Crosswords5 mins ago
Who Is In Charge.?
So who is in charge of the EU, is it Merkel ?, should Poland stand up to these bullies.
http://
Dave.
http://
Dave.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Poland has an ultra-nationalist government which has from day one set its stall aggressively - and rather foolishly against the EU. Freedom House recently downgraded Poland's status from "free" to "partly free" due to press restrictrions imposed by the government. Rather redolent, if only mildly, of Erdogan in Turkey and I think most folk here would say - rightly - that because of that (apart from anything else) Turkey would not sit well in the EU.
It's the intriguing question of "sovereignty" versus "freedom" The latter is all very well until you get issues such as those in Poland, Hungary (or anywhere else)
It's the intriguing question of "sovereignty" versus "freedom" The latter is all very well until you get issues such as those in Poland, Hungary (or anywhere else)
I'm surprised you didn't ask "who is in charge of Poland: Poland or the EU?"
And who, actually, are the real "bullies"? The EU, the devilwoman incarnate Frau merkel, or Poland's government. You'd get a different answer depending on who you asked.
Look at the track record of Poland's government first before answering. Then by all means conclude that that awful woman in Berlin is to blame. But at least get the full picture first :-)
And who, actually, are the real "bullies"? The EU, the devilwoman incarnate Frau merkel, or Poland's government. You'd get a different answer depending on who you asked.
Look at the track record of Poland's government first before answering. Then by all means conclude that that awful woman in Berlin is to blame. But at least get the full picture first :-)
I suggest you folk actually take off the old blinkers and do a bit of research: then, as I said before, come back and contribute to what is an interesting debate as to what extent international bodies have a right to interfere in nation states' affairs if their feel that their members are infringing the liberties of their citizens.
I am not taking sides on that one, just offering an alternative to the mindset that automatically melts down at the words Merkel and EU :-)
All that full about the dictatorship of the politically correct, and yet the curbing of press freedoms by a government goes unchallenged.
Maybe it depends which government :-)
I am not taking sides on that one, just offering an alternative to the mindset that automatically melts down at the words Merkel and EU :-)
All that full about the dictatorship of the politically correct, and yet the curbing of press freedoms by a government goes unchallenged.
Maybe it depends which government :-)
Frau Merkel is concerned about the laws being proposed by the government effectively to curb the power of the judiciary, but it is, in answer to the OP, actually the EU itself which has been the primary source of opposition to this, as the proposals flout EU rules about that. A lot of EU rules are there to guarantee freedoms not take them away. Of course, if a country democratically wants to do away with all that stuff, then it can do so, but cannot expect to go unpunished. It can even leave. But no one in Poland wants to leave the EU: not even the ruling party.
"Of course, if a country democratically wants to do away with all that stuff, then it can do so, but cannot expect to go unpunished."
And there, in a nutshell, is the rub. An independent sovereign nation chooses, by democratic consent, to do something and it has to be "punished" because that decision does not accord with EU law. People wondering why the majority of those who voted in our referendum chose to leave need look no further.
And there, in a nutshell, is the rub. An independent sovereign nation chooses, by democratic consent, to do something and it has to be "punished" because that decision does not accord with EU law. People wondering why the majority of those who voted in our referendum chose to leave need look no further.
// So who is in charge of the EU, is it Merkel ?, should Poland stand up to these bullies. //
the EU secretariat is ( in charge )
but you really knew that
so the EU is able to act against the interests of any one country so long as it is in the interests of the rest - NO
..... interests of the EU
But you really knew that as well
June 2016 Liam Fox asked a eurocrat - juncker I think - when article 51 should be invoked and J said
immediatement naturellement
so Foxy said that is not in the interests of ANY of the constituent countries
and J replied - oui je sais !
incredible or should I say incroyable !
the EU secretariat is ( in charge )
but you really knew that
so the EU is able to act against the interests of any one country so long as it is in the interests of the rest - NO
..... interests of the EU
But you really knew that as well
June 2016 Liam Fox asked a eurocrat - juncker I think - when article 51 should be invoked and J said
immediatement naturellement
so Foxy said that is not in the interests of ANY of the constituent countries
and J replied - oui je sais !
incredible or should I say incroyable !
"...oops we havent done that since 1688"
Indeed we have not Peter. We (that is the UK Parliament) chose to do something different. If we chose to change the arrangements for dismissing members of our judiciary again we could not do so unless what we wanted to do accorded with EU law. And that potentially makes our Parliament impotent. So you can forget all the pros and cons of EU membership because unless you are prepared to see your Parliament emasculated to such a degree you can't have any of the pros. For me (and 17m others) that is too high a price to pay.
Indeed we have not Peter. We (that is the UK Parliament) chose to do something different. If we chose to change the arrangements for dismissing members of our judiciary again we could not do so unless what we wanted to do accorded with EU law. And that potentially makes our Parliament impotent. So you can forget all the pros and cons of EU membership because unless you are prepared to see your Parliament emasculated to such a degree you can't have any of the pros. For me (and 17m others) that is too high a price to pay.
I think the big problems here is Merkle should have kept out of it - unless accompanied by all, or many, other EU leaders. As it is it makes it appear that Angie is running the EU (Which we all know is true really)
Poland may have an ultra nationalist Government but if that is the democratic will of the people then it sure becomes very awkward to say the least for a biggeer organisation to start dictating.
Could we have a Polexit? It is not beyond the realms of possibility. At present I cant see the Polish starting the procedure but when the UK contributions stop the EU is going to have to tighten it's belt, or get Germany/France to cough up which is not going to happen. This could well impact the money into Poland that might just put Polish membership to the test. Then there is the other side whereby the EU throw them out. I'm not sure if that is possible?
Poland may have an ultra nationalist Government but if that is the democratic will of the people then it sure becomes very awkward to say the least for a biggeer organisation to start dictating.
Could we have a Polexit? It is not beyond the realms of possibility. At present I cant see the Polish starting the procedure but when the UK contributions stop the EU is going to have to tighten it's belt, or get Germany/France to cough up which is not going to happen. This could well impact the money into Poland that might just put Polish membership to the test. Then there is the other side whereby the EU throw them out. I'm not sure if that is possible?
// If we chose to change the arrangements for dismissing members of our judiciary again we could not do so unless what we wanted to do accorded with EU law.//
oh come on NJ - judge up! EU law is not boo-goo-loo-goo law - or South African ( that would be Roman Dutch to jurists ) as interpreted by one Jacob Zuma.
it is a consistent system - possibly better than ours - based on parts of the Napoleonic Code and not obviously inferior
I cant think that there is any EU judgement which is obviously crazy - Simap for example I would agree with
Bearing mind that the Cour de joostice limits itself on the operation of the treaty
and Helloooo - the poles have just voted to fire judges by minister so EU law cant be THAT restrictive.....
oh come on NJ - judge up! EU law is not boo-goo-loo-goo law - or South African ( that would be Roman Dutch to jurists ) as interpreted by one Jacob Zuma.
it is a consistent system - possibly better than ours - based on parts of the Napoleonic Code and not obviously inferior
I cant think that there is any EU judgement which is obviously crazy - Simap for example I would agree with
Bearing mind that the Cour de joostice limits itself on the operation of the treaty
and Helloooo - the poles have just voted to fire judges by minister so EU law cant be THAT restrictive.....
