4 ms·
Why is Poland also listed as an exception?
by whytai 7y ago
Why is Poland also listed as an exception?
- blibble 7y agothe British and Polish governments negotiated an opt-out on the Charter the ECJ later ruled that the opt-opt had no force
- toyg 7y agoProbably because they negotiated it together - Poland and UK were effectively an alliance in EU institutions for long stretches, united by common defense and economic policies (aggressive NATO stance vs Russia, hardcore free-market support, etc). This is why one of the many effects of Brexit is an increased isolation of Poland and the other Visegrád members, who lost their biggest ally in EU circles.
- eru 7y agoA bit more pro-market than the French. Hardly hard-core.
- bonzini 7y agoSurely for European standards.
- eru 7y agoMaybe. The Estonians come pretty close to Singaporean standards though. And the rest of the Scandinavians ain't too bad; apart from having high tax they don't interfere in the economy that much.
- toyg 7y agoCountries like Estonia and Luxembourg, although EU members, hold little sway because of their size. Nobody will ever look at them and decide that they set a good model for larger countries.
- realusername 7y agoBecause they have very similar geopolitical views, they both view the EU as mostly an economic institution, are very pro-NATO, they are both free market supporters. Poland alone isn't enough anymore to keep that view of the EU since the UK left.
- jariel 7y agoThe charter is far more than just a bit of geopolitical meandering, it has far-reaching judicial consequences. Since so many things are decided in the courts these days, it's really quite important. This artifact alone is legitimate grounds for non-participation in any such union.
- ben_w 7y agoWhile I empathise with the sentiment, the alternative to courts with the power to bind all parties — in this case governments — is that any party can violate any agreement at any time without consequence, making all of the agreements meaningless.
- jariel 7y agoNo, the alternative is courts that respect the boundaries of treaties. The ECJ can apparently rule that 'The Constitution is Unconstitutional'. Which is a problem.
- ben_w 7y agoDeciding what the treaty means is literally the job of the ECJ. I think (in both the sense of ”I believe it is” and “I believe it ought to be“) that that means it gets to decide which bits are or are not conscionable in much the same way and for much the same reasons that the UK courts get to decide that certain things cannot be signed away by contracts under UK law.
- jariel 7y ago
- GlitchMr 7y agoIn short, back then Law and Justice was a ruling party and they are very homophobic (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Poland#Law_and_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Poland#Law_and_...). They were worried Charter of Fundamental Rights might force Poland to grant homosexual couples the same kind of benefits which heterosexual couples enjoy. Opting in after Law and Justice opted out is pretty much impossible because two-thirds majority is needed for that, and Law and Justice would block attempts to do so.