EU mandantory chat control

[Simon]

The UK is cutting it's civil service down....

[BravoV]

The UK is cutting it's civil service down....

To save and grab big chunk of money for Ukraine ? Pretty sure its not cheap. 

[tom66]

So the independent EU countries are not only bound to laws written by the EU Commission, but are required to use their own criminal justice system to enforce those laws?

That seems wrong to me ideologically. But I suppose if everyone agrees to it...

Once again, the laws are passed by the parliament and not the commission.

You don't believe, in the US (for instance), that senators write their own bills?  In the vast majority of cases, these are drafted by executive departments, lawyers, clerks, and so on.  That's really no different to the commission.

The laws still have to pass the parliament, which is elected by the people of the EU. 

The Commission actually has very little executive power, unlike in the US for instance where the President can issue executive orders.  That's not really possible in the EU.

[themadhippy]

The UK is cutting it's civil service down.

Yea right

[Simon]

The UK is cutting it's civil service down.

Yea right

Well that is the current news headline, what actually happens remains to be seen. Conservatives tend to like a small state (they claim it no end), labour/left leaning tend to be happy with more government run stuff therefore more civil servants - broadly speaking. Yes minister was careful not to make it obvious what side was in power which was irrelevant to the show anyway as it was about the civil service versus the government.

[eugene]

So the independent EU countries are not only bound to laws written by the EU Commission, but are required to use their own criminal justice system to enforce those laws?

That seems wrong to me ideologically. But I suppose if everyone agrees to it...

Once again, the laws are passed by the parliament and not the commission.

Please forgive my ignorance of how things are done in the EU (even the US for that matter.)

When you mention 'parliament', is that an EU parliament, or parliaments of individual countries?

You don't believe, in the US (for instance), that senators write their own bills?  In the vast majority of cases, these are drafted by executive departments, lawyers, clerks, and so on.  That's really no different to the commission.

The laws still have to pass the parliament, which is elected by the people of the EU. 

The Commission actually has very little executive power, unlike in the US for instance where the President can issue executive orders.  That's not really possible in the EU.

As I already admitted, my knowledge of these things in the US is not deep, despite having lived here for [redacted] years. In any case, my impression is that some federal (US) laws are enforced by the federal government with their own criminal justice departments (mainly FBI) and federal courts. Other federal laws might be expected to be enforced by the individual states using their own criminal justice systems. But in the end, whether or not the individual states choose to enforce the federal laws is effectively up to them. In some cases a state might choose to go in a different direction and write laws that contradict federal laws. I don't know if this is specifically allowed by federal legislation (I doubt it) but the federal government typically doesn't pursue these matters legally.

The consequence (as I see it) is that federal laws in the US are meaningful only if individual states no not choose to explicitly over ride them with state laws.

Back to the distinction between legislation and enforcement: does the EU have its own police and courts, or is that left entirely to the individual countries.

[langwadt]

So the independent EU countries are not only bound to laws written by the EU Commission, but are required to use their own criminal justice system to enforce those laws?

That seems wrong to me ideologically. But I suppose if everyone agrees to it...

Once again, the laws are passed by the parliament and not the commission.

Please forgive my ignorance of how things are done in the EU (even the US for that matter.)

When you mention 'parliament', is that an EU parliament, or parliaments of individual countries?

commission writes the laws, parliament votes on adopting the laws

parliament members are elected in each countries

[Simon]

As I already admitted, my knowledge of these things in the US is not deep, despite having lived here for [redacted] years. In any case, my impression is that some federal (US) laws are enforced by the federal government with their own criminal justice departments (mainly FBI) and federal courts. Other federal laws might be expected to be enforced by the individual states using their own criminal justice systems. But in the end, whether or not the individual states choose to enforce the federal laws is effectively up to them. In some cases a state might choose to go in a different direction and write laws that contradict federal laws. I don't know if this is specifically allowed by federal legislation (I doubt it) but the federal government typically doesn't pursue these matters legally.

The consequence (as I see it) is that federal laws in the US are meaningful only if individual states no not choose to explicitly over ride them with state laws.

Back to the distinction between legislation and enforcement: does the EU have its own police and courts, or is that left entirely to the individual countries.

If you take the recent row about abortion law several states are ready to ban it if the ruling that abortions are to be allowed is overturned, this kind of tells me that a state makes laws within the framework of what the layer of legal system above dictates. I can't remember if other states would still allow abortions but this could also amount to the the rule being that you can allow them, or that you can ban them but not an all one way policy allowing individual states to have a one way choice but not a two way one ie complete independence.

[magic]

Yes, there is an EU parliament with a mix of drones sent in from all countries.

[magic]

Back to the distinction between legislation and enforcement: does the EU have its own police and courts, or is that left entirely to the individual countries.

Thankfully an EU police doesn't exist yet

But,
Every country is obliged to implement and enforce whatever "EU laws" are established following official procedures.
The EU and many member states will be happy to put political pressure on any outliers that refuse to do so.
The general climate in the world today is that mainstream parties are happy to adopt certain kinds of policies, whether dictated from "above" or on their own initiative.

[Simon]

Back to the distinction between legislation and enforcement: does the EU have its own police and courts, or is that left entirely to the individual countries.

Thankfully an EU police doesn't exist yet

But,
Every country is obliged to implement and enforce whatever "EU laws" are established following official procedures.
The EU and many member states will be happy to put political pressure on any outliers that refuse to do so.
The general climate in the world today is that mainstream parties are happy to adopt certain kinds of policies, whether dictated from "above" or on their own initiative.

You seem to have an agenda of your own here. If a group of countries decide to tie themselves together and adopt similar laws so that they operate in a similar way and can work together then no it's not a case of pressure on outlier countries but that those countries have already signed up to obligations that they are not following through on in the same way that you would expect your local police force to go after criminals who break the law so do your partners. You make a pact, you stick to it.

[jpanhalt]

If you take the recent row about abortion law several states are ready to ban it if the ruling that abortions are to be allowed is overturned, this kind of tells me that a state makes laws within the framework of what the layer of legal system above dictates. I can't remember if other states would still allow abortions but this could also amount to the the rule being that you can allow them, or that you can ban them but not an all one way policy allowing individual states to have a one way choice but not a two way one ie complete independence.

The 10th Amendment in America's Bill of Rights is important in that discussion (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In direct answer to your question, overruling Roe v. Wade would allow each state to set its own laws regarding abortion.  That was the situation before Roe.  Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the opinion.  His logic was considered to be on very weak ground from the beginning.  Some trivia: Justice Blackmun was previously general counsel at the Mayo Clinic, which was extremely closely associated with St. Mary's Hospital in Rochester, MN.  St. Mary's is a Catholic hospital and does not allow abortions. 

Background: Only specific powers were delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution.  That was intentionally done to limit it.  Our original government was under The Articles of Confederation.  That had very weak central authority and failed.  It could not effectively tax or print money.  The Constitution and our republic were formed in response.  Nevertheless, the desire to maintain relative independence of the states was quite strong.  As an aside, the Commerce Clause of our Constitution, as innocuous as it may seem at first glance, has been used extensively to expand the powers of the Federal government.

[MadScientist]

Clearly the Brexit BS,ers are out in force spreading more lies

The EU commission draws up legislative proposals as it is in effect the EU s civil service , in the case of ordinary law , the proposal must be jointly passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union ( often called the  Council of ministers ) neither body under normal situations can make laws independent of the other . “ Brussels “ contrary to Brexit BS”er does not make community law.

Both groups are democratically selected albeit in different ways , the ministers are all elected domestically whereas the EU parliament is by direct election , contrary to Brexit BS , there is no “ unaccountable “ law making process.

Qualified majority voting exists in most cases to decisions by the council of ministers , so it’s difficult to get contentious proposals passed.

An EU law may be proposed as a regulation or a directive. A regulation must be translated verbatim in to national law whereas a directive can leave national authorities freedom to decide how to implement the principle of the directive. The U.K. government continuously abused thd process by “ gold plating “ EU directives often making them much harsher then intended and  of course it was famous for using the EU law making process to get laws in effect in the U.K. that it could not get through its own parliament ( particulaly intelligence spying laws )

So European Parliament resolutions in themselves are like “ private members bills “ they have virtually zero chance of becoming law.

Again the European Commission is a civil service unlike the US there is no administration with law making ability. The commission does not make community law.

The EU is a confederation of sovereign nations that agree by treaty to devolve certain aspects of national law making to the EU law making processes. EU law only has validity in member states as long as it’s consistent with the principles enshrined in the treaties. Ireland for example has a referendum on every treaty so signed since the 80s. Ireland for example has specific European codicils on neutrality , on NI status etc. No Eu law can change that situation

[MadScientist]

So the independent EU countries are not only bound to laws written by the EU Commission, but are required to use their own criminal justice system to enforce those laws?

That seems wrong to me ideologically. But I suppose if everyone agrees to it...

Once again, the laws are passed by the parliament and not the commission.

Please forgive my ignorance of how things are done in the EU (even the US for that matter.)

When you mention 'parliament', is that an EU parliament, or parliaments of individual countries?

commission writes the laws, parliament votes on adopting the laws

parliament members are elected in each countries

This is only half the process

[MadScientist]

If you take the recent row about abortion law several states are ready to ban it if the ruling that abortions are to be allowed is overturned, this kind of tells me that a state makes laws within the framework of what the layer of legal system above dictates. I can't remember if other states would still allow abortions but this could also amount to the the rule being that you can allow them, or that you can ban them but not an all one way policy allowing individual states to have a one way choice but not a two way one ie complete independence.

The 10th Amendment in America's Bill of Rights is important in that discussion (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In direct answer to your question, overruling Roe v. Wade would allow each state to set its own laws regarding abortion.  That was the situation before Roe.  Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the opinion.  His logic was considered to be on very weak ground from the beginning.  Some trivia: Justice Blackmun was previously general counsel at the Mayo Clinic, which was extremely closely associated with St. Mary's Hospital in Rochester, MN.  St. Mary's is a Catholic hospital and does not allow abortions. 

Background: Only specific powers were delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution.  That was intentionally done to limit it.  Our original government was under The Articles of Confederation.  That had very weak central authority and failed.  It could not effectively tax or print money.  The Constitution and our republic were formed in response.  Nevertheless, the desire to maintain relative independence of the states was quite strong.  As an aside, the Commerce Clause of our Constitution, as innocuous as it may seem at first glance, has been used extensively to expand the powers of the Federal government.

I read the preliminary judgement paper, while I am a proponent of women’s rights I also acknowledge  that Rode v Wade was based on some very peculiar and particular Supreme Court interpretations at the time ( similar to More recent 2nd amendment judgements ) hence it’s hard to argue for the support of the 77 decision.

The preliminary paper basically says the US constitution had no commentary on abortion and therefore federal rules have no place and the individual states them selves should decide. This is not unlike the situation in the EU where such matters are by dint of the treaties left entirely at the behest of national governments. People can of course choose where they live within these national frameworks so you can pick the one you like!

[Monkeh]

People can of course choose where they live within these national frameworks so you can pick the one you like!

Because it's just a trivial, low cost exercise to up and move. Houses are cheap, jobs are plentiful, transport is free and there's always time in the day..

[Simon]

Clearly the Brexit BS,ers are out in force spreading more lies

The EU commission draws up legislative proposals as it is in effect the EU s civil service , in the case of ordinary law , the proposal must be jointly passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union ( often called the  Council of ministers ) neither body under normal situations can make laws independent of the other . “ Brussels “ contrary to Brexit BS”er does not make community law.

The fundamental problem is that most people do not understand how any of the governing systems work, and have no place commenting unless they do. Handily no school curriculum bothers to teach children how their society is run making each and every young adult fertile ground for wacky ideas about things that actually they could just go and find out about.

The last time we had a local election the local conservative party produced an entire leaflet mostly talking about voting for your local conservative candidate to "get brexit done". As far as I am concerned there should be rules about making these sorts of false statements. No matter which side you sit on, your local councillors have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of international politics/policy.

My father seems to think that people are just listening to our phone calls and will drive over to discuss anything important with me, despite my explaining that legally no one can tap your line without a court order or unless there is some other really, really good reason and in case he has not noticed, he's not at all relevant to anyone in the grand scheme of things.

[Zero999]

No worries! The Court of Justice of the European Union will declare that nonsense null and void sooner or later. We had similar cases already several times. The sad thing is that the EU Commission is repeatedly ignoring court decisions.

Don't be so sure of it. They didn't do anything when governments imposed forced medical treatments on their citizens and banned peaceful protest.

[PlainName]

despite my explaining that legally no one can tap your line without a court order or unless there is some other really, really good reason

That should read that they shouldn't. But there is nothing to actually stop them doing so, and there are well-documented instances of both the security services and commercial entities doing exactly that. The (still!) ongoing phone hacking case that sunk the NotW is possibly the best known, and Snowdon let drop a lot of otherwise hidden stuff. I believe there have even been instances where it's wound up in court and the governmental service has been told what they did was illegal, but of course you can't throw a service in the nick so not a lot happens.

he's not at all relevant to anyone in the grand scheme of things

And that's the problem. If your comms happen to trigger the AI or ML or whatever that's perusing it all, you're stuffed if you think you can just rationally explain you are a normal non-terrorist non-paedophile citizen going about your innocuous business. Computer says yes, so must be true. Nothing personal, like.

Edit: that reminds me that (literally) every other lamppost around here has sprouted a PTZ camera. No-one has ever asked us if we want them or explained what they are for or mentioned that they even exist.

[Simon]

despite my explaining that legally no one can tap your line without a court order or unless there is some other really, really good reason

That should read that they shouldn't. But there is nothing to actually stop them doing so, and there are well-documented instances of both the security services and commercial entities doing exactly that. The (still!) ongoing phone hacking case that sunk the NotW is possibly the best known, and Snowdon let drop a lot of otherwise hidden stuff. I believe there have even been instances where it's wound up in court and the governmental service has been told what they did was illegal, but of course you can't throw a service in the nick so not a lot happens.

Yes but he thinks that this is like a regular thing they do legally, he knows so little that he does not understand that it's very remotely a chance, here and now. But of course if you listen to the news outlets BBC included it's all doom.

The news of the world were not tapping anyone. They simply broke into phone message boxes just like every other haker is trying to do, again, they are not after every citizen and it's still illegal so no point in trying to make a point with what criminals do, what they are doing is called criminal for a reason and no matter what various governments choose to do it is a separate issue.

he's not at all relevant to anyone in the grand scheme of things

And that's the problem. If your comms happen to trigger the AI or ML or whatever that's perusing it all, you're stuffed if you think you can just rationally explain you are a normal non-terrorist non-paedophile citizen going about your innocuous business. Computer says yes, so must be true. Nothing personal, like.

Edit: that reminds me that (literally) every other lamppost around here has sprouted a PTZ camera. No-one has ever asked us if we want them or explained what they are for or mentioned that they even exist.

Well if you would like to pay an awful lot more tax to have a policeman/woman/couple on every corner lets do that. again I think the risks are being blown out of proportion. My local police cannot find the time to do much, there are not many of them, remember the man that was murdered by vigilantes as the police labelled him a nuisance caller? I have a body camera I keep handy as sadly there are no lamp post camera's around here so I have to DIYit.

[themadhippy]

My local police cannot find the time to do much, there are not many of them, remember the man that was murdered by vigilantes as the police labelled him a nuisance caller

But dare to throw an egg at a statue and they turn up in minutes

[Simon]

My local police cannot find the time to do much, there are not many of them, remember the man that was murdered by vigilantes as the police labelled him a nuisance caller

But dare to throw an egg at a statue and they turn up in minutes

really? I thought the statue ended up in the river/sea before someone did something and then they still got off for criminal damage.

[themadhippy]

really? I thought the statue ended up in the river/sea

Different statue

[Simon]

really? I thought the statue ended up in the river/sea

Different statue

well was it before or after one was pulled down, I mean, cmon, context, in an environment of rampant protest and criminal damage someone throwing an egg at a statute is one thing. With none of that happening someone throwing an egg at a statue is something else, but this is exactly how all these stupid myths and characterizations start, by taking something totally out of context for point scoring.....

[TimFox]

Re: Eugene on US law:

"As I already admitted, my knowledge of these things in the US is not deep, despite having lived here for [redacted] years. In any case, my impression is that some federal (US) laws are enforced by the federal government with their own criminal justice departments (mainly FBI) and federal courts. Other federal laws might be expected to be enforced by the individual states using their own criminal justice systems. But in the end, whether or not the individual states choose to enforce the federal laws is effectively up to them. In some cases a state might choose to go in a different direction and write laws that contradict federal laws. I don't know if this is specifically allowed by federal legislation (I doubt it) but the federal government typically doesn't pursue these matters legally.
The consequence (as I see it) is that federal laws in the US are meaningful only if individual states no not choose to explicitly over ride them with state laws."

In normal US constitutional law, as I understand it, there are Federal statutes (against espionage, for example) and State statutes (against murder, for example). 
There are some Federal statutes, such as against murdering a President, that overlap State statutes. 
However, Federal laws and the US Constitution override State law when they conflict. 
Most "normal" crimes, such as assault, homicide, burglary, sexual assault, etc. are State crimes, which vary from State to State in definition and punishment.
Not all states have capital punishment, for example, but all outlaw murder (though the terms applied to the crime vary from State to State on their lawbooks.)
A specific statute (Federal or State) can be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The power of the Supreme Court to overrule legislation was established by the early decision:  Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Madison was US Secretary of State at the time of the ruling. 
Note that this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but was held by the Court to be inherent therein.
Stare decisis!.