12 ms·

People need to understand the different parts that make the EU administration. The EU commission is not "the EU". It's the parliament that decides if proposals

People need to understand the different parts that make the EU administration. The EU commission is not "the EU". It's the parliament that decides if proposals of the commission become law. The parliament has a history of rejecting stupid proposals (e.g. software patents). But the Github folks are right! Please, tell your MEPs that/why this is a stupid idea - it's important! (I sometimes wonder why the commission proposes stupid things. Uninformed? Corruption, uhm I mean lobbying?)

pjc50 9y ago
I'm sure there's no corruption going on here. http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/28/why-won-t-brussels-release-report-on-eu-wide-corruption http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/28/why-won-t-brussels-releas...
- harel 9y ago
  Stuff like that is one of the reasons we're now in Brexit mode in the UK... I blame both sides for whatever is to come.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    Because there has never been any corruption in UK politics?
    - harel 9y ago
      Did I ever say that? Of course we have corruption in the UK. Like in any country in the wold. What I said, and I said it as a staunch remainer, is that the EU has done nothing on their side to prevent the catastrophe we're facing now. They are to blame as much as people like Mr. Farage. They could have prevented this when Cameron went to them before the referendum to adjust the UK membership deal. All I said is that everyone is to blame for this.
      - Maken 9y ago
        Except they adjusted UK's membership. Then Cameron returned to the UK and won a referendum which he was supposed to lost.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        Cameron actually got almost all of what he asked for in the membership deal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105 As far as I can tell this was irrelevant to the result, and decades of fact-free Euroskepticism in the press won the day. Cameron also learned completely the wrong lessons from the Scottish Indyref.
rwmj 9y ago
The Commission is made up of member states and they often push through unpopular proposals that they'd never get through their home legislatures, a process known as "policy laundering". When an unpopular measure comes from the EU they can say "oh look, bad Brussels / bad EU made us do it", even when it was their own suggestion in the first place. The UK government has a particular history here, which is why it's ironic that we're attempting to leave the EU.
- aembleton 9y ago
  Not really ironic. It is exactly one of the reasons that I want to leave. It's very easy for our government to subvert democracy by having the EU make unpopular legislation. If our government brings in legislation then I want them to be accountable to that, and not have the ability to pass the buck.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    The European Parliament is just as accountable as any other. There’s an election next year. Go vote.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      Vote for what? EU Parliament doesn't make policy. Therefore the parties have no manifestos worth a damn. You can't "vote for the other guys" if you care about copyright because none of them have any real influence over the Commission which is where all the power truly lies.
      - IAmEveryone 9y ago
        Your information is about 12 years out of date. The EU Parliament gets to amend and approve all legislation. If copyright is your main concern, you should look at the Green Party. Julia Reda, linked in this article, is a tireless advocate against copyright overreach.
        9y ago
mtgx 9y ago
The Commission tends to work with the EU Parliament and the EU Council (nation leaders) when drafting laws, too. So I wouldn't ignore this just thinking the EU Parliament will definitely reject it. The EU Parliament will reject it if enough people call their MEPs.
ianbooker 9y ago
Lobbying is not synonymous with corruption. And the EU, due to its origins as most powerful regulatory actor for Europe is heavily lobbied, no question. And the Commission even more, since it has the power of agenda setting. This is not always a bad thing, you need the industry as source of technical knowledge. I would say that most things we perceive as stupid are more or less proposals where the lobbying is unbalanced and one actor has to much influence. In this case the copyright defending industry. It is now up to the European Parliament to scrutinize this...
- calgoo 9y ago
  Maybe not corruption, but i would say that lobbying is legalized bribing. We can discuss if its good or bad, but i do not believe that its healthy for us the people as it pushes leaders to follow corporate policies instead of public policies.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    There is no bribery. No money changes hands. Not even “campaign donations”, which is the US term for bribery. Maybe it’s unfair that industry is better able to organize and make their case. But it’s not corruption, and not bribery. Plenty of consumer-advocacy groups are also active in lobbying. Hell, this article by github is lobbying as well.
    - timrichard 9y ago
      Going back a bit, perhaps like the huge political encouragement to go Diesel, which - by amazing coincidence - suited the sunk research costs of the hard-lobbying French and German car manufacturers? A pretty serious outcome for public health, but at least no money overtly changed hands.
  - untog 9y ago
    Lobbying makes sense, in theory. If Company X would create 10 new factories if tax regulation Y were changed, local politicians should be aware of that. The big increase in jobs would almost definitely be beneficial to their constituents, provided the tax changes are not disproportionately detrimental. I'm not saying that's how 90% of lobbying works in politics today, but the practise does have a place.
acjohnson55 9y ago
Ah, that's interesting. I lived in Europe briefly, pre-Lisbon, and Europarl then was kind of a powerless institution. But reading this comment sent me to check out the Wikipedia page, and I can see that things have changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
- kuschku 9y ago
  Since 2014, where Martin Schulz and Jean-Claude Juncker as leaders od the largest factions in the parliament basically staged a coup, the parliament now also has the power to elect the commission, instead of, as previously, just having veto power over the commission the council chooses. In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker and his party had won parliament elections, and believed they had a reasonable reason to demand control of the committee, as would happen in a parliamentary democracy. The parliament threatened to veto every committee candidate and policy proposal unless the council would nominate the candidate that had "won" the elections. As a result, that happened, Juncker became committee president, and these new rules got later codified. It took a lot of unconventional methods for the parliament and court to get the power they have today from the council, which used to hold it before.
  - acjohnson55 9y ago
    Fascinating! Thanks. That was largely ignored in US media, as far as I know. But then again, the average American knows next to nothing about the EU.
falcolas 9y ago
> Uninformed? Corruption, uhm I mean lobbying? Just a quick note, the intention of lobbying is to help politicians - people with the power but not the knowledge - make informed decisions by getting industry experts to advise them. The problems exist because those industry experts are almost always going to be working in the industry (that's why they're experts). Accordingly, those advisors are always going to want what's best for them, and will be sure to tailor their advice accordingly. And if it's even remotely legal to "enhance" advice with money, of course it will be done.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > Just a quick note, the intention of lobbying is to help politicians [...] make informed decisions by getting industry experts to advise them. I don't think you're referring to lobbying. What you're talking about sounds more like expert panels or independent investigations that produce reports, which are then used to inform politicians. Lobbying is effectively where someone works to convince a politician (or group of politicians) that a particular point of view is in the best interests of their constituents (regardless of the truth of such a claim) -- and the success rate is generally proportional to how much money the lobbyist spends. There is no peer review or qualifications required for lobbying, it just takes money. So even if it's true that the intention of lobbying was to get "industry experts to advise politicians", it would be a horrible way of doing it because industry experts aren't the only people with money.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    >>> The practice of lobbying provides a forum for the resolution of conflicts among often diverse and competing points of view; provides information, analysis, and opinion to legislators and government leaders to allow for informed and balanced decision making; and creates a system of checks and balances that allows for competition among interest groups, keeping any one group from attaining a permanent position of power. Lobbyists can help the legislative process work more effectively by providing lawmakers with reliable data and accurate assessments of a bill's effect. <<< An excerpt from the legal definition of lobbying. My own take is a bit lacking on the "resolution of conflicts" portion, but still in line with the intended outcome - informing politicians on matters they wouldn't otherwise understand. That said, its definitely not as pristine an occupation as we would hope, with all the people involved in it. Another take on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbyists_as_educators_and_advisors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#... It's worth noting that lobbiests can and do also work at levels incapable of affording expert panels or independent investigations, such as the city and state levels.
vsl 9y ago
The parliament has a history of extremely rarely rejecting proposals - the patents one is ancient history. But normally, it’s just not done - tweaked, yes, outright rejected almost never.

pjc50 9y ago

I'm sure there's no corruption going on here. http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/28/why-won-t-brussels-release-report-on-eu-wide-corruption http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/28/why-won-t-brussels-releas...

harel 9y ago
Stuff like that is one of the reasons we're now in Brexit mode in the UK... I blame both sides for whatever is to come.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  Because there has never been any corruption in UK politics?
  - harel 9y ago
    Did I ever say that? Of course we have corruption in the UK. Like in any country in the wold. What I said, and I said it as a staunch remainer, is that the EU has done nothing on their side to prevent the catastrophe we're facing now. They are to blame as much as people like Mr. Farage. They could have prevented this when Cameron went to them before the referendum to adjust the UK membership deal. All I said is that everyone is to blame for this.
    - Maken 9y ago
      Except they adjusted UK's membership. Then Cameron returned to the UK and won a referendum which he was supposed to lost.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Cameron actually got almost all of what he asked for in the membership deal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105 As far as I can tell this was irrelevant to the result, and decades of fact-free Euroskepticism in the press won the day. Cameron also learned completely the wrong lessons from the Scottish Indyref.

rwmj 9y ago

The Commission is made up of member states and they often push through unpopular proposals that they'd never get through their home legislatures, a process known as "policy laundering". When an unpopular measure comes from the EU they can say "oh look, bad Brussels / bad EU made us do it", even when it was their own suggestion in the first place. The UK government has a particular history here, which is why it's ironic that we're attempting to leave the EU.

aembleton 9y ago
Not really ironic. It is exactly one of the reasons that I want to leave. It's very easy for our government to subvert democracy by having the EU make unpopular legislation. If our government brings in legislation then I want them to be accountable to that, and not have the ability to pass the buck.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  The European Parliament is just as accountable as any other. There’s an election next year. Go vote.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    Vote for what? EU Parliament doesn't make policy. Therefore the parties have no manifestos worth a damn. You can't "vote for the other guys" if you care about copyright because none of them have any real influence over the Commission which is where all the power truly lies.
    - IAmEveryone 9y ago
      Your information is about 12 years out of date. The EU Parliament gets to amend and approve all legislation. If copyright is your main concern, you should look at the Green Party. Julia Reda, linked in this article, is a tireless advocate against copyright overreach.
      - 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

The Commission tends to work with the EU Parliament and the EU Council (nation leaders) when drafting laws, too. So I wouldn't ignore this just thinking the EU Parliament will definitely reject it. The EU Parliament will reject it if enough people call their MEPs.

ianbooker 9y ago

Lobbying is not synonymous with corruption. And the EU, due to its origins as most powerful regulatory actor for Europe is heavily lobbied, no question. And the Commission even more, since it has the power of agenda setting. This is not always a bad thing, you need the industry as source of technical knowledge. I would say that most things we perceive as stupid are more or less proposals where the lobbying is unbalanced and one actor has to much influence. In this case the copyright defending industry. It is now up to the European Parliament to scrutinize this...

calgoo 9y ago
Maybe not corruption, but i would say that lobbying is legalized bribing. We can discuss if its good or bad, but i do not believe that its healthy for us the people as it pushes leaders to follow corporate policies instead of public policies.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  There is no bribery. No money changes hands. Not even “campaign donations”, which is the US term for bribery. Maybe it’s unfair that industry is better able to organize and make their case. But it’s not corruption, and not bribery. Plenty of consumer-advocacy groups are also active in lobbying. Hell, this article by github is lobbying as well.
  - timrichard 9y ago
    Going back a bit, perhaps like the huge political encouragement to go Diesel, which - by amazing coincidence - suited the sunk research costs of the hard-lobbying French and German car manufacturers? A pretty serious outcome for public health, but at least no money overtly changed hands.
- untog 9y ago
  Lobbying makes sense, in theory. If Company X would create 10 new factories if tax regulation Y were changed, local politicians should be aware of that. The big increase in jobs would almost definitely be beneficial to their constituents, provided the tax changes are not disproportionately detrimental. I'm not saying that's how 90% of lobbying works in politics today, but the practise does have a place.

acjohnson55 9y ago

Ah, that's interesting. I lived in Europe briefly, pre-Lisbon, and Europarl then was kind of a powerless institution. But reading this comment sent me to check out the Wikipedia page, and I can see that things have changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

kuschku 9y ago
Since 2014, where Martin Schulz and Jean-Claude Juncker as leaders od the largest factions in the parliament basically staged a coup, the parliament now also has the power to elect the commission, instead of, as previously, just having veto power over the commission the council chooses. In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker and his party had won parliament elections, and believed they had a reasonable reason to demand control of the committee, as would happen in a parliamentary democracy. The parliament threatened to veto every committee candidate and policy proposal unless the council would nominate the candidate that had "won" the elections. As a result, that happened, Juncker became committee president, and these new rules got later codified. It took a lot of unconventional methods for the parliament and court to get the power they have today from the council, which used to hold it before.
- acjohnson55 9y ago
  Fascinating! Thanks. That was largely ignored in US media, as far as I know. But then again, the average American knows next to nothing about the EU.

falcolas 9y ago

> Uninformed? Corruption, uhm I mean lobbying? Just a quick note, the intention of lobbying is to help politicians - people with the power but not the knowledge - make informed decisions by getting industry experts to advise them. The problems exist because those industry experts are almost always going to be working in the industry (that's why they're experts). Accordingly, those advisors are always going to want what's best for them, and will be sure to tailor their advice accordingly. And if it's even remotely legal to "enhance" advice with money, of course it will be done.

cyphar 9y ago
> Just a quick note, the intention of lobbying is to help politicians [...] make informed decisions by getting industry experts to advise them. I don't think you're referring to lobbying. What you're talking about sounds more like expert panels or independent investigations that produce reports, which are then used to inform politicians. Lobbying is effectively where someone works to convince a politician (or group of politicians) that a particular point of view is in the best interests of their constituents (regardless of the truth of such a claim) -- and the success rate is generally proportional to how much money the lobbyist spends. There is no peer review or qualifications required for lobbying, it just takes money. So even if it's true that the intention of lobbying was to get "industry experts to advise politicians", it would be a horrible way of doing it because industry experts aren't the only people with money.
- falcolas 9y ago
  >>> The practice of lobbying provides a forum for the resolution of conflicts among often diverse and competing points of view; provides information, analysis, and opinion to legislators and government leaders to allow for informed and balanced decision making; and creates a system of checks and balances that allows for competition among interest groups, keeping any one group from attaining a permanent position of power. Lobbyists can help the legislative process work more effectively by providing lawmakers with reliable data and accurate assessments of a bill's effect. <<< An excerpt from the legal definition of lobbying. My own take is a bit lacking on the "resolution of conflicts" portion, but still in line with the intended outcome - informing politicians on matters they wouldn't otherwise understand. That said, its definitely not as pristine an occupation as we would hope, with all the people involved in it. Another take on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbyists_as_educators_and_advisors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#... It's worth noting that lobbiests can and do also work at levels incapable of affording expert panels or independent investigations, such as the city and state levels.

vsl 9y ago

The parliament has a history of extremely rarely rejecting proposals - the patents one is ancient history. But normally, it’s just not done - tweaked, yes, outright rejected almost never.