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)

Differences

People do wonder why I am so interested in American politics, while so much of the stuff in Britain leaves me cold. Well, here is an example of what makes it more interesting.

In Britain the Conservative Party is getting all into a tizz over Elizabeth Truss (too many links but Iain Dale, ConHome and Shane Greer have all been writing endlessly about it and ... well, OK, here is one), who had been chosen to be PPC in South West Norfolk. The local association, having never heard of Mr Google or the possibility of finding out certain facts about a candidate on the internet realized belatedly that Ms Truss had an affair with a Conservative MP about four or five years ago. At the time both were married but he, Mark Field, has since divorced because of that or some other reason. He is also no longer the Culture Spokesman, which is probably just as well.

Round and round everybody goes: Do private lives matter more than political achievements? Do affairs long in the past matter? Should he be forced to resign if she is deselected? Should idiots who have never heard of Google be in charge of selecting candidates? Does anybody outside the magic circle care? Well, actually, I know the answer to that last question.

Now compare and contrast this with the saga of Republican nominee in NY 23rd Congressional District, Dede Scozzafava who has just been forced to resign and start supporting her conservative rival by the GOP grassroots, led by the bloggers such as Michelle Malkin. Here is Melissa Clothier analyzing the story in terms of identity versus conviction politics. Here is Rick Moran giving a summary of what happened and there are some interesting comments.

I don't think I need to add anything of my own to the NY-23 story except to point to the main difference between that and the SW Norfolk story: the American one is about politics. What we are seeing is a new movement, that may attach itself to the Republicans or may not, of people who are, roughly speaking, conservative and believe in what one can describe as American virtues (many of which are Anglospheric virtues and even Western virtues so we should all be paying attention). It is important to watch developments. Who really cares about the endless personal tittle-tattle that surrounds people unable to see a political idea in front of their noses?

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.

For those who do not know ...

... where the quote comes from and for those who do but are happy to drool over the debonair Captain Louis Renault as played by Claude Rains, here it is. Captain Renault is shocked, shocked to discover that gambling goes on at Rick's, where everybody goes.



Has anyone ever wondered how Ilse (Ingrid Berman) managed to carry that fantastically elegant and varied wardrobe while running for her life through Nazi occupied Europe? The hat boxes alone would have alerted the Gestapo.

MEPs' passes

The 4th Report of the House of Lords House Committee deals with parliamentary passes issued to UK members of the Toy European Parliament. Hitherto those members were automatically issued with passes that

entitled [them] to access Peers' Lobby, the Galleries of the House, the Committee Corridor, the offices of the European Union Committee and the Guest Room. Similar access rights have been granted by the House of Commons.

All this is about to change. Members of the House of Commons, who saw nothing wrong in welcoming unrepentant terrorists who had tried to murder the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet and, in fact, succeeded in killing five people and injuring many more, into Parliament’s hallowed portals, have decided that they could not live with the thought of said portals being polluted by members of the BNP.

An effective ban on British National party members of the European Parliament entering Westminster was imposed by MPs. Leader of the House Harriet Harman, tabled a motion withdrawing automatic access hitherto available to all MEPs.

The only trouble is you can’t do that. You can’t decide that some MEPs can and others cannot have a pass to the Houses of Parliament. So they had to withdraw access rights from all UK MEPs.

3. On 20 October 2009, following a recommendation from the Administration Committee, the House of Commons agreed to remove the access rights of UK MEPs, and therefore their entitlement to a Parliamentary photographic security pass.

4. The decision of the House of Commons in practice cannot take effect without the assent of this House since photographic security passes grant access to the whole Parliamentary Estate.

Now we have a problem. What are the members of the Toy Parliament going to do if they wish to wander round the Real Parliament, whose powers they have usurped? They can come in as guests or they can acquire parliamentary passes within the existing structure, as officers of the House, spouses or partners of Members or staff of Members. If a new category is created for them, the same problem will emerge: if there are special passes for some MEPs there has to be special passes for all of them. And you can be quite sure Nick Griffin will not let them forget it.

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.

Strange developments

When, during the election campaign, Barack Obama said over and over again that his aim was to make the United States loved in the world again, exhibiting once again his extraordinary lack of historical and political knowledge, few people realized that he did not mean loved by friends and allies but by enemies and the worst dictators in the world. Not that they responded with love to his overtures but it is astonishing to see how consistently President Obama and his Administration have pushed aside friends and allied democracies in order to reach out to enemies, who also happen to be tyrannies.

Paul Greenberg writes in the Jewish World Review in an article mostly devoted to the customary Israel-bashing by the UN Human Rights Council, including “both China and Russia, those great exemplars of human rights” and “the Arab bloc, another bastion of human rights”:

These days even the United States, under our new administration, is adopting a softer, gentler tone toward the genocidal regime in Khartoum. For that matter, Washington is moving to "engage" Teheran and Moscow, too. And the military dictatorship in Burma to boot. Any regime that really violates human rights can hope to get a sympathetic hearing from this new crew at the State Department.

Sudan is singled out for mention because the chairman of the UN’s Arab bloc this month is the delegate from that country andis undoubtedly eminently well qualified to speak about human rights.

The article is mostly about the infamous Goldstone Report and repercussions thereof but, for the purposes of this posting, I picked out the reference to the new line in American foreign policy.

It is interesting that Mr Greenberg mentions the Burmese military junta because that is a very unfashionable tyranny. Political wonks and media sages who are happy to give China or Iran a pass, tend to be up in arms about Burma. Come to think of it, they used to be up in arms about Darfur. Whatever happened to that outrage?

So, if the new Administration is ready to defy fashionable opinion over Burma, it really is ready to extend the hand of friendship to all dictators.

Meanwhile, the word is that President Obama is going to give the twentieth anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall a miss. He presumably does not think a trip to Berlin now when he is no longer campaigning for the presidency to be of any importance. Besides, given his predilection for dealing with tyrants and dislike of spontaneous public movements, he may not like those pictures (if he has ever seen them) of people taking the Wall apart.

Michael Barone shows himself to be unimpressed:

PRESIDENT Obama, who found time to go on a 24-hour jaunt to Copenha gen on Oct. 2 to seek the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago, apparently can't find the time for a 24-hour trip to Berlin on Nov. 9 for a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Well, we all have our priorities, and the president can't be everywhere at once, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will surely represent America ably in Berlin.

Mind you, says Mr Barone, when one remembers what the then Senator Obama said in his speech in the Tiergarten about fighting for freedom, defeating the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, standing together against the various threats and compares it with his dithering over Afghanistan and frequently shown preference for enemies of freedom, it might be a good idea for him not to go. Madame Secretary of State, who will be brought out of the closet and dusted off for the occasion, will manage.

Read Barone’s article. Well worth it.