Pendleside Festive Dingbats C/D 6Th Jan
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
A Bit Of A Stretch From The "common Market"
I caught sight of this today (well I actually spotted it in the Torygraph, but this gives more details):
http://
Does anybody still doubt that the EU is intent on imposing a single legislature across the bloc? It sees fit to "investigate" measures taken by a democratically elected government in one of the member nations for inconsistencies with EU values. Of course the sanction (suspension of EU voting rights) is no great shakes. (If it was the UK it would make no appreciable difference as we are constantly outvoted in the EU Parliament anyway). But does anybody else like the idea of measures being taken by their elected MPs being "investigated" by the unelected EU Commission?
http://
Does anybody still doubt that the EU is intent on imposing a single legislature across the bloc? It sees fit to "investigate" measures taken by a democratically elected government in one of the member nations for inconsistencies with EU values. Of course the sanction (suspension of EU voting rights) is no great shakes. (If it was the UK it would make no appreciable difference as we are constantly outvoted in the EU Parliament anyway). But does anybody else like the idea of measures being taken by their elected MPs being "investigated" by the unelected EU Commission?
Answers
The European Commission launched an unprecedente
19:37 Thu 14th Jan 2016
As an aside to the question posed in the OP, I do rather like Al Murray's synopsis of the crisis in the EU. I'll post the youtube link via my tablet but will ask others to repost it for me as AB declines to do so for some inexplicable reason when using my Tab 4! Media URL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GBVTDLtTLtE
Description:
Description:
If memory serves, in this case it's a right wing Polish government wanting to appoint enough judges who support them to their equivalent of the supreme court to swing the balance in favour of the government. As an aside, they also plan on putting their own supporters in charge of the state TV and news - which would be like our government appointing their supporters to run the BBC.
Perhaps it is foolish of me, but I don't think that having a government in control of the supreme court via their appointees is a good idea. To my mind the judiciary has to be, as far as possible, independent of the government, if only to curb some of the excesses that governments can be capapble of.
Perhaps it is foolish of me, but I don't think that having a government in control of the supreme court via their appointees is a good idea. To my mind the judiciary has to be, as far as possible, independent of the government, if only to curb some of the excesses that governments can be capapble of.
I agree entirely with most of your sentiments, Huderon. Of course the judiciary should be independent of the executive. However, that's not really my point.
"...which would be like our government appointing their supporters to run the BBC."
Quite so. But if the UK government decided to do just that would you be happy to see a bunch of unelected Eurocrats "investigating" their decision? The Poles have not long had an election which, as far as I am aware, was free and fair. So having elected their government they now run the risk of seeing that new government penalised for taking decisions that were theirs, and theirs alone, to take.
"...which would be like our government appointing their supporters to run the BBC."
Quite so. But if the UK government decided to do just that would you be happy to see a bunch of unelected Eurocrats "investigating" their decision? The Poles have not long had an election which, as far as I am aware, was free and fair. So having elected their government they now run the risk of seeing that new government penalised for taking decisions that were theirs, and theirs alone, to take.
The reason the commission has launced the probe in is because the Polish government plans to load their supreme court with their supporters, indicating a desire to have a judiciary which is not independent (at least at the supreme court level).
One the criteria for membership of the EU is "stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities". My guess is that the commission is concerned that by having a supreme court which is not independent of the government it is possible that "the rule of law" bit can be compromised, hence the investigation.
One might argue that if the government passes legislation which is challenged in the courts, the rule of law applies. However if the supreme court is loaded in a way which is means it will always back the government the door is open for the government to pass legislation which may well adversely affect the man on the Clapham ommnibus, and he will have no way to challenge it.
One the criteria for membership of the EU is "stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities". My guess is that the commission is concerned that by having a supreme court which is not independent of the government it is possible that "the rule of law" bit can be compromised, hence the investigation.
One might argue that if the government passes legislation which is challenged in the courts, the rule of law applies. However if the supreme court is loaded in a way which is means it will always back the government the door is open for the government to pass legislation which may well adversely affect the man on the Clapham ommnibus, and he will have no way to challenge it.
The European Commission launched an unprecedented probe (investigation) today (13 January) into judicial changes introduced by Poland's new right-wing government to see if they violate EU democratic rules and merit punitive measures.
A democracy being investigated by an illegitimate democracy about democratic rules??
A democracy being investigated by an illegitimate democracy about democratic rules??
Admittance to the Euro Club comes with certain principles, ideals and shared valuess.
What has happened in Polands's case, is that the law has been changed to facilitate the States interferience in the free media. The State has given itself the power to remove anyone who does not follow the party line. It is a totalitarian law and one which does not fit in with EU or any democratic view of freedom of speech.
In essence, Poland was admitted to the EU because it conformed to certain entry criteria, but it has now changed its laws and now does not fit in with the rest of the EU.
If the entry rules were rigid and and unbending, that would be a problem, but they are not. The principles are fairly loose and undefined. However, a state run media that removes free speech in a member nation crosses that line. The fact that the law has been changed to make that possible may mean the law is not compatible with membership of the Euro Club. If Poles wish to return to the Soviet era of State Control, they should perhaps leave the EU first.
What has happened in Polands's case, is that the law has been changed to facilitate the States interferience in the free media. The State has given itself the power to remove anyone who does not follow the party line. It is a totalitarian law and one which does not fit in with EU or any democratic view of freedom of speech.
In essence, Poland was admitted to the EU because it conformed to certain entry criteria, but it has now changed its laws and now does not fit in with the rest of the EU.
If the entry rules were rigid and and unbending, that would be a problem, but they are not. The principles are fairly loose and undefined. However, a state run media that removes free speech in a member nation crosses that line. The fact that the law has been changed to make that possible may mean the law is not compatible with membership of the Euro Club. If Poles wish to return to the Soviet era of State Control, they should perhaps leave the EU first.
Essentially, then, Gromit, the decision of the Polish people to elect a government that was very likely to do this really means that must reform or be ejected from the EU. I wonder if there is anything similar the UK government could cobble together?
Thanks for your contributions. I understand that members of a club must abide by its rules but I find it hard to accept that an unelected body can determine that an elected government cannot do as it wishes.
Best Answer to orderlimit for summing up the situation so succinctly.
Thanks for your contributions. I understand that members of a club must abide by its rules but I find it hard to accept that an unelected body can determine that an elected government cannot do as it wishes.
Best Answer to orderlimit for summing up the situation so succinctly.
New Judge,
Part of the criteria for attaining EU member status:
// EU policies in the area of judiciary and fundamental rights aim to maintain and further develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. The establishment of an independent and efficient judiciary is of paramount importance. Impartiality, integrity and a high standard of adjudication by the courts are essential for safeguarding the rule of law. This requires a firm commitment to eliminating external influences over the judiciary and to devoting adequate financial resources and training. Legal guarantees for fair trial procedures must be in place. Equally, Member States must fight corruption effectively, as it represents a threat to the stability of democratic institutions and the rule of law. A solid legal framework and reliable institutions are required to underpin a coherent policy of prevention and deterrence of corruption. Member States must ensure respect for fundamental rights and EU citizens’ rights, as guaranteed by the acquit and by the Fundamental Rights Charter. //
Presumably, the Polish 'reforms' means that they would fail the entry criteria today.
The EU Commission is a non voting function of the EU Parliament. Its conclusions and recommendations to the Parliament will be voted on by the elected and democratic MEPs.
Part of the criteria for attaining EU member status:
// EU policies in the area of judiciary and fundamental rights aim to maintain and further develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. The establishment of an independent and efficient judiciary is of paramount importance. Impartiality, integrity and a high standard of adjudication by the courts are essential for safeguarding the rule of law. This requires a firm commitment to eliminating external influences over the judiciary and to devoting adequate financial resources and training. Legal guarantees for fair trial procedures must be in place. Equally, Member States must fight corruption effectively, as it represents a threat to the stability of democratic institutions and the rule of law. A solid legal framework and reliable institutions are required to underpin a coherent policy of prevention and deterrence of corruption. Member States must ensure respect for fundamental rights and EU citizens’ rights, as guaranteed by the acquit and by the Fundamental Rights Charter. //
Presumably, the Polish 'reforms' means that they would fail the entry criteria today.
The EU Commission is a non voting function of the EU Parliament. Its conclusions and recommendations to the Parliament will be voted on by the elected and democratic MEPs.
......so can they be expelled from the EU for this sort of thing? Basically the EU has power to decide things but not much to enforce it and relies on cooperation from member states but if a state decides to go down this line then there must be a ways to eject them. I do take on board what gromit is saying here, essentially you cannot have the government moving down the totalitarian line, it the risk of invoking Godwin's law we know where that can end
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Asma Al-Assad Cannot Return To The Uk
News4 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Other Sports17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.