The stage was set. He of no-EU-flag-on-my-castle fame was in town and the European Parliament was prepared to quiver with moral outrage. Vaclav Klaus, Czech EU president and dependable supplier of anti-EU commentary, is the politician Europe-loving MEPs love to hate.
He started off gently enough. He “appreciated” being in the European Parliament. The Czech Republic would celebrate 5 years of EU membership in May with “dignity.” “There is no alternative to European Union membership.”
Then he gave them something to make them sit up in their sits. Do you really think, he asked them, that every decision you take absolutely needs to be decided here and not closer to the people.
A mutinous silence from most of the floor.
Mr Klaus continued unperturbed and upped the criticism. He said it is a mistake that European Union integration is “a dogma that cannot be criticised.” He then compared the European Union with the Soviet Union, referring to the EU as a centrally-planned, state-run economy.
The European Parliament, he went on, suffers from the fact that unlike in other parliamentary democracies there is no opposition, no section of the house that is against the government as in a member state.
The Lisbon treaty would make this even worse, and lead to even “greater alienation” from the people. This appeared to be the straw that broke the back of some listening MEPs. There was a sudden uprising and several walked out in a huff.
The timing was unfortunate though. It did more to underline Mr Klaus’ point about the importance of debating alternative views in the house than look like an action of principle. Never mind.
A final tribute to the merits of free trade and liberalism and then he left, surrounded by a fog of disapproval.
Except from the back of the room. MEPs from the eurosceptic end of the political spectrum sit mainly at the back of the House. They were grinning delightedly, clapping enthusiastically and hurrahing with gusto. They even gave him a standing ovation. It is rare for them to get a speaker they consider one of their own addressing the whole house and they lapped it up.
So whether you agreed with Mr Klaus or not – his comparison of the EU with the Soviet Union was unworthy - it was for European Parliament standards highly entertaining. Is it possible that Wednesday morning contained more action in one hour than in several years previously?
There were walkouts, booing, hurrahing, a (tiny) bit of repartee and a controversial speech. It was all enough to make the parliament interesting. Even Parliament chief Hans-Gert Poettering was animated.
#1 by Peter Sain ley Berry on February 19, 2009 - 7:33 pm
Needless to say Mr Klaus’ speech does not figure (as of this moment) on the advertised programme of EuropParlTV on the Parliament’s website. Whatever you may think of Mr Klaus and his views there is no doubt he is newsworthy. It is clear that those who control the Parliament’s public face have a very odd view of news and debate. Here’s a subject that maybe should be explored in more detail.
#2 by Denise Green on February 20, 2009 - 10:28 am
Whilst I do not agree with the comparison of the EU to the USSR, I do agree with his other sentiments. The original concept of free market trade across Europe was a good idea. The thought of a United States of Europe is not.
#3 by Chris on February 20, 2009 - 11:00 am
@Peter: well Europarltv never broadcasts speeches after the event (it does live though).
If you really feel you missed something go to EP website click EP live, then multimedia liberay and then the date -it was on Thursday, 19th…
direct link is http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/faces/vod/player.jsp?date=20090219&askedDiscussionNumber=6&language=OR
Plus on the homepage of the Parliament you can find an audio and the script of the speech
#4 by Bogdan on February 20, 2009 - 12:06 pm
“is the politician Europe-loving MEPs love to hate”
That’s a very misguided label you got there. Not even most euroskeptics have something against Europe and not all EU-lovers are that interested in the welfare of the continent.
#5 by David Ben-Ariel on February 21, 2009 - 11:24 pm
They proved his point!
Imagine a boiling pot with a frog in it, and the pot is marked “EU” and the frog’s back bears the name “Sovereignty” and the fire under the pot is “Fascism” and within the rising steam from the boiling pot are ghostly words like “Freedom of Speech,” “Freedom of Religion,” and “Independence”… and you get the picture of what is going on.
#6 by zeleneye on February 23, 2009 - 11:04 am
Poster #6 is an idiot – is there no moderation on this site?
Fascsism is driving the EU? Come on. Whatever your prejudices about the EU, that is a puerile and plain stupid comment.
As the poster’s perceptions about freedom of speech…get a life.
Is the poster from the UK, where the national press is concentrated in the hands of a couple of tycoons? If you guys had freedom of speech, you might get a bit more balanced commentary.
#7 by Euro-Star on February 23, 2009 - 5:33 pm
Well, I don’t find any of Klaus’ statements amusing. It is easy and cheap to critczise the EU or the Lisbon treaty but I miss serious alternatives. Klaus can not praise EU membership while trying to block integration and development at the same time. Being a member to harm the union? Not really the right reason for membership I guess. His views on Europe are views of a minority while he acts like he represents a majority, calling the majority he doesn’t like ” non democratic ” and to copare the EU with the Sovjet union is simply stupid. I don’t remember when Latvia or Estonia democratically decided to join the SU, nor do I remember a common EP or court of justice. First of all there is opposition at the EP – see the s.c. ” europseceptics ” and ” nationalists ” ( not very kind persons though ) but no opposition in the traditional way as the EU is no national state and there is no traditional government – no gov., no – or let’s say other forms of – opposition, that should be logical.
Klaus and some other ” eurosceptics ” try to fool citizens by trying to compare the EU with a traditional national state or using terms which simply don’t fit at all. The EU is sui generis, something new without a role model. And a strong and working EU is more needed than ever – one can only hope for Lisbon being finally ratified by the end of the year. Else I see some very dangerous years for Europe to come.
#8 by PS on February 24, 2009 - 1:52 am
To: Euro-Star
There is certainly an alternative outlined by president Klaus: do not extend the competences of the EC, or even return the decision-making in some fields back to the national or even lower level. For example, why EC intends to force all the EU-countries to stop using the classical light bulbs? This decision should not be even done by national parliaments. It should be left on the individuals, which kind of light source to buy and which not. Or why should make the EP suggestions on livestock manure, as he does, instead leaving this item on the village-level or on a livestock farmer decision?
On the EU membership: When president Klaus’s country entered EU, it entered a very different EU than that one beeing possibly created after the Lisboa treaty would come into force. Therefore, the alternatives can and have to be offered before moving further.
When talking about minority, just do not count the representatives of the countries, but rather citizens. You will be probably surprised, on which side the minority is. The good example is Ireland last June.
The comparison with the Soviet Union is the statement of the reporter, not of the president Klaus. He did not make such a statement. Please, hear his speach carefully. However, a comparison can be made perhaps between EU and the former Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), which decided a large majority of economical items centrally. And the Eastern European countries entered COMECON “democratically“: through the decision of their parliaments.
On the issue of opposition, Euro-Star admits that there is no traditional government in EU. Yes, I agree. It is an “experimental“ government formed by the commissioners who were in many cases not successfull at the national level and who are exporting their non-elected ideas to the higher, unfortunatelly more powerfull, level of EU. That’s a real democratic deficit.
General statements like “… a strong and working EU is more needed than ever …“ are non-sensitive to a particular selected alternative. For examlple, I can say that “more buerocratic, centrally driven EU is less competitive“ – and it certainly does not help to create “a strong and working EU“.
#9 by Euro-Star on February 28, 2009 - 2:25 am
@PS : For environmental reasons, of course.
The Nice EU is worse than the Lissbon EU – logically they joined a worse EU and not a better one. There is and will be no serious alternative to Lissbon. The reforms are no luxuary, they are inevitable. National parlaments will get more power and so will the EP. Nothing wrong with that I guess, a very democratic move. That much about the ” democratic deficit “. Those in favour of more democracy have to support Lissbon. Klaus wants a weak EU or even just a free trade zone, like the EFTA, but such a EU would never survive competion with existing and growing international powers. Only unity and a strong, political Europe can be the answer. That’s the only truth.
#10 by PS on March 8, 2009 - 12:03 am
To Euro-Star:
No real arguments are given. You probably have not read carefully the Lisboa treaty: otherwise you could not write that the national parlaments will get more power.
Your last statement “That’s the only truth” explains everything. This really stops any discussion.
#11 by Buy to let remortgage on May 1, 2009 - 1:09 am
I don’t see much problem with that .EU parliament should be open for discussion. Perhaps there is some sense in being able to make decisions “closer to people”. In fact EU would have achieved more if there were more active people like him. Comparison of EU with Soviet Union is not new, it was said earlier and will be used again.EU has grown substantially and we all know that some decisions take very long time to be approved. If EU wants to survive current crisis and flourish for many years to come, we need to adapt a system of quick and effective decision making or allow member states to make decisions on the spot.