6 ms·

The EU is not democratic at all. Especially because the unelected European Commission has executive and legislative power. The parliament only has veto rights a

by sprash 8y ago

The EU is not democratic at all. Especially because the unelected European Commission has executive and legislative power. The parliament only has veto rights and even at that it spectacularly fails as Art. 17 shows. The whole thing was a backroom deal between Germany (which wants gas from Russia) and France (which apparently really likes ultra restrictive Copyright). We would have the same result without this fake theater of the simulated democracy facade. Time to abolish the EU.

antientropic 8y ago
These are pretty weak arguments to get rid of the EU. In many democracies, the government has the power to propose legislation. And what democracy doesn't have backroom deals?
- sprash 8y ago
  The problem here is that the backroom deal of two countries (Germany and France) now has influence over countries that are totally unrelated like e.g. Finland. This turns the EU into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Germans have a say about how the internet should work in Finland? The EU is also already dying. Brexit will come soon and Italy is on it's way out. What the remnants will be is unclear but the EU as a whole has already failed. The settlement process to unwind it will be lengthy and painful.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    The problem here is that the backroom deal of two states (California and New York) now has influence over states that are totally unrelated like e.g. Wyoming. This turns the US into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Californians have a say about how the internet should work in Wyoming? (The reality of course is that the US has had not only a say, but often the only say in how the internet should work in the rest of the world for decades, and when it comes to copyright law we have an undemocratic international treaty dating back generations that keeps pushing expiry dates back and back globally)
    - sprash 8y ago
      I never said that the US is a great example for a functioning democracy. The best example for democracy is Switzerland. It also has the highest standard of living in the world as a result.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        > It also has the highest standard of living in the world as a result. That's a non sequitur. I believe that these copyright changes will apply in Switzerland too due to international agreements. There are many types of democracy, each have pros and cons.
      - Tomte 8y ago
        Switzerland's high standard of living is almost entirely due to their smartness. They kept out of wars and as a result could incrementally (and exponentially) build wealth instead of rebuilding their country from ruins every few decades.
        sprash 8y ago
        It kept out of wars because it is a direct democracy. People almost never vote in favor of war.
        anoncake 8y ago
        Switzerland kept out of wars because it wasnt invaded. Poland didnt decide to join WW2.
        GenericsMotors 8y ago
        And it only wasn't invaded because the entire country was (and is) a standing army, and Germany would have to pay dearly for every mile they tried to take. IIRC they even shot down german war planes that entered their airspace and suffered no retaliation. So yeah, they do have a knack for maintaining their neutrality.
  - antientropic 8y ago
    That argument also applies to any democracy (or indeed any polity larger than a household): why should the people in my town have a say over the laws in the adjacent town?
  - clagio 8y ago
    Italy is not really on the way out, and the few politicians who supported the idea changed their mind after brexit
    - isostatic 8y ago
      I'm bemused by the idea of France (74) and Germany (96) - totaling 23%, controlling the parliament alone. I haven't looked at who voted, but I suspect that the votes aren't on a country-by-country basis either.
Asooka 8y ago
Abolishing the EU would have the unfortunate consequence of unmitigated Russian influence over all of East Europe. The system needs to change, but abolishing the EU entirely would be a net loss.
- i6tjvo 8y ago
  I don't live in East Europe. Why should I care?
- DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
  > East Europe * Europe > Russian influence * Russian, Chinese, American and whoever else wants a piece of the cake.
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
> Time to abolish the EU. What? Dude, the EU can only do this because the member-states are backing it. European politics is corrupt at least from the national level up. Would you abolish countries next? Because that's what it'd take. I see the problem within society. There's too many people who care only about themselves and who don't mind at all if their neighbors got thrown under the bus by politics, even if they don't even gain anything. It's a problem of mentality.
isostatic 8y ago
European Commissioners are selected by natioanl governments. The president of the commission is voted for by the people (Juncker received the most votes in 2014) Does America vote for the secretary of transportation? In theory under say a westminster system MPs can take control. This is almost unprecedented until last night. Even when they do push non-controversial laws (Private Member bills, like the upskirting one recently), they're usually stopped. So the difference seems to be 1) The president of the EU commission is effectively elected by the people. Same as the prime minister (except for May, Brown, Major and I think Callahagn who were simply appointed on their first attempts. So 3 of the last 7 were elected) 2) The UK prime minister has a selection of about 1400 people to select from when appointing the executive (members of commons and lords). There's no comfirmation from parliament. The US President can appoint anyone, with confirmation from the senate. The EU commission president gets to appoint from candidates pre-selected by the EU heads of government, and those appointments have to be confirmed by the MEPs. 3) The UK parliament can in theory (but rarely in practice) pass laws. The EU parliament can't, however through the committees they seem to have more power to make changes than in the UK. The UK, US and EU are all different, but they are all democracies.
- vsl 8y ago
  > Does America vote for the secretary of transportation? Does the secretary of transportation have the power to create laws? Do you honestly believe that a functioning democracy doesn't require a) separation of power (not present in EU, where legislative and executive power is merged, and the parliament has only the power to (dis)approve) and b) direct accountability to the people of the most impactful, legislative, branch (not present in EU, where legislative branch is appointed by executive)?
  - isostatic 8y ago
    In the UK legislative and executive power is normally merged by the government whips maintaining control, and the parliament has the power to (dis)approve. Parliament can attempt some amendments, but they must be in scope, and again under normal circumstances the amendment won't pass without support of the government. MEPs can also amend bills coming from the commission, so very similar to the UK system. Of course we live in interesting times, with a minority government, a fractured party, and parliament last night made a move that hasn't been done for over 100 years. Even last night all parliament did was gain control over it's own timetable. Still parliament can't effectively pass any laws on it's own -- take the Voyeurism (Offences) #2 bill. An MP had attempted to introduce this, but 1 MP had objected, and thus it couldn't be passed. Instead the government introduced it.

by sprash 8y ago

antientropic 8y ago

These are pretty weak arguments to get rid of the EU. In many democracies, the government has the power to propose legislation. And what democracy doesn't have backroom deals?

sprash 8y ago
The problem here is that the backroom deal of two countries (Germany and France) now has influence over countries that are totally unrelated like e.g. Finland. This turns the EU into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Germans have a say about how the internet should work in Finland? The EU is also already dying. Brexit will come soon and Italy is on it's way out. What the remnants will be is unclear but the EU as a whole has already failed. The settlement process to unwind it will be lengthy and painful.
- isostatic 8y ago
  The problem here is that the backroom deal of two states (California and New York) now has influence over states that are totally unrelated like e.g. Wyoming. This turns the US into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Californians have a say about how the internet should work in Wyoming? (The reality of course is that the US has had not only a say, but often the only say in how the internet should work in the rest of the world for decades, and when it comes to copyright law we have an undemocratic international treaty dating back generations that keeps pushing expiry dates back and back globally)
  - sprash 8y ago
    I never said that the US is a great example for a functioning democracy. The best example for democracy is Switzerland. It also has the highest standard of living in the world as a result.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > It also has the highest standard of living in the world as a result. That's a non sequitur. I believe that these copyright changes will apply in Switzerland too due to international agreements. There are many types of democracy, each have pros and cons.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Switzerland's high standard of living is almost entirely due to their smartness. They kept out of wars and as a result could incrementally (and exponentially) build wealth instead of rebuilding their country from ruins every few decades.
      - sprash 8y ago
        It kept out of wars because it is a direct democracy. People almost never vote in favor of war.
        anoncake 8y ago
        Switzerland kept out of wars because it wasnt invaded. Poland didnt decide to join WW2.
        GenericsMotors 8y ago
        And it only wasn't invaded because the entire country was (and is) a standing army, and Germany would have to pay dearly for every mile they tried to take. IIRC they even shot down german war planes that entered their airspace and suffered no retaliation. So yeah, they do have a knack for maintaining their neutrality.
- antientropic 8y ago
  That argument also applies to any democracy (or indeed any polity larger than a household): why should the people in my town have a say over the laws in the adjacent town?
- clagio 8y ago
  Italy is not really on the way out, and the few politicians who supported the idea changed their mind after brexit
  - isostatic 8y ago
    I'm bemused by the idea of France (74) and Germany (96) - totaling 23%, controlling the parliament alone. I haven't looked at who voted, but I suspect that the votes aren't on a country-by-country basis either.

Asooka 8y ago

Abolishing the EU would have the unfortunate consequence of unmitigated Russian influence over all of East Europe. The system needs to change, but abolishing the EU entirely would be a net loss.

i6tjvo 8y ago
I don't live in East Europe. Why should I care?
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
> East Europe * Europe > Russian influence * Russian, Chinese, American and whoever else wants a piece of the cake.

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago

> Time to abolish the EU. What? Dude, the EU can only do this because the member-states are backing it. European politics is corrupt at least from the national level up. Would you abolish countries next? Because that's what it'd take. I see the problem within society. There's too many people who care only about themselves and who don't mind at all if their neighbors got thrown under the bus by politics, even if they don't even gain anything. It's a problem of mentality.

isostatic 8y ago

European Commissioners are selected by natioanl governments. The president of the commission is voted for by the people (Juncker received the most votes in 2014) Does America vote for the secretary of transportation? In theory under say a westminster system MPs can take control. This is almost unprecedented until last night. Even when they do push non-controversial laws (Private Member bills, like the upskirting one recently), they're usually stopped. So the difference seems to be 1) The president of the EU commission is effectively elected by the people. Same as the prime minister (except for May, Brown, Major and I think Callahagn who were simply appointed on their first attempts. So 3 of the last 7 were elected) 2) The UK prime minister has a selection of about 1400 people to select from when appointing the executive (members of commons and lords). There's no comfirmation from parliament. The US President can appoint anyone, with confirmation from the senate. The EU commission president gets to appoint from candidates pre-selected by the EU heads of government, and those appointments have to be confirmed by the MEPs. 3) The UK parliament can in theory (but rarely in practice) pass laws. The EU parliament can't, however through the committees they seem to have more power to make changes than in the UK. The UK, US and EU are all different, but they are all democracies.

vsl 8y ago
> Does America vote for the secretary of transportation? Does the secretary of transportation have the power to create laws? Do you honestly believe that a functioning democracy doesn't require a) separation of power (not present in EU, where legislative and executive power is merged, and the parliament has only the power to (dis)approve) and b) direct accountability to the people of the most impactful, legislative, branch (not present in EU, where legislative branch is appointed by executive)?
- isostatic 8y ago
  In the UK legislative and executive power is normally merged by the government whips maintaining control, and the parliament has the power to (dis)approve. Parliament can attempt some amendments, but they must be in scope, and again under normal circumstances the amendment won't pass without support of the government. MEPs can also amend bills coming from the commission, so very similar to the UK system. Of course we live in interesting times, with a minority government, a fractured party, and parliament last night made a move that hasn't been done for over 100 years. Even last night all parliament did was gain control over it's own timetable. Still parliament can't effectively pass any laws on it's own -- take the Voyeurism (Offences) #2 bill. An MP had attempted to introduce this, but 1 MP had objected, and thus it couldn't be passed. Instead the government introduced it.