That's weird.
- Ukraine needed to adapt their laws to EU standards before signing the association with EU.
- Pro-EU protesters fight against these laws.
I'm lost here.
- Ukraine needed to adapt their laws to EU standards before signing the association with EU.
- Pro-EU protesters fight against these laws.
I'm lost here.
The anti-protest laws were made (they didn't even bother to count the votes) 1.5 months into that. To suggest they were created to allow signing the treaty means you're very lost indeed.
And why these protests began in 2014 (not 1 or 2 years before), occasionally before signing papers with EU and exactly in pre-new-year period?
Is there? Show us.
The idea is that protesters fight against EU-like laws from one side and want to join the EU from another (read the source with google translate). Looks like double standards for me.
Some EU states might have all kinds of weird laws, like, you should not be rude to King, or that you should not blasphemy against Anglican faith - but how does all that automatically apply to Ukraine?
Unless you have a case of uniform and mandatory all-EU anti-protest laws that are rejected by Ukrainians, you have a shaky position here.
Huh? Against which laws in particular?
Therefore, it's kind of ironic, as those laws are "standard" in many EU countries. Nevertheless, people even in those countries now become very upset about the Ukraine banning headgear......
Are any of those laws EU-mandated though? Because while the bulk of legislation in member states comes from Brussels, and there is a lot of harmonization effort, it is mostly focused on economic regulations.
German parliament passing a law carries no obligation for other countries to adopt similar legislation.
It's ironc as much as the fact that in many EU countries, when people protest, they don't get brutally beaten, if they're lucky, or kidnapped, tortured and thrown into the fields, possibly dead, when they're not, or that doctors and journalists are not being shot and killed, and so on.