31 ms·

> Am I just lacking imagination? Yes. The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites. Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military

> Am I just lacking imagination? Yes. The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites. Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European... It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pass/ https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pa... All the good things are going out the door and all the bad things are walking on in.

dijit 4y ago
In the interest in saving peoples time when responding to this: don’t. It’s trolling at worst and nerd sniping at best. The author of this comment knows this full well. His comment history is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap. “covid passports” being required is not exactly the fault of the EU, if anything it’s because of the freedoms the EU still has. Anti-covid rhetoric needs to die, anti-EU bad faith propaganda needs to die. This is a legitimate constitutional crisis, not a time to try to pile on with nonsense.
- hakre 4y ago
  Which can be easily seen as it proclaims "many good things" without naming a single one. It's written to play with feelings in a very cheap way.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  > is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap. Hello. I usually keep responding to people. I'm not from the EU, so if you disagree with me I'll respond. It's not unlikely I'm wrong. I am a crazy anti-government guy though, so you've got me there.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Well, I'm going to take this argument in good faith then and assume you're not trolling, but I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong. I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can. FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as me and disagree, the EU is trade-offs and I'm personally in favour of those trade-offs; I can understand why some people would not. ---- The EU, at its core started off, as everyone mentions repeatedly: as an economic union; the purpose of which was to make the idea of war in Europe unpalatable. This core fact is why when people complain about "jobs moving to x,y,z EU country where the labour is cheaper" they're right, but that was the purpose of the economic union from the beginning and not the EU; since that's the point of the EEC (the pre-cursor to what became the EU). Over time it became apparent (during the cold war, specifically) that Europe is directly in the crossfire of two super powers, and each of us alone is not capable of fending off either of them, either economically (since the power imbalance in economics means Russia, the US or even China can basically dictate terms to us) or in terms of defence (a scrambled response will be slow and ineffective). Thus: the EU was formed, to try to compete at the same level as the Soviet Union and USA. (and, recently, China is a super power). The way the EU functions is actually the most democratic system that exists in Europe itself; no government is more transparent, more directly elected or more advanced with regards to how it decides who gets seats. This is probably contestable on some level, maybe there's some more balanced democracy that I'm not aware of, but as a Swedish/British citizen: the EU parliament is far more representative of votes than the UK parliament or Swedish Riksdag (though the Swedish one comes a lot closer). Every time someone complains about the EU they're doing so from either a place of ignorance ("the EU mandates bananas cant be too bendy!"[0]) or a place of understanding of inefficiency (France being unwilling to release the EU parliament from being moved between cities half of the year[1]; or the growing right wing totalitarian regime in Poland and Hungary[2]). When you conflate ignorant topics with important topics it muddies the water; it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about reform. Why would we need reform instead of abolishing the institution though? Because the EU countries are actually under serious threat from Russia, the USA and China (as mentioned). While it might not be obvious to those living in the EU; the same way the presence of a military or police is sort of invisible and people act "reasonably" most of the time; you might wonder if you even need the police or the military. I might sound like I'm fear mongering, but I'm not, it's just the reality of trading and defending as a bloc; the same is true at nearly any scale. For example in Sweden it's common for an entire apartment building to negotiate for internet, and the rates that they get are significantly cheaper than if they had negotiated alone. Apes together strong. The downside of that negotiation is: everyone must be aligned on the decision being made, and you lose the individual freedom to choose a provider. But the result is a better experience for everyone. Most of the time you elect representatives, in Sweden this is a board in a housing community, and they act on behalf of the interests of the bloc. Crucially, this is what the EU is doing; and what you said about COVID passports is one of those things that's there because the EU does not impose itself on member states, the EU is very hands off on many areas. There's a few projects or initiatives which go through the (directly) elected parliament, but they often must get unanimous consent of all member states, not just "Germany throwing its weight around" as is commonly suggested, that's not really possible with the way the EU is structured, the EU is structured in a way that it's easy for most member states to stop the EU from doing something; and really difficult to make something new happen. This is why certain problems are occurring: the French holding on to the EU parliament for 6 months of the year, the French can simply say "no" to proposals to stop that inefficiency from existing and the EU can't really do anything about it. The same is true for any potential sanctions against Poland and Hungary suppressing freedom of the press. Obviously the potentially sanctioned country can't vote on if it gets sanctions, but if Hungary say "no" to sanctions against Poland, there's nothing the EU can do. The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will, except in rare cases where everyone but 1 member state agrees; but historically there have been "opt-outs" to many things. The UK being in the country in the EU has the most asterisks of every country combined in any treaty usually. [0]: Overly disfigured bananas are supposed to bear a classification, they're not banned: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-press-releases/euromyths/bendybananas.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre... [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parli... [2]: https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/ https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/
    - reedjosh 4y ago
      Thank you for the well thought response. I'll try to respond in kind, but it may be a day or so. Particularly as I want to attempt a researched opinion, but the EU is not an area I know a ton about.
      - hakre 4y ago
        Do you remember which are > All the good things when you wrote your comment? Those that > are going out the door ? Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.
        reedjosh 4y ago
        Well, mostly that it was a union for peace and cooperation and now there are digital ID initiatives along with bills like the one in the article, operational military forces, and regulations galore. My view (although very limited and I'm here to expand it) is that every time a larger governmental body takes some power with some promise of prosperity, it's nice for a short while, but governments only grow till they crash. Much of the promise of the EU (again a feeling that I'm researching so I can back up or disprove) is being lost to the trend of governments that grow until they no longer represent their people and then fall.
    - reedjosh 4y ago
      I've done some thinking over this and reading of the history, but I don't know that I disagree with any of your points, and clearly what you've said is factual. I mostly disagree from an opinion standpoint. Particularly the following statement. > The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't mean that individuals aren't being made to do something against their will. Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. On top of that their are many issues with representative democracy to begin with including media manipulation and corruption. As a defensive mechanism against other blocs I see your point, and its a catch 22. Governments are generally the cause of major wars. So, it feels counterintuitive to band together as another larger government with centralized control. I wish that people would never rationalize "following orders." If that alone went away, then governments would become impotent. I'll try to do some more research regarding my original post and get back to here again. These are just some of my initial thoughts. At this point, nobody else is watching this comment thread, so it's really just a discussion between you and I. No need to prove anything, so I'll try to be correct, researched, take my time. Good chatting, and I'll follow up again in another day or so. Cheers!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  You don't answer for him but for those that read the chain of arguments. It is a valid approach to naively ask for the obvious repercussions even if it isn't done honestly.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites. "Becoming"? That's how it was designed. Well, not "totalitarian", exactly; it was designed to make sure that the member governments stayed tightly in charge. The EU Commission is composed of government appointees from the member governments, and is the most powerful EU institution. EU commissioners don't go rogue (not against the wishes of their own government; but they are infinitely corrupt).
- hakre 4y ago
  Perhaps not designed, but the rest of the EU has to dance to the waltz - or break/exit.
fabatka 4y ago
Thanks for the answer, but I'm wondering more about the mechanism of how the individuals in the EU Commission would benefit from any kind of misuse of this legislation. I get how surveillance can benefit people (edit: I mean benefit those who surveil), but the people who propose this are not who can exercise this power, am I wrong? I just struggle to understand how would this many people conspire to get more power, especially if the people who have the opportunity to misuse this need to be involved too.
- hakre 4y ago
  If one can suggest such a law and perhaps even get it through, it already shows how much power one has usurped. It is about the doing already, and less about what can be even done afterwards.
dathinab 4y ago
Nono, you are getting all your facts wrong. > Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. If you look at politics in the US in recent years a very sane thing to do. EDIT: I mixed up passport and official ID below, still not needing a passport (or more precise being able to use your ID as passport) was more a beneficial side effect then a core goal. > It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. No definitely not. All or at least many of the EU countries have relatively strict requirements for citizens owing a passport. Strict as in _it being legal required for all adults_. You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU you just practically could (and still can) travel a lot without showing it. Having a passport is the norm in the EU, you won't get more or less anything done without. For EU citicens it can be quite hard to understand why "requiring a passport" (e.g. for votes) is a problem in the US, as it isn't in general in the EU. > totalitarian regional government of elites No, it's a mess without question. But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Or at least most member states are. There are a few problematic exceptions.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  > due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. Sure. And that's reasonable. The US will do that. I just think it goes against the original promises, and national sovereignty is being widdled away by larger governing bodies like the EU. > But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian? There are regulations on toasters!
  - dathinab 4y ago
    > Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian? Problematic, Misguided, and can be abused by totalitarian regimes. Oh and also likely in conflict with EU law, Human Rights and some member constitution. Which are very good reasons to prevent it. But it's not necessary totalitarian by itself.

dijit 4y ago

In the interest in saving peoples time when responding to this: don’t. It’s trolling at worst and nerd sniping at best. The author of this comment knows this full well. His comment history is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap. “covid passports” being required is not exactly the fault of the EU, if anything it’s because of the freedoms the EU still has. Anti-covid rhetoric needs to die, anti-EU bad faith propaganda needs to die. This is a legitimate constitutional crisis, not a time to try to pile on with nonsense.

hakre 4y ago
Which can be easily seen as it proclaims "many good things" without naming a single one. It's written to play with feelings in a very cheap way.
reedjosh 4y ago
> is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap. Hello. I usually keep responding to people. I'm not from the EU, so if you disagree with me I'll respond. It's not unlikely I'm wrong. I am a crazy anti-government guy though, so you've got me there.
- dijit 4y ago
  Well, I'm going to take this argument in good faith then and assume you're not trolling, but I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong. I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can. FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as me and disagree, the EU is trade-offs and I'm personally in favour of those trade-offs; I can understand why some people would not. ---- The EU, at its core started off, as everyone mentions repeatedly: as an economic union; the purpose of which was to make the idea of war in Europe unpalatable. This core fact is why when people complain about "jobs moving to x,y,z EU country where the labour is cheaper" they're right, but that was the purpose of the economic union from the beginning and not the EU; since that's the point of the EEC (the pre-cursor to what became the EU). Over time it became apparent (during the cold war, specifically) that Europe is directly in the crossfire of two super powers, and each of us alone is not capable of fending off either of them, either economically (since the power imbalance in economics means Russia, the US or even China can basically dictate terms to us) or in terms of defence (a scrambled response will be slow and ineffective). Thus: the EU was formed, to try to compete at the same level as the Soviet Union and USA. (and, recently, China is a super power). The way the EU functions is actually the most democratic system that exists in Europe itself; no government is more transparent, more directly elected or more advanced with regards to how it decides who gets seats. This is probably contestable on some level, maybe there's some more balanced democracy that I'm not aware of, but as a Swedish/British citizen: the EU parliament is far more representative of votes than the UK parliament or Swedish Riksdag (though the Swedish one comes a lot closer). Every time someone complains about the EU they're doing so from either a place of ignorance ("the EU mandates bananas cant be too bendy!"[0]) or a place of understanding of inefficiency (France being unwilling to release the EU parliament from being moved between cities half of the year[1]; or the growing right wing totalitarian regime in Poland and Hungary[2]). When you conflate ignorant topics with important topics it muddies the water; it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about reform. Why would we need reform instead of abolishing the institution though? Because the EU countries are actually under serious threat from Russia, the USA and China (as mentioned). While it might not be obvious to those living in the EU; the same way the presence of a military or police is sort of invisible and people act "reasonably" most of the time; you might wonder if you even need the police or the military. I might sound like I'm fear mongering, but I'm not, it's just the reality of trading and defending as a bloc; the same is true at nearly any scale. For example in Sweden it's common for an entire apartment building to negotiate for internet, and the rates that they get are significantly cheaper than if they had negotiated alone. Apes together strong. The downside of that negotiation is: everyone must be aligned on the decision being made, and you lose the individual freedom to choose a provider. But the result is a better experience for everyone. Most of the time you elect representatives, in Sweden this is a board in a housing community, and they act on behalf of the interests of the bloc. Crucially, this is what the EU is doing; and what you said about COVID passports is one of those things that's there because the EU does not impose itself on member states, the EU is very hands off on many areas. There's a few projects or initiatives which go through the (directly) elected parliament, but they often must get unanimous consent of all member states, not just "Germany throwing its weight around" as is commonly suggested, that's not really possible with the way the EU is structured, the EU is structured in a way that it's easy for most member states to stop the EU from doing something; and really difficult to make something new happen. This is why certain problems are occurring: the French holding on to the EU parliament for 6 months of the year, the French can simply say "no" to proposals to stop that inefficiency from existing and the EU can't really do anything about it. The same is true for any potential sanctions against Poland and Hungary suppressing freedom of the press. Obviously the potentially sanctioned country can't vote on if it gets sanctions, but if Hungary say "no" to sanctions against Poland, there's nothing the EU can do. The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will, except in rare cases where everyone but 1 member state agrees; but historically there have been "opt-outs" to many things. The UK being in the country in the EU has the most asterisks of every country combined in any treaty usually. [0]: Overly disfigured bananas are supposed to bear a classification, they're not banned: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-press-releases/euromyths/bendybananas.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre... [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parli... [2]: https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/ https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/
  - reedjosh 4y ago
    Thank you for the well thought response. I'll try to respond in kind, but it may be a day or so. Particularly as I want to attempt a researched opinion, but the EU is not an area I know a ton about.
    - hakre 4y ago
      Do you remember which are > All the good things when you wrote your comment? Those that > are going out the door ? Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.
      - reedjosh 4y ago
        Well, mostly that it was a union for peace and cooperation and now there are digital ID initiatives along with bills like the one in the article, operational military forces, and regulations galore. My view (although very limited and I'm here to expand it) is that every time a larger governmental body takes some power with some promise of prosperity, it's nice for a short while, but governments only grow till they crash. Much of the promise of the EU (again a feeling that I'm researching so I can back up or disprove) is being lost to the trend of governments that grow until they no longer represent their people and then fall.
  - reedjosh 4y ago
    I've done some thinking over this and reading of the history, but I don't know that I disagree with any of your points, and clearly what you've said is factual. I mostly disagree from an opinion standpoint. Particularly the following statement. > The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't mean that individuals aren't being made to do something against their will. Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. On top of that their are many issues with representative democracy to begin with including media manipulation and corruption. As a defensive mechanism against other blocs I see your point, and its a catch 22. Governments are generally the cause of major wars. So, it feels counterintuitive to band together as another larger government with centralized control. I wish that people would never rationalize "following orders." If that alone went away, then governments would become impotent. I'll try to do some more research regarding my original post and get back to here again. These are just some of my initial thoughts. At this point, nobody else is watching this comment thread, so it's really just a discussion between you and I. No need to prove anything, so I'll try to be correct, researched, take my time. Good chatting, and I'll follow up again in another day or so. Cheers!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
raxxorraxor 4y ago
You don't answer for him but for those that read the chain of arguments. It is a valid approach to naively ask for the obvious repercussions even if it isn't done honestly.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites. "Becoming"? That's how it was designed. Well, not "totalitarian", exactly; it was designed to make sure that the member governments stayed tightly in charge. The EU Commission is composed of government appointees from the member governments, and is the most powerful EU institution. EU commissioners don't go rogue (not against the wishes of their own government; but they are infinitely corrupt).

hakre 4y ago
Perhaps not designed, but the rest of the EU has to dance to the waltz - or break/exit.

fabatka 4y ago

Thanks for the answer, but I'm wondering more about the mechanism of how the individuals in the EU Commission would benefit from any kind of misuse of this legislation. I get how surveillance can benefit people (edit: I mean benefit those who surveil), but the people who propose this are not who can exercise this power, am I wrong? I just struggle to understand how would this many people conspire to get more power, especially if the people who have the opportunity to misuse this need to be involved too.

hakre 4y ago
If one can suggest such a law and perhaps even get it through, it already shows how much power one has usurped. It is about the doing already, and less about what can be even done afterwards.

dathinab 4y ago

Nono, you are getting all your facts wrong. > Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. If you look at politics in the US in recent years a very sane thing to do. EDIT: I mixed up passport and official ID below, still not needing a passport (or more precise being able to use your ID as passport) was more a beneficial side effect then a core goal. > It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. No definitely not. All or at least many of the EU countries have relatively strict requirements for citizens owing a passport. Strict as in _it being legal required for all adults_. You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU you just practically could (and still can) travel a lot without showing it. Having a passport is the norm in the EU, you won't get more or less anything done without. For EU citicens it can be quite hard to understand why "requiring a passport" (e.g. for votes) is a problem in the US, as it isn't in general in the EU. > totalitarian regional government of elites No, it's a mess without question. But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Or at least most member states are. There are a few problematic exceptions.

reedjosh 4y ago
> due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. Sure. And that's reasonable. The US will do that. I just think it goes against the original promises, and national sovereignty is being widdled away by larger governing bodies like the EU. > But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian? There are regulations on toasters!
- dathinab 4y ago
  > Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian? Problematic, Misguided, and can be abused by totalitarian regimes. Oh and also likely in conflict with EU law, Human Rights and some member constitution. Which are very good reasons to prevent it. But it's not necessary totalitarian by itself.