I don't think that the legitimacy of the E.U. will be challenged overnight over a single decision regarding Google or Facebook.
Brexit is just the latest chapter in a long European history. The same is true for the Union and the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. European history isn't finished as long as there are Europeans.
The U.K. wasn't a founding member of the E.U. nor has it ever been a stalwart partner of the E.U. ever since it joined the Union back in There has always been contention in the U.K. about being a E.U. member ever since it joined through the 1972 Treaty of Accession. The U.K. even held a referendum as early as 1975 about the question of remaining in the then E.C.C. (67.33% voted remain)
The same is true for many other E.U. members, notably newer members who joined the union in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact after 1991. Their incentive to join the union was just as much geo-strategic as it was economic. That doesn't mean there weren't voices opposition within those countries as well as elsewhere in the union.
These two companies coming under scrutiny isn't just because they monopolize a consumer market. It's because they enable forces of contention - nationalism, identity politics - that have led to some very dark chapters in the recent European history.
The E.U. such as it is today, originates from ideas that gestated right after WWII under such proponents as Winston Churchill, and the primary incentive was... creating a stable structure for peace on the continent. The E.C.S.C. as founded by the original 6 founding members (Schumann) was about consolidating the coal and steel markets exactly because those were enabling factors during both wars. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Background
And so, if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged.
> I don't think that the legitimacy of the E.U. will be challenged overnight over a single decision regarding Google or Facebook.
I figured from phtrivier's account of things that they were suggesting it's a political pattern for national leaders to blame the EU as unrepresentative. If it were a one-off I'd agree.
> if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged
My point was about undermining perceived legitimacy. I've not commented on whether the regulations themselves are a good idea. Do you think phtrivier's account of things is mistaken?
> Do you think phtrivier's account of things is mistaken?
Well, he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics. What really matters are the incentives, interests, values, trade offs, tactics, available opportunities, risks,... that prompt a leader to use that device.
The E.U. is very much a representative body. Every 4 years, there are European elections and every European citizen does have a vote in those elections. And it's perfectly possible to start a so-called europarty. [1] The European Pirate Party - part of the Greens-European Free Alliance, is an example. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pirate_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pirate_Party
Moreover, a party could be nationally in the opposition, but be part of a political group holding a large chunk of seats in the E.U. parliament. Plus, as a party, you could be for and against particular policies at the same time.
The problem with phtrivier's account is that it surmises that politics must consistently operate from a particular, usually unmentioned or implied, moral high ground. The reality of democracy - and by extension any form of cooperation between individuals, groups, parties and nations - is that it can only function if one is willing to compromise and show pragmatism in which battles to pick, or where to draw lines in the sand.
The very real consequences of confusing rhetoric with pragmatism - and, ultimately, failing to display the latter - are clear in the second and third order effects as a result of Brexit on economic, political, geostrategic and social interests held by both the U.K. and the E.U.
> he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics
Right, but that's the topic I was responding to. If politicians are making a habit of blaming things on the EU and implying the EU is unaccountable, that strikes me as a problem worth taking seriously. Presumably it wouldn't work in the first place if the people had unshakeable confidence in the legitimacy of the EU.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
Sure, but I wasn't commenting on this. My point was a specific one about perceived legitimacy, without which there can be no EU. Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Worth remembering too that De Gaulle's France blocked the UK's attempts to join the EU 3 times before grudgingly allowing membership.
Right wing, often foreign owned, sections of the British media have been able to use that and other outright lies* to present the EU as against British interests whilst furthering their own agendas.
In a way, the UK tabloid press is like a precursor to the polemic fake news of social media. In the past politicians would suck up to foreign businessmen like Rupert Murdock and he would attack their rivals. The EU probably doesn't want to see that repeated elsewhere with Zuckerberg.
* When Boris Johnson was a full-time journalist he often made up populist stories. One well know example is the EU attempting to ban prawn cocktail flavoured crisps. Completely untrue and only written to get the naive frothing at the mouth in anger and advance his career. He repeated that lie, amongst others like his famous NHS bus poster, during the Brexit campaign.
Those points are interconnected.
Yes, the rhetoric is problematic. But politicians can be held accountable by the people who give them a mandate based on election results. The public debate, journalism, education and the voting booth are instrumental in doing that.
These things aren't self-evident though.
They are really expressions of emerging collective behaviour. And that behaviour is always a function of a multitude of social, economical, political, cultural, religious, geographical,... factors.
Authoritarians don't necessarily take power through a violent revolution. It just as easily happens by simply exploiting weaknesses in the economy, society, financial system, the legal and the constitutional framework to a point where they arrive into power. Weaknesses such as economic and social inequality, widespread resentment, poverty,...
Many authoritarians and populist leaders derive their legitimacy from the same democratic processes that also lead to a lawful state which upholds moral values such as basic human rights.
"Democracy" in itself isn't a guarantee towards a net "good" or "bad" outcome. That's just value attribution. Democracy is just a form of governance which could just as well lead to less then desirable outcomes.
Democracy doesn't protect society from bad actors who spout populist rhetoric. Nope, society can only protect itself as long as enough individuals are willing to call that rhetoric out for what it is: damaging and hurtful. Your "democratic" rights are only worth anything to the extent that each member of society is willing to back them.
And that requires believing in the value - the legitimacy - of the E.U. as a shared project.
> Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Well, during last year's election cycle, I did get presented a voting ballot that allowed me to directly elect members to the European Parliament. The candidate I voted for, did got elected.
... which leads me to believe that, yes indeed, the E.U. is "actually democratic".
And as far as I can tell, the fact that the E.U. provides a legal framework that allows me to enact my individual rights. Such as the GDPR. Not just from Facebook or Google. But also from public authorities itself.
I perceive that as a good thing.
> he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics
I have to clarify that I only witnessed the rethorical device being used in France, mostly in the late 90's / early 20s. It was mostly used "informally" (through dog whistle, if you want) , and usually simply by "ignoring" the debates in Brussels and hide behind the commission after decisions had been made. Only the most nationalist parties would blame almost anything on the EU. Maybe other countries behaved differently.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
The fact that the Parliement is the most obviously elected body, and the one with the least amount of power always bothers me. Although it always makes me giggle to hear this complain from right-wingers in France, where we have a Parliement that has been de-facto powerless because of the way we elect our MPs and President. Anyway, another matter it is !