71–80 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there not a limit case? Would you tell people in China, "if you are disappointed with politics, vote in your People's Congress elections?"
Assuming there's a choice, I'm not familiar with Chinese elections, then yes. Why not vote? What is the advantage of that?
I mean even in the DPRK, you can vote for whoever you want. Its what happens afterwards..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there not a limit case? Would you tell people in China, "if you are disappointed with politics, vote in your People's Congress elections?"
Assuming there's a choice, I'm not familiar with Chinese elections, then yes. Why not vote? What is the advantage of that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn’t Texas exit the US in the same way that European countries can exit the EU?
No, the EU has a specific process for leaving by asking, while the US states can only leave if a sufficient number of the other states agree to it. The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade agreement with an unusually democratic (by the standard of FTAs) process for updating its own rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming there's a choice, I'm not familiar with Chinese elections, then yes. Why not vote? What is the advantage of that?
People might view it as giving legitimacy to a process.
Does giving legitimacy to voting accomplish anytime? What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People might view it as giving legitimacy to a process.
The process of voting is legitimate. Does giving legitimacy to voting accomplish anytime? What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?
What do you mean by this? If I (a dictator) were to hold an election but require 90% approval to unseat me, that would be a "legitimate" process because it includes voting?
Do you not understand what I am saying?
> What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?
Arguably yes. Afghanistan's state legitimacy collapsed as basically fewer than 10% of people voted in any of it's elections and then the government fell.
Is the ECJ kind of a Supreme Court that can overturn member state laws and rulings? I had the impression member states were 100% sovereign within the EU...
ECJ can only rule on EU laws. So as such they are not overturning any German laws, just stating the the German law is not in compliance with EU regulations. What that means in practice varies a lot from case to case, but in general the EU has the power to fine members that are in breach of EU regulations. For practical reasons most EU countries want to be in compliance with EU law and will often follow ECJ recommenda…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the EU has a specific process for leaving by asking, while the US states can only leave if a sufficient number of the other states agree to it. The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade agreement with an unusually democratic (by the standard of FTAs) process for updating its own rules.
>The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade agreement with an unusually democratic (by the standard of FTAs) process for updating its own rules. The EU isn't just a free trade agreement and it has never been just a free trade agreement. It has always been a political endeavour. Of course that doesn't make it a country or a nation state at all, but let's not go too far in the other direction when trying to descr…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32909698
I don't care about the points, just think it is a bit weird that a promotional commercial company post is now on the frontpage instead of a more neutral news site.
Although now, Reuters would probably be the better source than what was available earlier today:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/indiscriminate-data-reten...
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sufficient majority of citizens can change the constitution and take that right away from you. Because you live in a democratic state, you do not have sovereign rights.
Just the same; sufficient number of states can take those 'sovereign rights' away from a country. In the context of a discussion about Germany, shouldn't this be obvious?
EU member states have voluntarily agreed that in some situations, EU law takes priority over national law. But because the member states are sovereign, it's up to them to decide how to proceed when EU and national laws are in conflict. The EU has only limited means to sanction member states that breach their laws. It cannot arrest and prosecute German lawmakers. It can't declare German laws invalid, except to the extent German institutions voluntarily follow EU rulings. It can't forcibly rewrite German laws. And in extreme situations, it can't declare Germany's Constitution unconstitutional and invalid, and it can't forcibly rewrite it.