Polish president refuses to sign EU reform treaty

Pompey Magnus

djbarry wrote:

Perhaps he's a petty, anti-German, homophobic idiot?

sink wrote: »

Don't forget he's also an authoritarian, anti-Russian, anti-European, xenophobic racist idiot!

Whilst throwing insults lets not forget that he's fat as well.

molloyjh

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

So the Polish President is unpopular and decides not to ratify the Lisbon treaty. You suggest he should have used his powers to put the treaty to the popular vote which may have seen it passed by the Polish people.

Would I be right in thinking then that you believe Gordon Brown, another unpopular leader, should have put the Lisbon treaty to a popular vote in Britain, which would more than likely have been rejected?

Or do you just want a referendum when it suits the Yes side?

What!? When did I ever say he should have put it to a referendum? I said he had the power to and the fact that he didn't was probably fairly telling, in that if the Polish people didn't want the Treaty they would have voted No and it would have (far more likely than not given that the Parliament was in support of the Treaty) improved his approval rating. The fact that he didn't even try would suggest to me that he knew that the Polish people would have voted in favour of the Treaty. That was my only point, I don't know where you conjured your interpretation from.

And sink and djpbarry are pretty much on the mark with relation to the kind of person he is. Read up on him, he isn't exactly the most charming or cleanest of characters.

Pompey Magnus

molloyjh wrote: »

What!? When did I ever say he should have put it to a referendum? I said he had the power to and the fact that he didn't was probably fairly telling, in that if the Polish people didn't want the Treaty they would have voted No and it would have (far more likely than not given that the Parliament was in support of the Treaty) improved his approval rating. The fact that he didn't even try would suggest to me that he knew that the Polish people would have voted in favour of the Treaty. That was my only point, I don't know where you conjured your interpretation from.

Yes, but my point is you are criticising him for doing exactly the same as what leaders on the other side such as Gordon Brown did, except the Polish President didn't call a referendum as he believed the Poles would vote yes whilst Brown didn't call a referendum as he knew the British people would vote no.

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps he's a petty, anti-German, homophobic idiot?

Then again he is the son of an engineer who served in the Armia Krajowa (the Home Army) and was a veteran of the Warsaw Uprising, where the Germans did actually massacre (and not accidentally kill) close on 200,000 civilians (men, women and children).
So maybe he has more than a few reasons for his dislike of Germans and his comments that there would be more Poles around today but for the Germans does actually hold water.

Of course now in our new great PC world nobody is actually meant to mention such things.

sink

jmayo wrote: »

Then again he is the son of an engineer who served in the Armia Krajowa (the Home Army) and was a veteran of the Warsaw Uprising, where the Germans did actually massacre (and not accidentally kill) close on 200,000 civilians (men, women and children).
So maybe he has more than a few reasons for his dislike of Germans and his comments that there would be more Poles around today but for the Germans does actually hold water.

Of course now in our new great PC world nobody is actually meant to mention such things.

Well in the world of realpolitik it was a very foolish thing to do. The Kasinsky's standing in Europe is greatly tarnished by such remarks and as such so is their influence. Outbursts of those sorts only hurt their own interests and are counter-productive. That is why he is an idiot and why he is disliked by almost everyone in Europe.

molloyjh

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Yes, but my point is you are criticising him for doing exactly the same as what leaders on the other side such as Gordon Brown did, except the Polish President didn't call a referendum as he believed the Poles would vote yes whilst Brown didn't call a referendum as he knew the British people would vote no.

The rights and wrongs of whether referenda should be held are a different issue entirely, I was just suggesting that Parliament represented the people better than the President and that by overrulling the Parliament it could be viewed as him overrulling the people, which is very different to the UK where the people voted for Labour and in doing so allowed them to ratify this Treaty without a referendum. Nowhere is Gordon Browne overrulling anyone in that process.

is_that_so

jmayo wrote: »

Then again he is the son of an engineer who served in the Armia Krajowa (the Home Army) and was a veteran of the Warsaw Uprising, where the Germans did actually massacre (and not accidentally kill) close on 200,000 civilians (men, women and children).
So maybe he has more than a few reasons for his dislike of Germans and his comments that there would be more Poles around today but for the Germans does actually hold water.

Of course now in our new great PC world nobody is actually meant to mention such things.

If that was all he was up to I would agree. The comment in question was only made as a last ditch attempt to scupper the then negotiations, after they had all but agreed.
But the man has no absolutely shame and would say anything if it suited him.
His attitude is classic old style communist bloc, in the same way that Hoeneker, Jaruselski, Ceaucescu et al used to arbitrarily select views that suited them. Himself and his sibling also used the ills of that period to target people they perceived as enemies and that wasn't 60 years ago.

CtrlSource

seamus wrote: »

I don't recall that ever once being used as an argument by the "yes" side.

Sure isn't it constantly being used by some on the Yes side (at least on boards) to make us sound like a bunch of selfish a-holes, trying to impose the will of a tiny number on the rest of the 500,000,000 or whatever? *yawns*

is_that_so wrote: »

This [Kaczinski] is the same man who claimed there would be a lot more Poles if the Germans hadn't killed them.

He's correct about that.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So Mary McAleese should feel free to overturn actions of the Dáil?

Yup, or refer it to the Council of State if not convinced of a Bill's constitutionality

molloyjh

jmayo wrote: »

Then again he is the son of an engineer who served in the Armia Krajowa (the Home Army) and was a veteran of the Warsaw Uprising, where the Germans did actually massacre (and not accidentally kill) close on 200,000 civilians (men, women and children).
So maybe he has more than a few reasons for his dislike of Germans and his comments that there would be more Poles around today but for the Germans does actually hold water.

Of course now in our new great PC world nobody is actually meant to mention such things.

As a politician he should be working to move passed issues like that. If we all thought like that our diplomatic relations with the UK would be non-existant. Which itself then could mean that peace in the North may never have happened etc. Also, he was not alive at the time of the war and so should not be harbouring any personal grudges.

Additionally to that he was trying to use the killing of Polish civilians for political gain - additional voting weight based on "would have been" populations". There is no way that this could or should ever happen. And its kind of sick that he was using their deaths for political advantage.

What happened in WW2 (globally, not just in Poland) is a dark stain on our species history, and should not be cheapened by anyone. However it should also serve as a lesson to all of us that good international relations is paramount to a peaceful society. By bringing up this point to the Germans (who are ashamed enough of that period of their history) showed an incredible lack of tact and diplomacy which only goes against this lesson.

is_that_so

CtrlSource wrote: »

He's correct about that.

Debatable as they say but I have no doubt some better versed in statistics can prove him right or wrong. His reference to it is utterly dubious.

is_that_so

CtrlSource wrote: »

Yup, or refer it to the Council of State if not convinced of a Bill's constitutionality

Yes and not "sure there's no point in this so I couldn't be a***d to sign it".

nacho libre

molloyjh wrote: »

The rights and wrongs of whether referenda should be held are a different issue entirely, I was just suggesting that Parliament represented the people better than the President and that by overrulling the Parliament it could be viewed as him overrulling the people, which is very different to the UK where the people voted for Labour and in doing so allowed them to ratify this Treaty without a referendum. Nowhere is Gordon Browne overrulling anyone in that process.

Irespective of Labour being directly elected...
The British parliament is not representing the wishes of the majority of British people on this issue as evidenced by polls on the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore Brown is overuling the wishing of the people by not putting the treaty to a referendum. I don't see much difference between the positions of the Polish president and Brown on this issue when both are essentially ignoring the will of their respective electorate by not putting it to referendum because they fear the outcome.

CtrlSource

is_that_so wrote: »

Debatable as they say but I have no doubt some better versed in statistics can prove him right or wrong. His reference to it is utterly dubious.

That Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and killed a load of Polish people, not to mention about 3,000,000 Polish Jews, is debatable

oscarBravo

CtrlSource wrote: »

That Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and killed a load of Polish people, not to mention about 3,000,000 Polish Jews, is debatable

That's not what was described as debatable.

This isn't the WWII forum, let's stay on topic.

molloyjh

nacho libre wrote: »

Irespective of Labour being directly elected...
The British parliament is not representing the wishes of the majority of British people on this issue as evidenced by polls on the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore Brown is overuling the wishing of the people by not putting the treaty to a referendum. I don't see much difference between the positions of the Polish president and Brown on this issue when both are essentially ignoring the will of their respective electorate by not putting it to referendum because they fear the outcome.

You cannot overrule someone who hasn't decided anything. The British people have made no decision save that a Labour Government be in power. It may well be true that if Lisbon were put to a referendum in the UK that it would be rejected, but for Browne to overrule the people they would first have to have that referendum. Browne may well not be representing his people, which is a different thing entirely. And this discussion is on Poland, not the UK so here is not the place for discussing Browne and Labours position on Lisbon.

CtrlSource

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not what was described as debatable.

This isn't the WWII forum, let's stay on topic.

i've re-read the relevant posts and that was what was described as debatable

sink

CtrlSource wrote: »

i've re-read the relevant posts and that was what was described as debatable

In my view what was pointed out to be debatable was that the Polish population would be significantly higher today had the WWII atrocities not happened. The fact that they happened is not being disputed by anyone. You are trying to create a straw man.

oscarBravo

CtrlSource wrote: »

i've re-read the relevant posts and that was what was described as debatable

No, it was not.

What was described as debatable was the assertion that there would be more Poles if the Germans hadn't killed them all.

What you have apparently decided to interpret from this is that it's debatable whether Germans killed Poles.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, I can't help you.

This discussion is off-topic and ends here.

CtrlSource

sink wrote: »

In my view what was pointed out to be debatable was that the Polish population would be significantly higher today had the WWII atrocities not happened. The fact that they happened is not being disputed by anyone. You are trying to create a straw man.

i was using rhetoric to make the point that if 6 million Polish people hadn't died in WWII, basic logic would suggest that the population of that country would be larger today. Indeed i have no way of proving that, but it seemed like common sense. i was merely surprised that anyone would call it debatable

oscarBravo

What part of this discussion is off-topic and ends here was unclear?

Popel

Germany´s president refused to sign it into law too, in case you are interested... Though not by choice, the courts have asked him to as two cases challenge the legality and constitutionality of the treaty.

"German President Horst Köhler's office announced on Monday he would not sign the ratification documents until the Federal Constitutional Court, the country's highest court, rules on legal challenges to the treaty, which aims to streamline the bloc's institutions following the 2004 accession of central and eastern European countries.

Köhler's role is largely ceremonial but he still has the power to halt legislation. The court had asked him not to sign the treaty, approved by both houses of the German parliament earlier this year, pending its hearing of two challenges brought by the Left Party and by a politician from Bavaria's conservative Christian Social Union party. There is no date set for a ruling by the court, but it may not come until next year.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski followed suit on Tuesday by saying he will not sign the treaty either for the time being because of Ireland's rejection."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,563127,00.html

nacho libre

molloyjh wrote: »

You cannot overrule someone who hasn't decided anything. The British people have made no decision save that a Labour Government be in power. It may well be true that if Lisbon were put to a referendum in the UK that it would be rejected, but for Browne to overrule the people they would first have to have that referendum. Browne may well not be representing his people, which is a different thing entirely. And this discussion is on Poland, not the UK so here is not the place for discussing Browne and Labours position on Lisbon.[/QUOTE




I presume the original poster created this thread because he/she feels it is relevant to the overall discussion on the Lisbon treaty which affects us all( the citizens of each EU member state) rather than the discussion being specificially just about Poland.
I should have said Brown is ignoring/disregarding the wishes of his people by not holding a referendum. I see Brown and labour's position on the Lisbon Treaty as relevant to this discussion because the Polish president in failing to sign the treaty would be ignoring the expressed views of the majority of Poles on this issue. I think it is fair to say Kaczynski is not acting in a democratic fashion by ignoring the wishes of the majority of his citizens on this issue. Brown is doing the same by not holding a referendum.
In my view, whether you argue for or against the Lisbon Treaty, there is a democratic deficit if the electorate are not consulted on an important issue which affects their future.
Those advocating a yes vote on the Lisbon Treaty have used the arguement that heads of state and parliaments decide issues every day on behalf of their people, if you are one of those, why then should it matter if the Polish president, or if the Czech parliament, do not pass the treaty into law? Perhaps they are actually representing their people and know best - or does this viewpoint change depending on whether you are advocating a yes or no vote to the treaty
With this in mind suppose the Irish government had been able to bypass the Irish electorate and had voted no to the Lisbon Treaty i would object to this because you and others who argued for a yes vote would have been unable to cast your vote. In this scenario you probably wouldn't be of the view that the elected government was representing you and were therefore entitled to reject the treaty without consulting you and the rest of the electorate.

djpbarry

nacho libre wrote: »

I think it is fair to say Kaczynski is not acting in a democratic fashion by ignoring the wishes of the majority of his citizens on this issue. Brown is doing the same by not holding a referendum.

Do we know that the majority of the British electorate want a referendum? Most of my friends in London have not even heard of the Lisbon Treaty. Those who have know little about it and don't seem to have much of an opinion on it.

nacho libre wrote: »

In my view, whether you argue for or against the Lisbon Treaty, there is a democratic deficit if the electorate are not consulted on an important issue which affects their future.

In reality, it’s not THAT important and is unlikely to affect them too much, at least not directly.

The electorate cannot possibly be consulted on every issue that may or may not affect them; such a mechanism would be madness and would result in the country in question grinding to a halt.

There are plenty of things that our government does that are not popular with the electorate (most budgets, for example), but if the actions of the government are sufficiently unpopular, then they will be voted out at the next general election.

molloyjh

nacho libre wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

You cannot overrule someone who hasn't decided anything. The British people have made no decision save that a Labour Government be in power. It may well be true that if Lisbon were put to a referendum in the UK that it would be rejected, but for Browne to overrule the people they would first have to have that referendum. Browne may well not be representing his people, which is a different thing entirely. And this discussion is on Poland, not the UK so here is not the place for discussing Browne and Labours position on Lisbon.

I presume the original poster created this thread because he/she feels it is relevant to the overall discussion on the Lisbon treaty which affects us all( the citizens of each EU member state) rather than the discussion being specificially just about Poland.
I should have said Brown is ignoring/disregarding the wishes of his people by not holding a referendum. I see Brown and labour's position on the Lisbon Treaty as relevant to this discussion because the Polish president in failing to sign the treaty would be ignoring the expressed views of the majority of Poles on this issue. I think it is fair to say Kaczynski is not acting in a democratic fashion by ignoring the wishes of the majority of his citizens on this issue. Brown is doing the same by not holding a referendum.
In my view, whether you argue for or against the Lisbon Treaty, there is a democratic deficit if the electorate are not consulted on an important issue which affects their future.
Those advocating a yes vote on the Lisbon Treaty have used the arguement that heads of state and parliaments decide issues every day on behalf of their people, if you are one of those, why then should it matter if the Polish president, or if the Czech parliament, do not pass the treaty into law? Perhaps they are actually representing their people and know best - or does this viewpoint change depending on whether you are advocating a yes or no vote to the treaty
With this in mind suppose the Irish government had been able to bypass the Irish electorate and had voted no to the Lisbon Treaty i would object to this because you and others who argued for a yes vote would have been unable to cast your vote. In this scenario you probably wouldn't be of the view that the elected government was representing you and were therefore entitled to reject the treaty without consulting you and the rest of the electorate.

Just to clarify, I wasn't judging the decision when I said it could be viewed as going against the will of the people. I was just trying to state a fact, i.e. that it could be viewed in such a way. The OP is one of those people who complains about democratic deficit and then applauds the Polish president for what he has done. To be honest I've tried not to judge any other countries methods for ratification thus far, as I believe that is a matter for the people of the particular country/countries. I wouldn't like a French or a German person to tell me how we should do things here, or how right or wrong our system is. I don't feel its their business. Using this logic, their systems are none of mine. The other point that I made was not in relation to whether Browne is doing what the people want or not, again I was just trying to state something factual, i.e. that the British public have made no (official) decision on Lisbon and so there is nothing to overrule in that respect. But hey, I've always been pedantic!

free-man

djpbarry wrote: »

Do we know that the majority of the British electorate want a referendum?

Please.. why do people keep saying this when the overwhelming evidence is that many EU citizens wanted a referendum

djpbarry wrote: »

In reality, it’s not THAT important and is unlikely to affect them too much, at least not directly.

Could you briefly outline how the treaty will not affect UK citizens directly?

djpbarry wrote: »

The electorate cannot possibly be consulted on every issue that may or may not affect them; such a mechanism would be madness and would result in the country in question grinding to a halt.

If the treaty changes certain countries constitutions with the effect of not requiring further referendums on future issues I strongly disagree.

is_that_so

nacho libre wrote: »

I presume the original poster created this thread because he/she feels it is relevant to the overall discussion on the Lisbon treaty which affects us all( the citizens of each EU member state) rather than the discussion being specificially just about Poland.
I should have said Brown is ignoring/disregarding the wishes of his people by not holding a referendum. I see Brown and labour's position on the Lisbon Treaty as relevant to this discussion because the Polish president in failing to sign the treaty would be ignoring the expressed views of the majority of Poles on this issue. I think it is fair to say Kaczynski is not acting in a democratic fashion by ignoring the wishes of the majority of his citizens on this issue. Brown is doing the same by not holding a referendum.
In my view, whether you argue for or against the Lisbon Treaty, there is a democratic deficit if the electorate are not consulted on an important issue which affects their future.
Those advocating a yes vote on the Lisbon Treaty have used the arguement that heads of state and parliaments decide issues every day on behalf of their people, if you are one of those, why then should it matter if the Polish president, or if the Czech parliament, do not pass the treaty into law? Perhaps they are actually representing their people and know best - or does this viewpoint change depending on whether you are advocating a yes or no vote to the treaty
With this in mind suppose the Irish government had been able to bypass the Irish electorate and had voted no to the Lisbon Treaty i would object to this because you and others who argued for a yes vote would have been unable to cast your vote. In this scenario you probably wouldn't be of the view that the elected government was representing you and were therefore entitled to reject the treaty without consulting you and the rest of the electorate.

My problem as I have already stated is the messenger.

But if you feel that the likes of Le Pen, Nicholas Farage , the bigoted Jim Allister, the Eurosceptic Czech government and the delightful Kaczinsky are proof that "something is rotten in the state of the EU" then who am I to argue.

molloyjh

free-man wrote: »

Please.. why do people keep saying this when the overwhelming evidence is that many EU citizens wanted a referendum

I will concede the point on the British wanting a referendum and not getting one. They are a bit of an exception in the EU scheme of things though as they place their sovereignty a lot higher than most, in some cases regardless of the potential benefits to certain changes, e.g. tax harmonisation (they are losing out due to our lower rate and a standard EU wide rate would probably keep some of their domestic businesses that they could lose to us).

The French elected a man who openly told them that he would not hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, so they can hardly now complain that they did not get one!

The Italians elected their Parliament and Senate into office in April and had they really wanted a referendum on Lisbon they should have said so then. If they didn't they can't blame anyone else but themselves for not getting a referendum. How can a Government represent a view that you do not communicate to them after all?

The Spanish had elections to both their Parliament and Senate in March and so the same applies to them as to the Italians.

free-man wrote: »

Could you briefly outline how the treaty will not affect UK citizens directly?

The Treaty probably wouldn't affect many people directly at all given that the guts of it is just a re-structuring of the EU itself, allowing it to funtion better (i.e. without as much buracreacy (sp?) and with less overheads). There wasn't all that much to it that had a tangible impact to most peoples daily lives. It is very hard to prove something though that Lisbon wouldn't do, perhaps it would be better to see how it would affect peoples lives directly??? I can't see anything to it that would directly impact me so you may have to help me out on this one....

free-man wrote: »

If the treaty changes certain countries constitutions with the effect of not requiring further referendums on future issues I strongly disagree.

That is a common misconception re the Treaty. However it does nothing of the sort. Amendments to the Treaty must be ratified by all member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements, i.e. in Ireland if it requres a change to our referendum we have to vote on it, if not its down to the Dail and the Seanad. The EU has no power over a member states sovereign right to vote on matters as they see fit (i.e. according to their national laws). It never has, nor will it whether Lisbon is ratified or not.

ixtlan

free-man wrote: »

Please.. why do people keep saying this when the overwhelming evidence is that many EU citizens wanted a referendum

The thing is, as others have said, is that every country has a mechanism to have a referendum on a treaty. The public needs to make it an election issue and elect a government that promises a vote.

I have real doubts about a survey that asks someone who probably has never heard of Lisbon up to that point "do you want to vote on this important treaty?" Who would answer no to that? The 20% who said no are probably the ones who are familiar with the treaty and agree with it. The majority of the 70% will not know anything about the treaty, except that they will have learned as the questions are asked of them that the powers that be obviously think this treaty is important. So would you want a vote on that treaty? Of course. Obviously they will feel they need to learn more about it.

The proper question to ask is whether the issue of a vote will affect their choice of candidate in any upcoming elections.

Ix.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

I will concede the point on the British wanting a referendum and not getting one. They are a bit of an exception in the EU scheme of things though as they place their sovereignty a lot higher than most, in some cases regardless of the potential benefits to certain changes, e.g. tax harmonisation (they are losing out due to our lower rate and a standard EU wide rate would probably keep some of their domestic businesses that they could lose to us).

The French elected a man who openly told them that he would not hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, so they can hardly now complain that they did not get one!

The Italians elected their Parliament and Senate into office in April and had they really wanted a referendum on Lisbon they should have said so then. If they didn't they can't blame anyone else but themselves for not getting a referendum. How can a Government represent a view that you do not communicate to them after all?

The Spanish had elections to both their Parliament and Senate in March and so the same applies to them as to the Italians.

Hmm. Neither the Germans nor the Italians have any mechanism for having a referendum on Lisbon - the Germans because they don't have national referendums, the Italians because their constitution specifically precludes the ratification of treaties by referendum.

One could have an 'advisory' referendum, but it is worth pointing out the danger that the Dutch parliament identified in such "non-binding" referendums. Their 'non-binding' referendum on the Constitution was effectively binding on the government, who did not proceed with ratification as a result of the vote - which, in turn, formed part of the argument there against having further referendums, since it would set a precedent of binding referendums, which in turn would override the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

I'm sure that many of us will say "well, that's only right and proper", but that's because referendums are part of our constitution - elsewhere they constitute an extra-constitutional mechanism with a very chequered history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Neither the Germans nor the Italians have any mechanism for having a referendum on Lisbon - the Germans because they don't have national referendums, the Italians because their constitution specifically precludes the ratification of treaties by referendum.

One could have an 'advisory' referendum, but it is worth pointing out the danger that the Dutch parliament identified in such "non-binding" referendums. Their 'non-binding' referendum on the Constitution was effectively binding on the government, who did not proceed with ratification as a result of the vote - which, in turn, formed part of the argument there against having further referendums, since it would set a precedent of binding referendums, which in turn would override the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

I'm sure that many of us will say "well, that's only right and proper", but that's because referendums are part of our constitution - elsewhere they constitute an extra-constitutional mechanism with a very chequered history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

While I understand and agree with your points Scofflaw I think mine might have gotten lost in all the to-ing and fro-ing! I was basically saying that if people wanted a referendum on this issue in the likes of Germany and Italy it was up to the people of that country to challenege and enforce change in their system, just as Crotty did here. The Italians have until the middle of next year to decide whether to ratify or not and have yet to set a date on it. If the Italian people, for example, want a referendum on it then there is (I would imagine) both the time and the ability to do it should they push for it. As you said there is no mechanism for it there now, and the Government are not going to change the law on this without there being sufficient drive from the people for it. Otherwise this point of "The people of Europe want to vote on this" becomes null and void. If they really do they'd push for it themselves.