Should Czech Republic sign treaty?

[RSS News]

The top Czech court is due to hear what could be the last legal challenge to the EU's Lisbon Treaty. Should they ratify?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Revy]

No, they should not.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Never!

[thecoffeecake1]

I didn't even know about this. No the czechs should not sign this, I hope they don't, i feel the EU will try to infringe upon the sovereignty of the members. I never was for the EU, It's massive capitalism in my opinion. Some of the smaller countries are hurting while it benefits the more powerful ones.

[scarletghoul]

i dont mind really.

[Sam_b]

There is an interesting debate currently ongoing within Czech politics with regards to that. Parliament has majority supported the signing of the treaty, including the largest coalition party the ODS, yet Vaclav Klaus has refused to sign it: not because of the sound working class arguments against it, but by (falsely) claiming it comes into conflict with the Czech Supreme Court.

If anyone can read Czech, there are some fascinating articles on www.blisty.cz (http://www.blisty.cz), and a couple on www.czechfocus.cz (http://www.czechfocus.cz) .

[Pierson's]

the eu is a funny thing. i support the idea of free movement of people, jobs, and so on which make things better for the average person. however, i really don't like the idea of giving lots of power to a centralised governing body, nor do i like the idea of the legal systems merging or similar stuff.

as for the 'lisbon treaty', i haven't read it, but it sounds really shit. if it really is as complicated as i've heard, i strongly support voting it down. after all, laws should be readable, if they have to exist at all.

[Uncle Ho]

The free borders and unified currency of the EU are a good thing, however the third way goons running the show hammering the last nails into the coffin of European Socialism are not.

I will choose strong Socialism over a unified currency and open borders, however, we must remember that both of these should be among the end goals of Socialist movements.

[Q]

This is a very useful article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/newvision.php) on this subject.

I don't think we should give this Czech bourgeois nationalist any attention or support. The fight against Lisbon is not so important by itself. The fight against the EU, as a bourgeois apparatus in the service of its member-states, is what matters. Capitalism is not able to truly unite Europe. The only force capable of offering resistance to it and to offer a positive alternative to it in the form of a united European republic, is the working class. Calling in our propaganda for this Czech president to refuse to sign the treaty, would be a mistake in that it creates illusions in bourgeois nationalists and the state fighting for the proletarian cause.

[Das war einmal]

The current president of the Czech republic is a fierce supporter of Milton Friedman and Thatcher's economics. But he is against the European Union and the Lisbon treaty. Anybody any idea why?

[Kayser_Soso]

Really it doesn't matter. Wherever the EU fails, they just force their plans through via another way. That's why they have this Lisbon treaty in the first place. Typical EU democracy- people vote their constitution down, so they repackage it so that most countries send it to the parliament to be rubber stamped.

[Tatarin]

the eu is a funny thing. i support the idea of free movement of people, jobs, and so on which make things better for the average person.

Not really, I think. The free movement of people is an obvious one, yes, but think about the jobs. Some eastern states have much lower wages and less regulations, of course the companies are going to want to be there. This, in turn, is bad for western states as their social securities (well, whatever they have left) must be cut down to attract capital. So either the east must adapt to the west, or vice versa. The EU wants the latter, I believe.


however, i really don't like the idea of giving lots of power to a centralised governing body, nor do i like the idea of the legal systems merging or similar stuff.

I, for one, are not "against this". I mean, yes, the centralization of power is never a good thing, but the positive thing is that we then would have only that one centralized state to fight against.


Capitalism is not able to truly unite Europe.

Very true, just as the United States isn't really united. But the Americans only have to fight that state. Fighting one is better than many, is it not?


Really it doesn't matter. Wherever the EU fails, they just force their plans through via another way. That's why they have this Lisbon treaty in the first place. Typical EU democracy- people vote their constitution down, so they repackage it so that most countries send it to the parliament to be rubber stamped.

Exactly. I never bought the idea that the media writes about how the EU will collapse if this one thing doesn't pass. It is completely ridiculous. The capitalists want this state, and as long as there are no significant opposing body to it, they will succeed. The nationalists could maybe pose as a problem, but even they are capitalists, and capitalists have a way of buying other capitalists.

In short, would the left have a great majority of people on it's side, then the EU would have a good fight ahead of it. However, this is not the case, yet I think a capitalist union of European states, which will have one bureaucratic organization, will get us closer to the goal than a continent of nationalistic morons propagating how superior they are than their neighbours.

Don't get me wrong, nothing except free movement is appealing to me in the EU. But in this situation, the enemy could be doing a small step in the right direction.

[Revy]

Very true, just as the United States isn't really united. But the Americans only have to fight that state. Fighting one is better than many, is it not?


Here is what I wrote in a letter to the Weekly Worker:

"The downsides of the EU are because it is controlled by the capitalist class, but so is the nation-state. The US should be the clearest example of this. There never was any North American Union. But the ‘sovereignty’ of the American bourgeoisie only allowed it to maintain global dominance on its own, wreaking havoc through imperialist war and continuing oppression at home. And here we find the answer: the problem is not the EU; it is capitalism, a global system which must be abolished."

[FSL]

EU isn't simply capitalist like its member-states. It has all the potential:the size, the economic power, the technology to become one of the major imperialist forces in the planet. And yes, if the US was 50 countries instead of 1 it would make a huge difference. A huge difference for democracy in latin america, for freedom in the Middle East, for how would the power be shared in international organizations like IMF or the World Bank.
You can't just sit back and watch while a gigantic monster is being born because you can then go and see the Big Ben without a passport.

Whether the czech president signs the treaty or not will depend on where the rulling class in his country will put its loyalty, EU or US. It certainly won't be a rejection -if it comes- with the workers in mind, but it would be useful. At least until the treaty comes again with a new name to get ratified in some other bizzare way.

[scarletghoul]

htehy should all die cuz i, drunk

[Philanthropist]

They should ratify the treaty. A move towards an EU superstate is obviously progressive in the fight for socialism to be established within member states:rolleyes:

[Tatarin]

And yes, if the US was 50 countries instead of 1 it would make a huge difference. A huge difference for democracy in latin america, for freedom in the Middle East, for how would the power be shared in international organizations like IMF or the World Bank.

But would it really? If not the US, then Russia, China, or perhaps EU instead of the US? Also, South America could just as well have stayed as British colonies, or become Chinese colonies, or even Russian colonies. No one can tell how history would have played out until the fact.

What I am trying to point out is that it is better with a Paris Commune on the "city of one million people"-level than on the "village with 1000 people"-level, so to speak.


You can't just sit back and watch while a gigantic monster is being born because you can then go and see the Big Ben without a passport.

In communism, everyone would have the freedom of seeing the Big Ben without any passport. Borders are just a figment of the imagination.