Shard

I'm not so compassionate toward criminals.

For prisoners, I think for the period that losing the right the vote is part of the punishment, and avoids the horrific situation of politicians having to consider the views of those who have transgressed society's rules.

For convicted foreign terrorists, I am happy that they meet whatever fate awaits them if they are dissatisfied with their host country.

Almost Canadian

So, for example, should those that have received a driving ban lose the right to vote for the duration of their ban?

Even if that includes torture or capital punishment in their home country?

How can you be sure their conviction was safe?

orly

So you believe what I wrote was inaccurate? Please point out where.

The institutions and set up as currently defined are inherently "bad". Bad as in just stupidly bad. You can see this through the comical bureaucracy, the idea of opt-outs which are indicative of wider problems, inefficiencies like having a Eurozone but not for all EU countries (and even some non-EU countries), national parliaments making decisions which are then over ruled by the EU, or the fact that a lot of the big ticket treaties need ratification from each member state.

This ratification process is a "good idea" at a theoretical level but almost impossible to operate because when you have dozens of voices you rarely have unanimity. When the French and Dutch said "thanks but no" to the EU constitution it took years to re-negotiate and come up with a new proposal which itself took a few goes to get through. Of course the "EU" knows itself the solution to this sort of problem - dissolve the nation states. But I'm pretty sure you understand why that's a terrible idea. At least I hope you know.

To be clear, the idea of an "EEC" or even some form of "EU" is a useful one. Finding common ground and building common standards is reasonable and beneficial - within a conservative scope. The current implementation is a complete dogs dinner because it is not about mutual cooperation but about creating a superstate.

To suggest Canada is "the same sort of thing" is simplistic. You know better.

Oink

The world is not a very safe place so one should apply the principles of utilitarianism when trying to keep your own citizens safe. If that means deporting people or suspending the British part of their dual nationality, so be it.

Gozit

Yes, even better if it does. If someone goes and suicide bombs a building, killing dozens, they deserve to go back to their home country and face whatever harsh(er) punishment awaits them.

Almost Canadian

The EU institutions only have jurisdiction over areas granted to them by their member States. If they don't have jurisdiction, what they say doesn't matter. The same principle applies in Canada.

The Eurozone is a matter for those that wished to join it. The same applies to opt-outs. They are there because States argued for them and they were granted.

If national parliaments make decisions regarding an area over which the EU is supreme, of course they should expect to be overruled. Again, these are areas over which States agreed the EU should have jurisdiction. Don't forget, legislation from the EU is determined by the member States. As I am sure you appreciate, any such legislation is scrutinised by the appropriate representatives of all of the member States, debated and, if approved, becomes legislation. Just as it does in the UK or Canadian Parliaments. How is this inherently "bad"?

Are you suggesting that ratification of each member State should not be required?

Again, qualified majority voting could deal with that particular issue and, again, unanimity is required over areas that the member States have determined it is required.

In Canada, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over some areas; the Provincial Governments have jurisdiction over others. In the EU, member States have jurisdiction over some areas; the EU has jurisdiction over others. IMHO, it is the same thing. Why do you believe otherwise?
I am still waiting for these "bad" laws

Almost Canadian

Like preventing terrorist acts by wading through data that may help prevent them?

Almost Canadian

Even if they are dead?

orly

It's a bit half-assed isn't it?

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. At a purely philosophical level I have no real problem with an idea of an EU. As I stated previously there are times where it is beneficial.

If there was only the EU and the national parliaments were removed it would be quite like other "countries". You could call it a federation. But it isn't like that. The problem is it probably (almost certainly) wouldn't work. It would be like having a national government with dozens of parties in coalition. It wouldn't last. In addition, referring specifically to the UK, the people were never asked if they wished to be part of the EU. If Harper decided tomorrow to take us into some Greater United North America but didn't put it to a direct vote you could imagine what would happen. He'd probably be strung up.

I'm suggesting the "EU" itself would prefer this be the case. If you agree with that then it is your choice. Again, at the theoretical level it's actually the best way to do it - if it's your desire to have an actual "union" rather than the messy inconsistent union that currently exists. Many people in Europe would probably be fine with a full union. I don't expect anything more than a tiny minority in the UK would. Given the wind is blowing that direction (slowly) it's probably best to bow out.

Because they aren't the same thing. Canada is a federation. The EU is not. It's pretty fundamental. Saying they're the "same thing" suggests a gap in your knowledge.

Martin the cdn expat

That's because the number of North Koreans who make it to the South every year is about 100.

The number of illegal immigrants to Europe would be well over 100,000.

Martin the cdn expat

Not exactly.
The EU can impose new regulations any time it wants, and the member states have to abide by it, even disregarding their own national legislation.

It is a question of the EU being very picky about what powers it wants to harmonize / control, and which can wait.

Gozit

Ahh shite i messed up there didn't I. I amend my statement, if a terrorist goes and plants a grenade somewhere and lives and is convicted ...

Tirytory

Does making a decision to send someone to a certain death make you a better person than them or worse?

Personally I think it's debatable.... I mean a generalised you, not you personally!

Shard

As with everything, it depends on context. If that certain death will prevent further deaths, and those preventable deaths are not random but due to vengeance in the convicted, then almost certainly it is the right thing to do. Or to use your terminology, it makes you a better person than the other.

Tirytory

Coming back to this I get that you're 15, I think you're views are simplistic of how "easy" it might be are because you are young, and I suspect empathy is something gained with age which seems lacking. I often think that if I don't have enough knowledge of a subject that it's best not to contemplate too strong a view.