151–160 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that EU member states have the right to leave if they don't think the arrangement benefits them.
And we must ensure that choice remains economically viable, and not just for the largest member states. Because a union maintained by compulsion, even economic compulsion, is not a union, but an empire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one thing I've learned the past decade, it is that "ceremonial" functions can be disrupted by people who don't respect the precedent.
Can you give an example where this has been the case? That a ceremonial monarch or executive is now an active participant in government?
In both the example above and this example, what was taken as "ceremonial" (especially since the advent of much, much better forms of communication than what was available the 1790s) was still the the lawful course. Our systems of government are held together by the belief in and affinity to perform duty according to precedent.
Our data retention laws get overturned all the time. Usually already by our constitutional courts. Sadly our politicians don’t care much and don’t get punished, so they just try it again and again and again and usually it’s in effect for a while before the courts give judgement. I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from. edit: The last sentence is sarcasm
Out of curiosity, doesn't Germany have the equivalent of a constitutional watchdog? For example in Estonia, the president fills this role (as do some other constitutions, but the president is a good example in this context). The president is otherwise a purely ceremonial figurehead in Estonia, but one functional role they fill is that before any new bill becomes law, they have to sign off on it and declare it's const…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the threat of secession requires going to war over, it would seem that no, secession is not a legally supported process.
But could it not be possible to allow the secession of a state by an ammentment to the constition?
If things went so far that the secession is desired it is already a civil war, and constitution of 'some people out there over the creek' doesn't matter.
I think that was the lesson of the 1860s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the EU, you can very easily opt out of living in Germany.
That's like saying you can solve a pest infestation problem in your house by blowing it up.
Our data retention laws get overturned all the time. Usually already by our constitutional courts. Sadly our politicians don’t care much and don’t get punished, so they just try it again and again and again and usually it’s in effect for a while before the courts give judgement. I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from. edit: The last sentence is sarcasm
Either memories are short or there is political fantasy of being control freaks going on
hold on, what Germany wanted to do (blanket data retention) is a reality for a long time in other states in EU. There are many countries collecting for 6+ months all connection data (e.g. France or Spain). A map is in this German article from 2019 https://netzpolitik.org/2019/vorratsdatenspeicherung-in-euro... So this becomes illegal in other EU member states now too? Does anybody have any inside how this will change…
You are also not allowed to use a customer database for advertising if the customer is no longer one for more than 6 months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one thing I've learned the past decade, it is that "ceremonial" functions can be disrupted by people who don't respect the precedent.
Can you give an example where this has been the case? That a ceremonial monarch or executive is now an active participant in government?
The convention expected was the GG would announce these appointments, he didn’t and put out a statement when it was found out that literally said “oh yeah not my job sorry you thought it was”
https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/media/statement...
There's a curious comment on that article from a person in support of that retention law: "Google can do that [blanket data collection], my Chinese mobile phone manufacturer too, why shouldn't the government be able to do it?" Something to ponder when we talk about data collection by private parties: like it or not, it does provide justification for governments doing the same.
No it does not. I can (and mostly do) evade the data slurping of private players, at least in theory, by not using and blocking Google, Meta and the likes. I cannot reasonably evade the data crimes that the government does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who is 100% sovereign? 100%? Only those with a nuclear deterrent, and maybe not even them. Otherwise, there is always a bigger fish. Edit: I can see some people don't believe me. Do you really think treaties are more than paper if you don't have force to back them up? The US has threatened to invade the Hague if they try to charge Americans with war crimes. Went beyond mere threats in fact, congress and Bush the yo…
>> Do you really think treaties are more than paper if you don't have force to back them up? There is a foce that can build up. If the U.S starts going rough someone else will take its place. We've already seen pieces moving during Trump's term. U.S's soft power helps it more than you think. North Korea is more "sovereign" than the U.S. in your book. Good economic and political relations with your neighbours can make…
In practice, the US can do much more of whatever it pleases than North Korea can. The US can invade most countries on a whim, and has demonstrated this ability numerous times in living memory, while the North Korean government mostly just fumes for the past few decades. But more to your point, yes, North Korea has more sovereignty than most; they are one of the few countries America can't invade on a whim.