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.

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