Poland: Abortion ruling and mass protests

[exchemist]

I just disagree with this whole set up. I believe it takes too much power away from national governments.

The Council of Europe was set up in 1950 to prevent the horrors of the 1930s and 1940s ever occurring again on the continent. Do you think that was a bad idea, then?

 

[Rival]

The Council of Europe was set up in 1950 to prevent the horrors of the 1930s and 1940s ever occurring again on the continent. Do you think that was a bad idea, then?

Yes. I think each nation should have absolute right to self-determination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just disagree with this whole set up. I believe it takes too much power away from national governments.

With that mindset, no country should ever enter a treaty, ever. With anyone.
Because every single treaty "takes power away".

 

[exchemist]

Yes. I think each nation should have absolute right to self-determination.

Then you are inviting war again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't support the idea of a federal Europe in any sense. No entity should have rights over another nation's government. That's an empire.

It doesn't have anything to do with federalism, and everything with treaties and the "union" part of it.

If countries can sign treaties and then not care about them, then the treaties are a meaningless empty box.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a well known conservative country and power to it for sticking to its guns.

Those states are notorious for unfairly stripping rights and protections from people, often due to religous purposes. The non-believer (or believer in another denomination) should not be forced to adhere to the dogma of another. The dogmatic ones can not partake in things they find objectionable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. I think each nation should have absolute right to self-determination.

So you are against any type of treaty, any type of trade agreement, any type of conditional cooperation between any countries?

Because EVERY treaty signed, chips away at the "absolute" right of self-determination.

For example, if you enter a trade agreement to export food to country X, then there will be clauses therein about quality control etc. Like, it will for example not be allowed to use a certain type pesticide or hormones or whatever.

After you sign that treaty, the country will be prohibited from using such products in their food processing - at least in those foods destined for export.
ie, the country no longer has the "absolute" right of "self-determination".

It can no longer decide to use such products anyway. If it does so anyway, that would be a violation of the treaty. The outcome of which will likely result in blowing up the treaty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If countries can sign treaties and then not care about them, then the treaties are a meaningless empty box.

America is going to have a nasty issue with this one in the foreseeable future.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you are against any type of treaty, any type of trade agreement, any type of conditional cooperation between any countries?

Because EVERY treaty signed, chips away at the "absolute" right of self-determination.

For example, if you enter a trade agreement to export food to country X, then there will be clauses therein about quality control etc. Like, it will for example not be allowed to use a certain type pesticide or hormones or whatever.

After you sign that treaty, the country will be prohibited from using such products in their food processing - at least in those foods destined for export.
ie, the country no longer has the "absolute" right of "self-determination".

It can no longer decide to use such products anyway. If it does so anyway, that would be a violation of the treaty. The outcome of which will likely result in blowing up the treaty.

I had border disputes in mind. Like China trying to claim parts that aren't generally regarded as parts of China. Or when Putin seized Crimea.

 

[Rival]

Treaties, to everyone who mentioned, don't usually stipulate what a national government can and can't do to such a degree as the EU does. I disagree with the whole notion of an EU court and international law-making. As far as I'm concerned, whatever Poland wants to do is Poland's business. That's it.

 

[Left Coast]

Treaties, to everyone who mentioned, don't usually stipulate what a national government can and can't do to such a degree as the EU does. I disagree with the whole notion of an EU court and international law-making. As far as I'm concerned, whatever Poland wants to do is Poland's business. That's it.

What if Poland wants to be part of the EU? Can it do that, then?

 

[Rival]

What if Poland wants to be part of the EU? Can it do that, then?

I'd argue for a reformation of the EU as a whole and get rid of the EU court; I think no nation should be subject to it. I think it works best as a trading bloc and yes, I agree it can help foster peace; I just disagree with this much outside interference.

 

[Left Coast]

I'd argue for a reformation of the EU as a whole. I think it works best as a trading bloc and yes, I agree it can help foster peace; I just disagree with this much outside interference.

But that wasn't my question. If Poland wants to be part of the existing EU, can it do that? Poland gets what Poland wants, right?

 

[Rival]

But that wasn't my question. If Poland wants to be part of the existing EU, can it do that? Poland gets what Poland wants, right?

No, unfortunately not. It's either part of the EU and gives up its court sovereignty or it's not part of the EU. So in this case I'd say it needs to leave. I don't support either option; I think joining the EU without giving up one's court powers should be an option.

 

[Left Coast]

No, unfortunately not. It's either part of the EU and gives up it's court sovereignty or it's not part of the EU. I don't support either option; I think joining the EU without giving up one's court powers should be an option.

But that's a contradiction. You want to have your cake but not any of the calories.

Sorry, but if you want to be part of the EU, that means you get the baggage that comes with being part of that larger organization. This is the case at every level of organizing society. You want to marry me? You don't get to do that and then ignore everything I want and need. It’s a mutual agreement by both sides. There's nothing magical about national boundaries. If a nation joins a larger international body by its own choice, its bound by the rules of that larger body. That's how life works.

 

[Rival]

But that's a contradiction. You want to have your cake but not any of the calories.

Sorry, but if you want to be part of the EU, that means you get the baggage that comes with being part of that larger organization. This is the case at every level of organizing society. You want to marry me? You don't get to do that and then ignore everything I want and need. It’s a mutual agreement by both sides. There's nothing magical about national boundaries. If a nation joins a larger international body by its own choice, its bound by the rules of that larger body. That's how life works.

Yes, with the current form of the EU this is true; but if the EU were merely a trading bloc as I would want it reformed into it wouldn't have a court or the right to interfere in such national issues. I disagree with the idea of such close unions to begin with, if that closeness means a nation's courts can be overridden.

 

[epronovost]

I certainly hope the EU court doesn't start sticking its nose in Poland's affairs. It's a well known conservative country and power to it for sticking to its guns.

I dont enjoy human right abuse.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, with the current form of the EU this is true; but if the EU were merely a trading bloc as I would want it reformed into it wouldn't have a court or the right to interfere in such national issues. I disagree with the idea of such close unions to begin with, if that closeness means a nation's courts can be overridden.

I understand that's what you want. But Poland joined the EU in its current state knowing what the rules and regs were. Which means the EU has jurisdiction when Poland violates those rules. You may not like that, and that's fine. But Poland made it's bed when it joined the EU. Again, cake=calories.

 

[Rival]

I understand that's what you want. But Poland joined the EU in its current state knowing what the rules and regs were. Which means the EU has jurisdiction when Poland violates those rules. You may not like that, and that's fine. But Poland made it's bed when it joined the EU. Again, cake=calories.

Indeed. We'll see what happens.

 

[epronovost]

Yes. I think each nation should have absolute right to self-determination.

Unfortunately, this doesn't extand to individual women apparently, then the nation can decide for them about one of if not the most concequencial decision of their lives. Of course, the richer ones will simply move to a country of the EU where they can have abortions. That's the advantage of free movement between EU members for higher class women. You can have a law for the poor and one for the rich when it comes to reproductive rights. It also leave the poor, the mentally handicap, the teenagers to walk into a prison of poverty, abuse and neglect where they belong.