• Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      9 months ago

      Never idolise. Courts simply apply the laws, and good laws were likely written by inspired people and approved in a good political climate. These two conditions are not static.

      • moitoi@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        9 months ago

        In this case, the title is misleading. It’s not the ECJ, it’s the ECHR. The ECHR isn’t part of the EU even if the EU and the EU members recognize it.

        The ECHR rules according to the ECHR and not the EU regulations. The court can overturn EU regulation when violating the Human Rights.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I didn’t open the article before, and you are right. The author of the article lives in Chicago; I think that Ars has no European writer to really understand what they are talking about.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well, European Union member states have as a criteria of membership to also be members of the European Convention of Human Rights (which is the one the ECHR rules on), but that’s about it.

      • THE MASTERMIND@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I know i guess i wanna support so they have motivation to go forward. But yes you are absolutely right.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          We are always on the brink of ruining everything nice that we have been slowly building.

          You can read here about the plans of the European Commission to enable service operators to mass scan all the users’ private messages in search of illegal materials.

          The Commission is the same super-government body that signed privacy-oriented things like the General Data Protection Regulation.

          • THE MASTERMIND@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah i kinda did hear about it and was suprised. But figures can’t have anything nice nowadays anyway

    • erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Move to EU and pay taxes there. Or buy European products, they pay taxes and some of it go to the EU.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Moving to EU is better option if you can afford it. You’ll also get healthcare and other stuff.

    • lemmingrad@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Trust me, the UE have enough money. Please donate to your local homeless shelter instead :3

        • lemmingrad@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I say that because, well, I live near Brussel, I intimately know the insides of the european parliament. Corruption is rampant. Maybe not to the point of the US, but look up lobbying in the european institution and you will see what’s up. The UE might seem progressive on the IT front but they are also the ones that forces us to sell public services to banks.

    • Alex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      They fund their political campaigns via taxes and put limits on spending and campaign seasons, just buy european-made instead if you’re a fan.

    • nexusband@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Don’t. They already get way to much taxes and while these are the shining examples of what the EU should be and are beacon of hope…there are other utterly ridiculous laws and stupid regulations we have to deal with. Don’t get me wrong, I’m proud to be European and so on, but it’s not the bright haven some people make it to be…

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Can you name any ridiculous laws or regulations that negatively affect you? I have a hard time recalling any EU law or regulation that directly affects me without a good reason.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Also, can you name a nation without laws that negatively affect you or could be considered stupid?

        • nexusband@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/103530/eu-demands-speed-limiters-all-new-cars-know-rules-and-how-they-work

          One of the most prevalent examples that affect me - it’s a horrible system and most car makers are not able to do it properly, because the camera systems are not cheap enough to be good enough. Mercedes, BMW and so on do it relatively decent, but they’ve gotten so expensive, even the base models are out of my reach now.

          This could go on for a while, but to make matters short: The basic idea is cool, but mandating it like they have makes it a nuisance and will make most people turn it off. All of the people I know that have a car that has that system turn it off immediately starting.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That doesn’t seem like a stupid or ridiculous regulation, you even agree that the basic idea is cool. The issue here isn’t the idea of the regulation, but the implementation by manufacturers. It will take time to get the implementation right and when it does the manufacturers will optimize the solution and the price will also come down. I don’t think anyone goes “ABS makes cars so expensive”, because the cost has been optimized.

            • nexusband@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              The difference is, ABS was only mandatory after it was fully developed and actually safe. Same goes for the airbag. This is horseshit, same goes for the AI Rules, EU Cloud initiative, unified power grid and so on.

                • nexusband@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  What kind of ridiculous argument is that? You can pinch your dick in a zipper - are zippers unsafe? You can chocke in a tomato, are tomatoes unsafe? Just because something designed to safe you, can also kill you, doesn’t make it unsafe. You can get seriously injured from a seat belt - if you consider seat belts unsafe, you should probably not leave you home ever again.