| While this information is true, I am frustrated that the baseline for appropriate government is set by what happens in the west, or the status quo, or what makes Brussels give us pats on the back. It doesn't take a genius to see that this sort of norm for foreign policy always favours the incumbent. So I propose that we don't ask why TK doesn't recognize EU law supremacy, but rather reflect that presence in EU means losing sovereignty. This is a consequential loss. The accession occurred without most people realizing this would happen. They believed in an economic union. I also propose to question the implicit norm, that it's appropriate for an American media conglomerate to own the largest TV network in the country. Western countries are embattled on all fronts. Does it benefit us to have their media in control of our media? My intuition has always been that decision-making apparatus should be located close to the populations it affects. Otherwise it tends in the direction of imperialism. I feel frustrated by the person who thinks things are going well when Brussels is giving us a pat on the back and thumbs up... ciepła woda w kranie, then it's all good. And who ignores that with the EU connections, we are silently ceding more and more of our sovereignty. In my view, these people are short-sighted and incautious. PL may not be a real democracy anymore, but EU never was one. We don't elect the President of the European Comission, the head of the executive branch. Bureaucrats decide that. And their pick José Manuel Barroso went to Goldman Sachs shortly after leaving office... I don't want a person like this at the head of the executive branch of the union with legal supremacy over my country. I much prefer Kaczor and an army of moherowych beretów. Przynajmniej swojskie. |