3 ms·

I get what you mean, but it's a civil service with constitutional powers :). And it's designed to 'one day' be 'Presidential'. Von der Leyen, in her first spee

by jariel 6y ago

I get what you mean, but it's a civil service with constitutional powers :). And it's designed to 'one day' be 'Presidential'. Von der Leyen, in her first speech talked about her want to create the 'United States of Europe'. Not only does this hint at the Presidential nature of the role, but also points out the problematic issue with 'lack of democracy' in that voters were told after the election that their leader has a plan for 'existential transformation'. This is not what a bureaucrat does. As a funny example: imagine waking up in Nov. 2016 and being told that the 'US state delegates' had not actually decided to go with 'Mitt Romney', the official candidate, but they 'changed their minds' and went with some 'outsider' from New York named 'Donald Trump'. All of that said - the EU is actually more thoughtful about tech legislation than the US gov for sure - that said, the EU is for the most part making rules that ostensibly 'protect' them from outside parties, it would be a different story if MS, FB and G were HQ'd in London, Antwerp and Lisbon.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament. This is what 'United States of Europe' means. The EU has been on a course to more democracy and more power for the parliament (e.g. Treaty of Lisbon), so I'm not sure why people assume this stops, argue that it is not happening or argue that it is reversing - when it is not - e.g. see GDPR.
- jariel 6y ago
  This is essentially not true and misunderstanding of why the EU exists in the first place. "When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament." And who will propose and design the legislation? The Executive! Definitely not elected MEPs, because they are barred from doing so! MEP's, in 2020 remain forbidden from initiating or enacting legislation. They have the bare minimum power to legitimize the institution as 'democratic'. The EU is the only 'Constitutional Democratic' entity in the modern world wherein legislation is created and controlled at the executive level. You might technically be correct in asserting that the MEPs have 'more power' after the Lisbon treaty, very little has changed, and there is no reason for them to change it. Not until the Treaty of Lisbon were elected MEPs even required to be consulted (!!) for the selection of the executive! Constitutionally they were irrelevant. Only since the Lisbon treaty do MEPs technically have to be consulted, and even then, it's merely 'consultation'. It's not binding. Never in the history of the world has power been given to the people unless they have basically 'forced' it, by using one lever of power or another. The EU is very well designed by the elite to avoid populism and 'interference' by organized or populist plebes. It's the perfect mechanism to have control and enact legislation with minimum of oversight, minimum of media coverage, minimum of procedural problems from the plebes. The elite can argue, but only among themselves. The EU has negative incentive to add more democratic oversight, because in their view, it just adds more problems and risk to the situation - god forbid a 'Donald Trump' should be elected in Europe. The only way voters will get more power is if they take it, either through MEP insurrection, or, one or two state powers have some kind of reason to push for it. I don't think either of these cases is on the table, I can't even imagine a scenario will happen. So if 'the entire history of civilization' is a guide, there will be net less democracy in Europe, as they give very little power to MEPs, and move more powers away from national assemblies towards the EU, where unelected bureaucrats and members of the inner circle can do 'what they think is best'. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. As for GDPR, yes, it was nice that MEPs could put up a fuss and have some parts of legislation changed, but they were not the shepherds of this legislation by any means, it was written and controlled 'from above' at all times. FYI here is the original draft from 2012 [1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa....
  - zoobab 6y ago
    On EU democracy, maybe you need to write another chapter about the Council of Ministers. In this particular file of the UPCA, Ministers have a direct conflict of interests, as their ministries would get money for the renewal fees of the Unitary Patent.
  - blibble 6y ago
    there's also the important point that once a law is passed, it's impossible for your elected representatives to remove it or even amend it the entire project is about centralising executive power, which necessitates removing it from national legislatures
    - zoobab 6y ago
      Yes, it will be impossible to change. It will prevent states from issuing national clarifications to patent law on software patents for example. And the European Parliament won't be the legislator on patent law, as the EU is not member of the EPC.

by jariel 6y ago

KingOfCoders 6y ago

When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament. This is what 'United States of Europe' means. The EU has been on a course to more democracy and more power for the parliament (e.g. Treaty of Lisbon), so I'm not sure why people assume this stops, argue that it is not happening or argue that it is reversing - when it is not - e.g. see GDPR.

jariel 6y ago
This is essentially not true and misunderstanding of why the EU exists in the first place. "When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament." And who will propose and design the legislation? The Executive! Definitely not elected MEPs, because they are barred from doing so! MEP's, in 2020 remain forbidden from initiating or enacting legislation. They have the bare minimum power to legitimize the institution as 'democratic'. The EU is the only 'Constitutional Democratic' entity in the modern world wherein legislation is created and controlled at the executive level. You might technically be correct in asserting that the MEPs have 'more power' after the Lisbon treaty, very little has changed, and there is no reason for them to change it. Not until the Treaty of Lisbon were elected MEPs even required to be consulted (!!) for the selection of the executive! Constitutionally they were irrelevant. Only since the Lisbon treaty do MEPs technically have to be consulted, and even then, it's merely 'consultation'. It's not binding. Never in the history of the world has power been given to the people unless they have basically 'forced' it, by using one lever of power or another. The EU is very well designed by the elite to avoid populism and 'interference' by organized or populist plebes. It's the perfect mechanism to have control and enact legislation with minimum of oversight, minimum of media coverage, minimum of procedural problems from the plebes. The elite can argue, but only among themselves. The EU has negative incentive to add more democratic oversight, because in their view, it just adds more problems and risk to the situation - god forbid a 'Donald Trump' should be elected in Europe. The only way voters will get more power is if they take it, either through MEP insurrection, or, one or two state powers have some kind of reason to push for it. I don't think either of these cases is on the table, I can't even imagine a scenario will happen. So if 'the entire history of civilization' is a guide, there will be net less democracy in Europe, as they give very little power to MEPs, and move more powers away from national assemblies towards the EU, where unelected bureaucrats and members of the inner circle can do 'what they think is best'. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. As for GDPR, yes, it was nice that MEPs could put up a fuss and have some parts of legislation changed, but they were not the shepherds of this legislation by any means, it was written and controlled 'from above' at all times. FYI here is the original draft from 2012 [1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa....
- zoobab 6y ago
  On EU democracy, maybe you need to write another chapter about the Council of Ministers. In this particular file of the UPCA, Ministers have a direct conflict of interests, as their ministries would get money for the renewal fees of the Unitary Patent.
- blibble 6y ago
  there's also the important point that once a law is passed, it's impossible for your elected representatives to remove it or even amend it the entire project is about centralising executive power, which necessitates removing it from national legislatures
  - zoobab 6y ago
    Yes, it will be impossible to change. It will prevent states from issuing national clarifications to patent law on software patents for example. And the European Parliament won't be the legislator on patent law, as the EU is not member of the EPC.