3 ms·

> The EU is an incredible boon to civil rights We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “

> The EU is an incredible boon to civil rights We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t. And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out private insurance. > and our consumer protections are enviable. Like GDPR, which is a legislation so fantastic that for most businesses it’s physically impossible to truly comply with it?

sofixa 4y ago
> We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t. > And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out private insurance. So free speech is an EU matter but healthcare is a local one? No, both are decided locally with limited EU oversight - e.g. the EU is trying to punish Poland and Hungary's free speech limitations. > We don’t even have a true right to free speech Specifically this is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Legislation prohibiting antisemitic speech doesn't make free speech not "truly free", it just makes it not absolute, which is IMO necessary for a civilised developed society, as long as there are controls to ensure it's not abused. > Like GDPR, which is a legislation so fantastic that for most businesses it’s physically impossible to truly comply with it? Why do you think that? The majority of business comply with it. In terms of civil rights we have more than Americans - abortions (in most places, not an EU but local thing), the right not to get murdered by poor policing or overarmed population, consumer protections such as mandatory minimum warranties and return periods. Also there are much better employee and tenant protections. Also a much better political and judicial system - first past the post? Politically appointed judges? All in all, the EU is a marvelous thing that has enabled peace and prosperity across a continent, and has done far more good than bad - universal phone chargers, consumer protections at every level (flight delays, warranties, data), the new forced interoperability between gatekeepers, the euro and SEPA, the subsidies that have enabled so much development. Anyone rooting against it probably doesn't understand it all that well, or is an isolationist.
- from 4y ago
  > judicial system - SIM card registration in nearly every member state - No exclusionary rule in many member states (evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court) - A "warrant" in the American sense is confined to a set of specific locations that the police think are tied to criminal activity but in many member states are much more general and open for abuse - Mandatory data retention (until the ECJ struck it down) - Mandatory key disclosure laws in many member states - No option of trial by jury in some member states - Guilt by association crimes in some member states ("mafia-type association" in Italy)
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > Also a much better political and judicial system - first past the post? Politically appointed judges? Much better judicial system? What about not having jury trials is better? Without having a jury that decides your fate makes the entire process political. Politically appointed judges? That’s just federal, in the US most state judges are elected. The DA is an elected office. In virtually all european countries they are all appointed offices. Appointed by the politicians in charge. Justice system in most EU countries absolutely sucks compared to the US. In several EU countries there’s no concept as double jeopardy, because the prosecution can appeal an acquital. I’d much rather be a defendant in the US, than in any EU country. > So free speech is an EU matter but healthcare is a local one? No, both are decided locally with limited EU oversight - e.g. the EU is trying to punish Poland and Hungary's free speech limitations. ECJ explicitly stated that objectionable or hate speech can be banned. So yes, that made it EU matter. As for the EU doing something about Polands and Hungary’s disobedience? They don’t actually seem to be doing anything, because the EU as an institution is completely impotent, and they can’t risk being tough on their member states, for the Union could actually disintegrate. UK proved that is, in fact, physically possible to leave the EU. So Hungary could do that too, and so could Poland.
  - bonzini 4y ago
    > Appointed by the politicians in charge. I am not sure where you got this idea. In Italy most judges/DAs go through a selection process that is entirely within the judiciary. Only one third of the Constitutional Court is appointed by the Parliament.

sofixa 4y ago

> We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t. > And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out private insurance. So free speech is an EU matter but healthcare is a local one? No, both are decided locally with limited EU oversight - e.g. the EU is trying to punish Poland and Hungary's free speech limitations. > We don’t even have a true right to free speech Specifically this is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Legislation prohibiting antisemitic speech doesn't make free speech not "truly free", it just makes it not absolute, which is IMO necessary for a civilised developed society, as long as there are controls to ensure it's not abused. > Like GDPR, which is a legislation so fantastic that for most businesses it’s physically impossible to truly comply with it? Why do you think that? The majority of business comply with it. In terms of civil rights we have more than Americans - abortions (in most places, not an EU but local thing), the right not to get murdered by poor policing or overarmed population, consumer protections such as mandatory minimum warranties and return periods. Also there are much better employee and tenant protections. Also a much better political and judicial system - first past the post? Politically appointed judges? All in all, the EU is a marvelous thing that has enabled peace and prosperity across a continent, and has done far more good than bad - universal phone chargers, consumer protections at every level (flight delays, warranties, data), the new forced interoperability between gatekeepers, the euro and SEPA, the subsidies that have enabled so much development. Anyone rooting against it probably doesn't understand it all that well, or is an isolationist.

from 4y ago
> judicial system - SIM card registration in nearly every member state - No exclusionary rule in many member states (evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court) - A "warrant" in the American sense is confined to a set of specific locations that the police think are tied to criminal activity but in many member states are much more general and open for abuse - Mandatory data retention (until the ECJ struck it down) - Mandatory key disclosure laws in many member states - No option of trial by jury in some member states - Guilt by association crimes in some member states ("mafia-type association" in Italy)
sgjohnson 4y ago
> Also a much better political and judicial system - first past the post? Politically appointed judges? Much better judicial system? What about not having jury trials is better? Without having a jury that decides your fate makes the entire process political. Politically appointed judges? That’s just federal, in the US most state judges are elected. The DA is an elected office. In virtually all european countries they are all appointed offices. Appointed by the politicians in charge. Justice system in most EU countries absolutely sucks compared to the US. In several EU countries there’s no concept as double jeopardy, because the prosecution can appeal an acquital. I’d much rather be a defendant in the US, than in any EU country. > So free speech is an EU matter but healthcare is a local one? No, both are decided locally with limited EU oversight - e.g. the EU is trying to punish Poland and Hungary's free speech limitations. ECJ explicitly stated that objectionable or hate speech can be banned. So yes, that made it EU matter. As for the EU doing something about Polands and Hungary’s disobedience? They don’t actually seem to be doing anything, because the EU as an institution is completely impotent, and they can’t risk being tough on their member states, for the Union could actually disintegrate. UK proved that is, in fact, physically possible to leave the EU. So Hungary could do that too, and so could Poland.
- bonzini 4y ago
  > Appointed by the politicians in charge. I am not sure where you got this idea. In Italy most judges/DAs go through a selection process that is entirely within the judiciary. Only one third of the Constitutional Court is appointed by the Parliament.