A Czech President and a Bulgarian Poll

Milos Zeman, a former social democrat Prime Minister, won the first direct elections to the office of Czech president at the weekend. The presidency in the Czech Republic is mostly ceremonial, though Vaclav Klaus used the position to great effect in his opposition to the Lisbon Treaty during the Czech presidency of the Council. Before this the President was indirectly elected.

Zeman led the polls in the first round of the election at 24.2%, followed by Karel Schwarzenberg's 23.4%. Schwarzenberg was foreign minister during part the Czech presidency of the EU. As the BBC reports:

"Mr Zeman is seen as a hard-drinking, chain-smoking politician, known for his witty put-downs of opponents.

[...]

[Schwarzenberg is] A titled prince, 75 years old but wildly popularly amongst young, urban voters, in the early 1990s, he worked as chancellor to the President Vaclav Havel, the leader of the Velvet Revolution that brought down Communist rule in 1989."

Both of them beat the eye-catching  university professor Vladimír Franz in the first round.

The final result was 54.8% to Zeman and 45.19% to Schwarzenberg. Both Zeman and Schwarzenberg are more pro-European than Vaclav Klaus.


While the Czech Republic was holding its first direct presidential elections, Bulgaria was running its first referendum since the end of the Communist era. The referendum was on whether to build the country's first nuclear power station (which would cost €10 billion), but the referendum failed to pass due to the very low turnout in the harsh wintry weather. The 20% turnout meant that the referendum didn't reach the 60% threshold to make the poll valid.

The left-wing opposition is celebrating the vote in favour of the nuclear power station as a victory, even if the vote is not binding.

Lisbon Treaty Ratified: only months of speculation left!

In the course of one day, the Lisbon Treaty has had the challenges against it rejected by the Czech Constitutional Court, and Klaus has finally signed it into law. The Treaty has now been fully ratified in all 27 member states, and the way is clear for it to be brought into force on 1st December.

So ends almost a decade of wrangling, negotiation and debate (of varying degrees of coherence). But fear not, the endless speculation about how the constitutional structure of the EU will evolve isn't over yet - though the prospect of a referendum on the Treaty is off the table for the Conservatives, when they announce their policy tomorrow (some political improv from Cameron, perhaps?), it will almost certainly feature a commitment to tinker further with the EU constitutional system.

The question is: how practical will the Tories be when it comes to their (re)negotiation over competence? When reflecting on the Tories' record on Europe, the capacity for pragmatic engagement isn't particularly confidence-inspiring, especially given the recent news of how much influence hardline Eurosceptics (in particular "Better Off Out" supporter Daniel Hannan) will have on the political thought and direction of the ill-conceived European Conservatives and Reformists Group.

But it's not just that the Conservatives seem stuck in an ideological black hole on Europe; Tory policy making seems to have lost all sense of pragmatism when it comes to constitutional thought - and even all sense of clear thought of how principles should be carried out. This was made clear for me when Cameron spoke on constitutional reform within the UK, which was full of weak sops to parliamentarianism mixed with attacks on judical power and on the concept of entrenched human rights.

Practically speaking, there's not much the Tories can realistically ask for; it will need a lot of political goodwill to get any concessions through, since it will require treaty change, which will be subject to unanimity. Would the UK need to offer something to gain opt outs? The obvious concession would be the Rebate (which is nigh-on indefensible), but it's hard to square this with Eurosceptic thought that the UK is (1) already paying too much, and (2) the appearence that as the UK withdraws from aspects of the EU, it's harder to explain (particularly to an Eurosceptic audience) how paying more is justified. In any case, the concessions the 26 can offer is extremely limited by the nature of the Union (after all, despite the opt-out from the Charter, if legislation is drafted and passed in a way that respects the Charter, the opt-out's practical effect may be limited).

In fact, the rhetoric and practical issues involved mean that it's hard to see how the changes can be either very trival (such as the Economist's passport example) or quite fundamental (to the point of leaving the EU).

And if that doesn't keep you from going into post-Lisbon withdrawal pangs, there'll no doubt be lots of opportunity to analyse how the Lisbon reforms are playing out in practise.

Phew - see? Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?

Will Klaus be overruled?

President Klaus of the Czech Republic is holding out on signing the Lisbon Treaty, despite both houses of the Czech Parliament ratifying it - the only other head of state to do so is President Lech Kaczyński of Poland. Klaus has even stated that he'll be the last person to sign it.

But EUobserver has reported that Czech MPs (from the CSSD party) are getting tired of Klaus' antics (and presumably also of the ceremonial president ignoring the will of parliament), and may draw up a motion to override the President so caretaker prime minister Jan Fischer can sign the Treaty and complete the ratification process in the Czech Republic. If there is a vote, it is likely to only take place after the Czech Constitutional Court has dealt with the latest Lisbon Treaty complaints (which may be September, or, if the case is thrown out, mid-July). The motion would only need a simple majority in both houses to pass, so it would be easier to get through than the Treaty itself, but there's no guarantee that the motion would have enough support. At the moment the CSSD are only debating the option.

European Elections 2009: Polling Day 3

The European elections have started in Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia and Outre-mer parts of the French Republic.


Czech Republic:

Polling continues for the second and final day today in the Czech Republic, with President Klaus only voting this morning - he famously derided the EP elections as "unnecessary". Turnout is expected to be low, and many of the 30 parties running for a share of the Czech Republic's 22 seats won't win enough votes to send any MEPs to Brussels/Strasbourg. Former President Havel has backed the Green party, but it's unclear how much of a boost they'll get: Green parties generally haven't attracted much support in the new member states.

Lubos Palata has complained that there's no real choice for pro-European voters.

More detailed info on the Czech Republic here.



Italy:

In Italy, immigration and Berlusconi's private life are talking points, but it's unlikely that divisive immigration rhetoric or continuing questions over Berlusconi's private life is going to dent his People of Freedom party's chances. With the left in disarray (as in France), and Berlusconi's ratings amazingly high for a leader in power during the economic crisis, the EPP can expect a big win here.



Cyprus:

Poor turnout for the final election rally of the ALDE-aligned European Party is not encouraging for their prospects, despite the leader claiming that the party wanted it nice and quiet. The ADLE-aligned Democratic party is almost certain of a seat.

The Communist, GUE-NGL aligned AKEL party (who controls the country's presidency), is one of the main parties fighting the elections - in 2004 they returned 2 MEPs. While the Democratic Rally (DISY), EPP-aligned, also returned 2 MEPs in 2004. Both parties are certain of returning 2 MEPs each again in the 6 seat country constituency.

The final seat is up for grabs. Low turnout and an overview of the elections in Cyprus here.



Latvia:

I'm afraid I don't know much about the elections in Latvia at all, though their economic is one of the worst hit in the economic crisis, so issues such as joining the euro early or devaluation of the Lat are likely to be high up.

The EPP-aligned New Era party is currently leading a 4-party governing coalition (only came in March 2009) but they've faced a loss of popularity over recent years. The People's Party headed the old government, but is still in the governing coalition (it's also EPP aligned), so I'm not sure how far the governing parties can escape punishment at the ballot box.

The Latvian Social Democratic Worker's Party is the PES-aligned party in Latvia, but it doesn't have a history of doing well in elections and is currently not in Parliament.

For Human Rights in United Latvia returned a MEP to the Greens-EFA in 2004 (I think it was the only Green-aligned MEP to be returned from the new eastern European Member States in 2004). It is currently represented in parliament, so it should have more of a chance of retaining its seat than the LSDWP has of gaining one.



Malta:

Immigration is a big issue, as in Italy, and for similar reasons (though minus the Roma issue). Malta returns 5 MEPs to the European Parliament. Predict 09 has forecast no change in the party share of MEPs, with 3 MEPs for the Labour Party (PES), and 2 for the Nationalist Party (EPP). The Nationalist Party is currently in government.

Turnout (as of 2pm) is around 34%.



Slovakia:

The country with the lowest turnout in the last European elections (17%).

The governing PES-aligned Direction - Social Democracy was suspended from the PES in 2006 for forming a government with the right-wing Slovak National Party, which was PES considers as a party that stirs up racial hatred.

The Party of the Hungarian Coalition and the Slovak Democratic and Christian Union - Democratic Party are the main EPP aligned parties in Slovakia and are in opposition.

There's recently been a controversy over the Hungarian minority, with the party leader of the Hungarian right-wing Fidesz party, Orban, stressing the importance of electing Hungarian MEPs to defend the interests of Hungarians across the border in a comment in a meeting with the Hungarian Coalition. There was a meeting of the Slovak parliament on the last campaigning day to discuss the event - and it may have been used in an attempt to boost turnout and for party advantage.

Predict 09 predicts that Direction - Social Democracy will gain two seats, while the EPP aligned parties will lose seats.


France:

Not much to add since my last update - the clash between Daniel Cohn-Bendit and MoDem leader Francois Bayrou seems to be the big story of the campaign.

European Elections 2009: Polling Day 2

The European elections have opened up in Ireland and for the first day in the Czech Republic.

[Edit: I'll add in a small "contents" for this post, considering it's size].

- Ireland.
- Czech Republic.
- UK.
- Northern Ireland.

Ireland:

In Ireland, where there are local as well as European elections (and 2 by-elections), turnout is looking to be pretty healthy on early indications. Politically, I don't think there's much to add since Wednesday/Thursday and on the news I've commented on before then.

It still looks like 2-3 seats at the most will change hands, with Dublin the closest battle ground - Eoin Ryan (FF/ELDR), Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin/GUE-NGL)and Joe Higgins (Socialist Party/Non-Aligned) have been very close in the polls. It will be interesting to see if the interventions by politicians on possible alliances and how to transfer will have much effect on the third seat race there.

The Irish Independent has an article on 12 key local election battlegrounds, if you are interested.

[[The news has been focused to a certain extent on a Leaving Certificate (A-Level) story, where the English 2 paper was accidentally opened a day early, resulting in the exam being rescheduled for 9.30am on Saturday. Then there was an issue over Jewish students who didn't want to sit the test on the Sabbath (they will now be in isolation in a house over the Sabbath so they can take the test later). The Leaving Cert is always a big story in the Irish media each year with stories on exam pressure, etc. (It is the Isle of Saints and Scholars, after all).]]



Czech Republic:

In the Czech Republic, polls opened today (they will be open tomorrow as well). Here's some summary and news:

The two main parties are of course the ODS (President Klaus' old party and Topolanek's party) from which Topolanek's government was drawn until its collapse. It will form a new group with the UK Conservatives (which could be called the "European Conservatives"). Topolanek isn't exactly Lisbon-friendly, and notably described Obama's economic policy as a "road to hell".

The PES aligned CSSD played a major role in bringing down the government in the first place, which may not have done their image any good with the electorate as the fall of a Czech government during the Czech presidency of the European Council damaged the perceptions of the Czech Republic in the rest of the EU. The CSSD's leader has been the target of an egging campaign recently (see the third story here). I can't see an enthusiastic turnout for his party or indeed overall.

(There's a chance that tensions between the ODS and CSSD could spill over into a legal battle).

The EPP aligned KDU-CSL has just chosen a new leader to improve its image and to improve its electability. The new chairman, Svoboda, signals a possible shift to the left in the centrist party. This party is a minor one however, so I doubt the EPP can expect to gain much here.

President Klaus has had a sharp exchange with French Foreign Minister Koucher since the Czech President declared that the EP elections are "unnecessary".

Post-communist president Havel has spoken out against the smear tactics in the election campaigning (fourth story here). From the news I've read and heard, I'm not expecting European issues to feature much at all, and I'd say the confidence in politicians will be very low as (some) voters go to the polls.

Turnout is not expected to be high, as interest in European issues in the Czech Republic seem to be quite low. European issues just don't seem to be being made visible and clear to voters in this campaign.



UK:

In the UK, local election results are mostly in (as of writing, 30 out of 34 councils have been declared), and they may indicate the shape of the European results (though the European elections may have a higher protest vote against the main parties).

Local Council Seats [Change in square brackets]:

Labour - 159 [+250]
Conservatives - 1330 [+217]
LibDems - 439 [-8]
Others - 159 [+34]

For more detail, see the BBC's website here.

A clear swing to the Conservatives in terms of seats important to note that the LibDems are the only main party to increase their share of the vote, while the Conservative share has fallen more than any other party - though it still leads the LibDems by about 10%. I wonder if who will benefit the most in the European elections - LibDems, Conservatives or UKIP? And if the Greens will make respectable gains.

Government-wise, trouble over the resignation of several cabinet ministers has forced a messy, if limited, reshuffle. Brown is in a weakened, but more secure position now. For some strange reason, Sir Alan Sugar will get a ministry (and a peerage). From a EU point of view, Europe Minister Caroline Flint, who resigned, has been replaced by Glenys Kinnock. Caroline Flint is supposed to have resigned over not being promoted - I wouldn't say that her performance as Europe Minister has been particularly deserving of a promotion however. Not that the cabinet is exactly bursting with talent...


Northern Ireland:

In Northern Ireland the turnout is guesstimated at 45% by BBC Newline, with the unionist candidates seemingly close together - predicted to be within 19-13% of each other. Mick Fealty over at Slugger O'Toole has flagged up some estimations, and there's some O'Toole analysis here. Transfers will be everything, and the turnout in different sections of society could be key to the transfer trends.

The Man who would be King(maker)

Concerns that an indirectly elected President may interfere with the formation of the next Czech government have been circulating in the Czech media, EurActiv reports. No, not Barroso (even if you'd think he could): the Czech President himself, Vaclav Klaus.

I had previously largely dismissed concerns that the fall of Topolánek's government would make that much difference to the Czech Presidency of the European Council (mainly based on the assumption that Topolánek's government would remain in place until Parliament could elect another one), but this article has made me think again. Though it should be noted that the Parliament may have trouble forming a government without any suggestion of interference from Klaus (the CSSD have acted irresponsibly as an opposition, so I wouldn't be surprised). In any case, if a government can't be formed, it certainly leaves a lot of power in Klaus' hands.

Whatever you're view on the EU and Klaus' Eurosceptic stance, the scenario painted is a disturbing one: that a government may be forced on an unwilling Parliament by what should be a ceremonial head of state. Perhaps I'm influenced too much by the role of the head of state in the UK and Ireland...

Is the Lisbon Treaty a hostage to US-Russian relations?

I would like to think not, but a report from EurActiv sadly suggests that EU politics are not subject to the decisions of European countries. And where are the effects of this diplomatic positioning being felt? Prague.

I've long since lost the impression that there was an effective government in the Czech Republic - does it get many laws passed, or is it just treaties that it has problems with?

Enlarge your Horizons

The Czechs are using the impending release of a Commission report on enlargement to push the benefits of enlargement. The report will be released on Friday and is supposed to detail how enlargement has strengthened the economies of both the new and old member states.

I've mixed feelings on this. The need for EU reform is pressing now, so with more members the EU will become less and less effective. Also, the countries closest to membership, Croatia and Turkey, face opposition from within the EU and still have progress to make on meeting the conditions for membership, so it's not as straight-forward as: enlargement is good, therefore we should push on with enlargement. Romania and Bulgaria were arguably not ready for membership, and it is a lot harder to put pressure for reform on them now that they are members (that said, some older members are in need of reform too...). It would also make keeping other candidate countries to the letter of the conditions harder in the future if any current candidate got a fast-track entry. Not that that's what's being suggested.

On the other hand, it would be good to open up more markets (by increasing the EU market size) and secure free trade. I'd like to see the report to see how much enlargement has added to the EU economy and how convincing the evidence is. I could see lots of conditions attached to the free movement of people, etc for any new member states that join over the next few years, though - if so many member states did it during the 2004 enlargement, then I can't see a more open approach any time soon. Would enlargement help at all in the current crisis? The 2004 member states attracted investment to grow; such investment is very scarce now.

Still, it's good to know that the Czech deputy prime minister has his enlargement priorities right:

""In general, Croatia is a country that belongs to the community - I go there almost every summer," he added. "It has a strategic value.""

Czechs (and others) and the Lisbon Treaty

The Czech parliament will not vote on the Treaty until the 15th of February. This will give the parliamentary committee time to make sure they've scrutinized it enough (is the official reason, so hopefully they have definitely read it through, unlike some Irish politicans). The EUobserver reports that the majority of Czechs are in favour of the parliament ratifying the Treaty, although this seems to be based mainly on concerns about prestige, and levels of knowledge about the Treaty itself are still very low.


In other news, Daniel Hannan has blogged that the Commission plans to extend its term against the rules. Now, I seem to remember that the extension of the term was agreed back in the December European Council, so that the next Commission would be chosen in a manner consistent with whichever way the next Irish referendum goes. Since the retension of a Commissioner is one of (if not the) key concerns of the Irish, and since under the Treaty of Nice the next Commission must have fewer members than the EU has member states, the extension is key to respecting the Irish vote - something Hannan and others claim to do and call for.

This could be an honest mistake (though as an MEP, you'd think that Hannan should be aware of these things...); a stranger position to me is that of the Polish President. Lech Kaczynski says that he will not sign the Lisbon Treaty unless the Irish vote yes in the next referendum. Ireland is rightfully proud and defensive of its constitution, and would be outraged if our president refused to accept the will of parliament because of a vote in another country.

We need to decide on rules of engagement on other European politicians when is comes to debating European issues. When is it acceptable and to what degree is it acceptable for other European politicians to become involved in national debates on European issues?

Libertas in the Czech Republic

Libertas has found someone to head its operations in the Czech Republic, in the form of Vladimir Zelezny. Or if not to head, at least join.

Mr. Zelezny is already an MEP, and is currently under investigation for tax fraud. He has also described himself as a Eurosceptic, something which was apparently an issue for Libertas with Mr. Mach (although perhaps that was only after Mach said that he wouldn't run on the Libertas platform).

Libertas is still incoherent ideologically, though this may not be a problem if it only runs as a one-issue party.

Ireland and Lisbon

It has been reported that there is a poll showing a majority in favour of Lisbon:

"The Sunday Independent / Quantum Research survey carried out last Friday showed that 55 per cent of the 500 people asked would support the treaty while 37 per cent said they would oppose it and 15 per cent said they were undecided."

However, as the article also points out, confidence in the government and the Taoiseach has collasped (and with good reason in my opinion).

While Fianna Fáil have been the senior partner in the government for more than a decade now, leading to the natural political reaction of blaming them for the state of the economy (and it is in a state, with reports that the government will have to borrow €45 million a day to sustain its budget this year), I think the collapse in support for the government has little to do with Lisbon (not that this was implied in the article). Most of the backlash began in September when budgetary proposals threatened to slash public spending in very uncomfortable ways (the issue of means-teasting free medical care for over 70s (Ireland isn't famous for it's "welfare state" in the first place) led to particularly bitter protests). The poor leadership of the government since hasn't improved matters, and probably indicates a collapse of confidence in itself, never mind on the side of the voters.

So the big question is can the referendum be won dispite this. The Irish public are very... sensitive, or rebellious if you want to put a more glamourous spin on it (and I make this generalization as an Irishman), so there are a lot of things for us to take "offence" at. (I will try to post later about the Irish Referendum in detail). The organisation and effectiveness of the No side (which is very good) in making the appeal to this side of the public will probably be the deciding factor. Though never underestimate the incompetence of the Yes side...

In other news, Declan Ganley has failed to find a local to wear the Libertas badge in the Czech Republic, at least so far. The Free Citizen's Party has been set up by Petr Mach to campaign on an anti-Lisbon platform. Ganley has declared that he is pro-EU, while Mach is eurosceptic, so that's ok then.

Of course, I know nothing about how their talks were carried out, but that they were talking about Mach running on a Libertas platform come election time gives me the impression that the "vetting" stage should have already taken place. So if it's important that Libertas is both "pro-europe" as well as anti-Lisbon, then it has clearly only become important recently.

Mind you, vetting isn't really needed when all they have to do is get elected, and then... well, nothing. Libertas sets itself up explicitly as a protest vote (and supposedly a very specific one at that), nothing more.

Besides all the arguments based on democracy,* why should taxpayers pay people not to do their jobs for 5 years?



*Including, but not limited to: Shouldn't the people have a voice during the 5 year term of the EP? Does it not damage the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the EP if its members are sent there without any policy platform? For a party which claims to want the EU to be reformed to have more democracy, is it not counter-productive to say the least to stand on a platform which will dent the effectiveness of the only directly elected institution in the EU?