3 ms·

> 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 ac

> 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?

CaptArmchair 6y ago
> 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.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > 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.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    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.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

> 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.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> 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.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  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.