I've been reading in the news about the Lisbon Treaty and the recent rejection by Irish voters. I know that the Czech Republic hasn't ratified it yet, but I was wondering what the reaction is (or I guess, if there is really much of a reaction) to the Irish vote. It's one thing to read about, but in the news it's hard to judge how people really feel about an issue. If you don't mind answering, those of you in Europe...In general, did people in your area seem to support it? Not support it? Or was it pretty divided? Are people disappointed with it's failure?
it is very easy - Czech republic was until 1918 member of austrian monarchy. EU is becoming very similar. Austrian monarchy endup in bloody uprising in hungary, and later during 1st world war. Who wana to have same ? To have some "brusel" who will dictate as it is suitable for france/germany - especially or example tax issue? and there is also another issue - EU was not able to deliver to czech republic even official translation - this is ridiculouse. How to agreed on something what is not existing !!!!! Brusel is in arrogant possition, and they are trying to make monarchy without any piece of democracy. NOT to this new constitution!!!! never
I don't think the majority of people were actually voting on the Treaty - as most people interviewed said, they didn't really understand it. I think they were voting on the increasing arrogance of the Eurocrats, an arrogance perfectly illustrated by their reaction to the Irish vote so far viz how are we going to go ahead with the Treaty, even though the only country to vote on it has said no, and the French and Dutch said no to the Constitution, which was basically the same thing. I have always been a committed European but the individual nations seem to be increasingly irrelevant. The EU should stick to the few things that need a more international approach, and leave the rest to the nation states to deal with - in English political jargon, it's called subsidiarity.
I don't what the general view actually is in the Czech Republic but this report was in a national newspaper (Daily Telegraph) in England the day after the vote in Ireland: Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who is supported by the country's largest political party, called the Irish referendum vote a "victory of freedom and reason" and said "ratification cannot continue". His view was echoed in the Czech senate. "Politicians have allowed the citizens to express their opinion only in a single EU country," Mr Klaus said. "The Lisbon treaty project ended with the Irish voters' decision and its ratification cannot continue," he wrote on his own website, according to Czech news agency CTK. The resounding Irish no was a "victory of freedom and reason over artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy," he said. Premysl Sobotka, Czech senate chairman, also said there was "no sense" continuing with ratification, according to the agency. The Czech Republic, traditionally one of the more Euro-skeptic of the EU's 27 member states, is one of nine countries which have not yet ratified the treaty.
imho irish government(forced by EU) will throw as many referendums as will be necessary to tire Irish vorters and finaly they will vote for "yes" just because they will be bored of infinite voting... I would appreciate constitution in this form: Chapter 1 Each member state shall not limit, in any circumstances, the free movement of goods, services, persons or capital, except criminal cases. Chapter 2 Each member state shall not restrict any right derivable from Chapter 1. no longer, no shorter..
Wow, thanks; I really didn't know it (and the "eurocrats", interesting phrase) was so unpopular, although I knew that those in the UK and Ireland seemed less keen on it than the rest of the continent. Does anyone know why only Ireland held a referendum this time, when last time French and Dutch voters were allowed to vote as well? "Euro-skeptic?" That's an interesting Daily Telegraph coined word. Yes, it is odd that they are pushing ahead with ratification in other countries, when it has already failed in one, and all 27 are needed for ratification. So then is it the Lisbon Treaty specifically and the misunderstandings that surround it that people object to? Or the idea of an EU constitution at all?
Interesting, but is the debate only based on trade? I'll bet there is a lot more to the proposed constitution than that. I have no idea at all what is being proposed in that constitution, but I will throw this thought out. The US constitution establishes a government and gives it certain powers, but then a great deal of the constitution deals with limiting those powers and reserving rights for the various states. This would be my concern, not giving up powers, or at least reserving specific powers to the individual countries of the union. I should read about the proposed constitution. I'm sure it is somewhere on the net, as is everything else.
My own opinion is that all the other countries have denied their people a say in this because they know that the vast majority will vote "No". The vast majority are quite happy to accept the EU for what it was - a trading organisation and Kibicz's version of a constitution is great. However, the EU seeks further and further integration of its members and interferes more and more. It is now no longer a trading organisation but a huge political monster. From my own experiences, parts of the Czech Republic are benefitting very much from EU funds (as have other countries) but I fear that the interference of Brussels will ultimately be to the detriment of the free, simple and easy-going way of life that I have seen in those parts of the CR that I have visited. I hope I am wrong.
From your comments here, I wasn't surprised to read this this morning about the Czech Republic and the treaty http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7465448.stm Especially enlightening were the comments here, which echo many of your negative opinions. I really didn't know it was quite so unpopular. http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...=4972&edition=2&ttl=20080620171412&#paginator
