« Battle of the Bonds: PDVSA Versus Venezuela | Main | Implications of the Third Circuit’s Crystallex Decision »

Is Poland on its Way to Being Expelled From the EU?

posted by Mitu Gulati

Poland has been thumbing its nose at key European Union norms for some time now (refusal to comply with environmental commitments, unwillingness to take refugees, and so on). The most recent and egregious norm violation being the reforms of the judiciary being pushed by the current right-wing ruling party that will (in the view of critics) enable it to stack the judiciary with judges favoring it. These were signed into law by President Duda roughly ten days ago.

The European Commission, the EU’s principal administrative body, viewing these latest actions as inconsistent with basic democratic commitments of all EU nations to rule of law principles (independence of the judiciary and so on), has recommended that Article 7 proceedings be initiated. That could end up stripping Poland of its voting rights in EU matters; something that would be unprecedented in EU history. As a practical matter this is not likely to happen, because the removal of voting rights requires a unanimous vote of the remaining 27 members of the EU, and Hungary (with a government of similar inclinations to the Polish one) is one the members. But in a community that values collegiality and cooperation to a very high degree, this is a big deal (at least to this outsider).

There is a broader question here, that some in the press are already asking, which is whether, at some point soon, Poland’s (and perhaps Hungary’s) refusals to act consistently with EU values can constitute enough of a justification for the rest of the EU to expel them? As I explain below, an argument can be made that no member of the EU can ever be expelled, given that there is no explicit process contemplated in any of the EU treaties for expulsion. But can that really be the case?

This question of expulsion from the EU has come up before; specifically, with respect to Greece in 2011-2014 when Greece was viewed by many of its fellow Euro area members as having dragged the entire Euro area into a deep crisis thanks to a combination of fiscal mismanagement and unwillingness to embrace the necessary austerity measures. During the crisis, because of the widespread resentment in some corners of the Euro area to providing financial assistance to Greece, there were numerous calls for Greece to be given the boot (more polite versions of the argument suggested that Greece take a temporary “vacation” from its membership of the union). So, the question was posed: Can fiscal irresponsibility and an unsustainable debt stock (okay, plus a little fudging of the accounting numbers) justify expulsion?

Some took the strong view that expulsion from the EU was simply not allowed (see here, here and here). Once one was in, exit could only occur voluntarily; Brexit, being a case of voluntary exit. The legal rationale being that the treaty does not describe a procedure for expulsion, and that must therefore mean that expulsion is off the table. That’s a teensy bit too formalist for my liking. There are often good reasons to avoid putting in clauses about expulsion or ejection in a contract, even if everyone involves knows that it might need to occur. Some things are just too hard to talk about – especially during euphoric times when all the parties involved are trying to show each other how much they trust and love one another. The question surely is: What are the implied terms?

Jens Damann has a super piece on this, and disagrees with the formalist view articulated above. Joseph Blocher, Larry Helfer and I come to roughly the same conclusion as Jens, albeit via a somewhat different route. None of us thought, at the time, that Greece’s debt crisis justified expulsion. But the questions raised by the Greek situation got us arguing hypotheticals (the most fun of these were over bourbon at the Washington Duke). And the question we inevitably ended up with was: Surely, at some point, a country could behave in a manner so very inconsistent with the basic commitments of the union that expulsion could be said to be justified by the implicit terms of the joint enterprise? Poland looks to be testing those boundaries - For example, let us say some hypothetical EU country decides that it wants to summarily curtail the rights of all non-white citizens in obvious violation of the basic human rights commitments of all EU members. Could the rest of the EU not decide that this action was a bridge too far, and decide to vote to expel this country?

Comments

Let's have a look at Poland under the "Liberal" jackboot. I'll concentrate on the media (avoiding Tusk packing out the Constitutional Court with 14 of its 15 members and heading it and the Supreme Court with a Commuinst husband and wife team).
Poland too had a Donald - ours is called Tusk. He calls himself a Liberal. He isn't. He's now someone big in Brussels - supported by Germany.
When Prime Minister of Poland he forced the departure of almost all the leading journalists at our leading Establishment newspaper Rzeczpospolita ... because he didn't like an article it printed. [Rzeczpospolita - think Times of London]
He also had the editor of the newspaper Fakt sacked - for much the same reason.
He ordered the secret service to access the cellphone billing details of 52 journalists - so they could give him a list of their contacts.
The police state in action.
The EU said nothing and Germany said nothing ... despite Germany owning 80% of Poland's printed media sector.
We have 3 main TV stations: TVN and Polsat (private) and TVP (state). TVN was set up by two very well-connected Communists: Walter and Wejchert, who hired people they felt politically comfortable with, and Polsat was set up by a Communist secret service agent called Solorz-Zak. TVP as a state-owned TV station continued its hiring practices after the change of regime in 1989 - meaning you still had to be friends and family of high-ranking Communists.
Our main "Liberal" newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza was set up by Communists in 1989 to ensure there would be no revolution in wealth ownership.
Its leading light is the brother of a Stalinist henchman.
Set up alongside GW was the tabloid Super Express, edited by another leading Communist.
Can you see a pattern forming?
And you think this is Liberal?
Law and Justice (current govt, backed by trade uinions) sacked all the staff at TVP and re-hired the ones that didn't oppose them politically. It just reports news that is good for the government - in short propaganda. Compare this to what it did for the last 25 years, when it only reported news that was good for the government - in short propaganda! L&J justify this by saying they'll stop TVP producing propaganda if the others stop. They add that TVP used to produce propaganda before they were voted in - and no "Liberals' complained back then.
But at least now we have a choice of propaganda to watch!! Two for Crony Capitalism, one for self-termed Patriots.

I've been wondering about the same issue myself. Let's be formalist, for a moment, and assume that Poland cannot be ejected from the EU. But the EU can sure be ejected from Poland.

The core of the EU is Germany and France (in that order.) Why can't they leave the EU together? They would surely take Benelux with them. And Italy. And Spain. The rest would follow in mass secession, leaving Poland and Hungary as proud co-owners of a few buildings in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.

Not only could they secede together, they could re-form together: a new European, uh, Confederacy. This would start with the old EU acquis of substantive law, but could enjoy a new constitution, purged of some of the more unworkable aspects of the EU (lack of fiscal and military union, for starters, and perhaps lack of direct taxing powers. There is also something to be said for an elected head of state, although the US strong presidency is a crappy idea.) If they want a nice neutral place to draft the constitution, I would suggest Philadelphia.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Contributors

Current Guests

Follow Us On Twitter

Like Us on Facebook

  • Like Us on Facebook

    By "Liking" us on Facebook, you will receive excerpts of our posts in your Facebook news feed. (If you change your mind, you can undo it later.) Note that this is different than "Liking" our Facebook page, although a "Like" in either place will get you Credit Slips post on your Facebook news feed.

News Feed

Categories

Bankr-L

  • As a public service, the University of Illinois College of Law operates Bankr-L, an e-mail list on which bankruptcy professionals can exchange information. Bankr-L is administered by one of the Credit Slips bloggers, Professor Robert M. Lawless of the University of Illinois. Although Bankr-L is a free service, membership is limited only to persons with a professional connection to the bankruptcy field (e.g., lawyer, accountant, academic, judge). To request a subscription on Bankr-L, click here to visit the page for the list and then click on the link for "Subscribe." After completing the information there, please also send an e-mail to Professor Lawless (rlawless@illinois.edu) with a short description of your professional connection to bankruptcy. A link to a URL with a professional bio or other identifying information would be great.

OTHER STUFF

Powered by TypePad