Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Europe reneges on Czech optouts - Ireland's turn next?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Europe reneges on Czech optouts - Ireland's turn next?

    Eurobserver is reporting that Hungary and Austria are opposing the concessions made to the Czech republic in return for the President signing the Lisbon Treaty last year. These concessions included an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That raises serious questions about whether Brussels will abide by the 'guarantees' to Ireland during the Lisbon II campaign last year, as these guarantees are not in any EU Treaty - despite promises to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Euobserver.com
    Lidove Noviny says that a rights charter opt out obtained by Czech President Klaus as a condition for signing the Lisbon Treaty is being opposed by Austria and Hungary. Klaus got the opt-out after citing concerns that the treaty may allow Sudeten Germans to recover property confiscated after WWII.
    Are we next? Were the promises that the guarantees would be enshrined in the Treaties a ruse to get Lisbon past us? The renewal of pressure from German MEPs to end the 12.5% corpoiration-tax this week - using the excuse that the situation has 'changed' since Lisbon represents bad faith on the part of Brussels and does not bode well for the Irish 'tax guarantees' or those on neutrality. It seems the no side have been proven right all along.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The EU want a homogenised power structure across the entire continent.

    Soon there'll be a token "federal" tax, which will be ratcheted up over the years.

    The current European legal system also wants to grow it's tentacles.

    Leinster House is destined to become an irrelevant talking shop filled full of royal Strasbourg patrons.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member sondagefaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14,998
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    What opt-out? The Czechs got a protocol which stated that the Charter wouldn't apply to areas it couldn't have applied to anyway.

    It's like an 'opt-out' stating that the Charter won't apply to US law.

    FT - don't bother giving a long and convoluted explanation of how the Charter might affect this that and the other.

    Let's save time: it doesn't, you're wrong, end of story.

    BTW, so much for Klaus being the man who'd sink the Treaty of Lisbon.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Sondagefaux, if the Eurocrats are blocking the Protocol being inserted into the Treaties then like it or not, it represents a betrayal of Europe's promises to the Czech Republic. That bodes ill for the likelihood of the elites abiding by their agreement with Ireland to insert the tax/neutrality 'guarantees' into the Treaties. This is looking a lot like Pitt's broken promise to introduce Catholic Emancipation after the Union. The Czechs were lied to in 1938 by the Third Reich and have now been betrayed again by another empire. Let us hope the consequences of that are not what they were back then. The words that come to mind are "no further territorial demands in Europe". Appeasement didn't work then and it won't now.

    Why is Austria opposing this? Because they want to use the Charter to reclaim properties confiscated from German speakers after WW2. The Czechs were promised the agreement won't prevent this, but now Austria is refusing to play ball. It speaks to the dishonesty of the bureaucrats in Brussels and underlines that we are also about to betrayed so that Vichy-elites can live off the fat of the land in plush Brussels' offices wielding unelective power over peoples that rejected the constitutional basis thereof.
    Last edited by FutureTaoiseach; 29th September 2010 at 04:07 AM.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    12,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Eh, the usual hysteria from the usual source brewing over something that isn't even close to an official view:

    Prime Minister Petr Necas's government pledged to have the opt-out ratified in its coalition agreement.

    "Who would like to hamper the treaty?" Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg told the paper.

    "At first, I must know from where this comes and whether this is a real issue. So far, we have not received any official information," he added.

    Necas, too, has dismissed the separate ratification.

    "My position is based on the conclusions of the European Council that have never been challenged and I reckon with joint ratification," Necas told the paper.
    http://www.praguemonitor.com/2010/09...out-threatened

    Also, FT, is it possible for you not to Godwin your own threads quite so quickly?
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin West
    Posts
    10,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    10 years from now no one outside of Ireland will even remember we had 2 referenda on the Lisbon Treaty.

    If we make a fuss we will be gently reminded that actions have consequences and the rest of Europe now wants to move on....

    Are we on board and on message or not!

    GO FIGURE...

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member sondagefaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14,998
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    Why is Austria opposing this?
    Is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    Because they want to use the Charter to reclaim properties confiscated from German speakers after WW2.
    The Charter CAN'T be used to do this:

    http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/...nes-decree.pdf
    Last edited by sondagefaux; 29th September 2010 at 09:44 PM.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sondagefaux View Post
    Is it?



    The Charter CAN'T be used to do this:

    http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/...nes-decree.pdf
    The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights only applies where there is a link to

    EC/EU law; therefore it does not apply to all potential human rights claims;
    But the Charter is itself EU Law under Article 6 TEU.
    2) The Beneš Decrees clearly fall outside the (temporal) scope of EU law, given

    that they were adopted nearly sixty years before the Czech Republic joined
    the EU; they can therefore not be challenged in light of the EU Charter of
    Fundamental Rights;
    EU law supersedes national law, irrespective of when the latter it passed into law.
    3) The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over direct claims by

    individuals against Member States, even as regards human rights;
    That's for the ECJ to decide through interpreting the vague terminology of the Charter. They decided what it means.
    4) The legal position regarding the Beneš Decrees can be confirmed by a

    Decision of the Heads of State and Government of the EU, which would be
    valid and legally binding;
    The Treaties over-rule the Decision if there is a conflict and the ECJ will determine whether or not one exists.
    the substance of this Decision could subsequently

    be added to the Treaties in the form of a Protocol, which could take
    retroactive effect (ie, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty of
    Lisbon).
    Coulda Woulda Shoulda. Austria and Hungary are opposing it, and without unanimity it will not be inserted into the Treaties.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member sondagefaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14,998
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    But the Charter is itself EU Law under Article 6 TEU.
    EU law supersedes national law, irrespective of when the latter it passed into law.

    That's for the ECJ to decide through interpreting the vague terminology of the Charter. They decided what it means.
    The Treaties over-rule the Decision if there is a conflict and the ECJ will determine whether or not one exists.
    Coulda Woulda Shoulda. Austria and Hungary are opposing it, and without unanimity it will not be inserted into the Treaties.
    [/LEFT]
    I knew you wouldn't read the link properly:

    It must be concluded that any dispute concerning the Beneš decrees is outside the temporal scope of Community law, and therefore outside the scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (whether or not it is given legal effect by the Treaty of Lisbon) as well as the general principles of Community law. It follows that the Charter cannot be used in order to challenge the legality of the Beneš decrees.

    The ECJ itself has ruled that it cannot rule on acts which happened before a country joined the EU:

    The Court of Justice has ruled several times on this issue. As regards the 1995 enlargement (of Austria, Sweden, and Finland), the Court was asked whether it had jurisdiction to rule on acts which occurred in Sweden before that State acceded to the EU, and also whether Sweden was bound by EC law when the relevant acts occurred (Case C-321/97 Andersson [1999] ECR I-3551). The Court ruled as follows:
    31. The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice covers the interpretation of Community law, of which the EEA Agreement forms an integral part, as regards its application in the new Member States with effect from the date of their accession.
    32. In this case, the Court has been asked to rule directly on the effects of the EEA Agreement, within the national legal system of which the referring court forms part, during the period prior to accession.
    33. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to reply to the first question. …

    This case was followed, as regards Austria, by Case C-300/01 Salzmann [2003] ECR I-4899, in which the Court of Justice ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to answer the questions relating to the application of EC law in Austria before
    membership of the EU.


    Subsequently, following the enlargement of the EU in 2004 to include a further ten Member States, including the Czech Republic, a Hungarian court similarly asked the Court of Justice about the interpretation of an EC Directive as regards acts which occurred before that Member State joined the EU (Case C-302/04 Ynos [2006] ECR I-371).

    The Court of Justice replied as follows:
    34 According to the order for reference, by its first and second questions the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság is seeking an interpretation by the Court of Article 6(1) of the Directive for the purposes of assessing the scope of rules of
    national law.
    35 It must, however, be pointed out that the order for reference states that the facts in the main proceedings occurred before the Republic of Hungary acceded to the European Union.
    36 The Court has jurisdiction to interpret the Directive only as regards its application in a new Member State with effect from the date of that State’s accession to the European Union (see, to that effect, Case C-321/97 Andersson and Wåkerås-Andersson [1999] ECR I-3551, paragraph 31).
    37 In this case, as the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings occurred prior to the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union, the Court does not have jurisdiction to interpret the Directive.
    38 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question referred for a preliminary ruling must be that, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, the facts of which occurred prior to the accession of
    a State to the European Union, the Court does not have jurisdiction
    to answer the first and second questions.
    BTW, the author of the report in the link has an LLM and a PhD:

    Steve Peers received a B.A. (Hons.) in history from McMaster University (Canada) in 1988, an LL.B. from the University of Western Ontario (Canada) in 1991, an LL.M. in EC Law from the London School of Economics in 1993, and a Ph.D from the University of Essex in 2001. His research interests include EU Justice and Home Affairs, External Relations, Human Rights, Internal Market and Social Law. He has written over fifty articles on many aspects of EU law in journals including the Common Market Law Review, European Law Review, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Yearbook of European Law and the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, as well as many chapters in books. He has worked as a consultant for the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union and the Council of Europe, and contributed to the work of NGOs such as Amnesty International, Justice, Statewatch and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association.

    What are your legal qualifications?

    Can you provide evidence that the official position of the Austrian and Hungarian governments is to oppose the Czech protocol?

    From reading Czech media reports, this seems to be an accusation being made by Vaclav Klaus, in opposition to the Czech Foreign Minister, rather than the official position of any government.
    Last edited by sondagefaux; 29th September 2010 at 10:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    12,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FT
    But the Charter is itself EU Law under Article 6 TEU.
    A classic piece of FT logic! Anything can be adjudicated under the Charter, because the Charter is EU law, therefore the ECJ can rule using it...millennia of development of jurisdictional precedent set at nought by a single twist of ignorance.

    Right through mere stupidity and into the realms of anti-genius. I'm awed, as so often on these occasions.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •