5 ms·

Just wondering, what exactly makes you think the laws shoved to your throat by Sweden would on average be any less idiotic? And why would just Sweden be the rig

Just wondering, what exactly makes you think the laws shoved to your throat by Sweden would on average be any less idiotic? And why would just Sweden be the right size of entity that optimizes the idiocy of the laws, why independent Skåne would not be shoving less idiotic laws to your throat?

lawn 8y ago
I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. The problem will always be there of course. I'm not saying Sweden is the optimal size, I just find it better than the EU alternative. If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > I'm under the illusion I think that's brexit all over, illusion rather than substance. > it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. Yes, and that's bad. A big benefit of the EU is it's harder to manipulate -- there's a lot more people to control -- at least 16 independent heads of governments and nearly 400 MEPs. Far easier to lean on a single struggling PM and promise your endorsement in return for dinner. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch... And the EU's power is limited, by national vetos, and national laws, and the fundamental material scope of eu law. How broad or narrow that scope is of course something to be debated, but the limits are there. Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have an open market. Imagine a world where a movie made in LA wasn't protected by copyright in New York, let alone Toronto, Paris, or Singapore. The EU is far more democratic than say the ISDS treaties, WTO and the web of complex interlocking treaties between countries. > If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer. Decisions should be taken at as low a level as makes sense. Defense can't be done at a city level, or even a national level for most countries, so these decisions make sense to move to larger areas. How far we're willing to move is an ever changing view, but the principal stands.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    >Yes, and that's bad. How is that bad? It's possible to change the law afterwards. With the EU it's basically impossible. Swedes would have to lobby politicians from a foreign country that they can't vote for nor can they speak the same language. That's terrible. >Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have an open market. Imagine a world where a movie made in LA wasn't protected by copyright in New York, let alone Toronto, Paris, or Singapore. But it has been protected on a higher level since the 19th century. Almost every country in the world is a signatory to the Berne convention.
    - makomk 8y ago
      To drive home just how bad this is in the EU, a few days ago the European Commission posted this astounding blog post on Article 13: http://archive.is/snRgE http://archive.is/snRgE They pretend that they're helping ordinary citizens fight back against the big internet platforms by creating this law that only big platforms stand a chance of complying with. That they're helping tip the balance in favour of creators by forcing platforms to kill their livelihoods through false positives and outright extortion attempts. That anyone who sees this as it actually is has been brainwashed by the evil, foreign Californian big tech. They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws - and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests. They're appointed through a process so indirect that any vestige of democracy is practically homeopathic, and they're not even meant to represent us in the first place.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        > They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws Same as the UK. While in theory backbenchers can propose new laws, in reality Christopher Chope exists. > and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent. The rest of the commissioners are appointed in the exact same way that the U.S. executive is appointed - on the whim of the President. The difference is that the U.S. president gets to choose from an unlimited pool, but the EU president has to choose from a pool appointed by national PMs. MEPs can block those appointments, just like the U.S. senate can block appointments. Parliament can also kick out the commission, that's no more or less democratic than the UK system where MPs can kick out the government. If we don't like the commission, then we as ordinary citizens, need to vote for someone other than the EPP, or persuade our MEPs to censure them. Even Nigel Farage said "One of the few things the European Parliament can do is to hold the European Commission to account for its actions".
- mstade 8y ago
  That's interesting, I've found it much easier to get in touch with MEP representatives than it is to get in touch with national politicians, and MEPs have been much more responsive as well. Have you tried contacting any MPs, and/or MEPs, and what was your experience?
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    Okay, but let's say you convince all the MEPs in your small country. Now what? Are you going to start sending letters to MEPs from foreign countries? Why would they care about what you have to say?
    - mstade 8y ago
      They probably wouldn't, I'm not part of their constituency. But that's just how representative democracies work, MPs (or in the EU case MEPs) argue and vote on behalf of their constituency. I can of course try to sway MEPs of other countries, but they're far more likely to listen to "my" MEPs as it were – it's part of their job after all.
- beefield 8y ago
  > I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". Count me unconvinced by your arguments. (Personally, I think that instead of discussing what is the right geographical scope of independent country, we should discuss which are issues that need to be decided on city level, which on state level, which on country level, which on EU-like entity level and which are issues that would actually need global democratic process to back them up. But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead")
  - lawn 8y ago
    > Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. With that line of thinking democracy is a failed concept and we should just abolish voting anyway. Because then dumbfucks don't get any influence. > I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". No, I said it's because it's easier to influence Swedish politicians to which you cite religious dumbfucks as a counter-argument. Even if I convince all Swedish politicians that won't do. Now I need to convince many politicians of other countries, many who don't speak my language and none who care about my vote. > But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead" Yes that would be a nice discussion to have. None of this should be decided by the European Commission because we as ordinary citizens are powerless to replace or influence them in any way.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      So, you cannot vote for your MEP? As far as I know they're chosen from current parties by proportional representation. With a few exceptions. (Country dependent.) You (as Swedes, for instance) voted for those people. They are local national level politicians in an international setting, no different from any minister except for the stakes and reach. That other countries can exert some influence on yours? That is a fact of life and nothing will change it. Everything is an agreement, including EU, with relatively specific scope, agreed to because it is beneficial (or politically convenient) even if limiting at times. They're about as easy to influence as any minister, but more numerous and more diverse most of the time. Essentially just think you're writing to a minister of european affairs in your country. Minister of foreign affairs. It is a better model than everyone keeping laws dictated by the US, Russia, Germany or France, or WIPO, Google or MPAA lobbyists, which it was before. (National standards get copied or are intentionally very similar.) You get to vote at least on the common choice, instead of the strongest one winning.
Mirioron 8y ago
Because when Swedish politicians push for stupid laws they can be revoked while campaigning for it. The politicians will care, because the politicians are the ones who risk not getting elected if they ignore the issue. If the EU decides on a directive that people don't like, then the only way to get it revoked would be for Swedish people to start campaigning foreign politicians, who they cannot vote for.
- makomk 8y ago
  It's even worse than that, because laws like this are created and pushed for by the European Commission which isn't elected and doesn't really represent the countries or the people of the EU.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    How do members of the EC come into power?
    - makomk 8y ago
      The actual mechanics are complicated, a mess, and (in the case of the current President of the European Commission) made up out of whole cloth with no legal basis and used exactly once so far, but a rough summary is: through shady backroom deals we have no visibility into.
      - Pharmakon 8y ago
        I assume these deals are ultimately made by elected heads of state though? Not that it makes this a good system of course, it’s clearly a mixed bag at best, but if the EC is ultimately appointed by individual elected governments rather than by EU fiat then the problem is thornier than just unelected representatives. Then again it’s understandable that voters probably don’t place EC appointments as a major factor in their domestic elections. It sounds like a system ripe for cronyism and abuse, opacity, and in need of reform.

lawn 8y ago

I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. The problem will always be there of course. I'm not saying Sweden is the optimal size, I just find it better than the EU alternative. If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer.

isostatic 8y ago
> I'm under the illusion I think that's brexit all over, illusion rather than substance. > it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. Yes, and that's bad. A big benefit of the EU is it's harder to manipulate -- there's a lot more people to control -- at least 16 independent heads of governments and nearly 400 MEPs. Far easier to lean on a single struggling PM and promise your endorsement in return for dinner. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch... And the EU's power is limited, by national vetos, and national laws, and the fundamental material scope of eu law. How broad or narrow that scope is of course something to be debated, but the limits are there. Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have an open market. Imagine a world where a movie made in LA wasn't protected by copyright in New York, let alone Toronto, Paris, or Singapore. The EU is far more democratic than say the ISDS treaties, WTO and the web of complex interlocking treaties between countries. > If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer. Decisions should be taken at as low a level as makes sense. Defense can't be done at a city level, or even a national level for most countries, so these decisions make sense to move to larger areas. How far we're willing to move is an ever changing view, but the principal stands.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >Yes, and that's bad. How is that bad? It's possible to change the law afterwards. With the EU it's basically impossible. Swedes would have to lobby politicians from a foreign country that they can't vote for nor can they speak the same language. That's terrible. >Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have an open market. Imagine a world where a movie made in LA wasn't protected by copyright in New York, let alone Toronto, Paris, or Singapore. But it has been protected on a higher level since the 19th century. Almost every country in the world is a signatory to the Berne convention.
  - makomk 8y ago
    To drive home just how bad this is in the EU, a few days ago the European Commission posted this astounding blog post on Article 13: http://archive.is/snRgE http://archive.is/snRgE They pretend that they're helping ordinary citizens fight back against the big internet platforms by creating this law that only big platforms stand a chance of complying with. That they're helping tip the balance in favour of creators by forcing platforms to kill their livelihoods through false positives and outright extortion attempts. That anyone who sees this as it actually is has been brainwashed by the evil, foreign Californian big tech. They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws - and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests. They're appointed through a process so indirect that any vestige of democracy is practically homeopathic, and they're not even meant to represent us in the first place.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws Same as the UK. While in theory backbenchers can propose new laws, in reality Christopher Chope exists. > and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent. The rest of the commissioners are appointed in the exact same way that the U.S. executive is appointed - on the whim of the President. The difference is that the U.S. president gets to choose from an unlimited pool, but the EU president has to choose from a pool appointed by national PMs. MEPs can block those appointments, just like the U.S. senate can block appointments. Parliament can also kick out the commission, that's no more or less democratic than the UK system where MPs can kick out the government. If we don't like the commission, then we as ordinary citizens, need to vote for someone other than the EPP, or persuade our MEPs to censure them. Even Nigel Farage said "One of the few things the European Parliament can do is to hold the European Commission to account for its actions".
mstade 8y ago
That's interesting, I've found it much easier to get in touch with MEP representatives than it is to get in touch with national politicians, and MEPs have been much more responsive as well. Have you tried contacting any MPs, and/or MEPs, and what was your experience?
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Okay, but let's say you convince all the MEPs in your small country. Now what? Are you going to start sending letters to MEPs from foreign countries? Why would they care about what you have to say?
  - mstade 8y ago
    They probably wouldn't, I'm not part of their constituency. But that's just how representative democracies work, MPs (or in the EU case MEPs) argue and vote on behalf of their constituency. I can of course try to sway MEPs of other countries, but they're far more likely to listen to "my" MEPs as it were – it's part of their job after all.
beefield 8y ago
> I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". Count me unconvinced by your arguments. (Personally, I think that instead of discussing what is the right geographical scope of independent country, we should discuss which are issues that need to be decided on city level, which on state level, which on country level, which on EU-like entity level and which are issues that would actually need global democratic process to back them up. But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead")
- lawn 8y ago
  > Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. With that line of thinking democracy is a failed concept and we should just abolish voting anyway. Because then dumbfucks don't get any influence. > I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". No, I said it's because it's easier to influence Swedish politicians to which you cite religious dumbfucks as a counter-argument. Even if I convince all Swedish politicians that won't do. Now I need to convince many politicians of other countries, many who don't speak my language and none who care about my vote. > But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead" Yes that would be a nice discussion to have. None of this should be decided by the European Commission because we as ordinary citizens are powerless to replace or influence them in any way.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    So, you cannot vote for your MEP? As far as I know they're chosen from current parties by proportional representation. With a few exceptions. (Country dependent.) You (as Swedes, for instance) voted for those people. They are local national level politicians in an international setting, no different from any minister except for the stakes and reach. That other countries can exert some influence on yours? That is a fact of life and nothing will change it. Everything is an agreement, including EU, with relatively specific scope, agreed to because it is beneficial (or politically convenient) even if limiting at times. They're about as easy to influence as any minister, but more numerous and more diverse most of the time. Essentially just think you're writing to a minister of european affairs in your country. Minister of foreign affairs. It is a better model than everyone keeping laws dictated by the US, Russia, Germany or France, or WIPO, Google or MPAA lobbyists, which it was before. (National standards get copied or are intentionally very similar.) You get to vote at least on the common choice, instead of the strongest one winning.

Mirioron 8y ago

Because when Swedish politicians push for stupid laws they can be revoked while campaigning for it. The politicians will care, because the politicians are the ones who risk not getting elected if they ignore the issue. If the EU decides on a directive that people don't like, then the only way to get it revoked would be for Swedish people to start campaigning foreign politicians, who they cannot vote for.

makomk 8y ago
It's even worse than that, because laws like this are created and pushed for by the European Commission which isn't elected and doesn't really represent the countries or the people of the EU.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  How do members of the EC come into power?
  - makomk 8y ago
    The actual mechanics are complicated, a mess, and (in the case of the current President of the European Commission) made up out of whole cloth with no legal basis and used exactly once so far, but a rough summary is: through shady backroom deals we have no visibility into.
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      I assume these deals are ultimately made by elected heads of state though? Not that it makes this a good system of course, it’s clearly a mixed bag at best, but if the EC is ultimately appointed by individual elected governments rather than by EU fiat then the problem is thornier than just unelected representatives. Then again it’s understandable that voters probably don’t place EC appointments as a major factor in their domestic elections. It sounds like a system ripe for cronyism and abuse, opacity, and in need of reform.