10 ms·

There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the leg

There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.

oblio 4y ago
> It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  The US is very economically integrated with China. But it is not socially or politically integrated with China. Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc. The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves. It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements? That's what deep economic integration looks like.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      None of these three things require open borders, which the EU insists on. In fact, the Canada has all three in common with the EU. But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.
      - oblio 4y ago
        My list was not an exhaustive list :-))) > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration. Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union > After the war on 19 September 1946 Chruchill went further as a civilian, after leaving office, at the University of Zürich, calling for a United States of Europe > To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Allied plans for German industry after World War II) and its main coal-producing regions were either awarded to neighbouring countries (Silesia), managed as separate directly by an occupying power (Saarland) or put under international control (Ruhr area) > The founding fathers of the European Union understood that coal and steel were the two industries essential for waging war, and believed that by tying their national industries together, a future war between their nations became much less likely. The EU was always a political union.
        JadeNB 4y ago
        > > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration. > Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history: … > The EU was always a political union. I'm confused, because it seems that you and your parent are saying the same thing. Did you misread them as saying the EU doesn't want political integration?
        oblio 4y ago
        If you read their tone, EU political integration is a negative aspect. I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The China/US link is frequently overestimated it’s only 14% of total US trade. China isn’t even the US’s largest trading partner, it’s 3rd after Canada and Mexico, with a small lead over the EU. Really though the top 4 spots are all fairly close to each other.
    - piuantiderp 4y ago
      I know that at least for Mexico, a lot of the trade with China has final destination the US.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - csomar 4y ago
        Same thing for all countries. This also applies to China. Stuff they produce can’t be made 100% in China. Though I’m sure China is playing games to get around import restrictions.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    Look into the influence the Chinese gov has on Hollywood and video games. The fact that the Chinese market is a economically profitable one makes all of our media kowtow to them, I would call that a social integration.
- nirimda 4y ago
  Introduce new laws (into operation) or introduce new bills (into the agenda)? I thought it could introduce new laws that were directly applicable so long as they were related to certain matters. But the bills for the laws have to be introduced by the commission. The whole thing is sufficiently confusing that I could be wrong. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure that it is a standard EU compromise. The governments wrote the rules in the context of what must surely be constant disagreements between the parliaments and the governments (at least if the politics of my own non-EU country is anything to go by). I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments. That's the compromise :-) I forget when exactly it happened, but I'm quite sure it coincided with an increase in the scope of EU responsibilities.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. That's not really the case. Many countries have economic ties with other coutries but no political or social ties. For example, the US imports most of the Uranium that it uses, but that doesn't mean political and social integration between the US and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia or Namibia. [1] [1] 47 million lbs imported in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...
ta1243 4y ago
Three groups passed this law * The EU Commission (headed by commissioners appointed by the government of the members, 1 per member) * The EU council (makde up of the heads of government of the members, 1 vote per member) - so sort of in line with US senate as originally enacted (where the state government chooses the senators) * The EU parliament (voted directly by the population, broadly in line with the population, although smaller members get more MEPs per person) - so broadly in line with US congress in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system.
- vageli 4y ago
  > in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.
  - weberer 4y ago
    State law can't override federal law. They have just instructed state police to not enforce that specific law. You could still be convicted by the FBI if they were to get involved for whatever reason, such as selling across state lines.
    - frankreyes 4y ago
      Is that what Biden un- did with the pardons? https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-mar... Sorry for the weird question, non us here o/
      - weberer 4y ago
        No because the law is still active. You would need congress to repeal or amend it. Or the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional. Also this just pardons people who were convicted in the past. >Does the proclamation protect me from being charged with marijuana possession in the future? >No. The proclamation pardons only those offenses occurring on or before October 6, 2022. It does not have any effect on marijuana possession offenses occurring after October 6, 2022.
Archelaos 4y ago
> why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage In case of such a veto of a single member, the whole legislative process would in the general case be set back to were it started, because the other members had agreed under the condition that everyone implements the agreement and other countries might want to renegotiate. The EU's ability to force a country to a certain legislation goes even further: In the early years of the EU every country had to consent to an EU legislation; today, under the Lisbon Treaty[1], EU countries must implement an EU regulation in certain areas even if they voted against it. This is based on the belief that a union of 27 states would otherwise hardly be able to act. There had been cases were single members had been granted specific exceptions (most notably the UK, during its membership, and Denmark when it joined) or must meet certain conditions before they need to implement something (for example, in principle every EU country except Denmark must introduce the Euro when it meets certain criteria; but the EU tolerates that Sweden deliberately fails one criterium, since it has voted in a referendum to stay out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism II). But these exceptions had been agreed on beforehand and some date from a time when the sovereignty of the individual states was valued more highly. Today, the EU tends to avoid such special rules for general cases as far as possible, because legal fragmentation is seen as problematic. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
zackees 4y ago
[dead]
paulusthe 4y ago
This went through the EU Parliament. It was not an instruction handed down as dictat by an unelected bureaucrat or executive. The same process is how every other EU wide regulation goes into effect. EU passes it, the member states get their input during the EU process, and the member states are then obligated to abide by the rules. An analogous process, which is not a perfect analog but is similar, is how US federal rules get passed down to the states. The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law. I'd also add that giving every country a veto on any legislation would basically guarantee nothing gets done.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  That's not how the US federal system works at all. It's not even similar. States are free to not enforce federal law and ignore it entirely. States cannot be directly compelled by the federal government to pass laws, though in practice they have done it a couple of times using education funding and highway funding as a carrot/stick. Another big difference is that the state governments themselves have no representation in the federal government since the passage of the 17th amendment.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law. States have zero input on federal legislation (except constitutional amendments, which are rare, and not really "legislation"). Until the 17th Amendment, states had input via the Senate, but now that senators are elected directly by voters, states have no formal representation at the federal level.
- lakomen 4y ago
  There was also ambiguity in how the vote was formulated and what yes and no meant. Many people demonstrated against the changes and they got pushed through by a suspicious voting process by Herr Voss. You're now a criminal if you offer your webspace for free and someon3 uploads anything unlawful in the broadest sense. Thanks EU corruption.
codethief 4y ago
Going for a directive (as opposed to a regulation[0]) was probably a conscious decision. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) : > There are justifications for using a directive rather than a regulation: (i) it complies with the EU's desire for "subsidiarity"; (ii) it acknowledges that different member States have different legal systems, legal traditions and legal processes; and (iii) each Member State has leeway to choose its own statutory wording, rather than accepting the Brussels' official "Eurospeak" terminology. > For example, while EU Directive 2009/20/EC (which simply requires all vessels visiting EU ports to have P&I cover) could have been a regulation (without requiring member states to implement the directive), the desire for subsidiarity was paramount, so a directive was the chosen vehicle. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Unio...

oblio 4y ago

> It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.

pyuser583 4y ago
The US is very economically integrated with China. But it is not socially or politically integrated with China. Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc. The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves. It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
- oblio 4y ago
  > The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements? That's what deep economic integration looks like.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    None of these three things require open borders, which the EU insists on. In fact, the Canada has all three in common with the EU. But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.
    - oblio 4y ago
      My list was not an exhaustive list :-))) > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration. Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union > After the war on 19 September 1946 Chruchill went further as a civilian, after leaving office, at the University of Zürich, calling for a United States of Europe > To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Allied plans for German industry after World War II) and its main coal-producing regions were either awarded to neighbouring countries (Silesia), managed as separate directly by an occupying power (Saarland) or put under international control (Ruhr area) > The founding fathers of the European Union understood that coal and steel were the two industries essential for waging war, and believed that by tying their national industries together, a future war between their nations became much less likely. The EU was always a political union.
      - JadeNB 4y ago
        > > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration. > Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history: … > The EU was always a political union. I'm confused, because it seems that you and your parent are saying the same thing. Did you misread them as saying the EU doesn't want political integration?
        oblio 4y ago
        If you read their tone, EU political integration is a negative aspect. I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.
- Retric 4y ago
  The China/US link is frequently overestimated it’s only 14% of total US trade. China isn’t even the US’s largest trading partner, it’s 3rd after Canada and Mexico, with a small lead over the EU. Really though the top 4 spots are all fairly close to each other.
  - piuantiderp 4y ago
    I know that at least for Mexico, a lot of the trade with China has final destination the US.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - csomar 4y ago
      Same thing for all countries. This also applies to China. Stuff they produce can’t be made 100% in China. Though I’m sure China is playing games to get around import restrictions.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Look into the influence the Chinese gov has on Hollywood and video games. The fact that the Chinese market is a economically profitable one makes all of our media kowtow to them, I would call that a social integration.
nirimda 4y ago
Introduce new laws (into operation) or introduce new bills (into the agenda)? I thought it could introduce new laws that were directly applicable so long as they were related to certain matters. But the bills for the laws have to be introduced by the commission. The whole thing is sufficiently confusing that I could be wrong. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure that it is a standard EU compromise. The governments wrote the rules in the context of what must surely be constant disagreements between the parliaments and the governments (at least if the politics of my own non-EU country is anything to go by). I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments.
- oblio 4y ago
  > I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments. That's the compromise :-) I forget when exactly it happened, but I'm quite sure it coincided with an increase in the scope of EU responsibilities.
IncRnd 4y ago
> That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. That's not really the case. Many countries have economic ties with other coutries but no political or social ties. For example, the US imports most of the Uranium that it uses, but that doesn't mean political and social integration between the US and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia or Namibia. [1] [1] 47 million lbs imported in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...

ta1243 4y ago

Three groups passed this law * The EU Commission (headed by commissioners appointed by the government of the members, 1 per member) * The EU council (makde up of the heads of government of the members, 1 vote per member) - so sort of in line with US senate as originally enacted (where the state government chooses the senators) * The EU parliament (voted directly by the population, broadly in line with the population, although smaller members get more MEPs per person) - so broadly in line with US congress in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system.

vageli 4y ago
> in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.
- weberer 4y ago
  State law can't override federal law. They have just instructed state police to not enforce that specific law. You could still be convicted by the FBI if they were to get involved for whatever reason, such as selling across state lines.
  - frankreyes 4y ago
    Is that what Biden un- did with the pardons? https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-mar... Sorry for the weird question, non us here o/
    - weberer 4y ago
      No because the law is still active. You would need congress to repeal or amend it. Or the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional. Also this just pardons people who were convicted in the past. >Does the proclamation protect me from being charged with marijuana possession in the future? >No. The proclamation pardons only those offenses occurring on or before October 6, 2022. It does not have any effect on marijuana possession offenses occurring after October 6, 2022.

Archelaos 4y ago

> why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage In case of such a veto of a single member, the whole legislative process would in the general case be set back to were it started, because the other members had agreed under the condition that everyone implements the agreement and other countries might want to renegotiate. The EU's ability to force a country to a certain legislation goes even further: In the early years of the EU every country had to consent to an EU legislation; today, under the Lisbon Treaty[1], EU countries must implement an EU regulation in certain areas even if they voted against it. This is based on the belief that a union of 27 states would otherwise hardly be able to act. There had been cases were single members had been granted specific exceptions (most notably the UK, during its membership, and Denmark when it joined) or must meet certain conditions before they need to implement something (for example, in principle every EU country except Denmark must introduce the Euro when it meets certain criteria; but the EU tolerates that Sweden deliberately fails one criterium, since it has voted in a referendum to stay out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism II). But these exceptions had been agreed on beforehand and some date from a time when the sovereignty of the individual states was valued more highly. Today, the EU tends to avoid such special rules for general cases as far as possible, because legal fragmentation is seen as problematic. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

zackees 4y ago

[dead]

paulusthe 4y ago

This went through the EU Parliament. It was not an instruction handed down as dictat by an unelected bureaucrat or executive. The same process is how every other EU wide regulation goes into effect. EU passes it, the member states get their input during the EU process, and the member states are then obligated to abide by the rules. An analogous process, which is not a perfect analog but is similar, is how US federal rules get passed down to the states. The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law. I'd also add that giving every country a veto on any legislation would basically guarantee nothing gets done.

friend_and_foe 4y ago
That's not how the US federal system works at all. It's not even similar. States are free to not enforce federal law and ignore it entirely. States cannot be directly compelled by the federal government to pass laws, though in practice they have done it a couple of times using education funding and highway funding as a carrot/stick. Another big difference is that the state governments themselves have no representation in the federal government since the passage of the 17th amendment.
chimeracoder 4y ago
> The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law. States have zero input on federal legislation (except constitutional amendments, which are rare, and not really "legislation"). Until the 17th Amendment, states had input via the Senate, but now that senators are elected directly by voters, states have no formal representation at the federal level.
lakomen 4y ago
There was also ambiguity in how the vote was formulated and what yes and no meant. Many people demonstrated against the changes and they got pushed through by a suspicious voting process by Herr Voss. You're now a criminal if you offer your webspace for free and someon3 uploads anything unlawful in the broadest sense. Thanks EU corruption.

codethief 4y ago

Going for a directive (as opposed to a regulation[0]) was probably a conscious decision. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) : > There are justifications for using a directive rather than a regulation: (i) it complies with the EU's desire for "subsidiarity"; (ii) it acknowledges that different member States have different legal systems, legal traditions and legal processes; and (iii) each Member State has leeway to choose its own statutory wording, rather than accepting the Brussels' official "Eurospeak" terminology. > For example, while EU Directive 2009/20/EC (which simply requires all vessels visiting EU ports to have P&I cover) could have been a regulation (without requiring member states to implement the directive), the desire for subsidiarity was paramount, so a directive was the chosen vehicle. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Unio...