4 ms·

Very sympathetic to that and it's all disconcerting, but 1) the 'Supreme / Constitutional Court' issue is not nearly as 'one sided'. There were terrible shenan

Very sympathetic to that and it's all disconcerting, but 1) the 'Supreme / Constitutional Court' issue is not nearly as 'one sided'. There were terrible shenanigans played by 'the other side' prior to their departure, which originated that crisis. While I have little faith in PiS, they had legitimate concerns as least to provide cover for some of their own actions. and item 4) "It defies EU who says member countries must have EU law supremacy" - sorry to burst your bubble but that is reality. There is no treaty or law that gives ECJ 'Supremacy'. The ECJ in 1964 [1] made a ruling on their own jurisdiction and 'declared supremacy'. There is no legislative or treaty basis for quite the authority they assigned to themselves. Some local courts in the EU (i.e. France) have started to defer to the ruling, therefore legitimizing it, but it's still a 'Giant Problem' in the legal foundation of the EU. It was a big 'non populist' issue for Brexit, not really talked about in the media because regular citizens don't care but it was definitely an issue among the elites, and, it's still a contentious issue in Germany (and other places), where the Supremacy of ECJ is still not effectively recognized and it's a 'grey area'. But yes, it's a serious problem overall, we can agree. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

petre 5y ago
> There is no treaty or law that gives ECJ 'Supremacy' Our former head of the Constitutional Court says otherwise, that through ratification of the EU Treaty of Lisbon we have accepted that ECJ decisions and EU law have primacy over national law.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Ask yourself the question: If a bunch of nations are going to get into a kind of Federal Union, and have a 'court' of some kind, wouldn't it be extremely prudent to parameterize what exactly those authorities are? If you were the PM/Pres or Supreme Court Judge of any country, wouldn't you think it would be the most obvious and important thing to make it very clear and spelled out in law and treaty? If the framers of the EU actually wanted to hand over 'Judicial Supremacy' to the ECJ, would they, you know actually write that down? And absence of it being clear, why on god's green earth would nations hand over a fundamental right, one of the pillars of Liberal Democracy, over to a different institution. Any and all 'decisions' made otherwise, are hugely indirect and speculative i.e. "Well, we signed treaties with the EU after the ECJ declared Supremacy, therefore, they have Supremacy' is still very indirect. It's one of the more mind-boggling aspects of EU governance, and if you start to take a slightly cynical look at it, it doesn't look good. The most pragmatic reason for why the ECJ was never explicitly given power was because: it would be illegal, it would cause major uproar in nation states, it would never pass. So what they did was 'allowed' the ECJ to make a little ruling claiming authority, and then as generations go by, as local courts pile on the deferring agreements, it just 'becomes a reality'. That's a big speculation of course, but there's just no logic at all for nations handing over Judicial authority without it being fairly clear. If they were 'nitpicking' at 'some narrow issue' - then fine. There is always ambiguity. But this is not that, it's more fundamental. It's truly bizarre. And FYI this is not a resolved issue (See Germany: [1]) and there's still a lot going on. Also worth a glance [2] In terms of PiS shenanigans, nuance does matter, I don't think we can just be populist and say 'oh they rejected ECJ Supremacy which is ridiculous and evil' kind of thing. All of these issues are a bit tricky. I think a lot of people in Europe just think that the ECJ naturally has Supremacy, just like a regular Supreme Court, because that's what was agreed to and Poland is 'off their rocker' - like a US State ignoring a US Supreme Curt ruling. It's not the case though. People would be very surprised at the odd reality. [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-sues-germany-escalating-battle-over-supremacy-eu-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-sues-germany-esca... [2] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/law-tool-eu-integration-could-be-ending https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/law-tool-eu-integration...
  - petre 5y ago
    I don't know about the woulds or would nots, I'm not an expert in constitutional law or international treaties. The former head of the CC is the former. I listen to what he has to say. It is what it is. What I can tell you is that the current situation suits me because there are mechanisms in place that make it considerably harder for local politicians to tighten their grip on power and turn my country into a dictatorship again. I will never support eurosceptic parties precisely because of what happened in Poland and Hungary, among other issues like Holocaust denial.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      It's fine that it 'suits you' but that's not what it's about. If there is no treaty validating ECJ Supremacy, then that's it. Even a 'statement' or 'interpretation' by an Judge or Expert will be called into question. Also - you may despair in the short run for the authoritative nature of 'Hungary' but there is a much bigger issue and that is the consolidation of power at the EU level. Hungary has elections for it's leaders. The EU does not. You did not vote for Ursula Von Der Leyen. She was not a candidate, and was totally unknown outside Germany before the election. She was not vetted. She had little public history. Voters did not select her. She was chosen in a backroom deal: "Here is your new President. We selected her for you. You will find about her platform, later, we hope you like it because obviously you didn't vote for it". Ursula von der Layen layed out her vision for EU long after voters even knew who she was. The EU Treaties only in 2007 even require the selection of the Pres. to even barely take into consideration the 'recommendation' of MEPs, even then, they have no power. MEPs cannot introduce legislation or sanction leaders. The EU is the least democratic 'layer' of European governance, combined with the fact that it is at the 'top' and sometimes has the most authority, is a pretty scary thing in terms of the balance of power. So the EU is 'good for dealing with PiS' yes, probably. But there are other, broader issue.
      - petre 5y ago
        That's how the EU works. You vote for a political direction by choosing between EU party groups. The EUCO defines priorities and the political direction of the EU, not the head of the EC. The EPP which Von Der Leyen is part of won the most seats in the EP, David Maria Sassoli is part of the S&D which has the second most seats in the EP and Charles Michel is part of Renew which has the third most seats in the EP. The comissioners are also part of different other EP groups, yet they all work together. It's somehow similar to the UK where you don't vote for Boris Johnson, but for the Conservative Party. The difference is that the EU is almost always led by a coalition, not a single party. In Russia people vote for the president, but that does not matter much - what matters is who owns the press and counts the votes. Which is exactly what PiS and Fidesz did: they owned the press. And PiS also messed withe the judges and quite openly admitted to having bough spyware which was used to spy on the opposition. That's the difference between the EU, Poland and Hungary.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  French themselves have never accepted it and have rulings about their law being superior since 90's. They should change their constitution but they won't.
scotty79 5y ago
1) However shinenigans you mention were executed in accordance with the law but PiS government violated the law staffing consitutional court, then retroactively changed the law to make what they did barely legal.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "However shinenigans you mention were executed in accordance with the law " That's disputed, which is the point. But it's clear they were politically motivated actions to stack the Supreme Court with an ultramajority of Judges of their own liking. Just as PiS did after the fact. Opening that rabbit hole requires some nuance and objectivity, it's not nearly as one sided as it's presented in some media.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Good overwiew is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Polish_Constitutional_Court_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Polish_Constitutional_C... Using words like 'disputed' and talking about previous govenrment shinenigans being responsible in any way for the current state of affairs is true 'false equivalence'.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      The previous government is definitely responsible for initiating illegal maneuvers leading to a constitutional crisis related to Judicial appointments. That doesn't say anything about what the current government has done, or is doing, but contrary to your statement, it's irresponsible not to look at the Judicial crisis outside the context in which it was created, especially in the popular press.
oa2022 5y ago
- ptsneves 5y ago
  Indeed and take the negotiated sweet money from Europe as Toilet paper. Which they did due to their maneuver backfiring. Now they increased taxes massively, are grappling with major interest rate hikes putting a lot of normal Januszes in a tough spot to pay their mortgages. The cherry on top is a raging inflation. You are right they made a political move because they politicized and tribalized everything in the regime. Constitution is nothing but a tool for them. The law is optional. I think you give them too much credit in believing they understand at all what they are doing. My sensation is that the polish democratic institutions were too young and people too insensitive to the concepts of checks and balances to see the real damage being done. The social rifts are huge as well. On a country that prides itself on its identity and tenacity after the war, it is all a sad tragedy. As an imigrant to Poland it is extremely sad some of the divergences happening at a Christmas table. For what? No ruling party is there for ever. It is all just childishness. Sorry for the rant, it's just that I just received my new year's salary and it comes with a nice 7% net decrease due to the amazing polski ład tax "bonus".
  - oa2022 5y ago
    It's a lot of badmouthing for the country you willingly immigrated to. There's like 220 other countries to choose Some, like (I guess) your native Portugal are great at compliance with the EU and allegiance to the socialist principles.
    - ptsneves 5y ago
      Indeed and price i pay is that I pay my taxes and do not vote. Freedom of speech remains. People's freedoms of assembly or thought have never been curtailed contrary to what a lot of media outside Poland makes it look like. I consider my bad mouthing a service because contrary to what might look like, Poland's path is very similar to Portugal. The only difference is that Portugal has good diplomacy(another failure of the current rulers). Rule following, strong institutions and checks and balances are all for foreigners to see in Portugal. Portugal has the gall to diplomaticly promote integration of foreigners and refugees, to then beat them to death on government premises. More, the model of putting the working class' wealth working for subsidies for the elders and non workers voting blocks is a classic move in Portugal. Everybody knows the population is aging and that the elderly's priorities are low catch fruit,due to their needs being short term in nature. Poland has everything to not fall into the middle income trap, specifically a very highly educated work force and a strategic position between a lot of prosperous countries. To finalize i owe no allegiance to socialism and left the country exactly to remove myself from its vice. I find it hard to believe you conflate birth with ideological allegiance. I owe no allegiance to no institution but my family and myself. Unfortunately I did not choose where I am born not where my family is. If we did not have roots here and the language barrier in other European countries was not significant we could have packed, and already froze further commitments here unsure a polexit would wash away our way of living. One thing I picked up from polish experiences in world War 2 is that one should be ready to flee. I call it living like a jew after world War 2. Do not get caught. I like a lot to live here and would not return to Portugal except on vacations with family and friends and even then...
garaetjjte 5y ago
>There were terrible shenanigans played by 'the other side' prior to their departure, which originated that crisis. How that's related to legality of their own actions? Obvious solution was to reselect 2 judges who were selected illegally by previous parliament, but they willfully reselected all 5 including these chosen correctly previously. This itself was decided by court (K 34/15), but they just ignored that ruling.
DominikD 5y ago
Both-Sides-Ism is such a tiresome stance. Yes, PO fucked up on their way out but that in no way justifies PiS actions, not does it even explain them. They'd dismantle democracy with or without PO's unlawful judgment. It's dishonest to claim otherwise.

petre 5y ago

> There is no treaty or law that gives ECJ 'Supremacy' Our former head of the Constitutional Court says otherwise, that through ratification of the EU Treaty of Lisbon we have accepted that ECJ decisions and EU law have primacy over national law.

jollybean 5y ago
Ask yourself the question: If a bunch of nations are going to get into a kind of Federal Union, and have a 'court' of some kind, wouldn't it be extremely prudent to parameterize what exactly those authorities are? If you were the PM/Pres or Supreme Court Judge of any country, wouldn't you think it would be the most obvious and important thing to make it very clear and spelled out in law and treaty? If the framers of the EU actually wanted to hand over 'Judicial Supremacy' to the ECJ, would they, you know actually write that down? And absence of it being clear, why on god's green earth would nations hand over a fundamental right, one of the pillars of Liberal Democracy, over to a different institution. Any and all 'decisions' made otherwise, are hugely indirect and speculative i.e. "Well, we signed treaties with the EU after the ECJ declared Supremacy, therefore, they have Supremacy' is still very indirect. It's one of the more mind-boggling aspects of EU governance, and if you start to take a slightly cynical look at it, it doesn't look good. The most pragmatic reason for why the ECJ was never explicitly given power was because: it would be illegal, it would cause major uproar in nation states, it would never pass. So what they did was 'allowed' the ECJ to make a little ruling claiming authority, and then as generations go by, as local courts pile on the deferring agreements, it just 'becomes a reality'. That's a big speculation of course, but there's just no logic at all for nations handing over Judicial authority without it being fairly clear. If they were 'nitpicking' at 'some narrow issue' - then fine. There is always ambiguity. But this is not that, it's more fundamental. It's truly bizarre. And FYI this is not a resolved issue (See Germany: [1]) and there's still a lot going on. Also worth a glance [2] In terms of PiS shenanigans, nuance does matter, I don't think we can just be populist and say 'oh they rejected ECJ Supremacy which is ridiculous and evil' kind of thing. All of these issues are a bit tricky. I think a lot of people in Europe just think that the ECJ naturally has Supremacy, just like a regular Supreme Court, because that's what was agreed to and Poland is 'off their rocker' - like a US State ignoring a US Supreme Curt ruling. It's not the case though. People would be very surprised at the odd reality. [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-sues-germany-escalating-battle-over-supremacy-eu-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-sues-germany-esca... [2] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/law-tool-eu-integration-could-be-ending https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/law-tool-eu-integration...
- petre 5y ago
  I don't know about the woulds or would nots, I'm not an expert in constitutional law or international treaties. The former head of the CC is the former. I listen to what he has to say. It is what it is. What I can tell you is that the current situation suits me because there are mechanisms in place that make it considerably harder for local politicians to tighten their grip on power and turn my country into a dictatorship again. I will never support eurosceptic parties precisely because of what happened in Poland and Hungary, among other issues like Holocaust denial.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's fine that it 'suits you' but that's not what it's about. If there is no treaty validating ECJ Supremacy, then that's it. Even a 'statement' or 'interpretation' by an Judge or Expert will be called into question. Also - you may despair in the short run for the authoritative nature of 'Hungary' but there is a much bigger issue and that is the consolidation of power at the EU level. Hungary has elections for it's leaders. The EU does not. You did not vote for Ursula Von Der Leyen. She was not a candidate, and was totally unknown outside Germany before the election. She was not vetted. She had little public history. Voters did not select her. She was chosen in a backroom deal: "Here is your new President. We selected her for you. You will find about her platform, later, we hope you like it because obviously you didn't vote for it". Ursula von der Layen layed out her vision for EU long after voters even knew who she was. The EU Treaties only in 2007 even require the selection of the Pres. to even barely take into consideration the 'recommendation' of MEPs, even then, they have no power. MEPs cannot introduce legislation or sanction leaders. The EU is the least democratic 'layer' of European governance, combined with the fact that it is at the 'top' and sometimes has the most authority, is a pretty scary thing in terms of the balance of power. So the EU is 'good for dealing with PiS' yes, probably. But there are other, broader issue.
    - petre 5y ago
      That's how the EU works. You vote for a political direction by choosing between EU party groups. The EUCO defines priorities and the political direction of the EU, not the head of the EC. The EPP which Von Der Leyen is part of won the most seats in the EP, David Maria Sassoli is part of the S&D which has the second most seats in the EP and Charles Michel is part of Renew which has the third most seats in the EP. The comissioners are also part of different other EP groups, yet they all work together. It's somehow similar to the UK where you don't vote for Boris Johnson, but for the Conservative Party. The difference is that the EU is almost always led by a coalition, not a single party. In Russia people vote for the president, but that does not matter much - what matters is who owns the press and counts the votes. Which is exactly what PiS and Fidesz did: they owned the press. And PiS also messed withe the judges and quite openly admitted to having bough spyware which was used to spy on the opposition. That's the difference between the EU, Poland and Hungary.
Dma54rhs 5y ago
French themselves have never accepted it and have rulings about their law being superior since 90's. They should change their constitution but they won't.

scotty79 5y ago

1) However shinenigans you mention were executed in accordance with the law but PiS government violated the law staffing consitutional court, then retroactively changed the law to make what they did barely legal.

jollybean 5y ago
"However shinenigans you mention were executed in accordance with the law " That's disputed, which is the point. But it's clear they were politically motivated actions to stack the Supreme Court with an ultramajority of Judges of their own liking. Just as PiS did after the fact. Opening that rabbit hole requires some nuance and objectivity, it's not nearly as one sided as it's presented in some media.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 5y ago
  Good overwiew is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Polish_Constitutional_Court_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Polish_Constitutional_C... Using words like 'disputed' and talking about previous govenrment shinenigans being responsible in any way for the current state of affairs is true 'false equivalence'.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The previous government is definitely responsible for initiating illegal maneuvers leading to a constitutional crisis related to Judicial appointments. That doesn't say anything about what the current government has done, or is doing, but contrary to your statement, it's irresponsible not to look at the Judicial crisis outside the context in which it was created, especially in the popular press.

oa2022 5y ago

ptsneves 5y ago
Indeed and take the negotiated sweet money from Europe as Toilet paper. Which they did due to their maneuver backfiring. Now they increased taxes massively, are grappling with major interest rate hikes putting a lot of normal Januszes in a tough spot to pay their mortgages. The cherry on top is a raging inflation. You are right they made a political move because they politicized and tribalized everything in the regime. Constitution is nothing but a tool for them. The law is optional. I think you give them too much credit in believing they understand at all what they are doing. My sensation is that the polish democratic institutions were too young and people too insensitive to the concepts of checks and balances to see the real damage being done. The social rifts are huge as well. On a country that prides itself on its identity and tenacity after the war, it is all a sad tragedy. As an imigrant to Poland it is extremely sad some of the divergences happening at a Christmas table. For what? No ruling party is there for ever. It is all just childishness. Sorry for the rant, it's just that I just received my new year's salary and it comes with a nice 7% net decrease due to the amazing polski ład tax "bonus".
- oa2022 5y ago
  It's a lot of badmouthing for the country you willingly immigrated to. There's like 220 other countries to choose Some, like (I guess) your native Portugal are great at compliance with the EU and allegiance to the socialist principles.
  - ptsneves 5y ago
    Indeed and price i pay is that I pay my taxes and do not vote. Freedom of speech remains. People's freedoms of assembly or thought have never been curtailed contrary to what a lot of media outside Poland makes it look like. I consider my bad mouthing a service because contrary to what might look like, Poland's path is very similar to Portugal. The only difference is that Portugal has good diplomacy(another failure of the current rulers). Rule following, strong institutions and checks and balances are all for foreigners to see in Portugal. Portugal has the gall to diplomaticly promote integration of foreigners and refugees, to then beat them to death on government premises. More, the model of putting the working class' wealth working for subsidies for the elders and non workers voting blocks is a classic move in Portugal. Everybody knows the population is aging and that the elderly's priorities are low catch fruit,due to their needs being short term in nature. Poland has everything to not fall into the middle income trap, specifically a very highly educated work force and a strategic position between a lot of prosperous countries. To finalize i owe no allegiance to socialism and left the country exactly to remove myself from its vice. I find it hard to believe you conflate birth with ideological allegiance. I owe no allegiance to no institution but my family and myself. Unfortunately I did not choose where I am born not where my family is. If we did not have roots here and the language barrier in other European countries was not significant we could have packed, and already froze further commitments here unsure a polexit would wash away our way of living. One thing I picked up from polish experiences in world War 2 is that one should be ready to flee. I call it living like a jew after world War 2. Do not get caught. I like a lot to live here and would not return to Portugal except on vacations with family and friends and even then...

garaetjjte 5y ago

>There were terrible shenanigans played by 'the other side' prior to their departure, which originated that crisis. How that's related to legality of their own actions? Obvious solution was to reselect 2 judges who were selected illegally by previous parliament, but they willfully reselected all 5 including these chosen correctly previously. This itself was decided by court (K 34/15), but they just ignored that ruling.

DominikD 5y ago

Both-Sides-Ism is such a tiresome stance. Yes, PO fucked up on their way out but that in no way justifies PiS actions, not does it even explain them. They'd dismantle democracy with or without PO's unlawful judgment. It's dishonest to claim otherwise.