6 ms·

The title appears to be heavily editorialised. Perhaps for an American audience? The term “unconstitutional” doesn’t really make sense in the EU context - you c

The title appears to be heavily editorialised. Perhaps for an American audience? The term “unconstitutional” doesn’t really make sense in the EU context - you can either refer to one of the member state constitutions (TFA contains a passing reference to your German constitution), but they are quite different from each other and so you would want to specify; or it can not against the treaties that set up the Union, but no one calls this “unconstitutional”. The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way.

coding123 4y ago
well, if an EU person is conversing with an American, or an American is using an EU phone in the united states, maybe?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dane-pgp 4y ago
> it can not against the treaties that set up the Union Yes, I think the precise terminology generally used for discussing such situations is "within/outside the ambit of the competences assigned to it" or (more succinctly, but even less clearly) "intra or ultra vires".[0] It's therefore not so surprising that people informally adopt the more familiar term "(un)constitutional", even if that implies a national structure that doesn't match the EU's legal basis under international law. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290553083_The_ECJ_and_ultra_vires_action_A_conceptual_analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290553083_The_ECJ_a...
abigail95 4y ago
i think the plain definition of the word "constitution" ie laws which govern powers and obligations, is entirely appropriate in this context the laws which construct and constrain the european union ie the treaties of member states can be appropriately called a constitution just because there is not one document called "THE CONSTITUTION" doesn't mean one does not exist the ecj is a constitutional court because it does judicial review of eu law and can strike down laws that break the treaty ie that are unconstitutional
- zauguin 4y ago
  The problem with using "constitution" in this way is that EU laws do also have to conform to the national constitutions, so in every individual state of the EU the statement that some EU law is unconstitutional already has a well defined meaning which is significantly different from the intended meaning.
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    Most US states have individual constitutions as well, but that doesn't pose a problem for discussing constitutionality for the US as a whole.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      Headlines can be ambigous in the US and you sometimea have to read the article to see whether a law or activity was found unconstutional under federal or state law.
  - bpfrh 4y ago
    That is not true, there have been cases where the national constitution had to be amended to follow the EU law. An Example is the german law which did not allow women to join the millitary till 2000. After that, they had to change the constitution because it does not comply with the EU law about the same treatment of men and women: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_12a_des_Grundgesetzes_f%C3%BCr_die_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_12a_des_Grundgesetzes_... A country can only ignore EU law on the following grounds: - It reduces a right set in the national constitution - It goes against a right set in the national constitution(not if grants more rights or makes rights wider) - It does not fall in the competency of the EU https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-und-demokratie/der-anwendungsvorrang-des-unionsrechts-vor-nationalem-recht-wie-entscheiden-verfassungsgerichte-in-deutschland-und-oesterreich-dazu/ https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-un... That article talks about austria and germany specifically, but it should apply to other countries as well.
- _8j50 4y ago
godelski 4y ago
> The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way. I think this is a little bit naive (I mostly agree with you fwiw). America and the EU influence one another a lot. Decisions they make directly affect the other. GDPR affected most Americans. Or even things like the Double Irish. Similarly American laws define a lot for European ways of life (I figure this is more obvious). I think it is easy to ignore this connection, but it happens and is important.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ziddoap 4y ago
  Bind, in the legal sense, is much different than influence.
  - godelski 4y ago
    Which is why I mostly agree and only think it is a little bit off. I thought the overall messaging underplayed the influence back and forth. Though I also think the title is too editorialized (enough that I'd say it breaks HN guidelines and it would be nice if Dang fixed it)
LordDragonfang 4y ago
While the EU doesn't have a "constitution" per se, it does have several documents and treaties that serve a similar purpose. From the article: >one crucial question in the upcoming policy debate will be whether this latter measure, or its implementation, is compatible with the rights of privacy and data protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter). The Charter of Fundamental Rights serves as the EU Bill of Rights (the American version of which accounts for a huge portion of "constitutional" jurisprudence), and the Treaty of Lisbon makes that charter legally binding. Of note is that a previous iteration of said Treaty was explicitly called "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" and was ratified by most of the member states.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> EU Charter of Fundamental Rights They are referring to this chart as the supreme and binding force, where in which the highest court of the EU weighs things against and used the colloquialism "unconstitutional"
- _8j50 4y ago
  Pardon my ignorance but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? In other words, is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU?
  - flir 4y ago
    Some aspects of member states' sovereignty have been "temporarily loaned on a permanent basis" might be a good way of putting it. As evidenced by the UK withdrawing. More of the former than the latter.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    > but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? ehhh, kind of? > is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU? its not exactly a one-to-one comparison with anywhere, but its easy to find an individual country's head of state or representatives saying - in a positive way - that they have given up sovereignty for a stronger many country union. additionally, the top EU court is still coming into its own, with its recent rulings over the last decade being more analogous to the US Supreme Court's "Marbury v. Madison" moment, where it kind of just noticed its finality and gravity and actually exercised that. But one key difference is that the ECJ is not simultaneously an appellate court. So national courts are still silo'd in their own country's processes, with the additional ability to weigh in on ECJ decisions and rulings. While the ECJ deals directly with union law. so, its happening. but kind of.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    It’s a grey area. EU laws are senior to local laws (though in theory EU countries are supposed to translate those laws to local laws). But I do not believe EU laws are senior to local constitutions. Though people argued they were when a polish court stated that they are not. Not convinced this is really settled.
908B64B197 4y ago
> The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way. To me this is an interesting idea, considering there's a lot more Europeans (especially among the young urbans and very educated) moving to America than the opposite. To me this shows a desire from Europeans to live by the US Constitution.
- Veen 4y ago
  It shows a desire to take advantage of the U.S.'s economic benefits. It has very little to do with the constitution.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    And yet the legislative environment has a lot to do with having a performant economy.
    - afiori 4y ago
      I believe that social culture, random luck, not being leveled during ww2, and the ensuing emigration of high-skilled workers to to the US were all significant factors. Also going to the US in this context really means half a dozen cities where there are unique opportunities.
r00fus 4y ago
I thought HN disapproved of editorializing a submission title. Why isn't this titled "Does monitoring your phone affect the essence of privacy?" because that's the title of the eulawblog post.
dang 4y ago
Yes, the submitted title ("The EU plan to monitor your phone is unconstitutional") broke the site guidelines, which say: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We've changed it now. Submitters: please don't do that.

coding123 4y ago

well, if an EU person is conversing with an American, or an American is using an EU phone in the united states, maybe?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dane-pgp 4y ago

> it can not against the treaties that set up the Union Yes, I think the precise terminology generally used for discussing such situations is "within/outside the ambit of the competences assigned to it" or (more succinctly, but even less clearly) "intra or ultra vires".[0] It's therefore not so surprising that people informally adopt the more familiar term "(un)constitutional", even if that implies a national structure that doesn't match the EU's legal basis under international law. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290553083_The_ECJ_and_ultra_vires_action_A_conceptual_analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290553083_The_ECJ_a...

abigail95 4y ago

i think the plain definition of the word "constitution" ie laws which govern powers and obligations, is entirely appropriate in this context the laws which construct and constrain the european union ie the treaties of member states can be appropriately called a constitution just because there is not one document called "THE CONSTITUTION" doesn't mean one does not exist the ecj is a constitutional court because it does judicial review of eu law and can strike down laws that break the treaty ie that are unconstitutional

zauguin 4y ago
The problem with using "constitution" in this way is that EU laws do also have to conform to the national constitutions, so in every individual state of the EU the statement that some EU law is unconstitutional already has a well defined meaning which is significantly different from the intended meaning.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  Most US states have individual constitutions as well, but that doesn't pose a problem for discussing constitutionality for the US as a whole.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Headlines can be ambigous in the US and you sometimea have to read the article to see whether a law or activity was found unconstutional under federal or state law.
- bpfrh 4y ago
  That is not true, there have been cases where the national constitution had to be amended to follow the EU law. An Example is the german law which did not allow women to join the millitary till 2000. After that, they had to change the constitution because it does not comply with the EU law about the same treatment of men and women: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_12a_des_Grundgesetzes_f%C3%BCr_die_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_12a_des_Grundgesetzes_... A country can only ignore EU law on the following grounds: - It reduces a right set in the national constitution - It goes against a right set in the national constitution(not if grants more rights or makes rights wider) - It does not fall in the competency of the EU https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-und-demokratie/der-anwendungsvorrang-des-unionsrechts-vor-nationalem-recht-wie-entscheiden-verfassungsgerichte-in-deutschland-und-oesterreich-dazu/ https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-un... That article talks about austria and germany specifically, but it should apply to other countries as well.
_8j50 4y ago

godelski 4y ago

> The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way. I think this is a little bit naive (I mostly agree with you fwiw). America and the EU influence one another a lot. Decisions they make directly affect the other. GDPR affected most Americans. Or even things like the Double Irish. Similarly American laws define a lot for European ways of life (I figure this is more obvious). I think it is easy to ignore this connection, but it happens and is important.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ziddoap 4y ago
Bind, in the legal sense, is much different than influence.
- godelski 4y ago
  Which is why I mostly agree and only think it is a little bit off. I thought the overall messaging underplayed the influence back and forth. Though I also think the title is too editorialized (enough that I'd say it breaks HN guidelines and it would be nice if Dang fixed it)

LordDragonfang 4y ago

While the EU doesn't have a "constitution" per se, it does have several documents and treaties that serve a similar purpose. From the article: >one crucial question in the upcoming policy debate will be whether this latter measure, or its implementation, is compatible with the rights of privacy and data protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter). The Charter of Fundamental Rights serves as the EU Bill of Rights (the American version of which accounts for a huge portion of "constitutional" jurisprudence), and the Treaty of Lisbon makes that charter legally binding. Of note is that a previous iteration of said Treaty was explicitly called "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" and was ratified by most of the member states.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> EU Charter of Fundamental Rights They are referring to this chart as the supreme and binding force, where in which the highest court of the EU weighs things against and used the colloquialism "unconstitutional"

_8j50 4y ago
Pardon my ignorance but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? In other words, is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU?
- flir 4y ago
  Some aspects of member states' sovereignty have been "temporarily loaned on a permanent basis" might be a good way of putting it. As evidenced by the UK withdrawing. More of the former than the latter.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  > but have EU member states abandoned their sovreignity in exchange for having a sovreign EU? ehhh, kind of? > is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU? its not exactly a one-to-one comparison with anywhere, but its easy to find an individual country's head of state or representatives saying - in a positive way - that they have given up sovereignty for a stronger many country union. additionally, the top EU court is still coming into its own, with its recent rulings over the last decade being more analogous to the US Supreme Court's "Marbury v. Madison" moment, where it kind of just noticed its finality and gravity and actually exercised that. But one key difference is that the ECJ is not simultaneously an appellate court. So national courts are still silo'd in their own country's processes, with the additional ability to weigh in on ECJ decisions and rulings. While the ECJ deals directly with union law. so, its happening. but kind of.
- cm2187 4y ago
  It’s a grey area. EU laws are senior to local laws (though in theory EU countries are supposed to translate those laws to local laws). But I do not believe EU laws are senior to local constitutions. Though people argued they were when a polish court stated that they are not. Not convinced this is really settled.

908B64B197 4y ago

> The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way. To me this is an interesting idea, considering there's a lot more Europeans (especially among the young urbans and very educated) moving to America than the opposite. To me this shows a desire from Europeans to live by the US Constitution.

Veen 4y ago
It shows a desire to take advantage of the U.S.'s economic benefits. It has very little to do with the constitution.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  And yet the legislative environment has a lot to do with having a performant economy.
  - afiori 4y ago
    I believe that social culture, random luck, not being leveled during ww2, and the ensuing emigration of high-skilled workers to to the US were all significant factors. Also going to the US in this context really means half a dozen cities where there are unique opportunities.

r00fus 4y ago

I thought HN disapproved of editorializing a submission title. Why isn't this titled "Does monitoring your phone affect the essence of privacy?" because that's the title of the eulawblog post.

dang 4y ago

Yes, the submitted title ("The EU plan to monitor your phone is unconstitutional") broke the site guidelines, which say: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We've changed it now. Submitters: please don't do that.