ᶜʸᵇᵉʳˢᵉᶜᵘʳⁱᵗʸ

Newbies to the Polish political drama need to understand how language is being misused (by both sides) to further their respective crusades. To the uninitiated, “restoring the rule of law” probably sounds like a noble objective. The framing makes it sound as though the previous government (despite being called the Law and Justice party) ruled without any regard for law and justice. Perhaps, even, that it abused its power by oppressing dissidents or confiscating assets. Who knows. Tusk’s accusation of “lawlessness” is even more sensational and misleading. In ordinary language, the term conjures up images of a mafia state, or worse, a failed state where it’s every man for himself. But no reasonable person assessing the period during which PiS was in power could honestly suggest that this was the case. Poland was not lawless in any ordinary understanding of the word. The sleight of hand lies in taking a specific legal and constitutional dispute and repackaging it as a sweeping indictment of an entire government. The accusation derives its legitimacy from genuine controversies over the rule of law, but its political force comes from the much broader and more sinister meaning that the phrase carries in everyday language. At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether Polish constitutional law can take precedence over EU law in areas where the EU maintains that its law has primacy, alongside controversies surrounding judicial independence. These are major legal questions, but they are a far cry from the impression of generalised lawlessness that Tusk’s rhetoric invites. “Restoring the rule of law” is an exceptionally effective piece of political messaging. It allows Tusk to present his government as the force restoring legality, while casting his opponents as people who governed outside the law. Yet, powerful states such as the US and China have long asserted their sovereignty against international legal constraints they consider unacceptable. The EU may be a distinct legal order whose treaties Poland voluntarily accepted, but the broader question of where national sovereignty ends and supranational authority begins is hardly unique to Poland. Of course, the ultimate source of the consternation lies in PiS’ judicial reforms during its time in power. Yes, breaking established procedures to pack supposedly independent courts with your own appointees is not a good look. But it becomes a little more understandable when you consider the historical context that Western media so often leave out when reporting on the story. Poland never underwent a comprehensive “lustration” of its judiciary after the fall of communism. The transition involved compromises that allowed considerable institutional continuity, with elements of the old judicial establishment, its professional networks and institutional culture surviving into the new democratic order. This is crucial because PiS did not regard itself as politicising an otherwise independent judiciary. Its contention was precisely the opposite: that the judiciary was already politicised, having never been sufficiently disentangled from the structures and networks inherited from the communist era. From that perspective, its reforms were intended to dismantle an entrenched establishment rather than create one. The opposition and the EU regarded those same interventions as an assault on judicial independence. Tusk and his allies have often challenged the relevance of the judiciary’s communist-era legacy by pointing out that most judges from that period are no longer serving. But this misses the substance of the argument. The concern is not necessarily about the survival of individual communist-era judges, but about the professional networks, institutional culture and entrenched structures that may have outlived them. The continuum.

This sort of account is typical of coverage. It does not provide the essential historical context. It’s not just some petty skirmish over constitutional minutiae. It is a battle over what constitutes sovereignty in a nation that never fully purged historic communist/corrupt networks from its institutions. It is also about EU double standards in terms of which countries get support for the purging of continuity networks and which ones don’t. It all depends on whether those continuity networks are prepared to submit to Brussels.

The problem with all coverage of Polish politics is that there is no objective account to be found in the Western media. From the Western/EU perspective, the Tusk government has the moral high ground because the previous government's judicial reforms were illegal. This is not without substance. However, all reporting frames events exclusively through this prism. As a result, vital historical context regarding how the transition from communism to capitalism unfolded in practice is lost, as is an understanding of why it remains relevant today. For example, the media often ignore the fact that the opposition believes many communist influences were never properly purged from institutions and thus continue to wield disproportionate and subversive influence. From the Polish nationalist perspective, only those prepared to defend Polish sovereignty retain the moral and constitutional high ground. This is a particularly sensitive issue for Poles, given the country's history of being "off the map" for 123 years.

Yep. Pretty much as stated below. And basically the opposite of the depositor insurance scheme. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dissing the “innovation”. There is value in creating financial systems that bypass conventional regulatory norms and transfer transactions costs to numpty speculators. There’s even more value in using such cost advantages to capture float from jurisdictions that would otherwise be prohibitively costly to service. Even more so if that float can subsidise your transaction costs even further. I’m dissing the disingenuous way that “innovation” has been marketed and presented to users. As if it is one and the same as the promise originally presented with bitcoin. When it’s not. None of these impacted systems are decentralised. None of them are censorship resistant. And almost all of them depend on shifting the costs and risks to those who can least afford to bear them… aka standard depositors. And (increasingly) depositors in emerging countries with no better options. At least with self hosted bitcoin wallets you know the deal you’re signing up for. These other systems free ride on bitcoin’s reputation for censorship resistance, while running the same old model the banks have always done, albeit without the same safeguards for everyday depositors. Again, not saying that’s not a great business model, or a useful pushback against over-regulation. But can we stop pretending there was ever an innovation here beyond regulatory arbitrage and “programmatic” money (which now turns out to be a vulnerability that can only be resolved with technology from the Medici era. Aka offline vaults.)

Something for "Just Stop Oil", Greta, and Extinction Rebellion to ponder: teapawt.net/tracyalloway/status/21…