LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHe has the power to veto legislation, which can be overridden by the parliament. But would the ODS want to go against their spiritual leader?Originally Posted by Demotruk
He has the power to veto legislation, which can be overridden by the parliament. But would the ODS want to go against their spiritual leader?
False. Did you bother to look this up? The Czech president holds a number of executive powers, including veto power (except in matters of significant constitutional alterations), sole authority to appoint judges to the Czech Republic's Supreme Court and to appoint members of the board of the National Bank, and several shared foreign-policy powers with the prime minister. It's a very active position.He has every right to block it, and the power to do so; and why do you make mention of a "democracy" that does not exist?What do you mean by "case has been made"...the media has presented a one-sided argument?You sure of your facts here? You make it sound like Klaus has absolute power in this matter. What makes you say that "Lisbon is popular with the 'voter'" (singular?)—you've done a survey of Czech people? Don't forget that the supreme court has to decide on how this "treaty" is in line (or not) with the Czech Constitution.
The only reason why Lisbon was rammed through by the state governments was because it would have been killed via referenda, as the prior EU Constitution treaty was. This is the kind of "democracy" you want?
(BTW, the Taoiseach is appointed, but holds all the governmental power. So criticism of the Czech President begs the question of the "people in glass houses" cliché, to a degree.)
The real irony is some politicians saying it's popular with the Czech people and then not granting them a referendum to confirm that this is indeed the case.
My my Ibis. You are not by any chance criticising how other states select their Head of State when at the same time you previously argued it was none of our business what ratification measures other States took where they did not have a referendum of Lisbon?
That would make you a hypocrite Ibis!
It would, if that were the case, but you saying it would hardly stick. It's no judgement on the Czechs, but on our local No supporters - Klaus is elected by the Parliament he's opposing, and he's being cheered on by the usual suspects in the name of "democracy"...which is mildly hilarious. If you want to count yourself in on that ball game, feel free - you're wearing the team colours, after all.My my Ibis. You are not by any chance criticising how other states select their Head of State when at the same time you previously argued it was none of our business what ratification measures other States took where they did not have a referendum of Lisbon?
That would make you a hypocrite Ibis!
Last edited by ibis; 16th November 2008 at 01:24 AM.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Well Klaus thinks Ganley a dissident and Ganley thinks Klaus was a dissident. Wrong on both counts.
FT BLOGGanley “He has an amazing background of standing up to the Soviets and is a national hero in the Czech Republic.”
Ah-hem, not quite, Declan. Klaus was a young economist during the Prague Spring, which was crushed by Soviet tanks in August 1968. He worked at the Czechoslovak State Bank from 1971 to 1986, during the long dreary years of repression under Gustáv Husák, the Communist party leader installed after the Soviet-led invasion.
LinkAnalyst Vladimira Dvorakova, from Prague's University of Economics (VSE), pointed out that the position of the president is problematic in the country.
The Czech president has no responsibility under the constitution, she said.
Dvorakova noted that Klaus himself criticised this situation when Vaclav Havel was president.
She said Klaus's activities abroad were unfortunate. "The president should not have his own foreign activities that are not in line with the government's programme," Dvorakova said.
We must wait until December to see whether the pro EU
Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek retains his leadership of the Civic Democrats (ODS) in an election where he faces a Klausite Pavel Bem
Klaus is ODS founder and honorary chairman.
Bem is one of the most popular politicians in the country and as such it is reasonable to assume the Czech people prefer a Klausite perspective on the Treaty.
This article contains the classic line: "The government could see the approaching debacle, but appeared unable to avert it - short of making a diplomatic nightmare worse".
lol. Our gubbrament sucks teh big one.
Does Niamh Connolly do political analysis or opinion editorials? If she's trying to pass that article off as the former, then she's burying her credibility in one of Bord na Mona's bogs.
As usual, Murdoch's Eurosceptic papers are spoofing.
1. Czech presidents do not 'assent' to legislation. The British queen does. (It is called the Royal Assent.) The President of the Republic 'signs' what are called 'adopted laws'. (Article 51)
2. He cannot refuse to sign an adopted law that is related to the constitution. That is explicitly banned in the Czech Republic.
3. The President can return an 'adopted law' that is not concerned with the constitution, to the Chamber of Deputies which must then revote again, within 15 days. If an absolute majority vote in favour of it the president's veto is automatically overriden and the adopted law is promulgated instantly with the President powerless to stop it.
4. International treaties if not given constitutional status require the approval of both houses. If the Senate says no, the Chamber can overrule it by an absolute majority vote.
So no, Klaus can not stop a law on a constitutional matter being passed. He can only stop a normal bill for 15 days before the Chamber revotes, and the Senate has no role in the event of a revote. Oh and there is considerably more than an absolute majority in the Chamber behind the treaty, so even if Klaus had the legal authority to block that sort of bill (which is doubtful) it would be blocked for a total of 15 days at most. And even if the enactment is not a constitutional law, and is voted on purely as a treaty (which is not normally the case as EU treaties require constitutional amendments), the treaty cannot be blocked longterm by the Senate (if it tried the bill is automatically deemed to have passed anyway), and if the Senate rejects it an absolute majority in the Chamber can over-rule the rejection.
Sorry to rain on the Eurosceptic parade.
A clue, FT and Kerrynorth - surely by now you will have realised that on Lisbon Murdoch's papers speak through their collective arses? 99% of their claims prove to be bunkum and on the rare occasion when they get a fact right they so overhype it that it turns out to be far less important than they claimed. Murdoch's papers on Europe usually turn out to as useful a source of information as reading 'Alive' for accurate reports about gay people or An Poblacht for a neutral and objective analysis of Northern politics! Cop yourselves on, guys.
Myles per Hour has left politics.ie.
