The Economist’s Charlemagne blog has a good piece on why Vaclav Klaus is being utterly ridiculous when he claims that the reassurances being made to Ireland and the UK over the Lisbon Treaty mean that he should hold off ratification:
Imagine that an internet rumour had started that Marmite (or baked beans, if you cannot stand Marmite) contained minute traces of pork fat, and this caused a fuss in British Jewish and/or Muslim circles. Then imagine that one supermarket offered to solve the problem by putting a kosher mark on the label, and another, with a big market share in northern England said they preferred to say it was halal on the label, and the whole thing became a fuss about multiculturalism. You could easily imagine the makers preferring to avoid putting any religious markings on the product at all. But one constant would remain through all of this fuss about whether Marmite is vegetarian, or baked beans kosher or halal. What was inside the jars and cans would not have changed “one iota”.
[*] well, if I wrote ‘good piece on the Lisbon Treaty’, who the hell would click through?
Either the treaty has changed in which case everyone does need to re-ratify it or it hasn't and therefore the Irish have already rejected it and theres no need to vote again.
I tried "The Economist" some time ago but gave up after about 3 editions. The convoluted and, in the end, innacurate extract you quote above confirms my supreme wisdom!