Poland at a crossroads?

After spending three days on domestic affairs, today I will concentrate on the Polish-Hungarian-European Union triangle, with a quick look at Putin’s Russia.

There is no question that Jarosław Kaczyński has been an excellent student of Viktor Orbán. The new Szydło government is copying the Orbán model step by step, just at an accelerated pace. While it took the slower-moving Orbán machinery two or three years to achieve its desired results, the eager Poles thought that a few months would suffice. It didn’t take long for Polish foreign minister Witold Waczczykowski to announce a change in the country’s foreign policy. The Szydło government will not follow its predecessor’s policy of acquiescence toward the European Union, he said. As a result of Polish belligerence, most commentators were certain that Brussels would act quickly and without hesitation. If the European Union opts to avoid a confrontation, the same thing will happen in Poland as happened in Hungary, where Orbán’s political system has solidified to the point that it may last for decades. Poland is too important a country to allow this to occur.

Cass Mudde of the University of Georgia wrote an article in the Huffington Post in which he suggested that “the success of PiS in Poland could turn out to be a poisoned chalice for Orbán” because of the possibility of EU sanctions not just against Poland but against Hungary as well.” As we know, however, Orbán made it clear on January 8 that “it’s not worth it for the European Union to rack its brains over any sanction against Poland because that would require full agreement. Never will Hungary support any sanction against Poland.”

A few days later Kim Lane Scheppele pointed out that a veto by Hungary could easily be neutralized. In an article that appeared on January 11 in politico.eu she sketched out a possible legal action that would take care of Viktor Orbán’s threat of a veto. Here is her scheme:

Sanctions require a unanimous vote of the European Council, minus the offending state, meaning Hungary does have a veto.

But Article 7 includes two separate parts: a warning system outlined in Article 7(1) and the sanctions mechanism of Article 7(2)-(3). The only way to keep the threat of sanctions on the table under Article 7(2) is for European institutions to act against both Poland and Hungary at the same time by invoking Article 7(1) first.

Those who were certain that this time the European Commission would not choose the road of appeasement as it did in the case of Hungary were correct. On January 13 the Commission launched a probe into policy changes in Poland that may clash with EU law. This is an unprecedented move with serious implications. For example, it could lead to the application of Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union.

In the wake of the announcement of the probe, the Poles even copied Orbán, who took up the challenge and faced a very angry European Parliament in 2012. Prime Minister Beata Szydło announced that she would attend the debate on Poland in the European Parliament and defend her government’s right to make changes in the structure of the constitutional court and the media. Her speech was very East European in flavor. In addition to repeating several times that Poland is as much a part of the EU as the other 27 countries, she said that Brussels, instead of “rounding on Poland, ought to be looking to engage with a country with a troubled history and which had fought at great cost for its freedom.” These words could easily have been uttered by Viktor Orbán himself. It is still too early to know what the reaction to Szydło’s speech will be, but people in the know in Brussels are certain that “the stage is set for a ‘carnage’ in the European Parliament.”

Szydlo

Beata Szydło in the European Parliament, January 19, 2016

There have, however, been voices in the western media that have cautioned the European Commission in its handling of Poland. As early as January 13, the day the European Commission decided on a monitoring procedure against Warsaw, The New York Times came out with an editorial which claimed that “punishing Poland through sanctions would be counterproductive and even hypocritical, given the proliferation of like-minded parties across Europe,” the logic of which escapes me, I’m afraid.

What the editors of The New York Times think about Polish-EU relations is neither here nor there, but what Donald Tusk thinks is something else. After all, he is the president of the European Council who is supposed to represent the interests of the Union and not the country of his birth. But although Tusk is a political adversary of Kaczyński, he felt compelled to come to Poland’s rescue. His move was interpreted by The Financial Times as a break “with the rest of the EU’s leadership … by questioning Brussels’ decision to launch a formal review into whether Poland’s new media and judicial legislation violate the rule of law.” He declared that the EU can clarify the situation in Poland “by other methods, not necessarily triggering this procedure.” He didn’t elaborate what these other methods might be.

Meanwhile, in Hungary Viktor Orbán is most likely eagerly watching what’s going on in Brussels. Will the Poles be persuaded to abandon their revolutionary zeal under domestic and foreign pressure? There are signs that President Andrzej Duda (PiS) and other PiS officials began a campaign a few days ago to ease tensions between Poland and the European Commission. If they succeed, Viktor Orbán will not be a happy man because he is counting on the formation of a large eastern bloc of 90 million people as something of an alliance against the core countries in Western Europe. Naturally, such a bloc without Poland is worth nothing.

This kind of fear is reflected in one of Zsolt Bayer’s articles titled “Lengyelek” (The Poles). After recalling all the humiliation and treachery Poland has suffered through her history at the hands of the western powers, especially the United States, Bayer doesn’t understand “Polish devotion to the United States.” Poland must choose. Either they follow Hungary’s example or they will end up with the same “base, unjust, unbearable and unacceptable harassment that Hungary had to suffer.” Poland must be careful, Bayer warns, because it is clear that the United States has been hard at work trying to persuade Poland to loosen its ties with the alliance system Viktor Orbán managed to create from the formerly ineffectual Visegrád4 group. If a 90-million strong Eastern Bloc materializes, it will be the center of a “normal” Europe as opposed to the “mentally deranged West.” So, a lot depends on Poland, a country that should be grateful to Hungary because of Hungary’s generosity toward her in her times of peril. “There is no war yet but the situation is very serious. We should not let them drive a wedge between us.”

After reading Bayer’s lines about the possibility of a war in Europe, one wonders about the psychological state of some of the Fidesz leaders who lately have been discussing ways of strengthening the military capabilities of the country. László Kövér went so far as to talk about “the catastrophe of abolishing compulsory military service” in 2004. Do they really think that war is going to break out in Europe sometime in the near future? Possibly.

Finally, a friendly warning to Poland. Putin is delighted with the growth of right-wing radicalism and the recent emphasis on the sovereignty of nation states within the European Union, as Vladislav Inozemtsev of The Moscow Times, points out. “The events in Europe are being seen with undisguised joy” in Russia. “The Kremlin supports and will support the ultra-right and ultra-left parties who seek to put Europeans back to their ‘private apartments.’” So, going along with Viktor Orbán will be useful to Poland’s archenemy, Russia. The leaders of PiS should think very seriously whether they want to play into the hands of Vladimir Putin or not. Yes, they do have a choice.

September 19, 2016
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
buddy
Guest

“Those who were certain that this time the European Commission would not choose the road of *appeasement* as it did in the case of Hungary were correct.”

Just a small comment here: the proper term in this sentence should be “acquiescence” (“the reluctant acceptance of something without protest”), and *not* “appeasement” (“the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace”).

Appeasement is when you have to meet somebody’s demands, else they threaten you with war.

Fábián Ernő
Guest
Thanks, useful post. The reason (one of the reasons) why PiS became so belligerent is because it worked for Orban. Some people at this blog will say it didn’t etc. etc. but for Orban it worked very well. Orban is still very popular, strong, richer than ever (just as his EU-funded circle or oligarchs and cronies all over Hungary). Meanwhile the EU (just as the capital Budapest) is more and more dispised, especially in rural regions, it’s actually the perfect villain. People can comfortably hate the EU without being politically incorrect. If you hate the gipsies or the jews people may call you racist. If you hate the EU there’s no stigma – lately Renzi is using the EU as a punching bag too. Why? Because the EU itself lets itself to be used for that purpose and then politely assists even. Let’s make it clear: for PiS there is no downside at all. So why wouldn’t they do it? First, these politicians really believe in this stuff (ie. about the Untergang of ‘liberalism’ and Enlightenment, the West) just as Orban does, but perhaps more importantly the Polish politicians can only gain. It’s only logical that they will be belligerent… Read more »
Observer
Guest

@Fábián Ernő

Spot on.
Unfortunately my 2010 worse scenario is running its course.

I wish, but don’t believe EU will take tough action, which makes this a no-risk-game for the rogues. The eventual economic downturn would be of no prime concern for them.

The most probable consequences would be a two tier EU, formally or informally so re-organized.

Guest

Sadly, a United States of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or at least to the Dnieper, was always just a delusional dream of idealists.

The East/West and North/South fault-lines run far too deep for that, and monetary union of a large part of the EU under the euro without also fiscal union just made this situation far, far worse.

Today’s EU is a classic example of the triumph of pious hope over even a modicum of common sense.

I think that the most that can be hoped for now is that the EU would gradually devolve back to just being a common market, with national border controls reimposed, although face saving appearances would no doubt be assiduously maintained for a long time.

Hello
Guest

A two-tier EU would be a blessing in disguise. Once German and French voters see that there is another way, they will want to move to “Tier 2” very quickly. Soon there will only be one Tier 1 – Brussels – a stateless city in a country formerly known as Belgium.

Istvan
Guest
I assume Eva and those who read this blog are aware that Poland in total gets more EU cohesion funds than does Hungary. The new EU budget proposal has earmarked EUR 82.5 billion for implementing the cohesion policy in Poland from 2014 – 2020. This means that in the years to come Poland will be the largest beneficiary of the EU cohesion policy funds among all EU nations. The plan for Poland has a greater emphasis on the connections between R&D and enterprise sector in Poland than does the plan for Hungary. The Hungarian plan has a much greater emphasis on infrastructure and ecology than does the Polish plan. Poland’s R&D according to the plan will be linked to “Outsourcing / shared services centres” with developed western member states. There is a role for Hungary and Poland to play in the EU’s 2014-2020 plan economically and I doubt the European Commission is willing to upset that plan in order to limit changes in the structure of Poland’s constitutional court and the media laws that will not likely impact private property rights or trade rules. József Böröcz in his essay “Empire’s New Clothes” captured the essence of the economic dynamics of… Read more »
musiclover
Guest
I feel rather uneasy about this. Are we saying that if a party comes to power via free and fair elections that opposes the current status quo with regards to the EU, it should be treated as a rogue state? If you only believe in democracy when it produces governments you like, you are no democrat. We have a curious situation in the UK at the moment. The new leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbin, is an old style socialist who believes strongly in state ownership. He is an honest and honorable man, but in my view, a complete idiot, and I certainly won’t be voting for Labour again … but if he was to win the next election on his current platform, he would be powerless to implement his mandate because things like renationalising the railways would be impossible under EU rules. As a democrat, I believe the UK electorate has the right to vote for Corbin’s manifesto and for him to implement it in full should he win. Are we really saying that an EU country can no longer vote for radical new approaches to government? To my mind, that is profoundly undemocratic. Reluctantly, I have decided to… Read more »
Guest

Re: ‘ Are we really saying that an EU country can no longer vote for radical new approaches to government? To my mind, that is profoundly undemocratic’

You know you bring up an interesting point. I recently saw how opposition in the UK wants to run the Trumpster out of town. They apparently don’t like what he is saying. Looks to me a bit of censoring the old boy who comes to talk.

Not saying the UK will forsake democracy but it ‘s interesting to see at this moment the UK , a bastion of democratic principles, playing around with that censorship stuff. Diagnosis: a wee bit of a mild ‘illiberalist’ type of infection rearing its head?

Guest

Don’t overstate the case: only a couple of hundred thousand people signed the petition – so under the Tories promise it had to be debated – that’s all.

Trump won’t be banned because most people here believe in free speech.

Let the racist idiot, together with the hideous Palin make fools of themselves. Trump will never be president.

And btw its Corbyn.

(And his rediculous defence policy will never be called upon – but this is Hungarian Spectrum.)

Guest

Re: ‘Trump won’t be banned because most people here believe in free speech’

Sure hope so. Personally I’m not a fan of his but surprised some Brits got jacked up to shut him up. Just surprised to hear the rhetoric.

Hello
Guest

Wait… wait… you thought there was free speech in the UK? Oh, my…

Hello
Guest

my, my, you’re a bitter little waste of sperm

Observer
Guest

Yes, a frequent Q.

1. Even “if a party comes to power via free and fair elections that opposes the current status quo with regards to the EU” it is bound by the EU charter and other numerous multilateral agreement signed.

2. It is also bound by the existing legal framework, norms of political life and behavior. Unless this party announced their radically different intentions in their program, the voters would have been cheated, denied a fair election.

3. Finally and most importantly there are the moral norms of a society.
Suppose Hitler won a perfectly fair and free election (it was not) in 1933. Then with the Enablement act and subsequent decrees turned Germany into an absolute dictatorship, all perfectly legal.
And then legislated the Jews, Slavs, leftists, homosexuals, etc. to be enemies of the Reich/Volk and designated them for annihilation.
Suppose Hitler legislated war to be the rightful weapon of the Arian Übermensch and then ran over the UK in accordance with the rules of war. Once part of teh Reich, the Brits could have been legally declared Untermenschen and anihilated too. All very legal.

You get the drift.

spectator
Guest

“Are we saying that if a party comes to power via free and fair elections that opposes the current status quo with regards to the EU, it should be treated as a rogue state? “

The fault of your argument lies in the fact that the ‘power’ not only opposes ‘the current status quo with regards to the EU”, but with the fundamental values of the democracy as well! And that’s the problem with this/these pictures, you see. There are democratic norms, and a civilised European government/country/party supposed to stay within the limits. At least it was customary during the last seventy years.

For your information: democracy isn’t equals with the absolute power — “dictatorship” one may say — of the majority in total disregard of the rest, no dear.

“Only” this is the main problem with Hungary and Poland at the moment (and the rest will follow).

However, personally I assume that the Poles will sober up sooner or later — as opposed to the power-tipsy Ørbán regime…

I hope so, anyway.

Guest
Re: \’There is simply too much money at stake for the Commission to decisively confront Poland, let alone follow the path suggested by Kim Lane Scheppele of confronting both Poland and Hungary at the same time. But as Alexander Pope stated so well: “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” One of the good points of blogs and responses is that one can see immediately some of the focal points of why states act the way they do. Nothing like that great refrain in \’Cabaret\’, \’Money makes the world go around …a mark a yen a buck or a pound.. It makes a clinking clanging sound\’. Looks great but only up to a point as we see what \’Orbanomics\’ has wrought to the nation and people of Hungary. We will see how \’Mr.K\’ and PiS navigate the complexities of economics in their country. Can they hit \’two birds with one stone\’ namely a buoyant economy with ostensibly a continuing democratic government? If as Fabian Erno noted Poland thinks there is no downside to what they are doing with political institutions and their setup they may have another thing coming. For all we have to do is look at Hungary. The… Read more »
Member

Dear Isvan, basically you are right (or not). May I suggest to read more on the EU from EU/ European sources. Most of the US writers don\’t grasp the substance of integration stage and tend to be tendentially critical compering the USA with an immagined USE. Just three short examples. 1.) Cohesion funds never target increase of GDP, thought the implementation ideally brings about it. 2.) Commission is one of the main bodies to implement and supervise treaties. It does it every day. Towards all member states. 3.) What is wrong with mutually advantageous cooperation? Both new and old member states win. How much and on what conditions, that is the question.

Istvan
Guest
There would be nothing wrong if in the long run if Germany, Poland, and Hungary were winners through utilization of the cohesion funds and their associated projects. But the bottom line is who makes the most out of the deal in the long run the Central European nations or the core developed western European nations? In the long run its the core nations that make more money by utilizing lower cost workers be they technical researchers, or industrial workers. It also creates a situation of suppressed wages in Central Europe since it is so dependent on out sourcing. That by the way comes from someone who more often than not in the USA has voted Republican and does believe in free markets. The truth is the EU has never developed anything comparable to a US Marshall Plan for Central Europe post communism, the cohesion strategy is defective on numerous levels. The United States gave $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II between just 1948 and 1952. The EU’s commitment to the former communist nations has been no where… Read more »
Member

Istvan, I don’t have time for a detailed answer but it doesn’t mean that I fully agree with you. Was the Marshall Plan disadvantageous for the US? Alternatively, entirely selfless? In US everything has to be measured in money. That is fine and necessary but not the entire picture.
I think the EU commitment to CEE is comparable to the Marshall plan but it came in different stages and timing. How wisely you use it depends a lot on a recipient country. It does not make you a producer of Audi or Airbus, that’s true. Please also try to think also from the perspective of a small or medium country on the periphery of Europe. Outsourcing is a much better option for anyone than sweeping streets as a public worker. And so on and on.

Istvan
Guest
The Marshall Plan, benefited the American economy. The money had to be largely used to buy goods from the United States, and they had to be shipped across the Atlantic on American merchant vessels. Between 80% and 90% of all the Marshall Plan dollars were spent in the United States. But we did not set up a system off shore production for lower wages in Europe as is being done in Central Europe now or the USA is doing in Mexico now unfortunately. The project was not completely charitable to be sure, its ultimate goal was to stop the spread of communism and in that the Marshall plan was amazingly successful. The EU is allocating € 63.4 billion for cohesion funding from 2014 to 2020 to all nations that is not even in the game compared to what the USA did from 1947 to 1952. Moreover the USA never imposed a vast regulatory framework as the price for the Marshall plan funding as does the EU. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and western Germany received Marshall Plan funding. The United States has financial relationships with all… Read more »
Guest
Istvan, I regret to say, but strongly disagree with the thrust of your argument. First, it is hard to discern in what you say whether the EU cohesion fund payouts to periphery countries are outright grants or a species of loans to be eventually repaid. You seem to slide hither and thither between the two notions. Second, it seems that you conflate deliberate intention and unintended consequence, in claiming deliberate intentionality on the part of EU core nations to create economic dependence – a kind of colonial enslavement of the periphery countries – by doling out to them the cohesion fund payments. Would you prefer that there be no cohesion fund payments, or that 80% of the cohesion fund payments be required to be spent in the core EU countries, as was the case with the mandated purchases from the US under the terms of the Marshal Plan? Or have you got a better idea of how to help former East Block members catch up with the EU core that the current cohesion funds scheme? If so, spell it out. My take on this is that the cohesion funds scheme as it currently works is probably the best of a… Read more »
Observer
Guest

• So we read about the “humiliation and treachery Poland has suffered through her history at the hands of the western powers, especially the United States” ?!?
• And that Poland must choose.. . to follow Orban..
• Otherwise it will suffer the “base, unjust, unbearable and unacceptable harassment that Hungary had to suffer.”
How’s this for arrogance: Poles should forget 1260-1411, 1630-1660, 1812, 1830, 1860, 1922-3, 1939-45, 1981 and let Orban teach them what suffering is.
• Poland should be grateful to Hungary because of Sigismund of Luxembourg or because Hungary joined Hitler ? Or maybe the other way round because of the Jan Sobieski, Savior of Vienna and Western European civilization ?
• And VO has hammered the formerly ineffectual V4 into an alliance ?!
• The eventual Eastern Bloc will be the center of a “normal” Europe as opposed to the “mentally deranged West.”

Wow! Here I rest my case.
It’s a virtual reality these bunch lives in, not unlike a mental ward, as the deranged ZsB witnesses.

Dolfi
Guest

It’s also ridiculous that Jobbik must publish this and not the democratic opposition.

Was the original Ermächtigungsgesetz actually less favrorable for the Führer than this proposal which Orban wants for himself?

Sure this is just a proposal so the lefties will be so relieved when the eventual text will be watered down a little, a real nice compromise I predict.

When will the EU realize and say it out loud that Hungary is not a democracy and that through “legal” ways (following the rules Fidesz enacts to entrench its rule) Orban is simply impossible to get rid of?

http://444.hu/2016/01/20/harminc-evre-titkositottak-az-alkotmanymodositas-tervezetet-novak-elod-nyilvanossagra-hozta

karcsi4
Guest

Paks 2 is totally on. GE and Siemens are lobbying for it and the Russians will finance it. Orban decided about Paks 2 and he will deliver, Paks 2 will stand. The EU can suck it up, this is Hungary.

http://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/energia/bajban_az_oroszok_de_a_paksi_hitelt_megkaphatjuk.225764.html

webber
Guest

karcsi4
What does this have to do with anything?
And while you’re at it, don’t hold your breath – Russian credit wasn’t in question, the question is will the EU stop Paks 2, and Brussels just might (for all sorts of reasons not worth going into here)

webber
Guest

It’s cute how Fideszniks are convinced that everything depends on Orban, and that he can do whatever he wants no matter what happens anywhere else in the world.
Not so long ago people like karcsi4 were telling us that “South Stream is on, Putin and Orban are unstoppable….blablablabla”

petofi
Guest

Hey, Karcsi4,

soon the Russians won’t be able to finance zippers on their trousers (they’ll be back to the old fashioned buttons), what with
the price of oil heading south of $40 per. Talk is now of $20per.

Looks good on the Russkies.

And, by the way, sic transit Paks deux…

petofi
Guest

@karchi4

Let me predict your future: you’ll have a kind of middle position in the guard structure of Gulag Debrecen.
Looking good.

Guest

It was axiomatic that the founder states of the EU were all democratic, but there was no practical definition of what it meant. The EU may have used a check list for democracy when they allowed new member countries in, but the check list was not comprehensive and the EU did not plan to control regularly that the new members did not return to their old bad ways. Therefore we have the situation today, that democratically elected evil politicians in some member countries claim they have the right to legislate democracy out of existence while insisting on ejoying the amenities of the EU. Amenities that could not have been created without democracy. All this is not new. It is sad that the EU seems unable to remedy its fatal misjudgement of the willingness of the new member states to adhere to democray.

Is consorting with evil justified if the end is the preservation of the majorities in the European Parliament and the Bundestag? That was the question, and the answer was yes. Now the question is: Is consorting with evil justified if the end is the preservation of investments in hijacked EU member countries?

Member

Jean P, the EU had and HAS a very definite set of requirements for the aspirant countries. In brief its called “Copenhagen criteria”. It applies for old member states as well. A bit longer version: democracy, rule of law, market economy.

Guest

Rule of law is included in democracy. How can one think of them as separate entities?

Observer
Guest

Right, But Orban doesn’t or doesn’t want to know about Copenhagen criteria. So what I’d the EU doing about it?
Here’s the problem.

szabi
Guest

It’s official, the Kúria (the Supreme Court) is also under Fidesz control. Not that we had a doubt but at least we could pretend, not anymore.

http://hvg.hu/velemeny.nyuzsog/20160120_Nepszavazasi_dontes_kar_a_Kuriaert

Member

Dear Eva, I highly appreciate your update . I fully agree with your observations. I hate to say but this time BZs is right about the stakes. Would Warsaw change course without public interference? That is the question right now. Moreover, if there was anyone determined and credible enough to follow it through if necessary.
I agree with Kim Lane but it may be too early for Article 6. It appears to me that a lot is going on behind the scenes. From DoS briefs is clear that the US is also involved on the level of John Kerry as well as DoS. It may or may not help. The EU has more on its plate that it can possibly handle. Elections in the US do not help either. However, the first decision was taken and more and more people understand the unprecedented. After all, you cannot step into the same river twice. Or, I just hope so.

Florian
Guest
In late 2015 a democratic general election took place in Poland , resulting in a change of power. Mr. Andrzej Duda won the office of President of Poland and the united right under the leadership of its largest party, namely the Law and Justice Party (PiS), won an absolute majority in Parliament. The centre-liberal coalition of the Civic Platform (PO) and the Polish People’s Party (PSL), which had been in power for 8 years, went into opposition. Left wing parties failed to obtain the required minimum percentage threshold of the vote, so they are not represented in Parliament. The results of the elections have shown that the Polish people have critically judged the policy of the previous government, including its deficit of guarantees for the freedom of speech. Under the rule of that government there were cases of penal repression against persons expressing criticism of the government of the time on the internet, at sports events or during anti-government demonstrations. Surveillance and even the repression of journalists gave cause for serious concern. Yet, these facts did not attract the attention of or give rise to any reaction from European Institutions at the time. Just before the elections the outgoing incumbent… Read more »
Guest

Nice propaganda effort!
Who pays you for this?

Hello
Guest
Under the prior government, corruption scandals were everywhere, prominent politicians and security personnel were killed or committed “suicide”, the Polish population was turned into a caste of gastarbeiters and media and capital ownership was shifted to international concerns and people who “recently acquired Polish passports.” Yes, Poland gained money from the EU – given that the EU is the German taxpayers and that the Germans never paid a dime before that for all the damage they’ve done to Poland since at least the 900s, the minor funds transferred by Brussels can only be taken as what we hope can be a good start. Perhaps Poland and Hungary should leave the EU. Looked through the prism of international politics long-term, who really is a greater threat to Polish (or Hungarian) sovereignty: Russia or the EU? Will put in shove endless droves of “refugees” down our throats? Will he push the homosexual agenda down our throats? Will he talk of multiculturalism? Will he censor the media when our people are being molested by Arab “immigrants”? The reason that the internationalists are mad at Putin is because he tried to shake off the leash which greeted him when he took office back in… Read more »
Guest

So why does the EU think you have drven a horse and coach through their values?

And why are your measures under scrutiny by them?

You have copied Orban too much.

You should be ejected from the EU if you persist.

Hello
Guest

The values of the Eurocrats (if indeed they have any) do not concern the people of Europe. The Eurocrats are mere marionettes. Do not make this about Germany vs. Poland,. The values of the common people are the same both in Poland and in Germany and in England and in Australia and in the US and in Russia.

And you know this quite well. Because that is what worries you when you’re in your bed alone at night.

Hello
Guest

And, BTW, if the EE countries get “ejected” from the EU – (BTW who does the ejecting? Should we have a vote in the rest of the EU on this or is that not necessary?) then there will be plenty of others in the EU who will apply for “ejection”. Will Germany be allowed to eject? The UK? What if Denmark or Sweden wants to eject? Can they do that? Oh what wonderful webs we weave… but the web will be unraveled – one way or another. And at the end there will only be the Eurocrats standing in Brussels. Let’s hope that the city’s majority Muslim population will not deal with them too harshly.

Guest

The net contributors won’t support the net receivers for too long if those countries go native.

They need to adopt democracy somewhere along the way.

Guest

It’s my EU too – and we’re fed up with your country and Hungary and others making a monkey out of democracy.

And fed up with my taxes ending up being trousered by your commocratic governments and their relatives.

Get democracy or go.

Hello
Guest

Don’t be silly. It’s our EU now. You go if you want.

Guest

Your EU?
Putin’s, Pegida’s or whose?
You really are a troll!

Hello
Guest

I think you know silly. Time for you to go night night now

Hello
Guest

and when you wake up maybe Marine will be in charge of France? What do you think?

Guest

Just wondering:
Are our new trolls Putin-trolls or Orbán-trolls?
It’s not worth the time to answer their rantings!

Let’s just hope that the EU finds a short term solution for the frontier problems – giving up Schengen would be kind of detrimental to all businesses and travellers!

Hello
Guest

Maybe they are PEGIDA trolls? Too close to home? Calling your interlocutors “trolls” really elevates you in this discussion. It’s instructive for the readers what the EU intelligentsia is like in persona.

Hello
Guest

He’ll always have Palm Beach

Guest

Test
comment image

wpDiscuz