An MTI piece earlier today stated how Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Balázs wasn’t exactly ecstatic about Czech President Václav Klaus’s attempt to amend the Lisbon Treaty. What that piece was unclear about, however, was that Balázs’s opposition to the treaty stems from the possible mention of the Beneš Decrees in this amendment. According to the Slovak Spectator:
Slovakia must insist on the Treaty of Lisbon including Slovakia as well as the Czech Republic in connection with a possible exemption in terms of the provisions of the 1945 Beneš Decrees, said the Slovak Foreign Affairs Ministry on October 18, the TASR newswire wrote.
This was the reason why the Wall Street Journal reported:
Balazs Monday said he would not support Klaus’ proposal for exceptions to the Lisbon Treaty if the sought-after changes mention the Benes Decrees, laws enacted after World War II that resulted in mass expulsion of ethnic Germans and Hungarians from the then Czechoslovakia.
Relations between Hungary and Slovakia further cooled two years ago after the Slovak government reaffirmed the decrees. The possible inclusion of them within the treaty is why Hungary may become Klaus’s unlikely ally in opposing the treaty. Today, however, the Prague Daily Monitor added:
The “Benes decrees” will not be mentioned in the opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that Czech President Vaclav Klaus makes a condition for his signature under the Lisbon treaty, Czech European Affairs Minister Stefan Fuele said yesterday.
This would seem to undercut attempts by the Slovakians to be included in the Czech opt-out, as they’ve already signed the Lisbon Treaty and the process of “un-signing” it or raising objections now wouldn’t exactly go over well. So, a bunch of hoopla over nothing? Previous experience suggests all sides are just getting warmed up.
Well, Slovakia has ratified it but we haven’t, and
for us in Czechia, it is pretty logical and fairly
sounding to demand the same exception for Slovakia,
too. I think that most Czech politicians will think
that it is a logical step. And Slovakia may push
for this understanding simply because it will veto
any opt-out for Czechia unless it includes
Slovakia, too.
It will be a loose-loose game
“It will be a loose-loose game”
You mean hookers will be involved?
lose-lose should be correct, I have to work on my english, but your suggestion about the hookers sounds good, you have to bring some boys for Klaus either
Does anyone else think it is completely ludicrous to make amendments to a treaty that 26 out of 27 countries have already ratified?
If you sign up to something, and then something else is added, are you retrospectively deemed to have agreed to that as well?
It’s like adding a 0 to an already signed cheque!
For me, all 26 countries should now have to re-ratify it…ha…
I think it would be time to ban chek-o-slovakian products and
introduce visas to chec-o-slavic citizens, and in the meanwhile in
the same way as the Benes decrees did deport all slavic citizens
and take all their belongings to the state. That would be equal and
than checoslovakians could enjoy all the benefits of thier Benes
lófasz D)))
I agree that any changes made after other members have signed the treaty should be re-ratified, giving those countries the option to take the ammended treaty to reforendum. Otherwise as another poster has stated it is like adding a zero to the cheque after it has been signed. I for one thing that German and Hungarians who were forecably evicted from there homes in light of the 1945 Beneš Decrees should have the right to challenge this in court. I for one as an English person would willingly accept a reforendum on the ammended treaty on the basis that it has changed to much.
Simon,
Nothing stopped any Government from not accepting this opt-out last Thursday.
They were all there and all accepted it.
If you do not like it, then you punish the Party/Parties in the next Election.
It is up to each Parliament to decide how the ratification of the Treaty should be handled, by Parliamentary vote only or a Referendum.
The main reason why the Treaty went through is that Czech President Klaus’ behaviour showed the impossibility in today’s decision machinery, where all member states have one vote and all have to agree.
Why should Malta with 407,810 citizens have as much say as France with 64,473,140 citizens?
We speak about 498,955,350 people in EU-27, compared to 305,529,237 in the US and 141,903,979 in Russia.
Makes you think what we can do if we become a bit more united.
@Simon
“I agree that any changes made after other members have signed the treaty should be re-ratified, giving those countries the option to take the ammended treaty to reforendum.”
You are correct but I would go further. Subsequent governments replacing the post-Communist Communist governments have every right to modify and/or reject anything that they find contrary to their national interests.
@Simon
Hungarians should be concerned, very concerned. I do not know if you can read Hungarian but you would find this comment I found on another list very interesting:
Bár a Rotschildok a hangsúlyt innentől kezdve amerikai üzleteikre fektették, nem feledkeztek meg európai érdekeltségeikről sem. 1976-ban a franciaországi de Rotschild Fréres nevét Banque Rotschild-re változtatták. 70-ben Edward Heath brit miniszterelnök Lord Victor Rotschildot nevezte ki politikai kabinetének élére. Vezetése alatt Nagy-Britannia nemsokára az Európai Közösség tagja lett. Másfél évtizeddel később, az N. M. Rotschild & Sons tanácsára a brit kormány privatizálta az állami gázszolgáltató vállalatot, a British Gas-t. Két évvel később Edmond de Rotschild megalapította a World Conversation Bankot, amely a harmadik világ országaival lebonyolított üzletekre szakosodott. Ennek értelmében a szegény országok kölcsönökért földdel fizetnének a Rotschildoknak, ami igen komoly kilátásokkal kecsegtet, hiszen a fejlődő országok a világ szárazföldjének harminc százalékát foglalják el. 1995-ben dr. Kitty Little atomtudós különös bejelentést tett, mely szerint a világ urániumforrásainak 80 százaléka Rotschild-kézen van.
Subsequent governments replacing the post-Communist Communist governments have every right to modify and/or reject anything that they find contrary to their national interests.
Tom at November 4, 2009 7:28 AM
—
Which “right” do you refer to?
And why should that “right” be exclusive only to “post-Communist Communist governments”, why not equal for all EU member states?
I know you will claim some “moral superiority”, because no legal such exist.
There are no “post-Communist Communist government” as EU member states, then no EU member states are “Communist”.
That you do not like the MSZP does not make it “communist” in the eyes of the EU.
All EU member states are Parliamentarian Democracies, look that up.
Ildikó Lendvai, the Communist leader of MSZP
A few days ago, we wrote that Ildikó Lendvai became the new leader of the Socialists. In fact, then she was only a candidate; but today, she became officially the leader of the Socialist party.
Ildiko Lendvai 63 years old. She has a background in history and philosophy. Her political career started in 1974, in the Communist Youth Organization as an associate of the cultural department. She also worked for the Academy but she became most remembered as the personal censor of György Acél, the most notorious ruler of the Hungarian cultural course during the communist era.
After the collapse of communism, she continued her political activities in the party. In 1994, she became the president of Budapest chapter of the Socialist party. In the same year, she became the member of the Parliament. Since the year 2000 up until now, she has served as the vice-president of the party and since 2002, she has been working as a floor leader.
In her first speech as the new party leader, she thanked Mr. Gyurcsany the work he did for the party. She said, “We are not ashamed but proud of you”.