5 ms·

I fully agree that these decisions have to be done by democratic institutions. They also have to be very liberal and very careful and erring on the side of not

I fully agree that these decisions have to be done by democratic institutions. They also have to be very liberal and very careful and erring on the side of not taking things down. My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution. The president of the commission didn't even run in the election. We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would become president of the commission, but then he didn't and they gave us von der Leyen instead, who never really accomplished anything but hiring consultants. And even that she couldn't do right. The whole storming the caption hill thing is also funny in that regard. Now we suddenly defend that place as this important symbolic institution of democracy, and how dare they! But in reality, we all know that the people in there spend most of their time sucking up to their donors to stay in power. And we know that they very, very, very often make decision that favour their donors to the detriment of the ... voters.

jlokier 6y ago
I think your comment gives the misleading impression Von der Leyen was not elected at all. So for readers who may not know the system: Von der Leyen's appointment, and the EU Commission, were both subject to approval votes by MEPs of the EU Parliament, who are elected by EU citizens in all member countries using proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Election_and_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Elect... > On 16 July 2019, European Parliament took a vote on the proposal by the European Council and elected Von der Leyen with 383 votes (374 votes needed). > The Commission was approved by European Parliament on 27 November 2019, receiving 461 votes, with 157 against and 89 abstentions.
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election. This is a lot more similar to the electoral college making the losing candidate president than people want to admit. We elected the parliament under the impression that the MEPs would then elect the candidate of the party that got the most votes. Then, they didn't. The EU is not very democratic and if we don't fix that, we will lose it. And that is the last thing I want. I want the EU to succeed.
  - zajio1am 6y ago
    > She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election. Well, this is true for prime minister posts in most parliamentary democracies. The winner is not the leader of plurality-winning party, but one who can get majority support in parliament. Usually it is the same person, but EP is too disintegrated for that (many small parties with only token loyality to party blocs), so plurality winner failed to get majority support. Had MEPs forged majority coalition, they would have rejected EC offer and have forced their commission president.
    - jariel 6y ago
      This argument doesn't work very well because even in Parliamentary systems there is good clarity as to what people are voting for. Your arguments is resting on technicalities, but not on the realities of awareness and participation of voters. Boris Johnson had a questionable first phase as PM due to his inherited position, a lack of confidence - so - there was an election. Not only did everyone in the UK know who they were voting for in terms of individual leadership, but very much in terms of policy. It was also an 'issue election'. The affirmation of 'Boris to complete Brexit' was clear, democratic and decisive (however people may disagree with the result). Voters clearly 'had their say'. The EU does not have any such relevance in terms of issues, ideology, leadership, policy, participation, regulatory clarity, which makes it's democratic credentials kind of questionable. They do some good work though, it's just going to be a problem when the are at odds with the people. Edit: I should add, the fact there was no public awareness at all of Von der Leyen - there was no opportunity for scrutiny, press inquisition, background awareness - is obviously problematic from a democratic perspective.
      - zajio1am 6y ago
        UK is bit of special case, as although it has parliamentary system, because of single-member districts it gravitates to two-party situation with clear winners. That is rarely case in other countries, where PM often depends on fragile coalition formed after election.
- jariel 6y ago
  "You voted for A a long time ago over there, who appointed B over here, who supported C up there, who finally backed D - the leader you never heard of - so it's all very democratic!" Von der Leyen was not elected in any reasonable sense of the term. Voters went to the polls without knowing who she was, or her platform. They thought they were effectively voting for someone else. They were told that the 'deal' was that so-and-so would be the victor - but at the last minute after the election the people with power changed their minds and changed norms, and in a completely untransparent backroom deal - they chose a different leader. The President of EU Commission is a bad example of positive democracy and it's almost impossible to justify on those terms. It is what it is unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but the current situation isn't near perfect. As for the statement - it's reasonable that there should be regulations - but the EU leadership shouldn't make such bold edicts: "You cannot do this, you must do as we say" - not a good way to start. They don't have this kind of legitimacy. They should position it as: "We don't believe corporations should be making these decisions without a framework provided by the people of the EU, so we'd like to work with them to provide some regulatory leadership"
- sampo 6y ago
  European Union analog for America: State governors are not voted, but chosen by the state legislatures: EU countries' prime ministers Replace senate with a meeting of state governors: European Council, Council of EU Replace president with a commission of 50 presidents (EU: 27), one from each state, chosen by the state legislature, not by elections: EU Commission State legislatures are voted as normal (but proportional voting, not FPTP). The US house of representatives is voted as normal (again proportional voting). But the house can't propose new legislation, only approve or decline proposals from the senate and the commission.
neogodless 6y ago
I have a sister comment I think is relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25754588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25754588 But the key in my comment is the precondition the government is truly "of and for the people", and thus any moderation they did benefited "the people", and not the government which likely holds more power than the people. What happened with Trump was that he convinced his followers that it was OK to only get their information from the places that agreed with him, de facto making anything he says the only trusted source of information. This is the essence of political censorship. By taking away competing sources of information, you can basically write your own rule book, because those that only hear from you couldn't fathom a different reality. Information needs to survive the competitive landscape and emerge as valid. Information that isn't put through the wringer should not be trusted.
sampo 6y ago
> My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution. You have a valid note on the lack of democracy in the EU commission. But about the topic at hand, both Merkel (Germany) and Macron (France) have directly expressed this same opinion about Twitter, as the EU commission. And Merkel and Macron have more direct democratic leadership mandate, than the EU commission. "Germany and France oppose Trump's Twitter exile" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-se...
azernik 6y ago
I don't think the EU is (or would ever) propose that these decisions be made on an EU level; generally this kind of stuff, e.g. GDPR, requires each individual state to set up their own regulatory agency implementing the standard EU-wide rules.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jlokier 6y ago

I think your comment gives the misleading impression Von der Leyen was not elected at all. So for readers who may not know the system: Von der Leyen's appointment, and the EU Commission, were both subject to approval votes by MEPs of the EU Parliament, who are elected by EU citizens in all member countries using proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Election_and_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Elect... > On 16 July 2019, European Parliament took a vote on the proposal by the European Council and elected Von der Leyen with 383 votes (374 votes needed). > The Commission was approved by European Parliament on 27 November 2019, receiving 461 votes, with 157 against and 89 abstentions.

turbinerneiter 6y ago
She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election. This is a lot more similar to the electoral college making the losing candidate president than people want to admit. We elected the parliament under the impression that the MEPs would then elect the candidate of the party that got the most votes. Then, they didn't. The EU is not very democratic and if we don't fix that, we will lose it. And that is the last thing I want. I want the EU to succeed.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  > She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election. Well, this is true for prime minister posts in most parliamentary democracies. The winner is not the leader of plurality-winning party, but one who can get majority support in parliament. Usually it is the same person, but EP is too disintegrated for that (many small parties with only token loyality to party blocs), so plurality winner failed to get majority support. Had MEPs forged majority coalition, they would have rejected EC offer and have forced their commission president.
  - jariel 6y ago
    This argument doesn't work very well because even in Parliamentary systems there is good clarity as to what people are voting for. Your arguments is resting on technicalities, but not on the realities of awareness and participation of voters. Boris Johnson had a questionable first phase as PM due to his inherited position, a lack of confidence - so - there was an election. Not only did everyone in the UK know who they were voting for in terms of individual leadership, but very much in terms of policy. It was also an 'issue election'. The affirmation of 'Boris to complete Brexit' was clear, democratic and decisive (however people may disagree with the result). Voters clearly 'had their say'. The EU does not have any such relevance in terms of issues, ideology, leadership, policy, participation, regulatory clarity, which makes it's democratic credentials kind of questionable. They do some good work though, it's just going to be a problem when the are at odds with the people. Edit: I should add, the fact there was no public awareness at all of Von der Leyen - there was no opportunity for scrutiny, press inquisition, background awareness - is obviously problematic from a democratic perspective.
    - zajio1am 6y ago
      UK is bit of special case, as although it has parliamentary system, because of single-member districts it gravitates to two-party situation with clear winners. That is rarely case in other countries, where PM often depends on fragile coalition formed after election.
jariel 6y ago
"You voted for A a long time ago over there, who appointed B over here, who supported C up there, who finally backed D - the leader you never heard of - so it's all very democratic!" Von der Leyen was not elected in any reasonable sense of the term. Voters went to the polls without knowing who she was, or her platform. They thought they were effectively voting for someone else. They were told that the 'deal' was that so-and-so would be the victor - but at the last minute after the election the people with power changed their minds and changed norms, and in a completely untransparent backroom deal - they chose a different leader. The President of EU Commission is a bad example of positive democracy and it's almost impossible to justify on those terms. It is what it is unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but the current situation isn't near perfect. As for the statement - it's reasonable that there should be regulations - but the EU leadership shouldn't make such bold edicts: "You cannot do this, you must do as we say" - not a good way to start. They don't have this kind of legitimacy. They should position it as: "We don't believe corporations should be making these decisions without a framework provided by the people of the EU, so we'd like to work with them to provide some regulatory leadership"
sampo 6y ago
European Union analog for America: State governors are not voted, but chosen by the state legislatures: EU countries' prime ministers Replace senate with a meeting of state governors: European Council, Council of EU Replace president with a commission of 50 presidents (EU: 27), one from each state, chosen by the state legislature, not by elections: EU Commission State legislatures are voted as normal (but proportional voting, not FPTP). The US house of representatives is voted as normal (again proportional voting). But the house can't propose new legislation, only approve or decline proposals from the senate and the commission.

neogodless 6y ago

I have a sister comment I think is relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25754588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25754588 But the key in my comment is the precondition the government is truly "of and for the people", and thus any moderation they did benefited "the people", and not the government which likely holds more power than the people. What happened with Trump was that he convinced his followers that it was OK to only get their information from the places that agreed with him, de facto making anything he says the only trusted source of information. This is the essence of political censorship. By taking away competing sources of information, you can basically write your own rule book, because those that only hear from you couldn't fathom a different reality. Information needs to survive the competitive landscape and emerge as valid. Information that isn't put through the wringer should not be trusted.

sampo 6y ago

> My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution. You have a valid note on the lack of democracy in the EU commission. But about the topic at hand, both Merkel (Germany) and Macron (France) have directly expressed this same opinion about Twitter, as the EU commission. And Merkel and Macron have more direct democratic leadership mandate, than the EU commission. "Germany and France oppose Trump's Twitter exile" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-se...

azernik 6y ago

I don't think the EU is (or would ever) propose that these decisions be made on an EU level; generally this kind of stuff, e.g. GDPR, requires each individual state to set up their own regulatory agency implementing the standard EU-wide rules.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]