5 ms·

I knew this was coming. We all praised the EU when it forces its members to do the right thing. But what happens when it is a law that we don't like? What happe

I knew this was coming. We all praised the EU when it forces its members to do the right thing. But what happens when it is a law that we don't like? What happens when it is a that serves the interests of the elite? I have the strong suspicion that the EU parliament is acutely aware of its situation. That's why they pushed for a lot of pro-consumers laws, as part of the their PR campaign to make them seem as a benevolent force of good. After people have their guard down, they can start with phase two do what politicians do best.

ahartmetz 8y ago
I think the presence of factions, as in every parliament, is a likelier explanation for the contradictory policies.
laumars 8y ago
The EU is a massive body and like any organisation sometimes the stuff they do is good and sometimes it isn't. Trying to assign some deeper hive mentality to it's inconsistencies, like you have, is really just the realm of conspiracy theories.
- andai 8y ago
  "Most legislation needs to be proposed by the European Commission", popularly referred to as the "unelected bureaucrats". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_p... Sounds a bit un-democratic, no?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Proposed is the key word here. You should have a look at how it happens in other legislatures. Sometimes in the American system the initial text-writing is done entirely by lobbyists.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Sometimes in the American system the initial text-writing is done entirely by lobbyists But many times it's not. Any Congressman or Senator can introduce legislature onto the floor of their house. The requirement that proposals originate in the Commission is problematic. The Council, moreover, is analogous to a meeting of State Governors or Attorneys General. The only truly democratic arm of the EU is the Parliament. Its role at the end of the chain is problematic. (Contrast that with the analog in the American system, the House of Representatives, where appropriations bills are required to originate.)
      - laumars 8y ago
        It's not ideal - I'll agree with you on that. But pragmatically I think it's really more of an illogical debate than one that makes any practical difference. Elected officials are still all too easily swayed by lobbyists and we see all too often that elected governments can get away with pushing unpopular legislation (UK Snoopers Charter, for example) if they want to. The problem with democracy is people vote once every few years and see that as their voice being heard. In the meantime governments are free to do whatever they want just so long as they can win back public support in the weeks leading up to the next election.
        Silhouette 8y ago
        You keep claiming the Snooper's Charter was unpopular and went through anyway, but sadly you are wrong: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/18/more-surveillance-please-were-british/ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/18/more-surveillance-pleas... Overall, the UK population has consistently supported stronger surveillance powers for a long time and by a clear margin. For better or worse, we tend to trust our authorities here. And to be fair, most of the time, our authorities do seem to use their powers responsibly, so to some extent that trust has been earned. One problem with this is that whenever surveillance issues have been discussed in the media and these polls have been carried out, they invariably talk about giving powers to the most serious policing and national security organisations using the powers to defend against the most serious of crimes and security problems. However, the reality is often that the laws allow for much more than that, with many more people getting powers and access to surveillance data, with much less control and oversight than the public might expect, to deal with minor issues where intrusive surveillance is wildly disproportionate, but most people who aren't heavily into tech or civil liberties don't realise any of this at all.
  - laumars 8y ago
    Proposals are all too frequently written by unelected bureaucrats in any democracy. I don't like it much but at least elected officials do get the final say before it becomes enshrined into law. This is as true for the EU as it is for the UK and American law makings too. Not that I see that as a huge benefit because elected bureaucrats are often even less aware of the subject their making policy on than their unelected peers. Plus while I'm obviously not going to defend the EU's copyright reform proposal (hopefully it will be rejected in July) the other governments I've listed haven't got a much better track record for copyright reform themselves.

ahartmetz 8y ago

I think the presence of factions, as in every parliament, is a likelier explanation for the contradictory policies.

laumars 8y ago

The EU is a massive body and like any organisation sometimes the stuff they do is good and sometimes it isn't. Trying to assign some deeper hive mentality to it's inconsistencies, like you have, is really just the realm of conspiracy theories.

andai 8y ago
"Most legislation needs to be proposed by the European Commission", popularly referred to as the "unelected bureaucrats". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_p... Sounds a bit un-democratic, no?
- pjc50 8y ago
  Proposed is the key word here. You should have a look at how it happens in other legislatures. Sometimes in the American system the initial text-writing is done entirely by lobbyists.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Sometimes in the American system the initial text-writing is done entirely by lobbyists But many times it's not. Any Congressman or Senator can introduce legislature onto the floor of their house. The requirement that proposals originate in the Commission is problematic. The Council, moreover, is analogous to a meeting of State Governors or Attorneys General. The only truly democratic arm of the EU is the Parliament. Its role at the end of the chain is problematic. (Contrast that with the analog in the American system, the House of Representatives, where appropriations bills are required to originate.)
    - laumars 8y ago
      It's not ideal - I'll agree with you on that. But pragmatically I think it's really more of an illogical debate than one that makes any practical difference. Elected officials are still all too easily swayed by lobbyists and we see all too often that elected governments can get away with pushing unpopular legislation (UK Snoopers Charter, for example) if they want to. The problem with democracy is people vote once every few years and see that as their voice being heard. In the meantime governments are free to do whatever they want just so long as they can win back public support in the weeks leading up to the next election.
      - Silhouette 8y ago
        You keep claiming the Snooper's Charter was unpopular and went through anyway, but sadly you are wrong: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/18/more-surveillance-please-were-british/ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/18/more-surveillance-pleas... Overall, the UK population has consistently supported stronger surveillance powers for a long time and by a clear margin. For better or worse, we tend to trust our authorities here. And to be fair, most of the time, our authorities do seem to use their powers responsibly, so to some extent that trust has been earned. One problem with this is that whenever surveillance issues have been discussed in the media and these polls have been carried out, they invariably talk about giving powers to the most serious policing and national security organisations using the powers to defend against the most serious of crimes and security problems. However, the reality is often that the laws allow for much more than that, with many more people getting powers and access to surveillance data, with much less control and oversight than the public might expect, to deal with minor issues where intrusive surveillance is wildly disproportionate, but most people who aren't heavily into tech or civil liberties don't realise any of this at all.
- laumars 8y ago
  Proposals are all too frequently written by unelected bureaucrats in any democracy. I don't like it much but at least elected officials do get the final say before it becomes enshrined into law. This is as true for the EU as it is for the UK and American law makings too. Not that I see that as a huge benefit because elected bureaucrats are often even less aware of the subject their making policy on than their unelected peers. Plus while I'm obviously not going to defend the EU's copyright reform proposal (hopefully it will be rejected in July) the other governments I've listed haven't got a much better track record for copyright reform themselves.