7 ms·

Here's MEP Dobromir Sośnierz showing how the two different kind of votes look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Here's MEP Dobromir Sośnierz showing how the two different kind of votes look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4 It seemed incredible to me how one could "accidentally vote wrong", but seeing the process and speed at which it goes, I totally buy it now.

seba_dos1 8y ago
Keep in mind that this video comes from a very biased source (an unimportant party that literally went to elections with a claim to want to "destroy the EU from inside"). The issue may be real, but beware of how exactly it's being painted in this material.
- lisper 8y ago
  If this issue is real (and it seems plausible to me) then destroying the EU from the inside might very well be an honorable thing to do.
  - trickstra 8y ago
    It most certainly isn't plausible. Have you ever seen any livestreams or full recordings of parliamentary sessions? Not necessary from EP. They are voting whether to have 10 minute break. They are voting whether to accept the daily schedule. They are voting whether to follow with the next point in the schedule. They are voting whether to start voting. Those are the ones voted by raising your hands. Those are the ones that nobody expects any protests so the people don't even raise their eyes. Copyright act was voted by names, otherwise Julia Reda wouldn't have the lists
    - lisper 8y ago
      > Copyright act was voted by names And yet there are ten EU parliament members on the record saying that they voted in favor of the copyright act "by accident": https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright-directive-accidental-vote-meps-amendment https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright... So there's clearly something wrong with the procedures.
      - jeremyjh 8y ago
        Sounds like a great way to have your cake and eat it too.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        In Westminster the voting system means you have to leave the chamber and go through into another room. Takes about 15 minutes. You get MPs that vote both yes and no. People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it - they’ve probably never had anyone contact them about which way they voted in the past.
        IanCal 8y ago
        I'm not sure how a different chamber votes is all that relevant. > You get MPs that vote both yes and no. Do you? I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago. > People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it Or because they actually did make a mistake.
        jdietrich 8y ago
        >Do you? Occasionally, yes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602 >I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago. We've had some serious issues recently with pairing. MPs cannot vote in absentia for any reason. The informal process of pairing allows an ill or otherwise unavoidably absent MP to be paired with an opposition MP, who will agree not to vote and so cancel out the absent MP. Brexit has led to a number of broken pairing agreements, which could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of a close vote. https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-the-house-of-commons-100278 https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-th... A broader issue is simply the slow pace of voting; a division can take at least 15 minutes, so the vast majority of votes are taken orally in the house without a formal count. There are long-standing concerns about the ability of back-bench MPs to vote with their conscience; MPs physically have to walk past their party whips to enter the lobby, which some argue contributes to a culture of bullying and intimidation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-government-whipping-operation-abound-in-westminster https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-...
    - repolfx 8y ago
      The next video in the series casts serious doubt on that claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w I will summarise the claims in the videos. • Many votes on amendments (not bathroom breaks) are done via quick visual inspection of the room, not electronic vote. It's possible to challenge the outcome and request an electronic vote instead: the video shows many examples of instances where this led to the vote result being inverted i.e. the visual inspection was wrong. In one case the chairman challenges the request for an electronic recount after an amendment was rejected by saying "Usually amendments from Mr Schaffhauser don't find the majority" followed by "good thing we checked ... amendment 247 has been accepted". • A convention has evolved whereby the chairman doing the visual inspection doesn't even look at the room, and only looks at the leaders of the main parties. The EP frequently assumes everyone will vote with their party leader so there's no point in even checking their actual votes at all. The video contains a clip of the chairman who counts the votes explaining to this MEP that he can clearly see the party leaders so what's the problem. • In some cases the chairman doesn't even look up from their papers before announcing the results, i.e. votes aren't counted at all. • Because amendment votes aren't actually being counted, they happen so fast translators can't reliably keep up with the process, such that sometimes by the time the translators have said what the vote is about voting has already closed. • This happens because the EU Parliament has no real power and the amendments are largely useless, so nobody takes the process seriously. Many people don't bother to raise their hands at all. There are nonetheless lots of votes and MEPs because it inflates the stats and makes the EU look more democratic. A clip is shown of an MEP saying "bear in mind we're in the middle of the world cup so shall we not call for a check". • Sessions are videoed but the cameras don't show the whole room so you can't actually check how many people voted. • There is a widespread attitude that none of this matters. I'm not very surprised by all this myself, because the biggest problem is not even mentioned in the video: the votes are shoddily done because they can't by themselves change the law. They can only do what the Commission lets them do. It's not a real parliament, it just calls itself that. Seems there's another video in native English that shows other (British) MEPs getting angry about the same problems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozR_eM_1U8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozR_eM_1U8
      - walterbell 8y ago
herbstein 8y ago
The clips he shows of the chairman looks a lot like "formal" votes. We have them here in Denmark too. It often goes something like this: > Bill x can be fast-tracked. Does anyone oppose? <half a second break> It has been fast-tracked. It's done like that because no one is going to oppose.
trickstra 8y ago
the lack of context in the video suggests strong populism. I don't believe this is how the copyright act was voted (I'm actually pretty sure that one was voted by names, not by hands, because we have the voting results on the european website)
- trickstra 8y ago
  I managed to find the actual video of how the Copyright Act was voted: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&vodLanguage=EN&startTime=20190326-12:48:04-384# http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&... I see absolutely no reason to excuse those who failed to vote correctly in this setting.

seba_dos1 8y ago

Keep in mind that this video comes from a very biased source (an unimportant party that literally went to elections with a claim to want to "destroy the EU from inside"). The issue may be real, but beware of how exactly it's being painted in this material.

lisper 8y ago
If this issue is real (and it seems plausible to me) then destroying the EU from the inside might very well be an honorable thing to do.
- trickstra 8y ago
  It most certainly isn't plausible. Have you ever seen any livestreams or full recordings of parliamentary sessions? Not necessary from EP. They are voting whether to have 10 minute break. They are voting whether to accept the daily schedule. They are voting whether to follow with the next point in the schedule. They are voting whether to start voting. Those are the ones voted by raising your hands. Those are the ones that nobody expects any protests so the people don't even raise their eyes. Copyright act was voted by names, otherwise Julia Reda wouldn't have the lists
  - lisper 8y ago
    > Copyright act was voted by names And yet there are ten EU parliament members on the record saying that they voted in favor of the copyright act "by accident": https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright-directive-accidental-vote-meps-amendment https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright... So there's clearly something wrong with the procedures.
    - jeremyjh 8y ago
      Sounds like a great way to have your cake and eat it too.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      In Westminster the voting system means you have to leave the chamber and go through into another room. Takes about 15 minutes. You get MPs that vote both yes and no. People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it - they’ve probably never had anyone contact them about which way they voted in the past.
      - IanCal 8y ago
        I'm not sure how a different chamber votes is all that relevant. > You get MPs that vote both yes and no. Do you? I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago. > People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it Or because they actually did make a mistake.
        jdietrich 8y ago
        >Do you? Occasionally, yes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602 >I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago. We've had some serious issues recently with pairing. MPs cannot vote in absentia for any reason. The informal process of pairing allows an ill or otherwise unavoidably absent MP to be paired with an opposition MP, who will agree not to vote and so cancel out the absent MP. Brexit has led to a number of broken pairing agreements, which could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of a close vote. https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-the-house-of-commons-100278 https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-th... A broader issue is simply the slow pace of voting; a division can take at least 15 minutes, so the vast majority of votes are taken orally in the house without a formal count. There are long-standing concerns about the ability of back-bench MPs to vote with their conscience; MPs physically have to walk past their party whips to enter the lobby, which some argue contributes to a culture of bullying and intimidation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-government-whipping-operation-abound-in-westminster https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-...
  - repolfx 8y ago
    The next video in the series casts serious doubt on that claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w I will summarise the claims in the videos. • Many votes on amendments (not bathroom breaks) are done via quick visual inspection of the room, not electronic vote. It's possible to challenge the outcome and request an electronic vote instead: the video shows many examples of instances where this led to the vote result being inverted i.e. the visual inspection was wrong. In one case the chairman challenges the request for an electronic recount after an amendment was rejected by saying "Usually amendments from Mr Schaffhauser don't find the majority" followed by "good thing we checked ... amendment 247 has been accepted". • A convention has evolved whereby the chairman doing the visual inspection doesn't even look at the room, and only looks at the leaders of the main parties. The EP frequently assumes everyone will vote with their party leader so there's no point in even checking their actual votes at all. The video contains a clip of the chairman who counts the votes explaining to this MEP that he can clearly see the party leaders so what's the problem. • In some cases the chairman doesn't even look up from their papers before announcing the results, i.e. votes aren't counted at all. • Because amendment votes aren't actually being counted, they happen so fast translators can't reliably keep up with the process, such that sometimes by the time the translators have said what the vote is about voting has already closed. • This happens because the EU Parliament has no real power and the amendments are largely useless, so nobody takes the process seriously. Many people don't bother to raise their hands at all. There are nonetheless lots of votes and MEPs because it inflates the stats and makes the EU look more democratic. A clip is shown of an MEP saying "bear in mind we're in the middle of the world cup so shall we not call for a check". • Sessions are videoed but the cameras don't show the whole room so you can't actually check how many people voted. • There is a widespread attitude that none of this matters. I'm not very surprised by all this myself, because the biggest problem is not even mentioned in the video: the votes are shoddily done because they can't by themselves change the law. They can only do what the Commission lets them do. It's not a real parliament, it just calls itself that. Seems there's another video in native English that shows other (British) MEPs getting angry about the same problems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozR_eM_1U8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozR_eM_1U8
    - walterbell 8y ago

herbstein 8y ago

The clips he shows of the chairman looks a lot like "formal" votes. We have them here in Denmark too. It often goes something like this: > Bill x can be fast-tracked. Does anyone oppose? <half a second break> It has been fast-tracked. It's done like that because no one is going to oppose.

trickstra 8y ago

the lack of context in the video suggests strong populism. I don't believe this is how the copyright act was voted (I'm actually pretty sure that one was voted by names, not by hands, because we have the voting results on the european website)

trickstra 8y ago
I managed to find the actual video of how the Copyright Act was voted: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&vodLanguage=EN&startTime=20190326-12:48:04-384# http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&... I see absolutely no reason to excuse those who failed to vote correctly in this setting.