Polish president refuses to sign EU reform treaty

conceited

WARSAW (AFP) — Polish President Lech Kaczynski announced in an interview published Tuesday that he will not sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty, saying it was pointless after Irish voters rejected it in a referendum last month.
"For the moment, the question of the treaty is pointless," Kaczynski was quoted as saying in the online version of the daily Dziennik.

The Polish parliament voted in April to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, a key reform treaty meant to streamline EU decision-making, but it needs the signature of the president to become definitive.
Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum held on June 12, putting EU reform plans in jeopardy as it needs to be ratified by all 27 EU member states to enter into force.
Kaczynksi's refusal to ratify the treaty is a serious blow to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has set himself the task with finding a way of overcoming the Irish rejection of the treaty as France takes over the six-month rotating EU presidency on Tuesday.

The French EU presidency's "first priority is to find a way to contain the problem to the Irish," Sarkozy said in television interview on Monday, adding that EU countries must continue ratifying the key charter.

The Czech Republic will also likely pose a problem for Sarkozy with many lawmakers in the centre-right ruling coalition cool the treaty, starting with eurosceptic President Vaclav Klaus.
"It is difficult to say how all this will end. But on the other hand, to say that without the treaty there won't be a Union is not serious," said Kaczynski.

He noted the same argument was made by proponents of the EU constitution after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005.
"The Union nevertheless functioned, it is functioning and will continue to function," said the Polish president. "Certainly it isn't ideal, but a structure this complicated couldn't be ideal."
Kaczynski warned EU leaders against trying to isolate or pressure Ireland.

"If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time, it will never exist again. We're not strong enough for this type of solution," he said.
At summit in Brussels last month EU leaders insisted the ratification process would continue, but agreed to an Irish request to delay trying to find a way to overcome its "no" vote until the next summit in October.



source : http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7D2OXWYX3S4noUn_oBJfn6nk2Yg

Pompey Magnus

I guess the Yes side will have to change their argument about "How dare 4 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" to "How dare 42 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" (52 million if the Czechs don't ratify).

is_that_so

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I guess the Yes side will have to change their argument about "How dare 4 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" to "How dare 42 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" (52 million if the Czechs don't ratify).

That may well be the case but remember this is Kaczinski and not Poland. The Poles are still embarrassed at having voting the Terrible Twins in. There is also a vested interest at work in that Poland's voting rights will remain the
same as under Nice until something replaces it. This is the same man who claimed there would be a lot more Poles if the Germans hadn't killed them.

As posted elsewhere in this debate it has thrown up very strange bedfellows but some of us have moved on beyond the Yes and No to what do we do next.

seamus

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I guess the Yes side will have to change their argument about "How dare 4 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" to "How dare 42 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" (52 million if the Czechs don't ratify).

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

On the other hand, perhaps the No side are feeling embarrassed about their claim that democracy had been eroded?

No wait, that's irrelevant too. In fact, what Kaczinski is doing is teetering on the edge of undemocratic. His point is valid - why bother ratifying it - but it's not really an appropriate thing to do until it's confirmed that Lisbon is buried.

molloyjh

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I guess the Yes side will have to change their argument about "How dare 4 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" to "How dare 42 million people decide the fate of the rest of Europe" (52 million if the Czechs don't ratify).

The thing you have to remember is that their Parliament has voted in favour of ratification so this is really just a technicality. They are not refusing to ratify it based on any issues with the Treaty itself and are actually in favour of the Treaty. Their President just doesn't see the point in signing it right now when there is so much doubt surrounding it. Remove that doubt and they will ratify Lisbon. So your point is actually completely disingenuous.

SkepticOne

It is an interesting development. I think this eases the worry that some of the Yes side had that Ireland would be isolated and possibly - although this is stretching it a bit - excluded from full membership of the EU.

mike65

Maybe he is noting the will of the (Irish) people.

Mike.

Pompey Magnus

is_that_so wrote: »

That may well be the case but remember this is Kaczinski and not Poland.

Yes, but the Polish people elected him. This was the justification the Yes side were giving for the rest of Europe denying a popular vote on the treaty, the people elected the politicians and so ultimately they will get what they voted for. You can't then turn around and say just that because it was a Polish elected politician who decided not to ratify that it wasn't a Polish democratic decision.

seamus wrote: »

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

Seriously? You obviously missed Gay Mitchell's rant on RTE. I have heard this very point made numerous times that Ireland has no right to dictate the direction the EU takes.

molloyjh

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Yes, but the Polish people elected him. This was the justification the Yes side were giving for the rest of Europe denying a popular vote on the treaty, the people elected the politicians and so ultimately they will get what they voted for. You can't then turn around and say just that because it was a Polish elected politician who decided not to ratify that it wasn't a Polish democratic decision.

It was as democratic as the decision to ratify it made by the Parliament. Poland still supports the Treaty, but just don't see the point in ratifying something that may have no future. As I said above this is all down to the doubts over the future of the Treaty. Once/if they are cleared up Poland will continue with the ratification of it.

SkepticOne

molloyjh wrote: »

It was as democratic as the decision to ratify it made by the Parliament. Poland still supports the Treaty, but just don't see the point in ratifying something that may have no future. As I said above this is all down to the doubts over the future of the Treaty. Once/if they are cleared up Poland will continue with the ratification of it.

After parliamentary approval, ratification is simply a matter of signing a document. Why not simply go ahead and sign it? I tend to think there's more of a political dimension to this than you suggest.

is_that_so

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Yes, but the Polish people elected him. This was the justification the Yes side were giving for the rest of Europe denying a popular vote on the treaty, the people elected the politicians and so ultimately they will get what they voted for. You can't then turn around and say just that because it was a Polish elected politician who decided not to ratify that it wasn't a Polish democratic decision.

Not going to engage on this. These long-drawn out conversations were had two weeks ago.

molloyjh

SkepticOne wrote: »

After parliamentary approval, ratification is simply a matter of signing a document. Why not simply go ahead and sign it? I tend to think there's more of a political dimension to this than you suggest.

Tend to think what you want, all he has said is that it is pointless to sign the Treaty even though the Parliament have voted in favour of ratifying it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7482660.stm

In fact this link may suggest that the Polish President is usurping the will of the people by refusing to sign what the Parliament has ratified:

"Mr Kaczynski, a conservative who has long opposed the reform treaty.....Although the Polish parliament ratified the treaty in April, it still needs the signature of the president."

conceited

is_that_so

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

Perhaps this man is happy and proud to still have a country where he can say such things? Pehaps,poland values what they have. If your city streets looked like this 60 odd years ago.

http://www.wehaitians.com/photographs_that_2.jpg

You still don't give up when germans are murdering kids women and men in hospitals beds with machine guns.Instead of sounding smug why not read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

Don't say such things so lightly.

is_that_so

SkepticOne wrote: »

After parliamentary approval, ratification is simply a matter of signing a document. Why not simply go ahead and sign it? I tend to think there's more of a political dimension to this than you suggest.

There was never anything political about either of the Kaczinskis. They operate from spite and serious delusions. He's a nut job and still sulking because the Poles kicked out his even nuttier brother. Remember their rat on your neighbour and all of those who collaborated with the Russians?

conceited

is_that_so

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

Perhaps this man is happy and proud to still have a country where he can say such things? Pehaps,poland values what they have. If your city streets looked like this 60 odd years ago.

http://www.wehaitians.com/photographs_that_2.jpg

You still don't give up when germans are murdering kids women and men in hospitals beds with machine guns.Instead of sounding smug why not read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

Don't say such things so lightly.

Pompey Magnus

molloyjh wrote: »

In fact this link may suggest that the Polish President is usurping the will of the people by refusing to sign what the Parliament has ratified:

He was elected by the Polish people and what he is doing is entirely legal, how is that "usurping the will of the people?"

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is an interesting development. I think this eases the worry that some of the Yes side had that Ireland would be isolated and possibly - although this is stretching it a bit - excluded from full membership of the EU.

True, it might at least have the effect of making us less isolated. On the other hand, at the moment we're not responsible for 'stopping ratification', which is a direction Kaczynski is pushing us towards. Either way, it's amusing to see Kaczynski cited as a champion of democracy...

Perhaps this man is happy and proud to still have a country where he can say such things? Pehaps,poland values what they have. If your city streets looked like this 60 odd years ago.

http://www.wehaitians.com/photographs_that_2.jpg

You still don't give up when germans are murdering kids women and men in hospitals beds with machine guns.Instead of sounding smug why not read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

Don't say such things so lightly.

Let's not go down that particular road quite so blindly.

Jedwabne

regards,
Scofflaw

is_that_so

conceited wrote: »

is_that_so
Perhaps this man is happy and proud to still have a country where he can say such things? Pehaps,poland values what they have. If your city streets looked like this 60 odd years ago.

http://www.wehaitians.com/photographs_that_2.jpg

You still don't give up when germans are murdering kids women and men in hospitals beds with machine guns.Instead of sounding smug why not read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

Don't say such things so lightly.

Ease off on the history lesson there. I've lived there and don't really need Wikipedia to tell me what Poland is about. Try Norman Davis Vol 1 & Vol 2 for a much better insight.

He's an opportunist and it was an excuse at the time to stall the negotiations. The comment was used to claim that they should be entitled to a bigger vote because they might have been bigger than the Germans had this not happened. It was not done as part of the negotiations but just as agreement was reached.

He is also a complete populist and got in on the back of worries that some Poles had about the EU.

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

He was elected by the Polish people and what he is doing is entirely legal, how is that "usurping the will of the people?"

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

amused,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

He was elected by the Polish people and what he is doing is entirely legal, how is that "usurping the will of the people?"

1. I said "may suggest" not "did suggest".

2. The Parliament, which was also elected by the people, ratified the Treaty.

3. The last Parliamentary General Elections were in 2007 and the last Presidential election was in 2005 so the Parliaments decision probably holds a more representative view of the Polish people given the spread of political parties as opposed to the singular view of the President and the fact that it is the most recent democratic decision of the people.

4. In Feb 2008 an approval rating showed he wasn't all that popular, with the approval rating being 29% and a poll in June 2008 stated that 73% did not want him to stand for reelection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Kaczy%C5%84ski#Low_popularity

conceited

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's not go down that particular road quite so blindly.

Jedwabne

regards,
Scofflaw

What road is that your blindly going down?

Ease off on the history lesson there. I've lived there and don't really need Wikipedia to tell me what Poland is about. Try Norman Davis Vol 1 & Vol 2 for a much better insight.

Even after living there you say a cheap comment like that?

Pompey Magnus

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

amused,
Scofflaw

I think a comparison with how the US President has the power to (and occasionaly does) overturn the decisions of Senate would be a more appropriate comparison considering the position of Irish President is just a symbolic position.

molloyjh

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I think a comparison with how the US President has the power to (and occasionaly does) overturn the decisions of Senate would be a more appropriate comparison considering the position of Irish President is just a symbolic position.

And he has the right to call referenda in Poland. He is opposed to Lisbon and the Parliament are in support of it, yet he never called a referendum to see what the people thought. Surely if the Polish people didn't want the Treaty it would have suited him perfectly to call a referendum on it? Especially given his low approval ratings and the fact that his term ends in 2010 and he'll surely be looking for re-election. He must then have felt that there was little point in running a referendum, would that be a fair possibility?

marco_polo

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I think a comparison with how the US President has the power to (and occasionaly does) overturn the decisions of Senate would be a more appropriate comparison considering the position of Irish President is just a symbolic position.

The politics of Poland take place in the framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister is the head of government and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of parliament, the Sejm and the Senate. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Poland

The President has a right to initiate the legislative process. He also has the opportunity to directly influence it by using his veto to stop a bill; however, his veto can be overruled by a three-fifths majority vote in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of members of the Sejm (230).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Republic_of_Poland

If anything the role is more much more similar to the Irish than the US version apart from the veto.

is_that_so

conceited wrote: »

What road is that your blindly going down?

Even after living there you say a cheap comment like that?

It was not my comment it was his and he used it to exploit his position. Please read my posts. Thank you.

marco_polo

molloyjh wrote: »

And he has the right to call referenda in Poland. He is opposed to Lisbon and the Parliament are in support of it, yet he never called a referendum to see what the people thought. Surely if the Polish people didn't want the Treaty it would have suited him perfectly to call a referendum on it? Especially given his low approval ratings and the fact that his term ends in 2010 and he'll surely be looking for re-election. He must then have felt that there was little point in running a referendum, would that be a fair possibility?

This is probably the main reasons why not:

A TNS OBOP opinion poll over the weekend said 71 percent of Poles would back the treaty if there was a referendum in Poland.

http://euobserver.com/9/26331

Pompey Magnus

molloyjh wrote: »

And he has the right to call referenda in Poland. He is opposed to Lisbon and the Parliament are in support of it, yet he never called a referendum to see what the people thought. Surely if the Polish people didn't want the Treaty it would have suited him perfectly to call a referendum on it? Especially given his low approval ratings and the fact that his term ends in 2010 and he'll surely be looking for re-election. He must then have felt that there was little point in running a referendum, would that be a fair possibility?

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?

Johnny Storm

I congratulate Polish President Lech Kaczynski. Emperor's new clothes situation?

His action IMHO contrasts starkly with the craven platitudes from our own spineless Biffo.

I would guess that Biffo is beside himself with delight that someone has taken a stance that relieves some of the pressure on him to appease his masters.

marco_polo

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?

I think the main point is that the executive and legislative powers lie primarily with parliament and prime minister, one must presume looking at the democratic strctures that and these are whom the people of Poland elected to make legislative decisions on behalf of their country, not the president.

djpbarry

conceited wrote: »

Perhaps this man is happy and proud to still have a country where he can say such things? Pehaps,poland values what they have.

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

sink

djpbarry wrote: »

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

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

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?