Quizzes & Puzzles3 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.
From David Davis’ speech on Brexit at the Institute of Chartered Engineers:
----------------------------------------------
The European Union was a noble vision. It was borne out of Europe’s history. A history of war, conflict, tyranny and destruction. Two world wars ripped Western Europe apart. It is an entirely understandable, indeed an admirable, response to such horror to want to break down national barriers and increase bonds between peoples and countries.
Spain emerged from Franco’s tyranny. Portugal from Caetano. Greece shook off the rule of the Colonels. And after the Berlin Wall fell, whole swathes of Eastern Europe rediscovered democracy and liberty.
Faced with such a history it is entirely understandable that the European Union came into being. It is a profoundly peaceful project, dedicated to protecting democracy across Europe.
----------------------------------------------
i.e. part of the remit of the EU is to protect the citizens of a country from the government of that country, when the government is acting in an undemocratic way. This is well understood. We don't like it in Britain because we don't think our government does act in undemocratic ways, but for much of Europe that has not been the case in fairly recent history, and Poland is potentially that way now by changing how judges are appointed and fired.
----------------------------------------------
The European Union was a noble vision. It was borne out of Europe’s history. A history of war, conflict, tyranny and destruction. Two world wars ripped Western Europe apart. It is an entirely understandable, indeed an admirable, response to such horror to want to break down national barriers and increase bonds between peoples and countries.
Spain emerged from Franco’s tyranny. Portugal from Caetano. Greece shook off the rule of the Colonels. And after the Berlin Wall fell, whole swathes of Eastern Europe rediscovered democracy and liberty.
Faced with such a history it is entirely understandable that the European Union came into being. It is a profoundly peaceful project, dedicated to protecting democracy across Europe.
----------------------------------------------
i.e. part of the remit of the EU is to protect the citizens of a country from the government of that country, when the government is acting in an undemocratic way. This is well understood. We don't like it in Britain because we don't think our government does act in undemocratic ways, but for much of Europe that has not been the case in fairly recent history, and Poland is potentially that way now by changing how judges are appointed and fired.
“…it is a consistent system - possibly better than ours”
Arguable. But besides the point.
“ and Helloooo - the poles have just voted to fire judges by minister so EU law cant be THAT restrictive.....”
Again, completely missing the point.
It is not the relative merits of UK, Polish or EU law that are the issue. It is a matter of who makes those laws and which takes precedence. Under the Treaty of Lisbon the ECJ can interest itself in just about anything it likes. More than that it is the Supreme arbiter of matters which it deals with and its decisions are paramount. This is not what sovereign nations should succumb to. They should make their own laws and their own courts alone should arbitrate on disputes.
“i.e. part of the remit of the EU is to protect the citizens of a country from the government of that country, when the government is acting in an undemocratic way. This is well understood. We don't like it in Britain because we don't think our government does act in undemocratic ways,…”
Quite so Ellipsis. As far as I'm concerned I don't need protection from my own government. But it is a role that the EU has taken upon itself. The problem is that nobody asked the people of the UK (or of any other EU member nation as far as I can tell) whether they want their democratically elected governments constrained by an undemocratic, unelected foreign organisation. That’s one of the main reasons why 52% of those who voted chose to leave. If citizens of other EU members feel the need for such protection that's a matter for them.
Arguable. But besides the point.
“ and Helloooo - the poles have just voted to fire judges by minister so EU law cant be THAT restrictive.....”
Again, completely missing the point.
It is not the relative merits of UK, Polish or EU law that are the issue. It is a matter of who makes those laws and which takes precedence. Under the Treaty of Lisbon the ECJ can interest itself in just about anything it likes. More than that it is the Supreme arbiter of matters which it deals with and its decisions are paramount. This is not what sovereign nations should succumb to. They should make their own laws and their own courts alone should arbitrate on disputes.
“i.e. part of the remit of the EU is to protect the citizens of a country from the government of that country, when the government is acting in an undemocratic way. This is well understood. We don't like it in Britain because we don't think our government does act in undemocratic ways,…”
Quite so Ellipsis. As far as I'm concerned I don't need protection from my own government. But it is a role that the EU has taken upon itself. The problem is that nobody asked the people of the UK (or of any other EU member nation as far as I can tell) whether they want their democratically elected governments constrained by an undemocratic, unelected foreign organisation. That’s one of the main reasons why 52% of those who voted chose to leave. If citizens of other EU members feel the need for such protection that's a matter for them.
> They should make their own laws and their own courts alone should arbitrate on disputes
So what do you think of the changes they are making to their own courts' ability to arbitrate on disputes?
--------------------------------------
http://
Poland's lower house of parliament has voted through controversial new reforms which will see all Supreme Court judges removed and replaced.
The Law and Justice Party say it will make the judicial system more effective and able to fight against corruption.
But critics say it is a threat to the rule of law, placing control of the judiciary in the hands of politicians.
--------------------------------------
So what do you think of the changes they are making to their own courts' ability to arbitrate on disputes?
--------------------------------------
http://
Poland's lower house of parliament has voted through controversial new reforms which will see all Supreme Court judges removed and replaced.
The Law and Justice Party say it will make the judicial system more effective and able to fight against corruption.
But critics say it is a threat to the rule of law, placing control of the judiciary in the hands of politicians.
--------------------------------------
"So what do you think of the changes they are making to their own courts' ability to arbitrate on disputes?"
It's a matter for the Poles. It is not a matter for the EU. Nobody elected the EU Commission and nobody can dismiss it. The Poles can elect a new government at the next opportunity if they wish. They cannot elect a new EU Commission.
The EU has taken on the task of supervising the governance of individual sovereign nations. Nobody was asked whether they wanted it to have that mandate which effectively makes their own Parliaments impotent. In fact I doubt many people know that it had such powers until something like the Polish situation occurs. The Poles now face the possibility of losing its voting rights in the EU (not that it counts for much) because they wanted to do something in which the EU has no business interfering.
It's a matter for the Poles. It is not a matter for the EU. Nobody elected the EU Commission and nobody can dismiss it. The Poles can elect a new government at the next opportunity if they wish. They cannot elect a new EU Commission.
The EU has taken on the task of supervising the governance of individual sovereign nations. Nobody was asked whether they wanted it to have that mandate which effectively makes their own Parliaments impotent. In fact I doubt many people know that it had such powers until something like the Polish situation occurs. The Poles now face the possibility of losing its voting rights in the EU (not that it counts for much) because they wanted to do something in which the EU has no business interfering.
>> So what do you think of the changes they are making to their own courts' ability to arbitrate on disputes?
> It's a matter for the Poles. It is not a matter for the EU.
I was simply asking your opinion. As someone who is/was a judge and who moreover stated "their own courts alone should arbitrate on disputes", I wondered what you made of their potential "threat to the rule of law, placing control of the judiciary in the hands of politicians."
But certainly in the case of Poland, it is a matter for the EU. Poland joined the EU after Article 7 came into force, so it joined in the full knowledge it was subjugating itself to that and other Articles.
> It's a matter for the Poles. It is not a matter for the EU.
I was simply asking your opinion. As someone who is/was a judge and who moreover stated "their own courts alone should arbitrate on disputes", I wondered what you made of their potential "threat to the rule of law, placing control of the judiciary in the hands of politicians."
But certainly in the case of Poland, it is a matter for the EU. Poland joined the EU after Article 7 came into force, so it joined in the full knowledge it was subjugating itself to that and other Articles.
I can't think that the Poles voted to be ruled by Brussels EU beaurocrats at any point. Whatever their government is (or isn't) it is in their power change it if they wish. EU needs to get out of national issues - but it can't...........which is why we have said 'No' - decisively - and why we must stick to our guns in the . Glad to read that we have upset their comfortable sums yesterday.
Let me re-phrase that, then. It should be a matter for the Poles. It should not be a matter for the EU. Yes I agree that the Poles (at least their politicians) knew (or at least should have known) that they were surrendering such control. Of course there's a big difference between politicians knowing something and their electorate being similarly aware.
If any nation outside the EU wanted to make alterations to its method of appointing/dismissing their judiciary they would simply do it. They would not have to seek the approval of any supranational organisation. The EU has assumed such powers by stealth under the disguise of a trading bloc when in fact it is no such thing.
I'm not suggesting that the Poles' decision is necessarily the right thing to do. But their democratically elected government ought to be able to do it without reference to anybody else.
If any nation outside the EU wanted to make alterations to its method of appointing/dismissing their judiciary they would simply do it. They would not have to seek the approval of any supranational organisation. The EU has assumed such powers by stealth under the disguise of a trading bloc when in fact it is no such thing.
I'm not suggesting that the Poles' decision is necessarily the right thing to do. But their democratically elected government ought to be able to do it without reference to anybody else.
what is this ?
or perhaps where is this ?
If any nation outside the EU wanted to make alterations to its method of appointing/dismissing their judiciary they would simply do it.
The poles have done it !
They would not have to seek the approval of any supranational organisation.
they didnt - they just did it - as you stated only a sovereign nation outside the EU - oops Poland is INSIDE the EU !
The people who are revolting are the polaks in the ulica arent they ?
The EU has assumed such powers by stealth under the disguise of a trading bloc when in fact it is no such thing.
Erm excuse me - what were you doing during your International Law lectures ? playing hookey ?
or perhaps where is this ?
If any nation outside the EU wanted to make alterations to its method of appointing/dismissing their judiciary they would simply do it.
The poles have done it !
They would not have to seek the approval of any supranational organisation.
they didnt - they just did it - as you stated only a sovereign nation outside the EU - oops Poland is INSIDE the EU !
The people who are revolting are the polaks in the ulica arent they ?
The EU has assumed such powers by stealth under the disguise of a trading bloc when in fact it is no such thing.
Erm excuse me - what were you doing during your International Law lectures ? playing hookey ?
When you join a club or organisation you agree to the terms and conditions. That is a principle that extends far beyond the boundaries of the EU. An independent judiciary doesn't strike me as unreasonable stipulation.
As for Frau Merkel, she has only weighed in fairly recently: she was, if anything, being accused of NOT getting involved. Like it or not Germany is the most powerful nation in the EU, and their leader's intervention carries weight.
I would be interested to know what the Polish people themselves would vote for were they, dare I say it, to hold a referendum on this. Would they vote to give their own government powers to dismiss judges? Would they collectively give the nod to the principle that the courts are subservient to the executive?
Maybe, maybe not. The EU is not just their for the nasty things in life: it is also there sometimes to stand up for the citizen against their government.
As for Frau Merkel, she has only weighed in fairly recently: she was, if anything, being accused of NOT getting involved. Like it or not Germany is the most powerful nation in the EU, and their leader's intervention carries weight.
I would be interested to know what the Polish people themselves would vote for were they, dare I say it, to hold a referendum on this. Would they vote to give their own government powers to dismiss judges? Would they collectively give the nod to the principle that the courts are subservient to the executive?
Maybe, maybe not. The EU is not just their for the nasty things in life: it is also there sometimes to stand up for the citizen against their government.
Macron is also finding that he can't get his own way.
http://
Whilst Poland is insistent that it is not a "Law" issue but a political issue. Oh Dear. Watch Hungary, a similar scenario is bubbling under there too. More to follow methinks. About time the bullies were confronted, and to our eternal shame that we let them ride roughshod over our courts for so long.
http://
http://
Whilst Poland is insistent that it is not a "Law" issue but a political issue. Oh Dear. Watch Hungary, a similar scenario is bubbling under there too. More to follow methinks. About time the bullies were confronted, and to our eternal shame that we let them ride roughshod over our courts for so long.
http://
“An independent judiciary doesn't strike me as unreasonable stipulation.”
No it certainly isn’t and I would not like to see the Executive in the UK having direct control over our judiciary. But that is not my point. No independent sovereign nation should succumb to interference from an external foreign executive – particularly one over which they have no democratic control. That is my entire beef with the EU. I’m not arguing over the rights and wrongs of the matter being enforced.
The EU exhibits a huge democratic deficiency which began in earnest with the Maastricht Treaty. It’s true that Poland (and everybody else) signed up to the Lisbon Treaty which saw that deficiency considerably enhanced. That’s a matter for them and they may find that the only resolution to this impasse is to leave the EU. But they like the money (of the five, soon to be four, contributing nations) too much so they will have to make their choice.
As I said in my first answer yesterday, those puzzled why so many people voted to leave the EU need look no further than this confrontation. The EU is dictating the internal affairs of its member nations and in the end that will be its undoing.
No it certainly isn’t and I would not like to see the Executive in the UK having direct control over our judiciary. But that is not my point. No independent sovereign nation should succumb to interference from an external foreign executive – particularly one over which they have no democratic control. That is my entire beef with the EU. I’m not arguing over the rights and wrongs of the matter being enforced.
The EU exhibits a huge democratic deficiency which began in earnest with the Maastricht Treaty. It’s true that Poland (and everybody else) signed up to the Lisbon Treaty which saw that deficiency considerably enhanced. That’s a matter for them and they may find that the only resolution to this impasse is to leave the EU. But they like the money (of the five, soon to be four, contributing nations) too much so they will have to make their choice.
As I said in my first answer yesterday, those puzzled why so many people voted to leave the EU need look no further than this confrontation. The EU is dictating the internal affairs of its member nations and in the end that will be its undoing.
//The EU is dictating the internal affairs of its member nations //
Indeed Judge, and further to your observation these dictatorial "measures" are cooked up in camera by Germany and France and ratified, in all but deed only, well before being officially proposed as desirable to the "good" of the Pyramid scheme.
Indeed Judge, and further to your observation these dictatorial "measures" are cooked up in camera by Germany and France and ratified, in all but deed only, well before being officially proposed as desirable to the "good" of the Pyramid scheme.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Body & Soul3 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
If The Local Elections In England Aren't...
News36 mins ago
