That's fair. Can the Member States now enact capital controls for capital leaving the Ostblok for Germany & France in amounts several times higher than any and all EU funding for those countries? No, of course not, silly me.BenKenobi said:
The European Union. Everyone keep calm. Be civil.
- Thread starter AreJohn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Funny how the totally neutral, veil-of-ignorance principles work out for the best 
I don't have a problem with free movement of capital in itself, but Germany and the Commission need to stop putting it like they are subsidizing the east. The economies of the old countries are absolutely netting wealth off our membership. That's not to say we don't net either. But they are the ones spinning the wise, selfless rewarding/punishing father narrative.
I don't have a problem with free movement of capital in itself, but Germany and the Commission need to stop putting it like they are subsidizing the east. The economies of the old countries are absolutely netting wealth off our membership. That's not to say we don't net either. But they are the ones spinning the wise, selfless rewarding/punishing father narrative.
It's Germany. They just can't help themselves.
Well, they are trying to play it in a way that does not appear to be "punishing father" narrative when they say the reason for this is that countries with insufficient level of rule of law cannot be expected to safeguard safe administration of EU finances. Yes, it is declarative at best, but what is the alternative? The EU does not have levers to force the countries to comply with the rules set out by the Treaties (aka the Copenhagen dilemma) so the Union is trying to create some. Moreover, it is not the problem of the unjust Commission - the assessment of the rule of law deficiencies that the Commission holds against Hungary and Poland are based on findings of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe which is not even an EU institution. The problem is not imaginary.kurczak said:
And yes, the West benefits from the eastern Member States a lot, but the EU has long moved from the net benefit principles (if there ever were such) - it is no longer a strictly economic community and the complaints the Commission has have a clear basis in the Treaties that the problematic Member States themselves ratified. The "you also benefit from our membership - and maybe even more than we do from the EU funds - and therefore you don't have the right to complain about our politics" imho simply cannot stand in light of the rapid development of the Union.
I hope you're just being facetious, because the issue isn't the retirement age of Polish judges, but because of the changes made in Poland, the government now appoints judges and this retirement age change was done at the same time. It is plainly obvious that the nationalistic government wants to get rid of judges who have in the past been an obstacle to their laws and by forcing many current judges to retire, while having the power to appoint who they want as their replacement, it is creating a rubber stamp effect that strips away the third pillar of democracy.kurczak said:
Halfway. Yes, the changes are very convenient for PiS and I'm not a fan of PiS, but it is not a breach of rule of law. Mandatory retirement age for judges is extremely common and it's basically always somewhere between 65 and 70.
Politicians make changes when they can and when they think they are beneficial to their point of view. That's the point of politics and it doesn't automatically make the changes unconstitutional or undemocratic or discriminatory.
The whole Polish judicial "crisis" was started not by PiS, but by PO when they passed a special law that allowed them to appoint five new judges of the Constitutional Tribunal even though normally the appointments would have been made only after parliamentary elections which PO knew would lose. If that's not bending the rule of law to the max, then what is. But that didn't worry the Commission, why would it when the Tusk, the PO's founding father had just been elected the President of the European Council.
It seems to be one of those irregular verbs: I make reforms, you break the constitution and he is an undemocratic extremist.
Politicians make changes when they can and when they think they are beneficial to their point of view. That's the point of politics and it doesn't automatically make the changes unconstitutional or undemocratic or discriminatory.
The whole Polish judicial "crisis" was started not by PiS, but by PO when they passed a special law that allowed them to appoint five new judges of the Constitutional Tribunal even though normally the appointments would have been made only after parliamentary elections which PO knew would lose. If that's not bending the rule of law to the max, then what is. But that didn't worry the Commission, why would it when the Tusk, the PO's founding father had just been elected the President of the European Council.
It seems to be one of those irregular verbs: I make reforms, you break the constitution and he is an undemocratic extremist.
Firstly, special care should always be taken with higher courts, as it is them that have the final word in politically packed cases. In regard to retirement age, such a change will always affect the highest court the most, as they are seated by senior judges very often close to the retirement age.
Secondly, the issue here is not necessarily the retirement age but that it applies even to the judges currently in office. If your point is that the retirement age is up for the national legislator to set, then yes, but such a change can be very easily done by exempting current judges from this rule. Allowing the current judges of the Supreme Court to finish their mandate according to old legislation and having only the newly-nominated judges to these court being subjected to the rule would solve it quite elegantly; if the issue here was really the age of the judges.
Thirdly, there is a provision that allows the currently-retired judges to ask for extension of their mandate. This extension is, very surprisingly, left to the discretion of the President.
In the end, you have a suddenly enacted rule that cuts the mandate of current higher courts judges and the government that enacted this rule can choose which judges it will affect, or in other words - which judges will remain in office and which will be fired. If I really wanted to be mean, I would say this almost looks like disproportionate meddling with the judiciary and therefore a rule of law problem, especially when looked at in conjunction with other recent judiciary changes.
The main flaw of your argumentation is that you cannot limit the assessment of the retirement age change to the retirement age itself. It must be viewed in a broader context. The comparative approach you use with that chart is extremely short-sighted and if you use just the chart to conclude that rule of law was not breached, such conclusion is fundamentally flawed.
Secondly, the issue here is not necessarily the retirement age but that it applies even to the judges currently in office. If your point is that the retirement age is up for the national legislator to set, then yes, but such a change can be very easily done by exempting current judges from this rule. Allowing the current judges of the Supreme Court to finish their mandate according to old legislation and having only the newly-nominated judges to these court being subjected to the rule would solve it quite elegantly; if the issue here was really the age of the judges.
Thirdly, there is a provision that allows the currently-retired judges to ask for extension of their mandate. This extension is, very surprisingly, left to the discretion of the President.
In the end, you have a suddenly enacted rule that cuts the mandate of current higher courts judges and the government that enacted this rule can choose which judges it will affect, or in other words - which judges will remain in office and which will be fired. If I really wanted to be mean, I would say this almost looks like disproportionate meddling with the judiciary and therefore a rule of law problem, especially when looked at in conjunction with other recent judiciary changes.
The main flaw of your argumentation is that you cannot limit the assessment of the retirement age change to the retirement age itself. It must be viewed in a broader context. The comparative approach you use with that chart is extremely short-sighted and if you use just the chart to conclude that rule of law was not breached, such conclusion is fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, let's pick the method that will lead to the conclusion that we want, your internships at higher courts have taught you well
Surely, the minimum of rule of law is that if X is okay for A, it is also okay for B, even though B is not /ourguys/. It may disproportionately affect the higher court judges, but the table linked is specifically about higher courts and it seems all good for Germany, Finland or the Dutch to kick out geezers from their Supreme/Constitutional Courts.
If the rationale for such provisions is that after a certain age, a judge is highly unlikely to be mentally fresh enough to do the important job of a judge. It seems obvious to me, that if you are not fresh enough to deal with unpaid invoices and public intoxication on the district level, then you are definitely not fresh enough to deal with the complex cases at higher or even the highest court. Otherwise it just gets embarrassing like the Zuckerberg hearing where the boomer senators where wondering omg how Facebook could possibly make money if it doesn't charge the users anything and they needed the CEO to have the novel and arcane concept of advertising explained to them.
Why shouldn't it affect the sitting judges? On the contrary, it would be arbitrary if it didn't apply to them. Again, the rationale of not being sharp enough to do the job, has nothing to do with when you were appointed. If "the people" determined that you are too old, then you are too old. The office of a (supreme court) judge is not a family heirloom shotgun or a veteran car that could be benevolently allowed to be grandfathered in.
The extension at the discretion of the President is ****ty and they should get rid of it. That's the only problem I'm seeing in the whole case, although I'm still far from sure if it's big enough a deal to warrant triggering Art 7 or cutting funding.
_____________
Besides, the general level of judicial entitlement is ridiculous. It's kind of impressive tbh how they managed to navigate through the 19th and 20th century as the only group that convinced everyone else that it is not only ok, but even desirable to be appointed for life. Yeah for everyone else, power corrupts and having someone in charge indefinitely is superbad, but you can totally trust us. Checks and balances for everyone. Everyone else. Checking the judiciary in any way whatsoever? What are you, a populist?!?
Surely, the minimum of rule of law is that if X is okay for A, it is also okay for B, even though B is not /ourguys/. It may disproportionately affect the higher court judges, but the table linked is specifically about higher courts and it seems all good for Germany, Finland or the Dutch to kick out geezers from their Supreme/Constitutional Courts.
If the rationale for such provisions is that after a certain age, a judge is highly unlikely to be mentally fresh enough to do the important job of a judge. It seems obvious to me, that if you are not fresh enough to deal with unpaid invoices and public intoxication on the district level, then you are definitely not fresh enough to deal with the complex cases at higher or even the highest court. Otherwise it just gets embarrassing like the Zuckerberg hearing where the boomer senators where wondering omg how Facebook could possibly make money if it doesn't charge the users anything and they needed the CEO to have the novel and arcane concept of advertising explained to them.
Why shouldn't it affect the sitting judges? On the contrary, it would be arbitrary if it didn't apply to them. Again, the rationale of not being sharp enough to do the job, has nothing to do with when you were appointed. If "the people" determined that you are too old, then you are too old. The office of a (supreme court) judge is not a family heirloom shotgun or a veteran car that could be benevolently allowed to be grandfathered in.
The extension at the discretion of the President is ****ty and they should get rid of it. That's the only problem I'm seeing in the whole case, although I'm still far from sure if it's big enough a deal to warrant triggering Art 7 or cutting funding.
_____________
Besides, the general level of judicial entitlement is ridiculous. It's kind of impressive tbh how they managed to navigate through the 19th and 20th century as the only group that convinced everyone else that it is not only ok, but even desirable to be appointed for life. Yeah for everyone else, power corrupts and having someone in charge indefinitely is superbad, but you can totally trust us. Checks and balances for everyone. Everyone else. Checking the judiciary in any way whatsoever? What are you, a populist?!?
hahahahah
They refused to publish them, because the Tribunal explicitly ignored the new procedural rules when making them.
I don't know if the Polish constitution allows the Constitutional Tribunal to review its own procedural rules (Czech one doesn't, for example), but even if it doesn't, it's still telling that it doesn't bother the sudden rule of law afficionados that an institution would be basically allowed to do whatever because it (and it only) can review its own powers.
I don't know if the Polish constitution allows the Constitutional Tribunal to review its own procedural rules (Czech one doesn't, for example), but even if it doesn't, it's still telling that it doesn't bother the sudden rule of law afficionados that an institution would be basically allowed to do whatever because it (and it only) can review its own powers.
Meanwhile, Greece and Macedonia are finally solving their ridiculous argument over the use of that name. If you guys remember, we've had nutty Greek nationalists frothing at the mouth over this issue even here in the past. Apparently a compromise was found during the EU summit in Sofia, Bulgaria.
This is still my favourite ridiculous issue. It is completely irrelevant and meaningless, and just shows how stupid and petty people can be. Greece has for two decades blocked Macedonia's entry into NATO and EU because of this.
This is still my favourite ridiculous issue. It is completely irrelevant and meaningless, and just shows how stupid and petty people can be. Greece has for two decades blocked Macedonia's entry into NATO and EU because of this.
Southern Greater Bulgaria
Jhessail said:
For nationalists who know they're completely irrelevant except in polandball memes, any victory will do, no matter how pathetic. If I was a Montenegrin nationalist and I got the opportunity to, let's say, badger a pasty Canadian man into putting my microstate into his fork of a turkish feudalism simulator, I'd jump at the chance.
