Offering us a very early Christmas present (although I swear it was warmer on Christmas day that it was yesterday) Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, has intimated that he intends to refer the <s>constitutional</s> Lisbon treaty to his country's constitutional court at the start of August. With the support of 17 senators, he will seek a ruling on whether the treaty complies with the Czech constitution, thereby delaying once more the ratification of the treaty, which he can now do until the court has given its verdict.

View full article here

This is not true. It’s fabrication by EuropeanVoice, namely Simon Taylor, which spreads into Western Europe media. The truth is that Lisbon Treaty is refered to the Constitutional Court by the group of the Senators without any involvement by Václav Klaus.

The Western journalists stupidly consider Václav Klaus to be the demiurge of anything what happens in the Czech Republic. The fact that some senators are in accord with Klaus doesn’t mean that they are Klaus’ puppets, the fact that Klaus was in disaccord with Topolánek doesn’t mean that Klaus was involved in the fall of Topolánek’s government and so on.

Three questions for anyone familiar with Czech Law:

1) If the treaty is sent back to the Czech high court, how long (roughly) would it take for the Justices to complete their review?

2) If the Czech court rules in favor of the treaty before the next British GE, can Klaus stall signing the treaty until May 2010 (assuming Brown manages to hang on by the skin of his teeth that long)?

3) What happens if Klaus vetoes the treaty as a last resort? Would a veto result in another legal delay in the Czech courts?

Thanks in advance.

It won't matter anyway. They'll work round it piecemeal. They already are.

Thank you. Why to I fall into my own trap and believe anything the MSM says?

Does anybody know how the Czech people would vote in the unlikely event they’re actually given the opportunity?

When is the next general election in the UK? Is there any chance the treaty will be stalled for long enough to allow Mr Cameron to take “power”? Things could get very interesting assuming the Conservatives win and Mr Cameron keeps his promise and holds a referendum of course.

I wrote to President Klaus last month asking him to withhold his signature until next year and I received a reply within 2 weeks (a quicker response than my MP).

Here's part of what he said, dated 26th June:

"...in the coming weeks a group of senators is going to refer the Treaty to the Constitutional Court with specific questions on the compliance of the Treaty with the Czech Constitution. I will be the last one to decide on the [Czech] ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

I closely follow the situation in your country and know about the promise made by the Conservative Party to hold a referendum...I am aware that withholding my signature would be one, and eventually last, chance for them to keep this promise.

[The Treaty] certainly does not add to the Union's democratic legitimacy from the citizen's point of view, and I think that in case the ratification goes that far [i.e. signed by the Polish President, a yes vote in second Irish referendum, and approved by German Constitutional Court] the people of the UK should have their say on the Treaty.”

Wonderfull news....and it'll certainly wipe the Cloe Smith grin, off the Green Tosser's face.

There's a latest date for the next UK general election, which is I think, June 2010, but the PM can call the election virtually any time it suits him. When Brown took over from Blair in 2007 it appeared that he was going to call an election then, but he bailed out. It looks unlikely that whoever is Labour PM, probably Brown, will call an election before the latest date.

There's a chance that the treaty can be stalled long enough for Cameron to take office, but it looks slim. June 2010 is quite a long time for things stalling the treaty to hold out. A lot of people think that suits Cameron very well, because making a lot of noise about a referendum in opposition is fine, but calling a referendum with a likely no vote isn't something he wants to do, whatever he says.

Thanks comet.

Did he go as far to talk about a retrospective referendum? (If that’s legally possible).

How do you know ?

If you look at some of the interviews with William Hague (Shadow Foreign Secretary) before the EU elections a few weeks back, his position is that should the Conservative Party form the next government and find the Lisbon Treaty ratified, "we will not let matters rest there". Several interviewers tried to get him to clarify what this meant and he absolutely wouldn't. In particular, he wouldn't answer the question on a post-ratification referendum apart from saying "we will not let matters rest there". The Tory position on 'Europe' as they like to call it, has been 'In Europe, but not run by Europe' for years, which you can make of what you will.

If you look at the Conservative manifesto offered before the Euro elections, there was talk about a "Europe of Nation States", repatriating certain powers and halting further integration. My view is that it was a statement of vague intention to turn the EU into something it wasn't designed to be, ignoring the question of how they were going to go about it. It attempted to suggest enough to keep Tory Eurosceptics onside, without saying anything definite. I recall it specifically excluded withdrawal.

Opinions differ about a retrospective referendum. One way of looking at it is that the LT has no democratic legitimacy fort the UK as all major parties in the last general election promised a referendum. A sovereign nation can repudiate treaties if it wants, or it could be argued that the LT was entered into on fraudulent terms. The LT was dead by its own terms after the Irish no vote. The only law that applies in the UK is UK law. etc.

If it looks like a duck ... if it quacks like a duck ... if it sh*ts like a duck ... it is a ... ?

Speaking with forked tongue seems to be his game then. I won’t hold my breath so. One wonders how long the Conservatives can survive as a major party when they’re constantly running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

Most Irish parties except Sinn Féin (a very minor party at best) are made-up of rampant Eurowhores. No speaking with forked tongues there.

I don’t know which is worse.

It's a balancing act the Conservatives have been getting away with for years. It looks as if the rank and file of the party is mainly Eurosceptic, but the upper echelons mainly are not. Something that terrifies them is squabbling over 'Europe'. There and again they can lose enough votes to UKIP in marginal seats to not win the seat.

The EU is an issue to which a lot of problems can be traced, but its effect isn't particularly obvious, and it isn't a winning or losing matter at GEs on its own. It isn't really accurate to see it as a foreign power imposing unpopular laws either. Come EU elections, where the EU is a major question, the Conservatives 'talk tough on Europe', to within limits.

Most of our politicians talk with forked tongues and it looks as if there are a lot of things they don't want to address, such as the bizarre devolutionary arrangements Labour have created.

I think it more likely the Labour Party could collapse in the way that the Liberal party did in the 1920s than the Conservatives will disappear.