8 ms·

We have to win every time, but they have to win only once.

by nnx 4y ago

Spivak 4y ago
This is only true if you give up once it passes. Then you only have to win once to get it repealed.
- noduerme 4y ago
  Explain that to anyone living under a dictatorship their grandparents originally supported.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    The dictator has to beat down the rebellions every time, but the rebels only has to win once. Is that what you meant? As long as there are people there will be struggles like this. Being on the winners side makes things easier, so losing once makes it harder to go back, but it isn't impossible since we have gotten here from much worse situations.
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      GP means that the dictator only needs to win without violence once, but the rebels -while it's true that they only need to win once- may have to resort to violence because the dictator certainly will resort to violence to crush its opposition.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        In the case of EU the member states would just leave if the union starts becoming too corrupt. Until they create a no-leave rule there isn't much to worry about. When they create a no-leave rule then we should start worry, since then EU is heading towards becoming USA.
        FredPret 4y ago
        So edgy
        Jensson 4y ago
        That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
        revelio 4y ago
        Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.
        gpderetta 4y ago
        Of course it is not easy, but if it feasible for questionable reasons as in the UK case, certainly it will be more feasible in case of existential threats.
        revelio 4y ago
        That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear! By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlled and you're in the minority anyway because the majority are propagandized and kept in fear of instability or supposed external threats to their way of life. The EU is frankly far too close to that dystopian end already. It constantly justifies its own power via reference to external enemies of various kinds e.g. capitalist America, the European press barely challenges it and the institutions are controlled by EU loyalists who are willing to rip up the rules rather than let the EU lose control. Even in the UK that was always more distant than other nations, they went through multiple severe constitutional crises triggered by Remainers fighting to overturn the referendum. It wasn't at all clear that the UK could actually leave despite the referendum result not being in doubt. IMO the very fact that you think the UK left for "questionable reasons" is already part of the propaganda doing its job. The people who get out early are the only ones who actually can get out. By the time the case is unambiguous (to you), you're the one being labelled as questionable.
    - noduerme 4y ago
      > The dictator has to beat down the rebellions every time, but the rebels only has to win once. Yes... this was the original comment I was responding to, which seems to have totally disappeared. Thanks. > we have gotten here from much worse situations. A wise remark. But we'll only keep finding better situations if we keep calling out bullshit.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  I don't see the EU repealing much. How can there be an expectation of a fruitful campaign to accomplish that? Would it require a sea change in the outlook of the ruling blocs of MPs? Asking sincerely.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    They do repeal stuff (though it's usually "changed" not repealed per se), but if this gets approved the next step would be the CJEU or possibly the ECHR
  - revelio 4y ago
    The MEPs don't have the right to change EU law. So it doesn't matter even if they were all voted out and replaced. The commission does what it wants, it's not really a democratic system.
    - yreg 4y ago
      The commission needs a passing vote of approval from the parliament and its president is elected by the parliament. It is a democratic system.
      - gpderetta 4y ago
        Additionally the Parliament can request the Commission to submit a legislative proposal, and the Parliament can dismiss the Commission at will with a vote of no-confidence. So de-facto it does have some legislative initiative ability, and it is not much different from other legislative systems where the vast majority of the laws are proposed by the Government. With time the EU Parliament has seen its powers increasing, and there is reason to expect it will continue to do so.
      - revelio 4y ago
        It's not a democratic system and would be easily recognized as such if it were implemented anywhere other than Europe. Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws. The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of options with one name on it. They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. Even then she only barely scraped past quorum. The Council meanwhile isn't democratic. Everything it does is secret. How did von der Leyen get the top job despite being manifestly unsuitable? Nobody knows. It's secret and never leaked.
- makomk 4y ago
  That's not really true in this case, though. The European Commission is the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws, including repeals or modifications of existing ones. They don't need to be watching their back and making sure that no repeal sneaks through because one couldn't even get started unless they did it. Also, they're not really a democratic institution - their members are decided entirely by behind-closed-doors political horse trading by well-connected European political insiders - so replacing them with more trustworthy representatives isn't an option because they don't represent the public anyway even in theory.
  - Joeri 4y ago
    The commission is tasked by the council to translate policy into proposals. If the council directs the commission to repeal a law, they will draft a proposal to do so. The council also appoints the head of the commission, who has final say in the members. The council in turn is composed of the heads of state of the EU members, so it is mostly directly elected. Maybe people just need to take more care which leaders they elect, if they don't like the policies that result from it.

We have to win every time, but they have to win only once.

by nnx 4y ago

We have to win every time, but they have to win only once.

Spivak 4y ago

This is only true if you give up once it passes. Then you only have to win once to get it repealed.

noduerme 4y ago
Explain that to anyone living under a dictatorship their grandparents originally supported.
- Jensson 4y ago
  The dictator has to beat down the rebellions every time, but the rebels only has to win once. Is that what you meant? As long as there are people there will be struggles like this. Being on the winners side makes things easier, so losing once makes it harder to go back, but it isn't impossible since we have gotten here from much worse situations.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    GP means that the dictator only needs to win without violence once, but the rebels -while it's true that they only need to win once- may have to resort to violence because the dictator certainly will resort to violence to crush its opposition.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      In the case of EU the member states would just leave if the union starts becoming too corrupt. Until they create a no-leave rule there isn't much to worry about. When they create a no-leave rule then we should start worry, since then EU is heading towards becoming USA.
      - FredPret 4y ago
        So edgy
        Jensson 4y ago
        That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
      - revelio 4y ago
        Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.
        gpderetta 4y ago
        Of course it is not easy, but if it feasible for questionable reasons as in the UK case, certainly it will be more feasible in case of existential threats.
        revelio 4y ago
        That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear! By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlled and you're in the minority anyway because the majority are propagandized and kept in fear of instability or supposed external threats to their way of life. The EU is frankly far too close to that dystopian end already. It constantly justifies its own power via reference to external enemies of various kinds e.g. capitalist America, the European press barely challenges it and the institutions are controlled by EU loyalists who are willing to rip up the rules rather than let the EU lose control. Even in the UK that was always more distant than other nations, they went through multiple severe constitutional crises triggered by Remainers fighting to overturn the referendum. It wasn't at all clear that the UK could actually leave despite the referendum result not being in doubt. IMO the very fact that you think the UK left for "questionable reasons" is already part of the propaganda doing its job. The people who get out early are the only ones who actually can get out. By the time the case is unambiguous (to you), you're the one being labelled as questionable.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    > The dictator has to beat down the rebellions every time, but the rebels only has to win once. Yes... this was the original comment I was responding to, which seems to have totally disappeared. Thanks. > we have gotten here from much worse situations. A wise remark. But we'll only keep finding better situations if we keep calling out bullshit.
1123581321 4y ago
I don't see the EU repealing much. How can there be an expectation of a fruitful campaign to accomplish that? Would it require a sea change in the outlook of the ruling blocs of MPs? Asking sincerely.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  They do repeal stuff (though it's usually "changed" not repealed per se), but if this gets approved the next step would be the CJEU or possibly the ECHR
- revelio 4y ago
  The MEPs don't have the right to change EU law. So it doesn't matter even if they were all voted out and replaced. The commission does what it wants, it's not really a democratic system.
  - yreg 4y ago
    The commission needs a passing vote of approval from the parliament and its president is elected by the parliament. It is a democratic system.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      Additionally the Parliament can request the Commission to submit a legislative proposal, and the Parliament can dismiss the Commission at will with a vote of no-confidence. So de-facto it does have some legislative initiative ability, and it is not much different from other legislative systems where the vast majority of the laws are proposed by the Government. With time the EU Parliament has seen its powers increasing, and there is reason to expect it will continue to do so.
    - revelio 4y ago
      It's not a democratic system and would be easily recognized as such if it were implemented anywhere other than Europe. Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws. The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of options with one name on it. They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. Even then she only barely scraped past quorum. The Council meanwhile isn't democratic. Everything it does is secret. How did von der Leyen get the top job despite being manifestly unsuitable? Nobody knows. It's secret and never leaked.
makomk 4y ago
That's not really true in this case, though. The European Commission is the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws, including repeals or modifications of existing ones. They don't need to be watching their back and making sure that no repeal sneaks through because one couldn't even get started unless they did it. Also, they're not really a democratic institution - their members are decided entirely by behind-closed-doors political horse trading by well-connected European political insiders - so replacing them with more trustworthy representatives isn't an option because they don't represent the public anyway even in theory.
- Joeri 4y ago
  The commission is tasked by the council to translate policy into proposals. If the council directs the commission to repeal a law, they will draft a proposal to do so. The council also appoints the head of the commission, who has final say in the members. The council in turn is composed of the heads of state of the EU members, so it is mostly directly elected. Maybe people just need to take more care which leaders they elect, if they don't like the policies that result from it.