5 ms·

At least there is still the rule of law and democracy in the EU

_osud 7mo ago
Is there really? Governments routinely go against the ECHR and the ECJ, and do nothing to rectify past violations when ruled against. On a national level, sure.
- input_sh 7mo ago
  Considering who we're comparing it to when discussing this topic: absolutely. Not even a question. Anyone claiming otherwise is delusional at best.
  - Levitz 7mo ago
    A whole lot of websites are inaccessible from my country when there's football on, due to a judicial order meant to curb piracy. The whole deal with Chat Control is also not to be forgotten. I do think you guys see this place with rose tinted glasses sometimes.
    - input_sh 7mo ago
      Does that football scenario mean that the rule of law doesn't exist or that it does exist and is being enforced? I agree with you that both of those laws are stupid, but that's a completely separate discussion to what I'm claiming above.
      - _osud 7mo ago
        Depends on how you interpret the ECHR. Does it allow blocking half the internet during football games? It almost certainly does not: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%... AFAIU this is common because lower courts often deliberately choose to not try to interpret ECHR, leaving that for appeals courts.
        input_sh 7mo ago
        I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not. But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.
        _osud 7mo ago
        ECHR decisions are (supposed to be) legally binding. If they're not obeyed, that's not a good look for rule of law in Europe. ECHR decisions are certainly not mere recommendations. >It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so ECHR can simply invalidate national law.
        input_sh 7mo ago
        According to whom? You? The only thing ECHR cares about is one piece of "legislation", which is not a law, but a declaration (Declaration of Human Rights), so that you have some sort of internationally recognised body to go to whenever you feel that your local judicial system has done you injustice. That is all it does. That is all it is meant to do. That is the sole reason of its existence. It is not a legislative body at all. > ECHR can simply invalidate national law. It can't. You're either making things up or severely misunderstanding the court. It can say "this law doesn't align with the Declaration" and that's it. The law still exists. ECHR relies on signatories being willing to make the necessary changes themselves. Some are and get right on it, some aren't. The election law in my country has lost 5 cases in the ECHR and not a single one of the verdicts are fixed as of now, the oldest of which dates back to 2009. This is horrible, I want to see them fixed, but ECHR can't force us to fix it and we as in the country face 0 consequences for not addressing any of them (as of yet). There is a separate court called European Court of Justice which is the equivalent of the US supreme court and is tasked with interpreting EU-wide laws and making sure national laws are aligned as much as possible. That is a legislative body with an enforcement mechanism. ECHR is not, you don't know what you're talking about.
- pjc50 7mo ago
  Which cases are you talking about? Compliance with actual court rulings is pretty high.
  - rithdmc 7mo ago
    It took Ireland years from an ECHR ruling to rule buggery was not unlawful, and Ireland was given a special exemption to the EUs abortion laws which remained in place for 26 years.
  - _osud 7mo ago
    Want a particularly egregious example? Here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0548 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62... Police in many EU countries was systematically searching suspects phones without mandatory due process. This was prima facie illegal, everyone involved knew it. They did it regardless. Yeah, this decision eventually resulted in many governments issuing new guidance, and some countries rewriting their national legislation. Is that a big victory for the rule of law? I think not, the national governments should not be knowingly violating the ECHR in the first place.
rafram 7mo ago
The baseline level of freedom of speech in the EU, in particular, is much, much worse than in the US. We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws! Completely unthinkable for Americans.
- raincole 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - this_user 7mo ago
    The EU is really more middle-of-the-road in most things, while the US tends to be more extreme: more really good ideas, but also more really bad ideas. But that is also the result of the EU being largely controlled by bureaucrats and compliance officers instead of real leaders.
  - haspok 7mo ago
    Is it not true that when entering the US you are required to show all your social media content on request, and if there is anything negative about the current administration, you can be denied entry (if you are lucky, and not detained for an indefinite amount of time)? Truly exceptional indeed. You are basically on par with China.
    - prmoustache 7mo ago
      Do they really do that and what do they do when you say you don't have one? Do they believe you or not having one is as suspicious as having one with the content they don't like?
      - u8080 7mo ago
        This is just fake info, I was in China previous year and noone entering or exiting was required to show anything except passport.
nozzlegear 7mo ago
For now – the EU is one AfD win away from following in America's footsteps.
- krzyk 7mo ago
  AfD is a party in single country in EU.
  - nozzlegear 7mo ago
    AfD is a far right populist party in the EU's biggest economic powerhouse country, whose explicit goals are to leave the EU (they probably can't due to the German constitution), exit the eurozone, withdraw from the Paris climate deal, leave NATO, and cozy up with Russia. It's not hard to imagine what kind of damage they could do to the EU if they took power in Germany and started working with Hungary to block EU legislation, veto sanctions, defund programs, etc.
- tensor 7mo ago
  The EU governance system is vastly different than the US, and not nearly as fragile. Even if AfD gets sway in one country, it doesn't mean that suddenly they can do anything they want like you saw in the last US election. My understanding of the EU system is that it's far more proportional in representation, and a simple 51% isn't enough to have 100% control. Parties still need to work together and compromise.
  - nozzlegear 7mo ago
    > My understanding of the EU system is that it's far more proportional in representation, and a simple 51% isn't enough to have 100% control. Parties still need to work together and compromise. We've already seen with Brexit that 100% control is not needed in a parliamentary system to destroy a country's livelihood. But my point was that AfD doesn't need something like "presidential control" of the EU, it would just need to start working with other far-right parties in the EU such as Hungary and France's RN to sow chaos from within. Is that very far-fetched? You can't tell me that most of Europe doesn't hold its collective breath at every French election, crossing their fingers that Le Pen's party doesn't win this go around.

_osud 7mo ago

Is there really? Governments routinely go against the ECHR and the ECJ, and do nothing to rectify past violations when ruled against. On a national level, sure.

input_sh 7mo ago
Considering who we're comparing it to when discussing this topic: absolutely. Not even a question. Anyone claiming otherwise is delusional at best.
- Levitz 7mo ago
  A whole lot of websites are inaccessible from my country when there's football on, due to a judicial order meant to curb piracy. The whole deal with Chat Control is also not to be forgotten. I do think you guys see this place with rose tinted glasses sometimes.
  - input_sh 7mo ago
    Does that football scenario mean that the rule of law doesn't exist or that it does exist and is being enforced? I agree with you that both of those laws are stupid, but that's a completely separate discussion to what I'm claiming above.
    - _osud 7mo ago
      Depends on how you interpret the ECHR. Does it allow blocking half the internet during football games? It almost certainly does not: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%... AFAIU this is common because lower courts often deliberately choose to not try to interpret ECHR, leaving that for appeals courts.
      - input_sh 7mo ago
        I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not. But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.
        _osud 7mo ago
        ECHR decisions are (supposed to be) legally binding. If they're not obeyed, that's not a good look for rule of law in Europe. ECHR decisions are certainly not mere recommendations. >It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so ECHR can simply invalidate national law.
        input_sh 7mo ago
        According to whom? You? The only thing ECHR cares about is one piece of "legislation", which is not a law, but a declaration (Declaration of Human Rights), so that you have some sort of internationally recognised body to go to whenever you feel that your local judicial system has done you injustice. That is all it does. That is all it is meant to do. That is the sole reason of its existence. It is not a legislative body at all. > ECHR can simply invalidate national law. It can't. You're either making things up or severely misunderstanding the court. It can say "this law doesn't align with the Declaration" and that's it. The law still exists. ECHR relies on signatories being willing to make the necessary changes themselves. Some are and get right on it, some aren't. The election law in my country has lost 5 cases in the ECHR and not a single one of the verdicts are fixed as of now, the oldest of which dates back to 2009. This is horrible, I want to see them fixed, but ECHR can't force us to fix it and we as in the country face 0 consequences for not addressing any of them (as of yet). There is a separate court called European Court of Justice which is the equivalent of the US supreme court and is tasked with interpreting EU-wide laws and making sure national laws are aligned as much as possible. That is a legislative body with an enforcement mechanism. ECHR is not, you don't know what you're talking about.
pjc50 7mo ago
Which cases are you talking about? Compliance with actual court rulings is pretty high.
- rithdmc 7mo ago
  It took Ireland years from an ECHR ruling to rule buggery was not unlawful, and Ireland was given a special exemption to the EUs abortion laws which remained in place for 26 years.
- _osud 7mo ago
  Want a particularly egregious example? Here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0548 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62... Police in many EU countries was systematically searching suspects phones without mandatory due process. This was prima facie illegal, everyone involved knew it. They did it regardless. Yeah, this decision eventually resulted in many governments issuing new guidance, and some countries rewriting their national legislation. Is that a big victory for the rule of law? I think not, the national governments should not be knowingly violating the ECHR in the first place.

rafram 7mo ago

The baseline level of freedom of speech in the EU, in particular, is much, much worse than in the US. We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws! Completely unthinkable for Americans.

raincole 7mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- this_user 7mo ago
  The EU is really more middle-of-the-road in most things, while the US tends to be more extreme: more really good ideas, but also more really bad ideas. But that is also the result of the EU being largely controlled by bureaucrats and compliance officers instead of real leaders.
- haspok 7mo ago
  Is it not true that when entering the US you are required to show all your social media content on request, and if there is anything negative about the current administration, you can be denied entry (if you are lucky, and not detained for an indefinite amount of time)? Truly exceptional indeed. You are basically on par with China.
  - prmoustache 7mo ago
    Do they really do that and what do they do when you say you don't have one? Do they believe you or not having one is as suspicious as having one with the content they don't like?
    - u8080 7mo ago
      This is just fake info, I was in China previous year and noone entering or exiting was required to show anything except passport.

nozzlegear 7mo ago

For now – the EU is one AfD win away from following in America's footsteps.

krzyk 7mo ago
AfD is a party in single country in EU.
- nozzlegear 7mo ago
  AfD is a far right populist party in the EU's biggest economic powerhouse country, whose explicit goals are to leave the EU (they probably can't due to the German constitution), exit the eurozone, withdraw from the Paris climate deal, leave NATO, and cozy up with Russia. It's not hard to imagine what kind of damage they could do to the EU if they took power in Germany and started working with Hungary to block EU legislation, veto sanctions, defund programs, etc.
tensor 7mo ago
The EU governance system is vastly different than the US, and not nearly as fragile. Even if AfD gets sway in one country, it doesn't mean that suddenly they can do anything they want like you saw in the last US election. My understanding of the EU system is that it's far more proportional in representation, and a simple 51% isn't enough to have 100% control. Parties still need to work together and compromise.
- nozzlegear 7mo ago
  > My understanding of the EU system is that it's far more proportional in representation, and a simple 51% isn't enough to have 100% control. Parties still need to work together and compromise. We've already seen with Brexit that 100% control is not needed in a parliamentary system to destroy a country's livelihood. But my point was that AfD doesn't need something like "presidential control" of the EU, it would just need to start working with other far-right parties in the EU such as Hungary and France's RN to sow chaos from within. Is that very far-fetched? You can't tell me that most of Europe doesn't hold its collective breath at every French election, crossing their fingers that Le Pen's party doesn't win this go around.