No, this is not a new Prague Spring

I am not a great one for banning political terminology even when it has lost its original meaning. Although I always point out that by liberal I mean the European or British or original meaning of the word I do not demand that Americans change their word.

However, I would dearly like to see the end of people using the word "Spring" whenever there is the slightest chance in political thinking and the suffix "-gate" whenever there is even the smallest political scandal. Watergate was the name of the building that was broken into. That's it. There was nothing there about gates or not as far as the politics was concerned. Neither was it the greatest scandal in American political history but that is another issue.

On to the word "Spring". We all know where it comes from: the 1968 attempt in Czechoslovakia to reform the Communist system, to give it a "human face" and to try to combine it with some form of freedom and democracy. It failed when the Soviet tanks rolled in but eventually contributed to the collapse of the whole system and the disintegration of the Soviet empire.

We also know that the so-called "Arab Spring" was nothing like the "Prague Spring" for many reasons, not least the almost total absence of any ideas to do with democracy and freedom. If they were there at the beginning, they disappeared very swiftly and not just because the tanks rolled in.

Now we have the new Czech Foreign Minister, Lubomir Zaoralek, bleating about a new "Prague Spring". The title intrigued me. Is he proposing an EU with a "human face"? Some democratic modification to the system? How far will that go, there being no tanks to roll anywhere?

Alas, no. Mr Zaoralek is tentatively suggesting that the aim of the new "Prague Spring" is "to project a more positive attitude towards the European Union, overturning years of skepticism that has at times pushed his country to Europe's margins".

I am not sure what exactly anyone means by the country being pushed to Europe's margins. It cannot help being where it is geographically speaking and it is not exactly on the margins culturally speaking. Politically? That's anybody's guess. Certainly, Mr Zaoralek seems a little vague on the subject as he appears to think that there is some choice in whether his country can "engage" with Europe, by which, I assume, he means the European Union. Has he not read those treaties? Has he not understood what acquis communautaire means? No, I suppose not. He is a politician, after all.

Attending his first EU foreign ministers' meeting since being appointed on January 29, Lubomir Zaoralek said the new center-left government was determined to re-engage with Europe and show its commitment to joining the euro, even if it remains too early to set a date.

"Our ambition is to create a new Czech policy which will not be nebulous or dubious, but will be understandable, predictable and maybe credible," he told Reuters in his first interview with the foreign media since taking office.

Asked whether that represented a new "Prague Spring" - the period of political liberalization and openness to the rest of Europe the former Czechoslovakia experienced in the late 1960s - he agreed, although with conditions.

"Maybe the prerequisite is to have a clear stance towards the euro - that we are ready to do everything that has to be done during this period to be ready to enter the euro zone."

Quizzed about the timing of any entry, Zaoralek was cautious, saying it depended on meeting the EU's criteria on deficit and debt, joining the exchange rate mechanism that binds currencies to the euro, and shifting Czech public opinion.

He certainly knows how to use weighty words without saying anything but there is no real explanation how jumping on to that floundering ship called the euro resembles Alexander Dubček's attempts at reform.

Some news from those far-off countries

Oh for the days, I hear some of my readers sigh, when the countries of eastern and central Europe were so far off that we knew nothing about them and cared even less except when they turned up in some thriller. Alas, no longer so. We may still know very little about them but they now matter and not just to writers of thrillers but to all of us because the money they receive from the EU is our money (and other countries') and because, more importantly, their leaders are members of our real government. Let us never forget that.

Last week we found out that the rather dubiously appointed Czech government has resigned after a vote of no confidence. On top of that, the Czech Republic may well lose some of the EU funding it is getting or supposed to be getting at the moment.

The Czech Republic could lose up to 968 million euros in EU regional aid and agricultural subsidies this year if it does not correctly administer and accelerate projects, the country's development ministry said on Thursday. Payments for nine out of twenty six spending departments could be lost due to maladministration.

Hungary is in an even worse position over that as EurActiv reports:

European Union funding to Hungary has been temporarily suspended over failings in the country's financial control systems, but there was no evidence of fraud, a European Commission official said yesterday (14 August).

On Monday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s office said the EU had suspended 13 of 15 programmes funded with EU money, including projects such as road building and social cohesion programmes.

A Commission official said the funds had been frozen because of deficiencies in Hungary's financial management and control systems for the programmes in question, identified in an EU audit in 2012.

And the newly joined Croatia is already feeling the EU's ire:

The EU commission may suspend part of Croatia's EU funds if the new member state continues to protect one of its retired spies, Josip Perkovic, from extradition to Germany where he is wanted for murder, justice commissioner Viviane Reding told Danas news. Reding expects answers from Croatia by 23 August.

Given that joining the EU has not exactly sorted out the various political problems East European countries face and the funds they had been promised keep being suspended, what exactly have they gained by it?

Czech crisis continues

Reuters reports that "the new Czech cabinet formed by leftist allies of President Milos Zeman lost a parliamentary vote of confidence on Wednesday". The result was tight: 93 in favor, 100 against and 7 not present (where were they, one wonders), with no group commanding a clear majority. An election before the end of the year has just become more likely.

So that's that

Those readers who might have found the saga of the Czech Prime Minister of some interest (here, here and here) will, undoubtedly, be disappointed though possibly not surprised to find out that it is not going anywhere.

According to this detailed Wall Street Journal article

Earlier this month, prosecutors asked Parliament to lift immunity for Mr. Necas, as they investigated his role in the awarding of jobs at state enterprises to three former legislators allegedly in exchange for their help in passing a bill to raise taxes.

On Tuesday, the Czech Supreme Court ruled that the three former lawmakers and Mr. Necas couldn't be prosecuted since at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, they were legislators. The three former lawmakers were released from jail Tuesday night. They couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

In a news conference late Wednesday, Mr. Necas criticized the probe as "an absurd drama. It isn't an absurd comedy, but it's actually very serious, affecting actual people who ended up in prison during the investigation."

Lawyers for the MPs have previously said their clients did nothing wrong. Mr. Necas has also denied any wrongdoing and said the deal with the MPs was just normal political horse-trading, akin to offering an ambassadorship to a political ally.

Meanwhile the doubtfully appointed caretaker government may face opposition from the parliament but the lower house has voted not to dissolve itself and call an early election. They will somehow manage with the government they do not like and do not agree with, which was appointed over their heads by President Zeman.

More on the saga of the Czech government

After the resignation of the Czech Prime Minister in the wake of yet another scandal and news of an interim Prime Minister being considered we can report that Prsident Zeman has, indeed, sworn in an interim Prime Minister and has stirred up yet another political row.

Czech President Milos Zeman swore in a cabinet led by a longtime ally on Wednesday that faces almost certain rejection by parties in parliament, raising the prospect of prolonged political uncertainty in the central European nation.

The leftist president confirmed economist Jiri Rusnok as prime minister, hoping that he can pull the Czech economy out of a recession now into its second year and lead the country into an election due next year.

But the cabinet is likely to lose a vote of confidence, due within 30 days, as Rusnok's appointment has infuriated both the three parties of the outgoing center-right coalition and the leftist opposition, who all view it as a power grab by Zeman.

Rusnok, who served as finance minister in a Zeman-led cabinet a decade ago, replaces Petr Necas, who resigned last month after a close aide was charged with bribery and abuse of office. Prosecutors have asked parliament to lift the center-right former premier's parliamentary immunity.

If Rusnok loses the parliamentary vote of confidence, Zeman is meant to appoint another prime minister. But there are no time limits and politicians fear Zeman could drag out the process, leaving Rusnok's team in place for many months to carry out the president's wishes.

Let us not forget that the interim Prime Minister who will be battling the duly elected parliament is a member of our own real government.

Interim Czech Prime Minister appointed

After the scandalous resignation of the Czech Prime Minister the President and well known alcoholic, Miloš Zeman, had to look around for an interim government leader. He has now found one:

President Miloš Zeman has appointed economist Jiří Rusnok to succeed Petr Nečas as prime minister of the Czech Republic. Mr. Rusnok, who is 52 and was finance minister under then PM Zeman for just over a year in the early 2000s, will head a caretaker cabinet.

This seems to be following a certain fashion in European countries for "technocrat" governments that appear to be no more successful than political ones. So far as anyone can tell neither the left nor the right in the Czech Chamber of Deputies is happy with the choice.

Czech Prime Minister resigns

Yet another scandal in the Czech Republic and it comes at a difficult time as the country's economy is rather shaky. Well, whose isn't? The eurozone is its biggest market and the eurozone is not doing terribly well. According to the Wall Street Journal [you can get round the pay wall by putting the title of the article into Google]

Prime Minister Petr Necas, who has been in office three years, handed in his resignation to President Milos Zeman days after his chief of staff, Jana Nagyova, was arrested on criminal charges, including allegedly ordering military intelligence to spy on Mr. Necas's wife.

Election is due next year and the President seems to have decided to wait for the right time and to appoint an interim Prime Minister. In the meantime he has asked Mr Necas to carry on as acting Prime Minister. The chances are that it will be a member of the Civic Democratic Party who will be asked to form the government.

So what is the scandal about this time? Largely about an abuse-of-power enquiry that involves Mr Necas's Chief of Staff, Jana Nagyova.

Ms. Nagyova was charged with abuse of power in connection with what prosecutors said was an unsanctioned use of the country's military-intelligence agency. She appeared in court on Saturday and was ordered held in custody as the investigation continues.

Prosecutors said she also allegedly helped bribe three ruling-party lawmakers—who were also arrested—to drop their rebellion against Mr. Necas in Parliament last year in exchange for jobs in state-run companies.

Her lawyer, Eduard Bruna, said she denied all the charges. He said Ms. Nagyova had sought to protect Radka Necasova, the prime minister's wife, and others from potential security threats, allegedly involving attempts by members of Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian denomination, to contact Ms. Necasova.

Jehovah's Witnesses? I know they can be something of a nuisance but a security threat? Really, Ms Nagyova ought to have been sacked long ago for complete lack of imagination. Dariusz Kałan gives the background to the latest manifestation of Czech power politics in EUObserver. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not the one to come up with that daft headline: Czech Watergate: All the Prime Minister's Women.

A political earthquake struck the Czech republic on Thursday night (13 June) directly after Prime Minister Petr Necas' cabinet meeting.

Following raids on government and company offices across the country, police detained seven people, including senior MPs in the ruling Civic Democratic Party (ODS), top military intelligence officers Jana Nagyova, the PM's chief of staff and long-term personal assistant.

They also seized the equivalent of nearly €6 million in cash and several kilos of gold.

The article suggests that the best of the story is yet to come though, for the time being, Mr Necas himself is seen as "weak and wobbly" but fundamentally honest. Nevertheless, he seems to be in the midst of an acrimonious divorce and his Chief of Staff (and alleged lover) is being accused of using military intelligence to spy on his wife (in order to protect her .... see above). President Zeman, in the meantime, has been attending official ceremonies while being visibly drunk, so he has the odd PR problem or two. (Though his drinking habits are not exactly news, as this blog has mentioned before.)

Dariusz Kałan suggests an interesting scenario, which should excite people outside the Czech Republic though not, perhaps, inside it:

Only his [President Zeman's] predecessor, the 72-year-old Vaclav Klaus, who continues to cling to political ambitions despite his advanced age and unpopularity, might get a bump.

Since stepping down from office, he has been waiting for an opportunity to take back leadership of the ODS, the party which he founded.

The ODS rank and file might well see the Cold-War-era hero as the only person capable of restoring the group's credibility.

But for Czech people at large, this will have little meaning.

None of this would matter too much if it were not for the fact, which cannot be repeated often enough, that the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic is also a member of our real government.

President Milos Zeman

Perhaps, Carl Bildt will be able to analyze what this tells us about the Czech Republic: former Prime Minister Milos Zeman, a supposed left-wing politician and statistician, has won the first direct presidential election by 54.8 per cent to 45.2 per cent on a turn-out of 59.11 per cent.

The BBC tells us that

Although Czechs are generally disillusioned with politics, they turned out in their droves to choose between the two very different candidates - Mr Zeman, the acerbic former Social Democrat prime minister, and Karel Schwarzenberg, the elderly, aristocratic foreign minister.

The urban elite voted en masse for Mr Schwarzenberg - who was supported by many in the media and had a strong Facebook following, says our correspondent.

I wouldn't go as far as calling under 60 per cent "turning out in droves" but it is beter than many elections. The funniest comment in the BBC report is

Mr Zeman is seen as a hard-drinking, chain-smoking politician, known for his witty put-downs of opponents.

Seen by whom? Is he hard-drinking and chain-smoking or not? His wit was not exactly in evidence when he accused his opponent of being more or less anti-Czech because he had spent the years of Communism in Austria, having been thrown out of the country under President Benes by those infamous decrees. In fact, one of the things this election does tell us about the Czech Republic is that the people are still sensitive enough on the issue not to wish to discuss it.

As so often the case, it is the man who seems to have "links with former communist officials and businessmen with links to Russia" who has been brandishing the nationalist ideas.

As to President-Elect Zeman being in favour of further European integration, that does not make him any different from his opponent. I fear that with the retirement of Vaclav Klaus, Europe has lost its only rational politician.

News from the Czech Republic

We  have had the first round of the first direct election of the President of the Czech Republic. 24.2 per cent of the vote went to Milos Zeman and 23.4 per cent to Karel Schwarzenberg (or Prince Schwarzenberg if we are going to be pedantic). So much for the suggestion that the Czech Republic could have the first Jewish Head of State outside Israel.

We have news of Karel Schwarzenberg launching a phone campaign and generally rolling out a personal campaign while Milos Zeman intends to concentrate on the internet and on catching up with his rival  in social networks.

Outgoing President Klaus, unsurprisingly has tried to endorse Milos Zeman. He could not do it openly because of his own position but stated that he would prefer his successor to have spent his life in the country, which excludes Karel Schwarzenberg who has spent much of his life  in Austria, having left Czechoslovakia involuntarily, as he has pointed out, in 1948.

In a Czech Radio debate between the presidential candidates on Wednesday, Mr Schwarzenberg addressed the concerns of a listener who accused him of being a foreigner.

“As for me being labelled an Austrian – it’s true that I lived there for a long time but I have never been a citizen of that country. I have never given up my Czechoslovak citizenship. But I have been faced with this prejudice all my life and I’m used to it. Some things are just thrown at you and there is nothing you can do about it. Another matter altogether is that in 1948 I left this country involuntarily.”

Of course, as Radio Prague, points out President Klaus's endorsement might not be all that useful, especially after the somewhat controversial amnesty announced earlier this month. Schwarzenberg has never hidden his life story so, one must assume that people who vote for him know the facts.(I know that is a tall assumption with an electorate in any country.)

Others are also joining in the fight. Carl Bildt, a man of dubious political attitudes, has pronounced on his blog (in Swedish and sent to me by a regular reader of this blog) that the Czechs really should vote for Karel Schwarzenberg, friend of Carl Bildt.

According to Mr Bildt, his friend is eminently qualified for the position but, alas, has to withstand the poisonous arrows of narrow nationalism. He does rather graciously allow that the choice is the Czech Republic's but adds somewhat grimly that the result will tell "us" something about that country.

The next round is due on January 25 - 26.

Czech presidential election coming up

Do we care? Well, we should because the President has a certain amount of power in the Czech Republic and is, therefore, a member of our own real government. Also, the only rational politician, Vaclav Klaus, has to step down and is ineligible for re-election, which is clearly a bad thing. On the other hand, he could not put his ideas into practice in any case and when no longer a President will have more time to write and lecture, which is clearly a good thing.

Here we have a list of candidates, none of whom are particularly inspiring. This is the first direct presidential election in the Czech Republic and the two front runners are Milos Zeman, former Prime Minister (1998 -2002), former leader of the Social-Democrats and present leader of the Party of Civic Rights and Jan Fischer, also former Prime Minister (caretaker government of 2009 - 2010), former President of the Statistical Office and former member of the Communist Party, though that is a widespread phenomenon among East Europeans of a certain age. As against that, Mr Zeman's party has been accused of taking money from Russian lobbyists through a colleague of his, Miroslav Šlouf.

Mr Zeman is known as an outspoken man, who agrees with President Klaus on the nonsensical aspect of man-made global warming though not on the European Union. Mr Fischer, on the other hand, might be the first Jewish President of a country outside Israel as his father is Jewish and is, in fact, a Holocaust survivor.

First round of voting will be on January 11 - 12.

So there we are. Now you know.

So where are we? - 1

President Vaclav Klaus possesses many admirable qualities. The one I admire most is the continuous smoothness of his presentations that includes answers to difficult or, as is the case with many eurosceptic audiences, downright stupid questions.

This afternoon he gave a habitually clear and convincing explanation of all the many things that have gone wrong with the European Union - its centralizing and bureaucratizing tendencies - in the rush towards greater though ultimately unachievable integration. More specifically, he explained very clearly why the eurozone was not optimal either in its extent or its membership while asserting firmly (and, in my humble opinion, correctly) that the political investment in the project was so great that talk of its collapse was akin to a discussion of what kind of pie ought to be flying across the sky.

So where do we go from here, given that the European Union is going the wrong way, given that we know, roughly speaking, what the right way ought to be, and given that the leadership of Europe and to a great extent its people are persisting in following the wrong path? To that President Klaus apparently has no answer, no matter how often he repeats his cogent analysis. (It is, of course, possible that there is an answer in his latest book, Europe: The Shattering of Illusions, which he was launching, but I have not yet read it.)

At the same time, there is something admirable in President Klaus's refusal to pander to his audience, be they EU grandees or a collection of eurosceptics of varying degree, who usually want to hear their own views confirmed and their own prejudices reasserted.

Vaclav Klaus absolutely refused to discuss internal British politics, slyly turning every question to his own experiences with Czechoslovakia and its disintegration into the two component parts. He did, however, remind people with great firmness that the Conservative Party had expected him to hold out against all pressure and against his country's constitutional rules over the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in order to help them to win the 2010 election though they, themselves, had given up any semblance of a fight. (I wrote about that on this blog and, before that, on EU Referendum, my erstwhile blogging home.)

He also said that while he could see that the UK might, for its selfish reasons, want to be out of the EU, the Czech Republic's selfish reasons wanted the UK to stay in. He was challenged on this by Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

Briefly, the two arguments ran thus: President Klaus appears to think (and who knows what he really thinks on the subject) that the more countries there are in the EU, the less likely is it to integrate. That is our old friend, the widening versus deepening debate, which has been settled some time ago by the inevitability of every new widening being used as an excuse for further deepening. But, more importantly, said Klaus, we must have countries like Britain, countries that have genuine democratic traditions and notions, inside the EU as that will help to reverse the pernicious process of centralizing and bureaucratizing.

Lord Stoddart, on the other hand, thinks that Britain's exit from the EU would be of great benefit not only to this country  but also to others like the Czech Republic who could then follow the British example and find a way out. Maybe it could even join the Commonwealth, suggested the noble peer with a smile. (I can't quite imagine the Czech Republic wanting to be in an organization with such luminaries of democracy as Nigeria or Rwanda but the obsession with the Commonwealth is one that needs a separate set of arguments.)

Once again President Klaus refused to pander to his audience, reminding us all, instead, that Britain actually had the choice of a different kind of European "integration" through EFTA, which it abandoned, preferring to join the EEC. (Lord Stoddart loudly pointed out that he did not prefer it and how true that is. He has been an opponent of Britain's participation in the European project from the beginning.)

I find it hard to believe that President Klaus really believes that Britain's continued membership of the EU would have the desired effect of turning the process of ever greater integration back towards the creation of a low government intervention free market agreement. A swift look at the history of Britain's membership should disabuse him of such a notion. Nor is he under any illusion about the Party Formerly Known As Conservative or the present government. He knows full well that he can hope for nothing from that quarter. Then again, he also knows that his position is very lonely and there is no help anywhere at the moment. One can only admire him for his tenacity (as well as the smoothness of his presentation).

Troubles with that fiscal compact treaty

Poland is being troublesome again. (Not that it ever lasts too long but while they grumble people listen.)

Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, is threatening to keep his country out of the nearly-finalised treaty on greater economic discipline, in a dispute over the right to attend eurozone summits.

Poland is insisting that it should be allowed to attend eurozone summits even though it is not expected to adopt the euro for several years. Tusk told Polish radio on Tuesday (24 January): “If Poland does not win an appropriate status of participant in the eurozone meetings, which would give us a feeling that we take part in the decision-making process, ...we will find it difficult to sign the fiscal pact.”

While it is not unreasonable for the Polish Prime Minister to demand those rights but he is not going to get them. Poland is not in the eurozone and that is the way the colleagues will regard the matter. Mr Tusk should have foreseen this problem when he first agreed to the proposed "treaty", which, as we know is not a treaty because that was "vetoed" by the Boy-King.

He has been lecturing the colleagues on something or other at Davos but even now he will not do the right thing and that is demand a full IGC and a completely new treaty. As CNN reports

Hungary, Sweden and the Czech Republic also expressed reservations about treaty change -- but left the door open, pending parliamentary debate.

Whether anything comes of those reservations is a moot point but it is good to know that somebody will have parliamentary debates about the new proposals.

Things I missed while trying to have a life

One piece of good news this week-end was the death of the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic  of Korea, Kim Jong-il. Or, at least, it was announced this week-end that he died on Saturday. One can never tell with those People's Organizations or Republics. It's good news because he, truly, was evil. That word is bandied around a good deal but in this case and in the case of the rest of his friends and family, it is entirely accurate.

Of course, the horror of North Korea is not over; if the succession is peaceful the same will continue, if it is not, there will be a nasty civil war that may spill over into South Korea, where there is a distinct nervousness.

The sad news was the death of Vaclav Havel, who, to be fair, was more of a symbol and a talking head to be produced at many well-meaning international congresses, conferences and meetings. Still, he did remind us all of the heroic days of the dissident opposition to Communism.

There are so many obituaries of Havel around that I shall link to three only, one on the Cato site and two on ChicagoBoyz (here and here). Not unexpectedly, I shall try to eschew the sentimentality that surrounded the man and still continues. On the whole, he was more popular in the West than in his own land, despite the outpourings of emotion now, because the West saw the symbol and not the real politician who was far more controversial (as what politician is not).

To start with, he was a Central European intellectual, a form of animal life that is unknown in Britain or anywhere in the Anglosphere (and how lucky they all are). He was a playwright, who, even before 1968 wrote plays that were a somewhat daring departure from the required socialist realism. Neither those plays nor the later dissident ones about Ferdinand Vanek were particularly good. I saw several, so I can attest that abandoning the theatre and going on to the political stage was a very good decision to take.

Havel, I have always felt, would have been very happy with Communism with a Human Face, an impossible notion that was supposedly Alexander Dubcek's aim in 1968. The Soviets rightly decided that, left to itself, it would mean the dissolution of Communism, leaving it with no face at all, and put the Prague Spring down quite brutally but not as badly as some other rebellions. The country was plunged into gloom with most people averting their eyes from the public sphere.

There were a few exceptions, the signatories of  Charter 77, various other dissidents, the rock group Plastic Peoples of the Universe and so on. As these people were deprived of their jobs in universities, research institutes, theatres, schools, and other suchlike institutions, they had to become workers in factories, window cleaners, truck drivers and, sometimes, worse. This is what Havel wrote about in the Vanek plays.

Gradually, his name became synonymous with the low-key stubborn opposition to Communism in Eastern Europe, particularly Czechoslovakia and it was not surprising that during the Velvet Revolution, the demonstrators demanded that he should be in the Castle, that is become President. He was not so much the leader of the Velvet Revolution as its single public face.

Subsequent events proved that a man who made the perfect dissident was not necessarily a good politician. Indeed, many post-Communist societies found that. Havel, despite himself, presided over the inevitable split of the country's two parts, resigned because of it but was re-elected as President of the Czech Republic. There were, inevitably, various problems and a few scandals of political and financial nature. All this will have been detailed in the various obituaries.

In the late nineties we nearly said good-bye to Havel as he was diagnosed, twice, with lung cancer. But he survived and, given the length of time, was, presumably, cured. His wife, Olga, did die of cancer and he swiftly married again to a few raised eyebrows but then there had always been rumours about his private life. Of no real importance to a true Central European intellectual.

After his presidency, Havel travelled, wrote, spoke and, generally, became one of the great members of the international political intelligentsia, slightly left of centre as he would happily admit, very much in favour of various well-meaning transnational organizations. His intellect did not have the hard-edged ruthlessness of his great rival, Vaclav Klaus.

His death brings sadness. He was, in most ways, honourable and courageous; a man who who perceived the evil of Communism and was not afraid to fight it; a symbol of that struggle. Requiescat in pace.

ADDENDUM: It has been pointed out to me that there is a serious gap in my description of Havel's activity after he was President. He, unlike most of the Europeans he was associating with, opposed the bloody and oppressive Cuban regime without any caveats. Of course, he understood it better.

The Avengers would have loved this

As a matter of fact, the notion of Russia using existing and new links in the countries of Eastern Europe who are all now in NATO and the EU to intensify her efforts to get military secrets (not that the EU has all that many) is no laughing matter. Nevertheless, this story, as reported in the Irish Times, did make me think about Steed and Mrs Peel.

THREE TOP Czech generals have been forced to leave the military after one of their aides was compromised by contact with a Russian spy, amid intelligence agency warnings that Moscow is intensifying efforts to steal Prague’s secrets.

The officers stepped down after serving as the head of president Vaclav Klaus’s military office, the Czech Nato representative in Europe, and as deputy general for the military chief-of-staff, according to leading Czech newspaper Mlada Fronta Dnes .

The generals’ departure was prompted by the discovery last year that a female major who had worked in each of their offices had become close to a state-employed psychologist named as Robert R, who was spying for the Kremlin.

It is not clear whether the female major was involved in anything nefarious but, clearly, the Czech authorities are very worried about developments.

Wise man

The Czech Central Bank's new Governor does not think that the solution to his country's problems is entry into the euro.

The new Czech central bank governor said uncertainty surrounding the euro zone in the wake of the Greek debt crisis is so great that there is no point considering adopting the common currency for now and expressed serious reservations about possible new Europe-wide regulations.

Miroslav Singer, a former vice governor of the Czech National Bank who was named to the top job last week, also said Czech interest rates are likely to stay at their current low levels "longer than people generally think." But he said further cuts were unlikely unless the economy slowed sharply.

Now there's a man who has been paying attention.

What did they get?

A note from Anthony Coughlan in which he analyzes tentatively, because that is all we can do at this stage, the difference in what Ireland got from the EU and what the Czech Republic got. My view remains the same: none of it is worth a dime. I think Professor Coughlan may not disagree too much. Here is the text in full:

Different promises for the Czechs and the Irish to secure the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty
Dublin ... Sunday 1 November 2009

Czech and Irish opposition to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty has been dealt with by different political promises that are supposed to be embodied in the next EU Accession Treaty.

This can be seen from the text of Friday's October European Council Conclusions, as compared with those of June last, which prepared the way for the Ireland's second Lisbon Treaty referendum. Relevant excerpts are given below.

The Czechs have been promised an opt-out from Lisbon's Charter of Fundamental Rights at some future date, even after the Charter has become legally binding on them as a result of Lisbon coming into force. A Draft Protocol that could - or might - do this when the time comes is annexed to last Friday's European Council Conclusions.

Last June the Irish were given interpretative declarations on concerns such as tax, abortion and neutrality and were promised that these would be embodied in a future Accession Treaty Protocol. In contrast to the promise to the Czechs, no draft of such a Protocol was agreed, but the European Council Conclusions stated that it "will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon" (See text below).

So the Czechs have been promised a real change in the Lisbon Treaty at some future date, and an actual draft of such a Protocol has been drawn up to keep them happy while President Vaclav Klaus permits the ratification of Lisbon. The Irish have been promised a draft Protocol to meet their concerns in some future EU Accession Treaty, but the promise has been accompanied by a statement that this Protocol will not change anything in Lisbon.

Will these promises be fulfilled?

There is no problem with the Irish. Their promised future Protocol will be redundant anyway, for it will not change anything which is already contained in Lisbon. This qualification was explicitly made when this future Protocol was first mooted.

The promise to the Czechs is more problematic, for the following reasons:

1. When the next EU Accession Treaty comes around the Czech Government then in office may no longer wish for a full opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, either because it takes a different view of it from the present Czech Government or because of domestic opposition at the time to such a step, in particular from the Czech trade unions.

2. The main Hungarian Opposition party, Fidesz, which is expected to win next year's elections in Hungary, has stated that it will vote against ratification of the EU's pledge to give the Czechs an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of its concern over Hungarian property claims arising from the post-World War 2 Benes decrees; and any such opt-out would have to be unanimously agreed by all Member States when they come to ratify the future Accession Treaty to which it was attached.

3. Czechs, Germans, Hungarians etc. will all become citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty once that Treaty comes into force. In implementing Union law at national level thereafter the Member States will have to recognise the EU citizenship of their national citizens and the rights and entitlements as EU citizens which their national citizens will acquire under the Charter. It would be open to all EU citizens - Germans, Hungarians, Czechs or whatever - to institute legal actions and claims under the Charter of Fundamental Rights immediately the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, including property claims arising from the Benes decrees - and to expect that such actions would be justiciable in national courts as actions of EU citizens. If legal actions over such claims are already instituted under the Charter, it is hard to see EU Governments whose nationals are involved in such legal actions agreeing to ratify an Accession Treaty one of whose purposes would be to make such actions invalid or ultra vires.

4. The Heads of State or Government who will be in office when the next EU Accession Treaty comes up for ratification will be different from the present group. There is no guarantee that they will all feel similarly bound by the political commitment regarding the Czechs given by their predecessors the other day, not least because the legal status of the European Council itself will be changed by the Lisbon Treaty. For Lisbon proposes to make the European Council into an EU institution for the first time, whose actions and failures to act would thereafter be subject to review by the Court of Justice. It is arguable therefore whether the present European Council can bind a future one based on a different legal constitution in the way that is proposed in last Friday's EU "summit" Conclusions.

_______
October 2009 European Council Conclusions ... Excerpts re the Czech Republic

2. The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its determination to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009, thus allowing it to develop its effects in the future.

On this basis, and taking into account the position taken by the Czech Republic, the Heads of State or Government have agreed that they shall, at the time of the conclusion of the next Accession Treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, attach the Protocol (in Annex 1) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In this context, and with regard to legal application of the Treaty of Lisbon and its relation to legal systems of Member States, the European Council confirms that:

a) The Treaty of Lisbon provides that "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States" (Art.5(2)TEU);

b) The Charter is "addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law" (Art 51(1) (Charter)

ANNEX 1:
PROTOCOL ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, taking note of the wish expressed by the Czech Republic,

Having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council,

Have agreed on the following Protocol:

Article 1
Protocol No 3o on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom shall apply to the Czech Republic.

Article 2
The Title, Preamble and operative part of Protocol No 30 shall be modified in order to refer to the Czech Republic in the same terms as they refer to Poland and to the United Kingdom.

Article 3
This Protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
________
June 2009 European Council Conclusions ... Excerpts re Ireland

The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers' rights, would be confirmed.

4. Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:

(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1);

(b) Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2).
The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that Treaty;

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon. (emphasis in bold added)

Updates

First, the good news from Iceland (at least for Icelanders). It seems that the political class there is beginning to grasp that no matter what they do, the people of that country, do not want to go into the EU and, most certainly, do not want to be in the euro.

That inestimable blog, EU News from Iceland, tells us that a former Foreign Minister as well as the present Finance Minister have cheerfully admitted that “although his government had applied to join the European Union the Icelandic people didn't want to become members”. They, of course, will have the chance to say so as Iceland cannot join without at least one referendum. If the process ever gets that far with the political classes already rather worried.

For all of that, Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson and his colleagues in the anti-EU movement are not taking anything for granted and continuing with their work. Needless to say, I have offered any help we can give.

Meanwhile, as we predicted, Blair’s chances of getting that first Presidency are getting so slim that even the British media is beginning to grasp the unlikelihood of the scenario they had produced. I suspect the same will turn out to be true about David Miliband’s supposed candidacy to be the first Foreign Minister of the European Union, despite the Independent assuring us that he is backed by Commission President Barroso. He is also backed by Number 10, we are told, and how useful is that? And our other prediction about Cameron not giving a referendum has also come to pass as the Boss has pointed out.

Moving across Europe to the Czech Republic, it seems very likely, as we also predicted, that President Vaclav Klaus will sign the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty after getting the EU leaders to agree to his opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Luboš Motl on The Reference Frame, a very interesting Czech blog, accepts that the battle has been lost but there is, as he so rightly points out, a war to be won. I only wish more people in this country would be so clear-sighted.

Mr Motl, incidentally, points to what he sees as another division between Western and Eastern Europe and that is the amount of money to be spent on the whole climate change charade.

West is more enthusiastic because it has spare money to waste for nonsense, and it is not immune against utopias for the future - because of the lack of experience with communism.

That makes some sense but, as it happens, I do not think anybody has all that much “spare money to waste for nonsense” at the moment.

Another matter on which I would disagree with Mr Motl is those opt-outs. He thinks President Klaus “will save my homeland from many policies that go well beyond the fear of the returning Sudeten Germans (a topic that Klaus has used to be sure about the public support”). I think that is very questionable.

What the Presidency Conclusions actually say in Article 2 of Section I is:

On this basis, and taking into account the position taken by the Czech Republic, the Heads of State or Government have agreed that they shall, at the time of the conclusion of the next Accession Treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, attach the Protocol (in Annex I) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union.

In this context, and with regard to legal application of the Treaty of Lisbon and its relation to legal systems of Member States, theEuropean Council confirms that :

a) The Treaty of Lisbon provides that "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States" (Art. 5(2) TEU);

b) The Charter is "addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law" (Art. 51(1) Charter).

In other words, nothing that has been agreed now has any legal validity until the next Accession Treaty, probably one for Croatia. This is precisely the case with all those statements that were added for the benefit of the Irish. None of it is worth on the paper it is written on, despite the fact that the paper is, presumably, recycled, untreated and ready to be used for non-fossil fuel.

Secondly, it is not exactly clear what the opt-out is precisely. The Presidential Conclusions merely confirm what is already in the Charter. We get a little more in this news item in which the Swedish Presidency in the shape Fredrik Reinfeldt announced that the last hurdle has been cleared and the Czech President’s request granted.

With this decision the Czech Republic has received the same exemption as Poland and the United Kingdom, from 'protocol 30' in the Lisbon Treaty's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This is what we are talking about: Protocol 7, snappily entitled ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.

After a great many whereases and raffirmations we get to what was agreed for Poland and the UK and will be agreed for the Czech Republic after the next Accession Treaty:

Article 1
1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2
To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.

What that will mean in practice, given that the law and practices of EU member states are already defined largely by what comes from the EU, is not really clear to anyone as yet. But a semi-allowance for the Czech Republic to join this rather dubious exemptions will, we assume, be enough for President Klaus to retreat with good grace, particularly if he can spin it as to mean that no German, Austrian or Hungarian will be allowed to claim back the land that had belonged to the family in question before 1947.

A few links that might be of interest

Firstly, the Czech Constitutional Court has finally assembled to examine the complaint that the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty may not be in accordance with the Czech Constitution. Luboš Motl gives a blow by blow account of the first day, which has decided nothing, as one would expect. It is unlikely that the decision will be anything but the obvious one: yes, indeed, the treaty is entirely in accordance with the Czech Constitution even if the latter has to be rewritten completely. Still, we shall be watching this.

Meanwhile, in Iceland public support for EU membership is falling, as reported by the invaluable blog EU News from Iceland.

The majority of Icelanders don't want to adopt the euro or join the European Union according to the results of a new opinion poll published yesterday. The poll was produced by the company Miðlun for the news website Pressan.is. The question asked was: "What currency arrangement do you think would best suit Iceland?" Some 55 percent wanted a policy which does not involve EU membership.

Only 24 percent said they though Iceland should adopt the euro by first joining the EU. However, 26 percent said they thought it was best for Iceland to keep its own currency, the króna. Some 29 percent said Iceland should adopt foreign currency unilaterally, of those only 9 percent wanted the euro. Finally 21 percent were undecided.

If the undecided are excluded some 70 percent of Icelanders do not want to adopt the euro by joining the EU. Only about 30 percent are in favour of that. Even if the 9 percent who want the euro unilaterally are put together with those who want the single currency by first joining the EU it only slightly alters the picture.

But punishment for Icelandic fiscal improvidence is stern: McDonalds is leaving the country. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the nearest place for the inhabitants of Rejkjavik to get a Big Mac will be in Dublin. Then again, they think Iceland would have been better off in the eurozone, which is not the experience of countries that are in it. Mind you, they are not losing their McDonalds outlets. Not yet, anyway.

And finally, the other tranzi organization – the UN. From UN Watch Briefing we get the following fascinating and not unexpected news:

Ms. Gay McDougall, the U.N.'s chief monitor of discrimination against minority groups, and a leading defender of the 2001 Durban conference, just wrapped up a 10-day investigation of Canada by accusing it of failures and "significant and persistent problems." She has never investigated any of the countries listed by Freedom House as the world's worst abusers: not China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma,Chinese-ruled Tibet, South Ossetia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia, or Zimbabwe.

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

In a related development, the U.N. human rights office is also investigating the United States as a country of singular concern. The “special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing” has decided to conduct her next investigation in the U.S., particularly in New York City. Writing in the Opinio Juris blog, Professor Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School notes that the U.N. monitor "is going to spend her time on a country which is unlikely to be in the top ten places with lack of adequate housing, and which in any event, is not a party to any of the treaties which form her mandate." But the anti-Western voting blocs that control the U.N. Human Rights Council -- and appoint its experts -- will no doubt be very pleased.

Indeed. Remind me, why are the United States, Canada and other Western countries paying for this?

The National Post has a rather sarcastic piece on the subject. So mean.

Let us stop and think

Today the people of Ireland go to the polls to vote in the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Its previous reincarnation as the Constitutional Treaty was thrown out by the people of France and Netherlands after which there was, as you may recall, a period of discussion and dialogue. Dialogue of the deaf since the creators of the new treaty discussed matters only with organizations they had themselves created as part of a controlled civil society. All other opinions such as “no, we do not want a constitution for Europe” were ignored.

Then they came back with a new version, which has fewer pages because the print was smaller but more words and which had dropped references to a flag and an anthem, thus making it, or so we were told, completely different from a constitution.

As it happens the United States Constitution has no references to anthems or flags (neither was in existence at the time) but it is still a constitution. So there was the Lisbon Treaty, which still proposed the creation of a President and announced that the supremacy of European law, hitherto decided on by Parliament, would now be based on the Constitution Lisbon Treaty.

There are a few other matters of import but, as it happens, most of what it says is already in existence in the Consolidated Treaties. The Lisbon Treaty serves a double purpose: it pushes the project further and without movement that does not exist; and it shows to us the people of European countries who is really the master.

This time round the political establishment both at the EU and member states levels was quite savvy: no referendums. You cannot predict their outcome. Unfortunately, the Irish Supreme Court decided that according to the Irish Constitution there had to be a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty and it duly took place. Exactly as feared, the people disobeyed orders and voted no. They have been paying the price by having to put up with endless visits from European notables and an endless campaign. Well, at least that has come to an end and tomorrow the polls open.

Let us consider the situation as it is now and the various options after tomorrow.

Apart from Ireland there are still two countries that have not ratified, the Czech Republic and Poland. Germany ratified just before last Sunday’s election (a little present for whoever was going to win) though as the Boss over on EURef has noted, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition was not aware of that when he last gave a long interview. Or, perhaps he gave the interview before the German ratification and the editor did not know enough to correct that.

In the Czech Republic a group of senators has sent the treaty to the Constitutional Court for the second time.

The court should say whether the EU under the Lisbon Treaty would remain an international organisation or become a "super-state," ODS senator Jiri Oberfalzer, one of the senators who submitted the complaint on Tuesday afternoon, told the Czech press agency.

Czech senators had previously filed a narrower case about certain aspects of the treaty, but the court last year ruled that the articles were not in breach of the country's constitution.

Meanwhile, according to the same article on EUObserver, the country is being threatened with loss of a place on the Commission and President Klaus is being threatened with possible impeachment if he does not sign, which he will not do ahead of the legal decision. President Kaczynski of Poland is waiting on developments in the Czech Republic.

All of which means that media hysteria about Tony Blair becoming EU President in the next few weeks is a little premature. There will be no EU President until all the member states have ratified the treaty. As it happens, I am not bothered by the prospect of President Blair. I do not want anyone to be president and Blair’s grinning face reappearing on our media will turn even more people away from the project. Besides, I am not sure his star is quite as much in the ascendant as the Times article thinks. There are other member states in the EU and they might not want Blair as President.

Talking of media hysteria there are headlines out there about the Irish referendum and the “future of Europe” as if we were talking about the Normandy invasion. Europe will still be here even if the Irish vote no again. In fact, Europe might start recovering its true historical heritage though, as it happens, the EU will also still be here.

Seventy-five or eighty per cent of our legislation will still be coming from Brussels, most of it not even touching Parliament, which, in any case, has not the right to reject anything. The EU’s legislative structure that is managerial rather than political and disregards such details as elections or change of parties in power will continue.

It is very hard to predict what will happen later today. Opinion polls tend to favour the yes side but so they did last time and they were wrong.
As I have said before, the man who most fervently wishes for a no vote must be Mr Cameron, for there is a strong chance that this particular treaty will then be off the table while a new one is prepared and he will be able to wriggle off the hook of that referendum.

If the Irish vote yes then Mr Cameron will be hoping that the Czech situation will be solved before May 2010 when he will, as things stand, become Prime Minister. It must be his worst nightmare that he will be faced with a situation when the first few months of his premiership will be taken up by legislation for referendum, a campaign and then the vote with which he will not know what to do.

There is always the possibility that somewhere between the legislation and the actual vote the Czechs and the Poles do ratify if they had not done before and Cameron will be left with a pointless referendum. In any case, if the country votes no, what will he do? Tear up the Instruments? Renegotiate?

It is not altogether surprising that he has been hinting ever so gently that there will be no referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty under a Conservative government.

It will, of course, be awfully nice to have the Irish vote no; the treaty is an abomination, though no worse than Maastricht, but, much more to the point, it will be nice to watch the eurocrats’ faces and hear their screams.

But even if they get their treaty (and they are determined to get it) the victory will be a Pyrrhic one. The outcome of the bullying, lying and other shenanigans that characterized the campaigns around the Constitution for Europe and, even more so, the Lisbon Treaty is that far more people in the various member states view the project with suspicion and dislike.

Its inevitability is no longer obvious; the gap between the elite that is blatantly determined to impose its chosen political structures on the people and those people is ever larger; the legitimacy of the EU is weaker than ever and grows daily more so. And a yes vote today in Ireland may well speed that process up. Indeed, if the Irish vote yes, we may well date the beginning of the EU’s disintegration October 2, 2009.