Poland’s relationship with the EU has often been tense, but recently there’s been a turn for the worse. On 7 October, the country’s Supreme Court did something scandalous. It ruled that Poland’s constitution takes precedent over EU law.
Inevitably, Ursula von der Leyen — President of the European Commission — is on the warpath. “This ruling calls into question the foundations of the European Union”, she said, “it is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order.” In response, the Commission has threatened to withhold Poland’s share of the EU’s Covid recovery fund.
The Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has hit back accusing the Commission of “blackmail”. The Lithuanian President, Gitanas Nauseda, isn’t too happy either. “It is morally endlessly harmful and not right to link law supremacy principles with financial resources”, he said. “Even if it was legally possible”, it would do “unimaginable harm to European Union unity.” In other words: back off, Ursula!
Yet again, the President of the Commission may be threatening more than she can deliver. Under the dreaded Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, legal proceedings against Poland would need a four-fifths majority of member states to succeed. If the Eastern Europeans decide to hang together, then the proceedings would fail.
Let’s not forget what happened the last time Von der Leyen tried to play hardball. It was back in January, when the fiasco of the EU’s vaccine procurement programme was becoming a major embarrassment. The Commission tried to turn the heat onto the hated British by shutting off vaccine exports to the UK. This entailed a move to impose border controls on the island of Ireland — a cunning plan that the Irish government wasn’t consulted on. Inevitably, the whole thing blew up in Von der Leyen’s face and she was lucky to keep her job.
Thus in regard to Poland, she’d be ill-advised to go nuclear unless she has the full backing of the EU’s most powerful players — the Germans in particular. Of course, this could be the opportunity the Euro-establishment is looking for. The Poles have been acting-up for years and this latest row is the most blatant act of defiance yet. Sooner or later, this needs to be settled.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI agree with this piece by Andreas Kluth almost entirely:
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/poland-s-intransigence-raises-the-question-of-the-european-union-s-true-identity
Poland is forcing the question “what is the EU?” and “where is it all going?” In a vulgar fashion, yes – but this is surely all part of their plan to try and get this question the thorough discussion and public attention it needs and deserves.
Like the Polish government, I am also of the opinion that a federal state is being introduced through the back door. Slowly but surely, via technical decisions on arcane subjects like sovereign bond purchases that the general public are unlikely to fully grasp or really be interested in: the significance of which, however, could be huge for them in democratic terms.
I don’t agree with everything that goes on in Poland with this government but I could not agree more with the sentiment that, if the EU is to be a proper federal state, the people of Europe must be asked. And their answer respected.
Of course that has a cat’s chance in hell of happening. What will happen is that others will simply follow their first instinct and gaily bash Poland for daring to stand up in church and ask questions of the great religion. Which will do the EU harm by accelerating existing divisions and perhaps alienating one of the most important true believers. It would be so much more courageous (and far healthier in the long term) to face these crucial open questions head-on and accept the consequences.
The Eastern Europeans seemingly bought into the EU without understnding what they were buying into, they were blind to the deeper integration project, they just saw the huge subsidies and their eyes lit up – well, now comes the bill, and they are baulking at this because it goes against the grain of their culture which is still committed to the nation state.
And, at least among the older generation, because of the (still relatively recent) memory of domination by a higher power.
Prashant, the whole forward motion of “ever closer union” is predicated on the EU moving the goal posts without the citizens having a say in the matter. The UK joined a trade pact and ended up being sucked down the rabbit hole as well until our government actually sought the consent of the electorate who revolted.
That was our excuse in 1971.
I voted NO in 1971 and have been convinced in every year since that I was right.
I was too young and naive to vote no in 1970. But am a confirmed ‘Brexiteer’.
Well they’d escaped the USSR, had a hell of a lot to catch up on and the EU offered a way to join in and help with that. I get it. But maybe they are now realising thrive jumped from a frying pan into a very similar fire and it, rightly, makes them nervous. They fought for their independence avd identity barely a generation or so ago and are being asked, nay demanded, to give it up again in favour of some vague notion of European-ness.
I think Putin once remarked that the EU was becoming very similar to the USSR.
Wasn’t it Gorbachev who said that?
You’re probably right. I was too lazy to double-check. My apologies.
So you’re acknowledging that this legal supremacy rule doesn’t apply to Germany then?
Not clear what you mean, can you clarify please?
They were also scarred by their Soviet experience and scared of Russia.
Which of course Prashant, is a useful bulwark against the federalists.
I didn’t think that a federal state was being introduced “throught the back door”, “ever closer union” is an up-front goal and a federal Europe is one way of attaining this.
There is currently the goal of an “ever closer union”. However, the EU treaties are NOT a constitutional framework. That framework was rejected back in 2005. Therefore, the consensus that has operated since then has been to further integration but to stop short of becoming a federation. However, there have been indications of efforts to push integration so far that the EU becomes a de facto federation without changing the treaties (the clash with Germany’s Constitutional Court being one example). This would be massively undemocratic – an issue which this set-to with Poland is throwing into sharp relief.
My parents voted in 1975. They were there as normal citizens who had access to 2 TV channels and a daily newspaper. My Dad voted to Leave as he always hated the idea of joining in with Germany in anything (his dad suffered greatly during the war and consequently my dad suffered afterwards). My mum voted Remain. She’s quite a well read reasonable person. I asked her about it and she said they were promised it was the European ECONOMIC community and it was *trade only*, that we would not lose sovereignty. And that the ones who said the opposite were lying, exaggerating and were small-minded racist and xenophobic fearmongers (sound familiar?). So this bull about how it was always obvious and you just needed to wade through the Treaty of Rome to see it, is simply not reflective of how it was presented or how accessible the information really was.
In 1975 it wasn’t a clear goal, but it has been in recent years, I haven’t waded through treaties and yet the concept of “ever closer union” has been clear to me, hence I voted for in 1975 and against in 2016.
It was always a clear goal. I did an OU course in 1972 and the EEC was always going to be the first step to either a federal Europe or one country. However (as always happens in elections) anything that might lose support for Edward Heath’s obsession was glossed over.
I wasn’t aware of this, Iris, thank-you for posting this information here. It seems that I (and others) were mislead in 1975
I was 19 when we had the EEC vote – and I believed what the Government, and the main part of the ‘opposition’ were saying. It was easy to accept that the nay-sayers were extremists of one stripe or another!
The following year, I began training to be a solicitor, and was introduced for the first time to the English legal system, constitutional and administrative law. It very soon became obvious that everything that defined Britain would have to change or be abandoned in order to fit the framework of the new Europe being created. That wasn’t what we’d been told beforehand.
Exactly. People like Peter Shore a left-wing anti-EEC advocate (as were most of the left then), were excluded from BBC interviews because he did not fit the profile of the “xenophobic” anti camp.
You want to read The Washington Post’s take on it. As ever the liberals describe Poland as an authoritarian state with courts packed by corrupt ultra right politicians. And don’t reference the fact that German courts have previously made the same ruling that German law takes precedence over EU law – but of course liberals think the rules should only be applied to those they don’t support.
I did read it. Busted, I’m a news junkie! And it was sad, because, by simply bashing Poland (a wonderful, proud, admirable country, may I sincerely say), we miss out on a really exciting and important discussion that could really lead to beneficial change. That’s what Kluth says in his article: slinging mud is so easy…but it’s the worst possible path here.
It is a relief to see Remainers acknowledging that us ‘Brexiteers’ had a valid point all along.
The fundamental problem with the EU (for me anyway) is that everything about it is configured to serve a federalist view of Europe. This is to the exclusion of any other point of view about other possible directions of travel.
Most obviously, the EU parliament doesn’t contain (say) one grouping that wants to create a USE, opposed by another that wants to repatriate sovereignty and move forward as a free trading bloc, with elections, its composition, and laws subsequently passed reflecting those differing views. The entire premise is the USE view, nothing else is permitted to be discussed, political union continues regardless of the results of any elections and so entrenched is it all that there isn’t even a mechanism for the return of sovereignty.
It resembles very closely the situation in the days of the Soviet bloc. Communist countries had elections, but all the candidates were Communists. It was impossible for any other party to exist, much less stand. All these parliaments did was agree with the leadership and their elections were entirely pointless.
The arrival of UKIP at Strasbourg was thus an epochal moment, in that there was now a grouping that opposed the EU’s default agenda and had a different one in mind. Of course, as the EU parliament serves no actual function, if didn’t matter. It can’t instruct the EU’s institutions to abandon federalism any more than the district party conferences of the USSR could have instructed the Politburo to implement capitalism or to stop building nuclear weapons. The EU Parliament could contain 705 UKIPpers and it would make no more difference to the EU project than if the local Rotary Club were 100% UKIP, so Brexit was the result.
Unless this changes and the EU discovers the concept of democracy and adopts it in a way that enables alternative development paths, it will be incapable of reform, because it’s not intended to reform. If bottom-up pressure could change the EU it would change away from federalism so it’s designed not to be able to change at all.
The basic problem is that the EU was set up after WWII not to increase democracy in the ruined countries of the continent – but to bypass it. Democracy, after all, had thrown up Hitler’s dreadful regime, and it allows the great unwashed the same nominal power as the well-read and naturally superior. So it has to be subverted, while still paying lip-service to its ideals.
The populace cannot be trusted, and ‘populism’ (ie distrust of the professional rulers) is anathema to the Eurocrat.
Inevitably, the whole thing blew up in Von der Leyen’s face and she was lucky to keep her job.
I’m not at all convinced that her sacking was ever seriously on the cards. I get the impression that the level of incompetence, naivety, and spite from the EU’s top brass shown lately is simply par for the course.
They elect themselves, after all. And given Mrs Von der Leyen’s back catalogue of failure in previous governmental positions, why would any institution (outside of the EU, of course) give her a managerial rôle?
Ursula von der Leyen, a person appointed to her current job in a way which flouted an array of democratic norms and broke promises made to EU citizens tries, with a straight face, to reprimand Poland and demand adherence to the rule of law…something which the EU itself struggles with regularly. Unpack the ironies at your leisure.
How does this fit with the German position that their constitution is sovereign over EU?
Dunno, all these commenters appear to be ignoring that aspect in favour of saying it serves the east Europeans right for not seeing this coming.
There’s an assumption that liberal minded people must approve of the substance of the EU objection to the appointments to the Polish judiciary – because Poland is appointing ‘right-wing’ and ‘intolerant’ judges – and, therefore, the EU is ‘right’ to overrule their appointment. There’s no recognition that the method of intervention matters, or that a novel power used first for a ‘good’ purpose can, once established, equally be used for ill.
I think that it cannot bring down the UE but it can force the European technocrats to reform their institution and to bring back sovereignty to the countries. Take also in count that anti-European opinions soar in contributing countries as France and the commission has no concrete means to enforce their laws on them – if they stop paying the commission we will see how is the real master of Europe. The upcoming years will be interesting.
That presupposes the EU can in fact be reformed. I posit, that even if the political will exists, the EU is structurally incapable of reform – seemingly by design. I suspect there is zero chance of the EU and European leaders embarking on reform, because that would require treaty change, and treaty change would require referenda in many countries, and they don’t want to open that pandora’s box, because they are absolutely terrified lest the insurgent parties in their countries turn any question about reform into a debate about reducing, not increasing the coupling with the EU, or indeed leaving. So, in typical EU fashion, they will stick their heads in the sand and hope for better times – which will never come.
The only way the EU can ‘reform’ is by more integration. A fiscal union for tax and a social union for benefits. Then comes a common immigration policy and a common defense force.
It can’t reform in the opposite direction – fragmented and inconsistent policy making, state by member state – because that would be contrary to its raison d’etre.
It’s raison d’etre was the inability to withstand dictatorship in the 1930s to 1940s had to be saved by the English Speaking World and the USSR.
You’re right and they have Bliar thank for that through enlargement. Come to think of it, we have him to thank for Brexit too in a roundabout way. Indeed, what haven’t we got to thank him for?
I’m not a specialist but I don’t think that revoking a treaty doesn’t require a referenda only to leave totally the union require such a drastic means. But given that the UE is a damn problem to solve I think that if the national leaders had the guts to oppose themselves clearly and to point out publicly the fool functioning of the UE by giving precise and clear examples, they would be under a tremendous pressure of the public in Europe, and I’m convinced that they would change many things to conserve their salaries. But it’s a serious and complex discussion.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. It’s written into the original treaties that ‘treaty change’, which would include revocation, has to be approved according to the constitutions of all member states. That, in many cases, means a referendum. The Dutch, the Irish, the French, the Danes – when consulted in a referendum, all have rejected new treaties and treaty changes in the past – and all have either been made to vote again or simply bypassed by calling a ‘Treaty’ by another name.
I don’t think it will force the EU to reform. It will simply do to Poland what it did to the UK. Try to force it into submission through economic sanctions, denigration and demonisation
The difference with Poland is that Poland receives the money and that France gives it. A huge difference.
There’s another difference. Poland spent five decades under the dead hand of Russia in the USSR. Poles will cope with temporary financial hardship rather than submit to being dictated to again.
As an academic thought exercise the EU project is an interesting concept that should have been confined to the scope of university debating societies. In practice it’s been fascinating to see to what extent decent people can be coerced, manipulated and deceived by their elected representatives before they start to resist and roughly where the critical mass within groups actually lies.
The EU is just the latest example of how bigger state always results in more problems for more people and never delivers equity, equality or even just basic fairness. It’s incredible how the dumb-as-a-stump, self-serving, power crazed people at the top always follow the same failed playbook and resort to redefining words and concepts and yet the decent folk continue to try their best to see the best in people who have not a shred of decency on them. It appears that Bozo in the UK and Biden in the US have been easily tempted into the same minefield but I’ll look forward to watching their metaphorical limbs blasted from them as they push ahead with their illegal agendas.
A supreme irony, that nothing could represent a more polar opposite to the future of a vibrant, enterprising, democratic Europe, than the EU itself.
Thanks. Humanity is currently divided into entities called “nation states”. These are armed bodies which divide humanity into two parts – one part allowed to live inside a particular piece of land, and the other, not. If one thinks there is something wrong with this, one needs to propose an alternative. The Soviet Union was one such project – it wasn’t intended to be a nation state initially – its battles weren’t called “The Great Patriotic War”.
Until this conflict with Poland, I thought the European Union was different, an attempt to fudge issues, like the Good Friday agreement in Ireland. But now, it’s clear as glass – the EU says bluntly that its laws override all laws in its constituents, including their constitutions. This means it is trying to become a new nation state. It needs to explain which people it includes, and which it excludes, and why. Why not invite Russia, for example?
One question Remainers really struggled IIRC with in 2016 was why, if EU membership is so valuable, seven-eighths of the countries in the world aren’t EU members. Why can’t Japan join?
The usual response was “because it’s the European Union, duh”, to which the obvious rejoinder is “Why? It needn’t be. It could just be the Northern Hemisphere Union, until it decides to admit Botswana or Malaysia or Australia.”
I really don’t know why it is the “European” Union. If America can include Guam and Puerto Rico why can’t the “E”U include New Zealand?
Who writes these headlines? Attempts at blackmail are bound to fail…. Well, who is blackmailing whom? Is Poland blackmailing the EU, or vice versa?
The EU is too big, too unwieldy, too diverse. Let’s call it a day. I suggest smaller regional blocs–Scandinavia, Baltic states, Central Europe, North Central Europe. Leave Greece completely on their own, and have a Balkan bloc with Romania as the anchor. More in common, easier to govern, and they should have a common currency. How can you really have a “union” when important countries do not share the currency. Fiscally responsible Finland has the Euro, as does serially bankrupt Greece. How does that make sense? Leave Greece out completely. Malta too; irredeemably corrupt, an embarrassment to the EU.
When the numbers get too big, it just doesn’t work. Look at the US. US is heading for dissolution, or as I predict–Civil War. It’s just too big to govern, let alone govern effectively. The level of hatred is, by far, the highest it has ever been in modern memory, with the feuding factions abandoning reason and wanting the other side dead. Be careful what you wish for.
As this article records, the supremacy of EU law is stated in no EU Treaty. The Rome Treaty sets up the ECJ as a modest administrative court.
In the battle of the supranationalists against de Gaulle, the judges in 1963/64 took it upon themselves to declare primacy. There was an attempt to integrate the claim in the Constitutional Treaty of 2002/4. Article I-6 of the draft European Constitution stated that “The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.” The voters of France, The Netherland, and Ireland voted that down. After a pause for reflection, the Constitutional draft was rejigged as the Lisbon Treaty. As former French President, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing wrote, “the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty … are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties.” This was a highly misleading statement.
A Treaty is a document freely entered into by sovereign states, whereas a constitution writes the rules for a sovereign territory. Article I-6 of the Constitution, the clearest possible statement of the EU as a supranational entity, found its way into Annex 17 of the Lisbon Treaty: Annex 17 is entitled “Declaration Concerning Primacy”. This states: “It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EU law is a cornerstone principle of Union law. According to the Court, this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community. At the time of the first judgment of this established case law (Costa/ENEL,15 July 1964, Case 6/641 there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today.(my italics) The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.” [25]
In other words, the Court claims supremacy, but that supremacy is not recognized in any Treaty form. For the member states, it is a provisional convenience.
In Germany, a case was brought before the Constitutional Court to the effect that the treaty was unconstitutional. In its judgement, the Court confirmed that while the treaty was compatible with the Basic Law, the powers of the German Parliament to supervise how the German government votes in the Union, were insufficient. Ratification of the Treaty would require stronger oversight powers. These were subsequently voted. In its conclusion, the Court made the crucial statement that the EU remained “an association of sovereign national states” (Staatenverbund), and not a federal state (Bundestaat).
If another intergovernmental conference were to be called to create a European democratic polity, Germany’s “accession to a European federal state would require the creation of a new constitution”.
In other words, the GCC gave priority to protecting the democratic rights of German citizens. So much, could not be said of the UK. What is not understood enough, is that Brexit was about ‘getting back control”, that had been alienated by the Heath/Howe European Communities Act of 1972. Until Remainers get to grips with why they lost on June 23, 2016, they will wander in their political desert. The Polish judges should be congratulated for not signing away their citizens rights: perhaps Commissioner Van der Leyen should read some Polish history to refresh her memory why the Poles take their sovereignty so seriously. Apparently, van der Leyen is also ignorant about her own country’s constitutional status. Much confusion.
I agree, it’s all covered in “The Great Deception” by Christopher Booker and Richard North…
It’s the revival of the unresolved tension in medieval Christendom between church and state.
An apt point. I see at least two parallels.
One is the quasi-religious dogmatism of some devotees of the European project, resistant to tolerating any voices of reason or dissent (blasphemy! heresy!)
The other is the movement for the UK to leave the EU resembling England during the the Reformation. Vital legislation included the Acts of Supremacy: essentially who legitimately exercises authority in England, the King of England or the Bishop of Rome?
History repeats itself, ” Danelaw was an area that covered the north and east of England during the 9th and 10th centuries. It was mainly controlled by Danish (not Norwegian) Vikings, and the Dane’s law was used to rule the people (hence Danelaw).” For Dane read EU, remember that under Danelaw, we were compelled under penalty of death, to pay Danegeld. Hence the saying he who pays Danegeld will never be free of the Dane. Then, Brexit!
Remember that the Danelaw was integrated into the emerging England. The people stayed. Villages with Dane-origin names are all along the east coast, and well inland. We did not ‘leave’ the Danelaw and are as much formed by it as by Anglo-Saxon.
Well, we kept some of the law and got rid of the Danes (qua foreign nationals). There were many positive legacies (such as status and property rights of women), but ending the payment of Danegeld meant more than the money. Self-determination is priceless.
The EU seems to be part of the world wide disease of the unaccoutable “experts.” These “experts” are self annointed. They distain common peoples’ opinions. They’re smugly confident they’re always right, even when events prove them wrong. “Experts” believe that the people are too ignorant and stupid to govern thamselves. The failure to set up a functioning parliament that controls EU bureacracy is intentional, because the “experts” who did the design don’t think parliaments are smart enough to control things. No matter how badly the “experts” bungle, they’re supremely confident they’re doing better than democratic institutions ever could.
The right solution for this is the Admiral Byng solution. In 1757, British Admiral John Byng was executed for fighting a battle poorly. This execution was, as Voltaire famously wrote in “Candide,” to “encourage the others.” It worked. Britania ruled the waves for 170 years after the execution.
Bureacratic disasters should not be met with a quite retirement at full pay. They should be punished with pension cuts at the very least.
“The continued existence of the European Union depends on maintaining the obvious nonsense that EU law is supreme, but that its member states are sovereign.”
Devil’s advocate: this “nonsense” perfectly describes the legal situation between the US federal government and the States, a balance that has held up for a mighty long time.
Does it? I thought US Law was pretty precise in its demarcation between state and federal competencies (not an expert — could be wrong!). And does anyone, since the Civil War, really think the States should/could be sovereign in the same way that most Europeans think their countries should be/are?
Not that precise. The US constitution’s commerce clause has been subject to some acrobatic interpretations.
The tenth amendment of the US Constitution sets out the demarcation as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Compare to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union:
“In accordance with Article 5, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States”
And yet right now secession is being discussed as some states think the federal govt has overreached itself. And this is in a long established nation state with a common language and culture……
There is the vexatious issue of the Xth Amendment. It’s meant to be vexatious. The (first) Civil War was essentially about that (slavery being one important feature of the economy at the time, but not the basic casus belli). Since the FDR days, there has been a tendency for the Federal Government to overreach, but correction is inevitable. The Federal Government in the US reference is not meant to be “supreme” — it is a voluntary association of the States United. So there’s paradox, I’d say, rather than “nonsense” — but paradox more closely resembles the natural order, and it’s my belief that states more in consonance with nature are more durable. Nationalism is natural. If cooperation can pay back more than one sacrifices, it can be tolerated.
Yes indeed, perhaps best to call it a paradox. My point is that it is actually well reflected in Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union. So the EU could take heart in the durability of this contradictory legal form (that is, if we think 156 years and counting is a long time for a constitutional arrangment to hold…)
As with so many problems, the solutions suggested do not have the desired effect because of rigid, linear thinking.
When the EU sees Poland breaking one rule and wants to apply force somewhere else, it is using a simplistic ‘cause>effect‘ mental model..
Most policies fail when they fail to have considered the unforeseen side-effects. These often occur due to an evolutionary chain of events over time: They are not simple cause-effect process.
This article points out one of these chains and warns about unexpected side-effects. This requires quite a high level of thinking skills which, perhaps, Von der Leyen’s team lack.
We saw similar mistakes made in early COVID policy. Hancock and Co seemed unable to think-through the evolutionary consequences of their inaction.
Interestingly, far-eastern counties seem better able to do this. The Confucian/Taoist /Buddhist traditions have this understanding at their core.
I foresee someone accidentally damaging the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the Baltic, possibly in the area north of Poland….call me Nostradamus….
F the EU and the globalists.
Very neatly explained.
The President isn’t elected, and there isn’t much transparency in how she’s appointed. How would she lose her job? How was she lucky?
Michel Barnier’s hypocrisy is staggering
The current construct of the EU is perfect for conflict between the various parties. Rather like a rugby union scrum. If Eugene Delacroix was alive today I feel sure that he would be starting on his second canvas of Liberty leading the People, having already completed a Brexit leading the People.
We’ve witnessed “Europe of the Dictators” and now we have Europe of the Eurocrats…..what could possibly go wrong.
There’s a distinct ‘bexitity’ tone to this article. Touting as it does, the phrases polecat & the ‘hated British’ There’s scant evidence for the existence of either. What we’re seeing is a culture clash between the centrists of Brussels & the nationalists of Poland. What’s not said of course it anything about the undermining of the independence of the judiciary in Poland by the current government. As for the hated British, brexit is a matter for mourning in Europe as it’s seen as a failure on many fronts. The biggest 2 being the Uk’s contribution to the shaping of the Eu’s various laws & standards (for the better). Germany in particular, was at one with the UK on many issues & fears the French may advance more of their ideas without a UK/German bulwark to stop them. Finally, from a financial perspective, the UK leaving the EU is the equivalent of the smallest 10 members all leaving. So why would the celebrate? This article perpetuates some of the brexit myths that are frankly embarrassing. It’s a bit like Nigel Farage going on Irish radio talking about Ireland leaving, when all opinion polls in Ireland show continued EU membership at 90-93%.
This is the equivalent of the guy in the pub, who’s divorced his wife after moaning about her for 10 years. He’s still fixated on her to avoid talking about the fact she she’s living comfortably with his kids in the tidy suburban detached, while he’s in a dingy flat eating ready meals.
Poland has sure earned the right to do such after all its tragic history – but let’s hope ‘she’ does not go toxic in doing so – ie by becoming marxist/stalinist/maoist and expansionist ‘herself’!
As the factual information in this link proves, Poles are lazy spongers. They will stay and suck it up.
https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/
I bet you’re fun at parties
Pole-dancing?
Oh, for sure. Here’s some more factual information to bolster your case. Sponge, sponge, sponge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II
What an ignorant and unsubstantiated comment. For a start they’re bigger than all the rest of the so called spongers, they’ve suffered more in terms of WW2 and post WW2 colateral damage and consequences than any other country, and in moral terms they have reason to expect retribution by western Europe and in particular Germany for having to suffer the destruction of their country followed by the repression and depression of being subjected to a communist regime controlled by Moscow for 50 years. Then there’s the lazy part, modern Poland has developed by having a population with a better work ethic than most other European countries coupled with large investments by corporations from western Europe, primarily Germany and France, and those corporations are taking the spoils in terms of profits from the purchasing power of the increasingly affluent working and middle classes. Then there are the EU-subsidised investments, normally at around 40% of the budget for such investments, primarily in infrastructure and a lot in complementing the pan-European motorway structure providing connectivity to northern Europe for the benefit of the whole EU, and it’s the same story here, where many of the contractors doing the building are from other EU countries so the money is going back in the opposite direction.
If Poland is receiving large handouts from the EU which you may consider as excessive, then at least they’re using the money wisely for the benifit of both their own population and economy and indirectly the development of the EU. It is defintely not being wasted, as I have experienced in my many visits there over the last 25 years.
Shush! You sound like you know what you’re talking about. Dangerous! 😉
I hope you are joking with that comment about Poles being lazy? On the contrary, I have found them, in general, to have a desirable work ethic vs. many of the other EU members who are profoundly lazy.
Many Polish people I know are very hard workers.
You’d better hope none of the Unherd network managers are Polish!