3 ms·

It's agendas like these when you realize submitting your country laws to legislation from Brusel was a fatal error.

by effie 5y ago

kristjank 5y ago
Right on. Looking into ways of stopping this from happening has given me a very real feeling of desperation. There's no real way for an EU citizen to stop laws like these from getting accepted. No option for a referendum, no option for a veto, the best bet is getting the EU court to annul it, but that takes decades.
- fabbari 5y ago
  EU citizens CAN block this! Make your representative in the Council of the EU accountable. If 4 members veto this the legislation will not pass. If you can't move your country representative to veto the bill, then the issue is not the EU: it's your government. As Europeans we have to stop this very sneaky campaign of "citizens can't do anything" - it's a self fulfilling prophecy and the sharpest tool the lobbies have in the EU. Your country's government has a say on it, and you have a say on your country's government. Make them accountable.
  - effie 5y ago
    > Make your representative in the Council of the EU accountable. How would I do that? He is already in that position, I have zero influence on his decisions.
dTal 5y ago
I'm sorry, what country were you from again, that has a human rights record so much cleaner than the EU? It sounds like a lovely place.
- effie 5y ago
  This is not substantive. Please read the HN guidelines.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Alright, let me spell it out. You contend that "submitting your country[sic] laws to legislation from Brusel[sic] was a fatal error", on the grounds of a single piece of legislation. The same argument can be used to argue against any sort of government, since it's a rare government that makes no mistakes at all. The EU is top-tier in a wide range of areas spanning from human rights to food safety. So I ask again - where do you think is better?
    - hhlbf 5y ago
      This argument is crap and you should be ashamed to use it as a personal attack.
    - effie 5y ago
      > on the grounds of a single piece of legislation. No, I said "when you realize", not that it is the "single piece of legislation". There are many other reasons for that stance, such as the fact that nation's people can influence and check their government's laws with more success than it can do that to a supernational undemocratic bureaucratic organization. > The EU is top-tier in a wide range of areas spanning from human rights They have full mouth of it, yes. They issued some great declarations and legally binding resolutions, I agree. In case of vaccines, almost all EU governments act in direct violation and EU has no real power/wish to stop them.
      - dTal 5y ago
        >almost all EU governments act in direct violation and EU has no real power/wish to stop them. This would seem to contradict your original post, no?
        effie 5y ago
        No, where is the contradiction?
- snakeboy 5y ago
  There is the European Convention on Human Rights upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, but from my understanding these both predate the European Union, and they're not really directly associated. Could someone more knowledgeable weigh in on what the EU has to show as far as a "human rights record" ?
masswerk 5y ago
However, the problem is usually the European Council and not the Commission or the Parliament. Meaning, it's still the countries…
- effie 5y ago
  Any examples? At least the Council has people with mandate from the countries...
  - masswerk 5y ago
    > At least the Council has people with mandate from the countries Not in every country. More often, the head of the government is voted for by the national parliament, meaning, only the people having installed them have a form of mandate. (Which is also true for the Commission, BTW.) The people with the actual mandate are in the European Parliament.
fabbari 5y ago
I think that the fatal error is not going and vote for the European Parliament elections [0]. You don't get to complain when you decide not to participate in the democratic process. Even if this was passed by the Council of the EU [1] it would be passed by ministers representing over 55% of the states - and over 65% of the EU population - and could be blocked by 4 countries. Now - we can discuss if a government is a democratic institution, but I guess it's a bit of a stretch to argue otherwise. In other words: democracy requires information and education, either at the EU or at state level. That's not the issue here. Your country is not a passive agent in this: your country has a say and you need only four countries to stop this. If you believe that somehow you can influence your government when it's emanating laws locally, but not when - the same government - is voting in the Council, you are just doing some magical thinking. The EU has one main problem: it's local politicians stoking the fire of "It's the EU doing this, not us" - while at the same time passing legislation in the EU. <Tyranny of the majority arguments go here> [0] https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/turnout/ https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/turnout/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union
- effie 5y ago
  > You don't get to complain when you decide not to participate in the democratic process. You can complain either way. Not participating means you are not participating, and is a kind of a vote too. If <50% people vote, then the vote is arguably illegitimate.
  - fabbari 5y ago
    "If <50% people vote, then the vote is arguably illegitimate" That's not how a democracy works. Unless you're forcibly prevented from voting - or are denied the right to - that's not the case. It is not an illegitimate vote if you decide not to vote. In the EU Parliament elections it's just people deciding not to vote. As you yourself said: "is a kind of a vote too". Let me make a practical example: we are having a pizza party and we have a vote for what pizza to order, you say: "I don't care - you guys decide!". When the pizzas show up you may say: "Dang, you got the anchovies pizza - I don't like anchovies!", but not "Why did you guys get anchovies? I don't like anchovies, you shouldn't have ordered that pizza!". They seem closely related, but they are not.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I agree. Individual countries are equally corrupted by big businesses and authoritarian leaning, but you can generally count on inefficient flip flopping right-left parties to not do too much damage in any direction. The EU seems to be way more efficient in getting us straight to 1984 or Soviet Russia V2.
- fabbari 5y ago
  I am replying to all the posts pushing this defeatist agenda. Not only it's wrong, but it's also dangerous. It is representatives of the countries in the Council of the EU voting these legislations through: hold them accountable as you would hold them accountable locally. Don't fall for the narration of the EU as a third party where your local representatives have no say. If four countries veto the bill, the bill is dead. 4 out if 27 - all done by influencing your government representative in the Council.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    How am I supposed to keep the party that I did not vote for (25% did) accountable? Nobody is gonna disrupt the government because of "such small issues".
    - fabbari 5y ago
      So - first of all you're admitting that the issue is not the Council of the EU, it's that your own country's representative can't be held accountable for his vote in the Council by you. Political activism is about making these "small issues" big and visible. It's not easy, it's not cheap and it doesn't always work. Yet it's something that can and should be done at the local level. And I really mean: local. Your country's representative is of a political party that - I am guessing here - also runs in local elections. Your town, your province, your region - and that's how you start. You possibly can't talk to your ministers, but you can talk to your local politicians. Make sure they understand that their local power will see the consequences of national and EU politics, let them bubble up the issue. Will it work for sure? Probably not, maybe yes. Is it better than taking ourselves out of the equation? Absolutely yes! Making sure that the local politicians understand that their national counterparts will affect their local success is a way of making them accountable.
Accacin 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the UK government announced it would be re-applying to be in the EU just for this new law (I'm joking.. I hope).
- stinos 5y ago
  Or they just create their own version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safety-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe...

It's agendas like these when you realize submitting your country laws to legislation from Brusel was a fatal error.

by effie 5y ago

It's agendas like these when you realize submitting your country laws to legislation from Brusel was a fatal error.

Right on. Looking into ways of stopping this from happening has given me a very real feeling of desperation. There's no real way for an EU citizen to stop laws like these from getting accepted. No option for a referendum, no option for a veto, the best bet is getting the EU court to annul it, but that takes decades.

fabbari 5y ago
EU citizens CAN block this! Make your representative in the Council of the EU accountable. If 4 members veto this the legislation will not pass. If you can't move your country representative to veto the bill, then the issue is not the EU: it's your government. As Europeans we have to stop this very sneaky campaign of "citizens can't do anything" - it's a self fulfilling prophecy and the sharpest tool the lobbies have in the EU. Your country's government has a say on it, and you have a say on your country's government. Make them accountable.
- effie 5y ago
  > Make your representative in the Council of the EU accountable. How would I do that? He is already in that position, I have zero influence on his decisions.

dTal 5y ago

I'm sorry, what country were you from again, that has a human rights record so much cleaner than the EU? It sounds like a lovely place.

effie 5y ago
This is not substantive. Please read the HN guidelines.
- dTal 5y ago
  Alright, let me spell it out. You contend that "submitting your country[sic] laws to legislation from Brusel[sic] was a fatal error", on the grounds of a single piece of legislation. The same argument can be used to argue against any sort of government, since it's a rare government that makes no mistakes at all. The EU is top-tier in a wide range of areas spanning from human rights to food safety. So I ask again - where do you think is better?
  - hhlbf 5y ago
    This argument is crap and you should be ashamed to use it as a personal attack.
  - effie 5y ago
    > on the grounds of a single piece of legislation. No, I said "when you realize", not that it is the "single piece of legislation". There are many other reasons for that stance, such as the fact that nation's people can influence and check their government's laws with more success than it can do that to a supernational undemocratic bureaucratic organization. > The EU is top-tier in a wide range of areas spanning from human rights They have full mouth of it, yes. They issued some great declarations and legally binding resolutions, I agree. In case of vaccines, almost all EU governments act in direct violation and EU has no real power/wish to stop them.
    - dTal 5y ago
      >almost all EU governments act in direct violation and EU has no real power/wish to stop them. This would seem to contradict your original post, no?
      - effie 5y ago
        No, where is the contradiction?
snakeboy 5y ago
There is the European Convention on Human Rights upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, but from my understanding these both predate the European Union, and they're not really directly associated. Could someone more knowledgeable weigh in on what the EU has to show as far as a "human rights record" ?

masswerk 5y ago

However, the problem is usually the European Council and not the Commission or the Parliament. Meaning, it's still the countries…

effie 5y ago
Any examples? At least the Council has people with mandate from the countries...
- masswerk 5y ago
  > At least the Council has people with mandate from the countries Not in every country. More often, the head of the government is voted for by the national parliament, meaning, only the people having installed them have a form of mandate. (Which is also true for the Commission, BTW.) The people with the actual mandate are in the European Parliament.

fabbari 5y ago

I think that the fatal error is not going and vote for the European Parliament elections [0]. You don't get to complain when you decide not to participate in the democratic process. Even if this was passed by the Council of the EU [1] it would be passed by ministers representing over 55% of the states - and over 65% of the EU population - and could be blocked by 4 countries. Now - we can discuss if a government is a democratic institution, but I guess it's a bit of a stretch to argue otherwise. In other words: democracy requires information and education, either at the EU or at state level. That's not the issue here. Your country is not a passive agent in this: your country has a say and you need only four countries to stop this. If you believe that somehow you can influence your government when it's emanating laws locally, but not when - the same government - is voting in the Council, you are just doing some magical thinking. The EU has one main problem: it's local politicians stoking the fire of "It's the EU doing this, not us" - while at the same time passing legislation in the EU. <Tyranny of the majority arguments go here> [0] https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/turnout/ https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/turnout/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union

effie 5y ago
> You don't get to complain when you decide not to participate in the democratic process. You can complain either way. Not participating means you are not participating, and is a kind of a vote too. If <50% people vote, then the vote is arguably illegitimate.
- fabbari 5y ago
  "If <50% people vote, then the vote is arguably illegitimate" That's not how a democracy works. Unless you're forcibly prevented from voting - or are denied the right to - that's not the case. It is not an illegitimate vote if you decide not to vote. In the EU Parliament elections it's just people deciding not to vote. As you yourself said: "is a kind of a vote too". Let me make a practical example: we are having a pizza party and we have a vote for what pizza to order, you say: "I don't care - you guys decide!". When the pizzas show up you may say: "Dang, you got the anchovies pizza - I don't like anchovies!", but not "Why did you guys get anchovies? I don't like anchovies, you shouldn't have ordered that pizza!". They seem closely related, but they are not.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

I agree. Individual countries are equally corrupted by big businesses and authoritarian leaning, but you can generally count on inefficient flip flopping right-left parties to not do too much damage in any direction. The EU seems to be way more efficient in getting us straight to 1984 or Soviet Russia V2.

fabbari 5y ago
I am replying to all the posts pushing this defeatist agenda. Not only it's wrong, but it's also dangerous. It is representatives of the countries in the Council of the EU voting these legislations through: hold them accountable as you would hold them accountable locally. Don't fall for the narration of the EU as a third party where your local representatives have no say. If four countries veto the bill, the bill is dead. 4 out if 27 - all done by influencing your government representative in the Council.
- emteycz 5y ago
  How am I supposed to keep the party that I did not vote for (25% did) accountable? Nobody is gonna disrupt the government because of "such small issues".
  - fabbari 5y ago
    So - first of all you're admitting that the issue is not the Council of the EU, it's that your own country's representative can't be held accountable for his vote in the Council by you. Political activism is about making these "small issues" big and visible. It's not easy, it's not cheap and it doesn't always work. Yet it's something that can and should be done at the local level. And I really mean: local. Your country's representative is of a political party that - I am guessing here - also runs in local elections. Your town, your province, your region - and that's how you start. You possibly can't talk to your ministers, but you can talk to your local politicians. Make sure they understand that their local power will see the consequences of national and EU politics, let them bubble up the issue. Will it work for sure? Probably not, maybe yes. Is it better than taking ourselves out of the equation? Absolutely yes! Making sure that the local politicians understand that their national counterparts will affect their local success is a way of making them accountable.

Accacin 5y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the UK government announced it would be re-applying to be in the EU just for this new law (I'm joking.. I hope).

stinos 5y ago
Or they just create their own version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safety-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe...