Czech go-slow
The presidents and prime ministers of the European Union dined on Slovenian-inspired delicacies such as trout with pumpkin foam, lamb "Idrija" style and Kefir pudding with Teran liqueur and red berries.
I am itching to find out what the Irish prime minister told them, but as yet nobody is talking. Indeed I am not sure they've quite got round to the coffee.
It has been decided that the Irish have four months to report back: but it isn't clear if that is a deadline or merely a staging point. The Czechs are coming out strongly that it should only be the latter. The deputy prime minister, Alexandr Vondra, told the BBC that he was glad the Lisbon Treaty was in a "parking lot" (being scrutinised by the constitutional court) in his country and that his message was "please don't press us".
The Czechs don't want any encouragement in the final text to continue with the process. Oh and I hope their dinner was less "imaginative" than the anchovy and salami rolls in the press room.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Caw! You only got anchovy and salami rolls . . . . how the better half live!
It is good to see that the Czechs retain their independent spirit given that they were half of the most democratic country before WWII and were so badly betrayed by France and Britain at Munich.
Having gone through through a heck of a lot to get back to freedom and democracy, I sincerely hope they recall that treachery if France tries to bully them into ratifying the Lisbon Treaty against their democratic processes and wishes!
Complain about this comment
As an aside Mark. Do you understand why the Czechs are having the Lisbon Treaty scrutinised by their Constitutional Court?
Does that indicate that the Czechs think that the Lisbon Treaty is still a constitution-creating treaty? It would seems so, at first glance, reading your report!
If so, what would the view be of the British Prime Minister to that difference in opinion - Gordon Brown having repeatedly told the British people (and Parliament!) that a British referendum, although promised in the Labour Party manifesto, is/was unnecessary as the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitutional treaty?
Complain about this comment
Can the euro-haters please explain what is so wrong with, say, the Irish being given opt-outs and asked to vote again in a referendum? Sounds like democracy to me - or will you now be shouting 'No referendum!'.
International relations should be handled by discussion and negotiation. The idiocy and clumsiness of a referendum for handling such issues is now obvious - which parts of the treaty did people not like - who knows? These issues should be handled by elected leaders who are able to discuss and compromise. The idea that this is somehow not 'democratic' is just ridiculous. If you dont approve, and you care that much, you have the option of throwing the government out next election.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Have a drink: too much salt in your dinner ;-)
Let me suggest an alternative headline for your today blog: SLOVAK GO-FAST.
Good night.
Complain about this comment
Alphacen1 (at no. 3) argues that constitutional treaties should be left to "elected leaders" and, if we don't like what they do, we can throw them out at the next election.
Indeed we can, but if the "elected leaders" have already signed away some of the sovereign power that they hold in trust for the people, their punishment will come too late - the damage will already have been done.
In genuine democracies, such as Ireland, the people are sovereign. We delegate certain powers to our elected representatives for a period of time, and they are entitled to use those powers within the constraints laid down by the constitution.
However, they are not entitled to transfer any of the delegated powers to another body (the EU Commission, for example), because the powers which our elected representatives exercise do not belong to them but to the sovereign people. As the powers belong to the people, only the people voting in a constitutional referendum can transfer power to the EU.
The same poster asks what is wrong with the Irish being given "opt-outs". I could imagine an Irish opt-out in relation to, say, the requirement to "progressively improve military capacity". But i find it difficult to imagine that Ireland would be given an opt-out in relation to, say, the extension of qualified majority voting. If we could retain our veto while all the other member states gave up theirs, I'm sure we would live with such a solution, but I find it very difficult to imagine that the other member states would be happy with it.
Complain about this comment
Now that the UK as ratified the Treaty, please respect your country and stop your eurosceptic reporting line!
In the end, the Czechs and Irish will ratify the Lisbon Treaty and you will have to live on this new world view of Europe.
Europe once again becomes (Roman) Empire!!!
Complain about this comment
Now that the UK has ratified the Treaty, please respect your country and stop your eurosceptic reporting line!
In the end, the Czechs and Irish will ratify the Lisbon Treaty and you will have to live on this new world view of Europe.
Europe once again becomes (Roman) Empire!!!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (2): As I understand it the Czech president feels that their Constitution requires that the people be consulted should the Czech Republic enter a confederation, and feels that this will be the effect of the Lisbon treaty.
I think the president is morally correct, and Article 10a of he Czech constitution seems to support him to some extent, while being far from clear. But it will up to the Czech constitutional court to decide.
http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/98/5a/b525fba0a0ffcf188d5453679804.htm
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @1:
Well said!
cryptomate @6 wrote:
"Now that the UK as ratified the Treaty, please respect your country and stop your eurosceptic reporting line!"
a) I respect my country - but not my government. My country, alas, did not have a say in the matter. I'm hoping that this will chance when the government does.
"In the end, the Czechs and Irish will ratify the Lisbon Treaty and you will have to live on this new world view of Europe."
I don't think so. Luckily, as if this Treaty were to be imposed despite popular rejection, then we could all end up living, as the Chinese curse says, in 'interesting times'.
"Europe once again becomes (Roman) Empire!!!"
Yeah right.... Barroso as Caesar? Merkel as Livia? sure... In that case "I'm Spartacus!".
Complain about this comment
To Mark,
I just watched David Dimbleby on the BBC question time and I have to say that I've rarely seen such abject bias in the controlling of both the questions and who could answer them and to what extent. Virtually every time David Davis tried to talk it was a procession of ridicule and jibes about why he called his by-election. Watching this it reminded me of the ridicule and jibes being launched at the Irish for having the courage to say not only 'we don't know what this proposal is about' but also 'why are we the only people to vote regarding this Lisbon treaty".
As for Jerry Springer, well it made me wonder whether some of the id's seen here may be him in disguise as he made Bush look bright on quite a few occasions.
Complain about this comment
3 Well, there may be a difficulty with giving the Irish various opt-outs if this changes the nature of the Treaty which has previously been ratified: can't have 26 (or 25) signing up to one thing and 1 signing up to another. that is not unanimity. But this is a practical point.
In THEORY, of course, there is nothing 'wrong' with going back to the people repeatedly until the treaty best approximates what the people want. ( so long as everyone else agrees - unlikely). It should, however, be made clear at the outset that these are the assumptions and rules under which the vote is held. But this is in theory: with infinite time and infinite money. In practice, it is ridiculous: a costly and time-consuming death of a thousand cuts exercise that will damage the credibility of the government in the eyes of the people and probably end up in an unresolveable impasse. Particularly if it turns out that the Irish (or whoever) are saying No to any further treaty of any kind. There has to be some point when one admits it is unworkable and...heaven forbid, think again. Moreover, the nature of a referendum of this kind is that the are not regarded by the people as simply a renegotiation tool and to treat it as anything less than the final arbitration of issues too important to be left to be handled by proxy therefore smacks of disdain and contempt for their will.
Whilst I don't object outright to understanding what the sticking points are, what bothers me is that completely throwing out the Treaty and starting again seems so unpalatable as to 'not being an option' by the powers that be.
It also seems that there are other things that are NOT open to renegotiation no matter what misgivings the people may have: one of these is continued European integration into an ever closer union. If this were a point of principle which reflected the will of all the peoples of the nations of Europe, I might understand it, but it doesn't. It more accurately reflects the will of the politicians. Moreover, I find the 'Emperor's new clothes' approach to treaty redrafting and renegotiation sinister and insulting. Simply rewriting the constitution into an unintelligible form and spinning a yarn about it being different or hoping people won't notice it is the same is nothing short of deceit. It undermines trust in our institutions and our politicians. Being apparently unwilling to adhere to the rule of law is also rather chilling.
Whilst national governments and the Eurocrats who negotiate this treaty continue to hold us in such contempt, I shall continue to do my uttermost to prevent the further expansion of their power over me. I'm afraid they have demonstrated a disregard for the wishes and concerns of the people of Europe in their previous treaty renegotiations and they are reaping the effect today. I am not anti-Europe; not even anti a European Union. But until the European Union reflects the type of Union I and the majority of my countrymen choose, in a genuine election on that issue alone, I shall continue to exercise my right to say no.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
It is sometimes a good thing...To slow-down something...
Complain about this comment
Cryptomate's comment (6) is typical of EU-phile thinking. "You can do whatever you want, vote for or against anybody or anything, but we are going to go ahead regardless".
No wonder that increasingly people turn against political integration. They (we) rightly feel that we have no influence over it. The law making powers (legislative) have been moved away from the national parliaments (directly elected) and placed in the hands of an unelected body (EU commission/politburo) and the EU council.
Through the EU council, government ministers who have executive powers 'at home' now also enjoy co-legislative powers (together with the commission) in what is to be regarded as a blatant breach of the separation of powers. Any government minister who cannot get his law passed by national parliament now goes to Brussels, agrees with the 'colleagues' and thus can confront the national parliament(s) with a fait-accompli. No wonder national governments love the EU so much, they can bypass all that nasty opposition in their respective national parliaments altogether.
But now the peoples have caught on to this. They (we) realize that we are being lied to and defrauded by a political elite who keeps up the pretence of parliamentary democracy but in reality has created a sort of technocratic/political elite dictatorship.
Dictatorship is ruling by diktat and having the authority to make sure your diktats are going to be implemented, regardless of parliamentary support for it. Dictatorship does not necessarily require a secret police or physical intimidation. The Roman Republic had such an instrument available in times of crisis, where they could appoint a dictator for a fixed period of time who could then solve the crisis by any means necessary. And the EU fits this description of dictatorship perfectly, except that here the period of time is specified as 'everlasting'.
There is no direcly elected parliament with corresponding parliamentary powers. National parliaments, as I've explained, have effectively been sidelined, and the European parliament hardly is deserving of the name, as the key decisions are taken outside of it.
We can no longer directly influence those who make our laws. Why should they listen? We can't vote them out.
Complain about this comment
Going slow, is sometimes the best course than going fast and making many mistakes....
~Dennis
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS