5 ms·

Why should the only country in the world that has freedom of speech give that up to join a club of countries lead by unaccountable bureaucrats that no one has v

Why should the only country in the world that has freedom of speech give that up to join a club of countries lead by unaccountable bureaucrats that no one has voted into power. That's exactly what the EU is. I suppose this will be downvoted, but please take the time and explain where I am factually wrong. Because I can give you many examples why there is no freedom of speech in the EU and why particularly the EU commission is unaccountable.

anu_gupta 10y ago
The US doesn't have true freedom of speech. I can give you many examples of things that you aren't allowed to say in the US.
- cerbasict12 10y ago
  I'd love to checkout the examples.
matt4077 10y ago
Well, I'll take the 'unaccountable bureaucrats'. Any proposal by these bureaucrats has to be approved by (a) the directly-elected European Parliament and (b) the national governments, who are legitimized via their national rules (some are directly elected, some by their parliaments). The bureaucrats themselves are appointed by their national governments, in much the same way that national ministers are usually appointed by that nation's head of government (i. e. the British Prime Minister). They also have to go through confirmation & hearings in the EU Parliament – something that goes beyond the standard in most EU states. The last European elections also saw the rise of the 'Spitzenkadidat' system, meaning voters had a very direct idea of who they're supporting as President of the Commission. Note that the head of government is directly elected in only a handful of European nations, namely France among the larger ones. Judging by your name, you're German, where the head of state is also elected indirectly by Parliament and government ministers are appointed. Exactly as it is in the EU. Same, by the way, for Britain. So – examples?
- DominikR 10y ago
  > The last European elections also saw the rise of the 'Spitzenkadidat' system, meaning voters had a very direct idea of who they're supporting as President of the Commission. Yeah, they had an idea, but there wasn't anything mandatory about that meaning that there's no binding law that makes sure that the vote is relevant for who is appointed to this position. I doubt that a controversial politician like Trump would be appointed voluntarily to this position if his party would have won. (they would have said something along the lines of he's a Nazi or he's like Hitler. End of discussion) In the end Junker was appointed because Merkel and Hollande said so, they usually get their way. > So – examples? 1) Commission members are not appointed but instead nominated in consultation with the Commission President. If the President doesn't like the candidate he is free to give him a weak portfolio. Aside from that this process has too many layers that obfuscate who and how ends up in a certain position. For me this isn't democratic. 2) Recently the Eurogroup simply excluded the Greek finance minister in a meeting to prevent him from voting against their decision during the ongoing Greek financial crisis. Very democratic and accountable. If they don't like how some countries representative might vote they just exclude him. 3) Or how about the Treaty of Lisbon which was rejected by both the French and the Dutch. These governments decided to reinstate the treaty without letting their population vote on it again after some minor changes. Then 2008 the Irish voted against it and the EU simply decided to let them vote again until they had the result they wanted. Edit: As I can't reply in a comment I'll do it here, sorry (apparently Hacker News admins limit my ability to post because they don't like my opinion): > Neither the Dutch nor the French electorate ever voted on the Treaty of Lisbon. This constitution that was voted down by the French and the Dutch was the precursor to the Treaty of Lisbon. They simply renamed the thing and placed most of the provisions from the original constitution into the Treaty. Yes, there was no vote on it for the French/Dutch after the whole renaming. That's why I criticise all these layers of obfuscation that they have created. Simply saying that the French/Dutch should do something about it if they don't like what was shoved down their throats isn't productive. In the end it creates resentment towards the EU as many people understand that the EU institutions will just do whatever they like. > Nor is there for the head of state and head of government position in most European countries. To the other points: Well then don't explain to us how we can democratically elect the President of the Commission as we simply can't. It's only by the good will of some very powerful politicians that Juncker was appointed. This might change the next time if they don't like the result. > As far as I know no official vote was conducted during the meeting in which Varoufakis was excluded nor was this an official meeting as described in the treaties. They excluded him from all future meetings. When asked about the basis of this decision he got this official statement: "The Eurogroup is an informal group. Thus it is not bound by Treaties or written regulations. While unanimity is conventionally adhered to, the Eurogroup President is not bound to explicit rules." http://www.businessinsider.com/yanis-varoufakis-eurogroup-statement-june-27-2015-6?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/yanis-varoufakis-eurogroup-st... Do you understand what this means? There's an informal group that decides on important matters which isn't bound by any treaties or written regulations. So when unanimity is "conventionally adhered to" (lawyer speak for: just if we like to), they can just as well exclude someone that has a different opinion for no reason whatsoever. This is completely ridiculous. > The commission's president needs to agree to each and every filled position. That's how it works in basically every government, by the way. The whole commission needs to be voted in by the European parliament. The MEPs have refused to approve commissions with undesirable members in the past. On the other hand, as a German I have no direct say in my own country's ministers. They can be appointed without asking the parliament at all. Well, to solve this issue the EU could introduce 3 new layers of obfuscation to make sure that definitely no one understands anymore how someone is appointed into a position. Let's also make it informal so no one is bound by any treaties or written law, but the best thing would be that they don't tell anyone.
rmc 10y ago
EU is probably more democratic than the USA.
- DominikR 10y ago
  The EU is dominated by Germany and France. They decided to impose on the people of small Cyprus a haircut when it was in financial trouble, but when France is in financial troubles they simply change the rules. Or Germany got a free pass on the Maastricht treaties provision for GDP debt in the past, but other smaller countries were punished.
  - niftich 10y ago
    But small countries tolerate this because in return they get access to Germany and France's large markets.
    - DominikR 10y ago
      Why even have any treaties then when negative aspects never apply to the larger countries? Don't you see how this is inherently undemocratic if only the weak have to follow laws? That's just as if you decided to implement a new law whereby citizens with more than 1 million Euro on their bank accounts are above all law while the poor will be punished if they do the same thing.
    - rmc 10y ago
      And money. Don't forget all that EU structural funds.
  - sveme 10y ago
    The qualified majority mechanism actually means that the power of the large countries are less than their population numbers imply. Both France and Germany have also capped their numbers of MEPs so that smaller countries have a larger share. That's actually, in contrast to most of the other stuff you posted, undemocratic, but to the benefit of the smaller countries. PS: just to mention a few, as you seem to be German: is the Bundeskanzler directly elected? Is that undemocratic? Are the ministers elected? Is it undemocratic that Bavaria has more influence than Bremen via the Bundesrat? Is it undemocratic that Bremen has many more votes per population in the Bundesrat than Bayern? Is it undemocratic that both California and Alabama have the same number of senators?

anu_gupta 10y ago

The US doesn't have true freedom of speech. I can give you many examples of things that you aren't allowed to say in the US.

cerbasict12 10y ago
I'd love to checkout the examples.

matt4077 10y ago

Well, I'll take the 'unaccountable bureaucrats'. Any proposal by these bureaucrats has to be approved by (a) the directly-elected European Parliament and (b) the national governments, who are legitimized via their national rules (some are directly elected, some by their parliaments). The bureaucrats themselves are appointed by their national governments, in much the same way that national ministers are usually appointed by that nation's head of government (i. e. the British Prime Minister). They also have to go through confirmation & hearings in the EU Parliament – something that goes beyond the standard in most EU states. The last European elections also saw the rise of the 'Spitzenkadidat' system, meaning voters had a very direct idea of who they're supporting as President of the Commission. Note that the head of government is directly elected in only a handful of European nations, namely France among the larger ones. Judging by your name, you're German, where the head of state is also elected indirectly by Parliament and government ministers are appointed. Exactly as it is in the EU. Same, by the way, for Britain. So – examples?

DominikR 10y ago
> The last European elections also saw the rise of the 'Spitzenkadidat' system, meaning voters had a very direct idea of who they're supporting as President of the Commission. Yeah, they had an idea, but there wasn't anything mandatory about that meaning that there's no binding law that makes sure that the vote is relevant for who is appointed to this position. I doubt that a controversial politician like Trump would be appointed voluntarily to this position if his party would have won. (they would have said something along the lines of he's a Nazi or he's like Hitler. End of discussion) In the end Junker was appointed because Merkel and Hollande said so, they usually get their way. > So – examples? 1) Commission members are not appointed but instead nominated in consultation with the Commission President. If the President doesn't like the candidate he is free to give him a weak portfolio. Aside from that this process has too many layers that obfuscate who and how ends up in a certain position. For me this isn't democratic. 2) Recently the Eurogroup simply excluded the Greek finance minister in a meeting to prevent him from voting against their decision during the ongoing Greek financial crisis. Very democratic and accountable. If they don't like how some countries representative might vote they just exclude him. 3) Or how about the Treaty of Lisbon which was rejected by both the French and the Dutch. These governments decided to reinstate the treaty without letting their population vote on it again after some minor changes. Then 2008 the Irish voted against it and the EU simply decided to let them vote again until they had the result they wanted. Edit: As I can't reply in a comment I'll do it here, sorry (apparently Hacker News admins limit my ability to post because they don't like my opinion): > Neither the Dutch nor the French electorate ever voted on the Treaty of Lisbon. This constitution that was voted down by the French and the Dutch was the precursor to the Treaty of Lisbon. They simply renamed the thing and placed most of the provisions from the original constitution into the Treaty. Yes, there was no vote on it for the French/Dutch after the whole renaming. That's why I criticise all these layers of obfuscation that they have created. Simply saying that the French/Dutch should do something about it if they don't like what was shoved down their throats isn't productive. In the end it creates resentment towards the EU as many people understand that the EU institutions will just do whatever they like. > Nor is there for the head of state and head of government position in most European countries. To the other points: Well then don't explain to us how we can democratically elect the President of the Commission as we simply can't. It's only by the good will of some very powerful politicians that Juncker was appointed. This might change the next time if they don't like the result. > As far as I know no official vote was conducted during the meeting in which Varoufakis was excluded nor was this an official meeting as described in the treaties. They excluded him from all future meetings. When asked about the basis of this decision he got this official statement: "The Eurogroup is an informal group. Thus it is not bound by Treaties or written regulations. While unanimity is conventionally adhered to, the Eurogroup President is not bound to explicit rules." http://www.businessinsider.com/yanis-varoufakis-eurogroup-statement-june-27-2015-6?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/yanis-varoufakis-eurogroup-st... Do you understand what this means? There's an informal group that decides on important matters which isn't bound by any treaties or written regulations. So when unanimity is "conventionally adhered to" (lawyer speak for: just if we like to), they can just as well exclude someone that has a different opinion for no reason whatsoever. This is completely ridiculous. > The commission's president needs to agree to each and every filled position. That's how it works in basically every government, by the way. The whole commission needs to be voted in by the European parliament. The MEPs have refused to approve commissions with undesirable members in the past. On the other hand, as a German I have no direct say in my own country's ministers. They can be appointed without asking the parliament at all. Well, to solve this issue the EU could introduce 3 new layers of obfuscation to make sure that definitely no one understands anymore how someone is appointed into a position. Let's also make it informal so no one is bound by any treaties or written law, but the best thing would be that they don't tell anyone.

rmc 10y ago

EU is probably more democratic than the USA.

DominikR 10y ago
The EU is dominated by Germany and France. They decided to impose on the people of small Cyprus a haircut when it was in financial trouble, but when France is in financial troubles they simply change the rules. Or Germany got a free pass on the Maastricht treaties provision for GDP debt in the past, but other smaller countries were punished.
- niftich 10y ago
  But small countries tolerate this because in return they get access to Germany and France's large markets.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Why even have any treaties then when negative aspects never apply to the larger countries? Don't you see how this is inherently undemocratic if only the weak have to follow laws? That's just as if you decided to implement a new law whereby citizens with more than 1 million Euro on their bank accounts are above all law while the poor will be punished if they do the same thing.
  - rmc 10y ago
    And money. Don't forget all that EU structural funds.
- sveme 10y ago
  The qualified majority mechanism actually means that the power of the large countries are less than their population numbers imply. Both France and Germany have also capped their numbers of MEPs so that smaller countries have a larger share. That's actually, in contrast to most of the other stuff you posted, undemocratic, but to the benefit of the smaller countries. PS: just to mention a few, as you seem to be German: is the Bundeskanzler directly elected? Is that undemocratic? Are the ministers elected? Is it undemocratic that Bavaria has more influence than Bremen via the Bundesrat? Is it undemocratic that Bremen has many more votes per population in the Bundesrat than Bayern? Is it undemocratic that both California and Alabama have the same number of senators?