4 ms·

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people

by mrtksn 3y ago

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.

HHC-Hunter 3y ago
Eh, while I agree with the comments around desire. I think it compounds the bigger the governing body. Look at the five eyes for example.
mannerheim 3y ago
Because some of the governments in TFA have given positions opposing it?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  And they can keep opposing it if they really don't want it. However I agree that EU can also be used as a scapegoat when implementing unpopular policies, unfortunately. They can claim that they totally didn't want it but EU mede them accept it.
  - mannerheim 3y ago
    Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?
    - izacus 3y ago
      Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.
      - mannerheim 3y ago
        What if politicians who voted for an EU regulation get voted out? Would politicians who opposed the regulation have no choice but to comply or leave if the majority of EU countries continued supporting it?
        mrtksn 3y ago
        The newcomers will have to start a new movement and make EU change it or exit EU. EU is very bad if your country suddenly wants to be a something completely different for a few years for example, it’s much more accommodating to gradual changes over the years. Suddenly you decide that you want to collect all the private data online and sell it to the highest bidder? Decided that cancerogenic chemicals in the food are cool? It’s not going to happen fast.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      It's complex, they can be sued or funding can get cut but EU is not like the USA. It's more like a club where the countries come together to decide how to do things and then they implement local laws to do it. They are not hostile countries brought together by force, the hostilities are usually between neighbours and EU acts as a way to resolve them. For example, countries close to the borders see large refugee influx and the countries further away don't want to have anything to do with that and EU tries to find a way to ease the pressure on the border countries(so far, not very successfully but managed to create a mechanism of keeping refugees outside of EU by paying the host countries like Turkey). Or let's say a country wants to join EU, an EU country might have long standing disputes and EU tries to find a common ground to mediate it(Bulgaria & Northern Macedonia is a vivid recent example). Or let's say there's ethnic issues causing wars and other tragedies, EU creates a law to guarantee the rights of the minorities so that the ethnic issues are no longer relevant those resolved.
      - mannerheim 3y ago
        If they can be sued for it, I wouldn't say it's accurate to say they can continue opposing it. Even cut funding, if they still have to contribute funds to the EU, would be coercive.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        You miss the point, they can be sued after agreeing to it but not implementing it. For example, let's say Poland agreed to GDPR but they went ahead and made itself a hub for data brokers with no respect to GDPR, then Poland gets sued and funds cut. Poland doesn't get sued or funds cut if they voted against GDPR and blocking it in first place.
rdm_blackhole 3y ago
The EC members who currently are sponsoring this bill (Chat Control 2.0) are not elected, they are appointed. They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Indeed, it doesn't change the fact that the countries themselves might implement such things. Many dictators were democratly elected.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  They are appointed by the elected(the governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected). When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws). If you you want to make it sound undemocratic, you can say that the US president is elected by the electoral college and citizens of the USA have no way to vote for their president.
  - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
    So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Fun fact, the American president and the British prime ministers are also not elected. If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.
      - throwaway60722 3y ago
        Who cares? I don't live in UK or USA. They can have whatever disfunctional system they want, doesn't mean I will tolerate it at my home because of that. There are dictators elsewhere, should I have one at home too?
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
I didn't vote for Ursula, and if the shit gets really really bad, our government is a few kilometers away from where I'm now, and modern pitchfork analogs are easy to find.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  She is appointed by the MPs you elected, in a similar manner with the British Prime minister.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    This doesn't really help me with anything, and I still can't replace her in any way. Replacing local MPs is hard too, since (at least my country) doesn't have a legal basis for a referendum to remove the current government and hold new elections, but locally we at least have pressure tactics in the form of posters, grafitti, protests, granite road tiles and guillotines.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - happymellon 3y ago
    The British Prime Minister needs to be an elected MP. She would need to be elected and then "promoted" for it to be an analogy. They are not just "appointed", all the elected MPs get together and have a popularity contest as to who is going to represent them. That's all the PM does, they are not the head of state. She is closer to the House of Lords, where people can suggest bills, and no one votes for them and even if they decide to be evil, it's virtually impossible for the people to remove them. The House of Lords is also a terrible institution that is designed to remove power from those who vote.
  - c7THEC2DDFVV2V 3y ago
    british prime minsters are chosen as the head of the party, by members of the party. This thread seems to not understand that members of the british public can vote for the leader of the party they wish to vote for. We do not vote on individuals, but on a group at election time. That group is democratically elected, and within that group the leader is democratically elected by its party members (whoever wishes to join). The EU by definition is anti-democractic (any centralization of power without accountability results in loss of democractic influence). The most important thing to understand is that the public do not have the same level of influence on the direction of the EU that say the public has in in the UK. With that said, the position of the UK and its dealings is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If we are are discussing an anti-democractic group we don't make it democractic by finding someone equally or more so anti-democratic.

by mrtksn 3y ago

HHC-Hunter 3y ago

Eh, while I agree with the comments around desire. I think it compounds the bigger the governing body. Look at the five eyes for example.

mannerheim 3y ago

Because some of the governments in TFA have given positions opposing it?

mrtksn 3y ago
And they can keep opposing it if they really don't want it. However I agree that EU can also be used as a scapegoat when implementing unpopular policies, unfortunately. They can claim that they totally didn't want it but EU mede them accept it.
- mannerheim 3y ago
  Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?
  - izacus 3y ago
    Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.
    - mannerheim 3y ago
      What if politicians who voted for an EU regulation get voted out? Would politicians who opposed the regulation have no choice but to comply or leave if the majority of EU countries continued supporting it?
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        The newcomers will have to start a new movement and make EU change it or exit EU. EU is very bad if your country suddenly wants to be a something completely different for a few years for example, it’s much more accommodating to gradual changes over the years. Suddenly you decide that you want to collect all the private data online and sell it to the highest bidder? Decided that cancerogenic chemicals in the food are cool? It’s not going to happen fast.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    It's complex, they can be sued or funding can get cut but EU is not like the USA. It's more like a club where the countries come together to decide how to do things and then they implement local laws to do it. They are not hostile countries brought together by force, the hostilities are usually between neighbours and EU acts as a way to resolve them. For example, countries close to the borders see large refugee influx and the countries further away don't want to have anything to do with that and EU tries to find a way to ease the pressure on the border countries(so far, not very successfully but managed to create a mechanism of keeping refugees outside of EU by paying the host countries like Turkey). Or let's say a country wants to join EU, an EU country might have long standing disputes and EU tries to find a common ground to mediate it(Bulgaria & Northern Macedonia is a vivid recent example). Or let's say there's ethnic issues causing wars and other tragedies, EU creates a law to guarantee the rights of the minorities so that the ethnic issues are no longer relevant those resolved.
    - mannerheim 3y ago
      If they can be sued for it, I wouldn't say it's accurate to say they can continue opposing it. Even cut funding, if they still have to contribute funds to the EU, would be coercive.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        You miss the point, they can be sued after agreeing to it but not implementing it. For example, let's say Poland agreed to GDPR but they went ahead and made itself a hub for data brokers with no respect to GDPR, then Poland gets sued and funds cut. Poland doesn't get sued or funds cut if they voted against GDPR and blocking it in first place.

rdm_blackhole 3y ago

The EC members who currently are sponsoring this bill (Chat Control 2.0) are not elected, they are appointed. They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.

pjmlp 3y ago
Indeed, it doesn't change the fact that the countries themselves might implement such things. Many dictators were democratly elected.
mrtksn 3y ago
They are appointed by the elected(the governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected). When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws). If you you want to make it sound undemocratic, you can say that the US president is elected by the electoral college and citizens of the USA have no way to vote for their president.
- rdm_blackhole 3y ago
  So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Fun fact, the American president and the British prime ministers are also not elected. If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.
    - throwaway60722 3y ago
      Who cares? I don't live in UK or USA. They can have whatever disfunctional system they want, doesn't mean I will tolerate it at my home because of that. There are dictators elsewhere, should I have one at home too?

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

I didn't vote for Ursula, and if the shit gets really really bad, our government is a few kilometers away from where I'm now, and modern pitchfork analogs are easy to find.

mrtksn 3y ago
She is appointed by the MPs you elected, in a similar manner with the British Prime minister.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  This doesn't really help me with anything, and I still can't replace her in any way. Replacing local MPs is hard too, since (at least my country) doesn't have a legal basis for a referendum to remove the current government and hold new elections, but locally we at least have pressure tactics in the form of posters, grafitti, protests, granite road tiles and guillotines.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- happymellon 3y ago
  The British Prime Minister needs to be an elected MP. She would need to be elected and then "promoted" for it to be an analogy. They are not just "appointed", all the elected MPs get together and have a popularity contest as to who is going to represent them. That's all the PM does, they are not the head of state. She is closer to the House of Lords, where people can suggest bills, and no one votes for them and even if they decide to be evil, it's virtually impossible for the people to remove them. The House of Lords is also a terrible institution that is designed to remove power from those who vote.
- c7THEC2DDFVV2V 3y ago
  british prime minsters are chosen as the head of the party, by members of the party. This thread seems to not understand that members of the british public can vote for the leader of the party they wish to vote for. We do not vote on individuals, but on a group at election time. That group is democratically elected, and within that group the leader is democratically elected by its party members (whoever wishes to join). The EU by definition is anti-democractic (any centralization of power without accountability results in loss of democractic influence). The most important thing to understand is that the public do not have the same level of influence on the direction of the EU that say the public has in in the UK. With that said, the position of the UK and its dealings is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If we are are discussing an anti-democractic group we don't make it democractic by finding someone equally or more so anti-democratic.