Well an euroskeptic government is out and a new as pro-EU as is possible to be (Donald Tusk was President of the EU Council) is in, so all is well... You may recognise a pattern that is at play in other countries both in the EU and outside.

▲

epolanski 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Whether the government was EU skeptic or not is irrelevant. Plenty of EU countries had similarly EU skeptical governments.

What matters are facts: Poland violated several points of the Treaty of the European Union, the EU Charter and CJEU rulings all stating the same thing: to be part of the European Union rule of law must be respected.

In other words: the judicial branch of power has to be independent. Politicians write laws. Judges and not politicians, rule on whether they are respected or not.

And again, I'm Polish, I know what I'm talking about: the previous government went far in bending the constitution, controlling the press and the judges taking our country step after step towards a dictatorship.

▲

pqtyw 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is that related to the comment above?

	▲	NonHyloMorph 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I can't see any relation either. I get the impression, that the concept of "law", as in written and formalised law, opposed to the spoken will of a leader is going over the head of a lot of people and that missing this conceptual foundation is causing the seemingly nonrelated nature of what they were saying.

▲

kiicia 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So what you say is that you accept one side of extremum but not other side? Democracy as in having common goal is bad but democracy as in tribalism is good?