government of his own choosing after a vote of no confidence. What would be normal would be for the government to continue in office until a new government is formed.

From: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/czechrepublic1.html

""Mr Topolanek has said he will resign according to the constitution.

Under the constitution, Czech President Vaclav Klaus can form what is known as an expert government.

That differs from a technocratic government, in that some political figures will be appointed. They could include members of the opposition Social Democrats, and many will almost certainly be sympathetic to Vaclav Klaus."

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

From: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/czechrepublic1.html

""Mr Topolanek has said he will resign according to the constitution.

Under the constitution, Czech President Vaclav Klaus can form what is known as an expert government.

That differs from a technocratic government, in that some political figures will be appointed. They could include members of the opposition Social Democrats, and many will almost certainly be sympathetic to Vaclav Klaus."

Fair enough, and I stand corrected on that - but that doesn't change the makeup of the lower chamber, and it's the chamber that votes, not the government. Appointed experts who are not elected members would not thereby acquire a vote in the parliament (well, I say that cautiously, since clearly my knowledge of Czech constitutional procedures is rather imperfect!), and appointing members of the Social Democrats to government makes no difference either, since, again, that doesn't change the complexion of the chamber.

Possibly Klaus' hand-picked government might push a deratification bill, or derail the Senate vote. Again, though, they can't simply deratify by virtue of being the government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

jhegarty wrote: »

From: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/czechrepublic1.html

""Mr Topolanek has said he will resign according to the constitution.

Under the constitution, Czech President Vaclav Klaus can form what is known as an expert government.

That differs from a technocratic government, in that some political figures will be appointed. They could include members of the opposition Social Democrats, and many will almost certainly be sympathetic to Vaclav Klaus."

Very democratic!

Reminds me of the Rainbow in the 90's.

Dannyboy83

Let me think about this.

Iceland
Latvia
Czech Republic
have collapsed.

Ukraine about to collapse.
Lithuania & Estonia borderline.

Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain in trouble.
UK in mahoooosive trouble.

And I hear Belgium is on the verge is divorce aswell.

Odd times we are in.
I'm pro-Lisbon, but should we really be trying to bind ourselves together?
Perhaps we need to sort some stuff out first?

Hitman Actual

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Odd times we are in.
I'm pro-Lisbon, but should we really be trying to bind ourselves together?
Perhaps we need to sort some stuff out first?

The ratification of every main European Treaty (Rome, SEA, Maastricht) has been followed by a period of solid economic growth due to increased business confidence and stability. Of course, Lisbon isn't really a treaty with any real fundamental changes (it's more a tidying up job) so perhaps it won't have the same effect. But any stability it brings should hopefully help.

thebman

I think Lisbon getting ratified would send a very positive message out from the EU and would help stabilize things a bit more because of it.

It would show in times of crisis, the EU stands closer rather than dividing like so many US journalists seem to like to speculate. That is an important message to send IMO.

Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Let me think about this.

Iceland
Latvia
Czech Republic
have collapsed.

Ukraine about to collapse.
Lithuania & Estonia borderline.

Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain in trouble.
UK in mahoooosive trouble.

And I hear Belgium is on the verge is divorce aswell.

Odd times we are in.
I'm pro-Lisbon, but should we really be trying to bind ourselves together?
Perhaps we need to sort some stuff out first?

I have to agree with thebman and HitmanActual there - voting to continue standing together says that you'll go on standing together. Voting not to sends the opposite message - that the Union itself is in trouble.

Aside from anything else, the EU remains, at base, a collective of the states. If there are measures that seem necessary, then a collective action can be taken, and that remains almost certainly better than each state trying to solve its problems at the expense of the others - particularly from an Irish perspective, since we'd probably come off losers in that game.

Much is made by eurosceptics of how little Ireland gets considered in the EU. Now, while that is false anyway, even stepping for a moment into eurosceptic-world, how much do they think Ireland's interests would be considered without something like the EU?

It might well benefit Germany or France to solve their problems without considering the interests of the smaller countries, but it should be pretty clear that we don't want them to do so - we want, at this moment, to strengthen the union, not weaken it.

Also, to be fair, Iceland's problems are (so far) in rather a different league to everyone else's!

cordially,
Scofflaw