3 ms·

>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 politician

>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".
  - makomk 8y ago
    No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. This isn't possible even in theory in the EU. Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out, and they have to defend their proposed laws on the record in the Commons just like the lowliest backbencher. > 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 largest grouping in 2014, the EPP, had a mere 29% of the seats. The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him, and the same is more or less true of UK prime ministers. Also, MEPs aren't elected based on which candidate they support or even which political grouping they're a member of: they're elected based on which local political party they're part of. This all makes the selection process pretty arbitrary in practice, with the main thing influencing it being how exactly the actual political parties have allied themselves into factions this time around.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm-181056300.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm... In practice backbenchers can't get laws past because of MPs like Chope. > Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out Not by me, my MP is a backbench tory who's never been in government. Other people can vote ministers out - which has pros and cons. The U.S., which tends to be accepted as a "democracy", does not have the ability for the general population to boot out "ministers". In 2017, 25 out of the total 118 (21%) ministers in the UK government were in the House of Lords in any case. > The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him And the EU MEPs can only select an EU commission president if a majority of the electors support him. And that's exactly what happened in 2014, when about 56% of MEPs backed him. This is similar to the UK in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017 when the Queen's Speech was passed by MPs of more than one party. In fact in the last 10 years it's only been 2009 and 2016 where the speech was passed by a single party.
isostatic 8y ago
Because when it's easier for you as an individual to change things, it's easier for Rupert Murdoch or Mark Zuckerberg to do it. I assume Swedish MEPs speak Swedish, lobby them. I assume that the Swedish governemnt do to. If the european population does not like a specific rule, then they lobby their MEPs and the Council members. You don't need to lobby Greek MEPs, Greeks do. In the UK I can lobby my own local MP on Westminster matters, I can't lobby an MP in Cornwall though, I don't live there. People with the same views as me in Cornwall lobby their MPs, and those voices are therefore heard in parliament. I don't get to vote for 649 of the 650 MPs in Westminster. The main "democratic deficit" in the EU is mainly as a result of neither the media nor the people taking it seriously. The information is there, but media outlets tend to have more people covering tiddlywinks than what happens in Brussels. This leads to apathy at best from the people, which leads to less coverage. It's an self-fueling antagonistic feedback loop. The UK media loves to paint it as "unelected bureaucrats forcing the UK to do things". They don't paint Westminster as unelected bureaucrats forcing cornwall to do things. The problem there is that only 30% of us bothered to vote in 2014, and of those about 30% voted for people who simply claim the paycheck but refuse to actually do any work. > But it has been protected on a higher level since the 19th century. And the EU is a more democratic way of having these pan-national agreements set, discussed and changed. Some rules must apply at a global level, some can be set at a local level, some fall between - Trade, air travel, MRAs, Environmental issues, movement of goods, services, people and capital. The EU isn't unique in concept, NAFTA, EU, ASEAN, are all regional agreements covering various rules and laws.

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".
- makomk 8y ago
  No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. This isn't possible even in theory in the EU. Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out, and they have to defend their proposed laws on the record in the Commons just like the lowliest backbencher. > 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 largest grouping in 2014, the EPP, had a mere 29% of the seats. The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him, and the same is more or less true of UK prime ministers. Also, MEPs aren't elected based on which candidate they support or even which political grouping they're a member of: they're elected based on which local political party they're part of. This all makes the selection process pretty arbitrary in practice, with the main thing influencing it being how exactly the actual political parties have allied themselves into factions this time around.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm-181056300.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm... In practice backbenchers can't get laws past because of MPs like Chope. > Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out Not by me, my MP is a backbench tory who's never been in government. Other people can vote ministers out - which has pros and cons. The U.S., which tends to be accepted as a "democracy", does not have the ability for the general population to boot out "ministers". In 2017, 25 out of the total 118 (21%) ministers in the UK government were in the House of Lords in any case. > The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him And the EU MEPs can only select an EU commission president if a majority of the electors support him. And that's exactly what happened in 2014, when about 56% of MEPs backed him. This is similar to the UK in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017 when the Queen's Speech was passed by MPs of more than one party. In fact in the last 10 years it's only been 2009 and 2016 where the speech was passed by a single party.

isostatic 8y ago

Because when it's easier for you as an individual to change things, it's easier for Rupert Murdoch or Mark Zuckerberg to do it. I assume Swedish MEPs speak Swedish, lobby them. I assume that the Swedish governemnt do to. If the european population does not like a specific rule, then they lobby their MEPs and the Council members. You don't need to lobby Greek MEPs, Greeks do. In the UK I can lobby my own local MP on Westminster matters, I can't lobby an MP in Cornwall though, I don't live there. People with the same views as me in Cornwall lobby their MPs, and those voices are therefore heard in parliament. I don't get to vote for 649 of the 650 MPs in Westminster. The main "democratic deficit" in the EU is mainly as a result of neither the media nor the people taking it seriously. The information is there, but media outlets tend to have more people covering tiddlywinks than what happens in Brussels. This leads to apathy at best from the people, which leads to less coverage. It's an self-fueling antagonistic feedback loop. The UK media loves to paint it as "unelected bureaucrats forcing the UK to do things". They don't paint Westminster as unelected bureaucrats forcing cornwall to do things. The problem there is that only 30% of us bothered to vote in 2014, and of those about 30% voted for people who simply claim the paycheck but refuse to actually do any work. > But it has been protected on a higher level since the 19th century. And the EU is a more democratic way of having these pan-national agreements set, discussed and changed. Some rules must apply at a global level, some can be set at a local level, some fall between - Trade, air travel, MRAs, Environmental issues, movement of goods, services, people and capital. The EU isn't unique in concept, NAFTA, EU, ASEAN, are all regional agreements covering various rules and laws.