8 ms·

And this is another example of foreign interference at EU level... How can Europeans trust the EU after so many incidents like this one?

hosteur 3y ago
They can’t. And they shouldn’t. Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda is pumped out in each country every year though.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  How about: less drama? There are things where you can't trust "the EU" (whatever this is supposed to be, the Parliament? The Commission? The countries?) and there are things where you can and absolutely should. Generalizations are propaganda, and this is what you do here.
  - zosima 3y ago
    EU legislation has a long history of being overly complex, unnecessary and unnecessarily detailed and perfectly hostile to both EU citizens and companies. I don't see exactly what part of it you should be trusting. I'd never trust neither the commission nor the parliament. They have so many ridiculous failures under their wings, that nobody well-informed would. The best you can hope for with new legislation is that it's so vague and incomprehensible that in practice it's going to be unenforceable. But that's only so long as the judicial stays sane, which you can only hope for. In addition EU is working hard to gain control of information flows at the moment. Censoring and cooperating with censors to block information providers in EU. All of this happens very discreetly and very silently. And I'd wager 95% of citizens are unaware that their right of free speech and information about events is being curtailed to degrees that is completely incompatible with a free society. How you can even begin to trust a creation acting like this, is beyond my imagination.
    - toyg 3y ago
      The EU also has a long history of raising standards in many, many areas across the continent. From worker rights to environmental rules to building codes to car manufacturing to passport controls to food quality standards, the EU pushes most members to raise their game every day. Yes, there are failures because nothing is perfect, but they pale in comparison to the massive amount of work that improves European lives every day.
      - zosima 3y ago
        All of these things could, and usually have, as well be done by national parliaments. In fact many a time national environmental legislation has been kept back, waiting for EU legislation on the subject matter. (Which can take many, many years). The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I can understand how lawyers see this monster as a great. It's an infinite source of income. But for the average citizen and cooperation, the good EU legislation would have been much better, had it been implemented by national parliaments. And much of the bad legislation would not have been possible in the national parliaments, where completely obscure nonsense usually is read by at least someone, that will call it out.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        >The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. Isn't this true of any complex law anywhere? The interpretation varies and is eventually decided upon by the courts and following that sometimes additional rectifying legislation. >On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I'm curious about what you mean here, do you have any specific examples? I'm from a country that would benefit immensely from EU laws in pretty much every area, but I also recognize the hazards of pushing legislative decisions too far away. But for all the criticism the EU gets on that point, it is actually much easier for individual countries to disagree and do their own thing in the EU than it is for states in the United States, it seems to me. It's not like there are "federal" EU agents running around and arresting people.
  - seydor 3y ago
    for one, the EC & EP are among the top 5 spenders in political ads on facebook in most EU countries https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-header&paipv=0&eav=AfY-MLs0axwMPAYF8SSt7x8dnsQucPt6IFwMxonTpkiRIMUgoIBXc_ZiIgRCS_AeRE0&_rdr https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-head...
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      So what? What's the problem with that? In several countries, they even put up billboards next to projects they paid for.
      - seydor 3y ago
        First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies. Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Many things actually since most people know not enough about what, why or how they do things. See my billboard example. > Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies It's not their fault that those popular companies are from the US. What's your point? > Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights. Why?
        seydor 3y ago
        If you fail to see an issue here, then the ads clearly worked
        Krasnol 3y ago
        I haven't seen a single one of them. I don't have a Facebook account and even if I had, they seem not to run them in Germany.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda You mean when Brexit compaign was financed by dark money, broke electoral law, they were fined wopping £50,000, the parliament has asked Zukerberg to testify and he simply refused to come to uk? Or how the failure of brexit is good pro-eu propaganda?
pornel 3y ago
US firms buying politicians can only be called "lobbying" when it happens domestically in the US. Outside of the US, you have to call it "sparkling foreign interference". It is always a shame when governments get corrupted, but the European view is usually not "welp, the experiment failed, let's get rid of the government completely", but rather "we need to make the government stronger, to have it resist interference harder". US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We", but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. It's not "oh no, those dumb politicians stifle our precious job-creating businesses", but rather "we're the labor force, we're the consumers, and the businesses depend on us, so we won't let them fuck with us". So US firms fucking with us is a terrible thing, but the reaction will probably be to make more regulations to resist US tech even harder.
- junofan 3y ago
  To be fair, the European tendency to push the government to resist undesirable forces is kinda the whole reason for the Treaty of Brussels in the first place.
- dwheeler 3y ago
  > US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We" ... I think you misunderstand. I'm an American, so I should probably clarify a typical American perspective. Caveat: you probably can't find any statement all Americans agree on :-) ). The US Constitution does begin with the phrase "We the people", but I think you misunderstand its context. It never says the US government and its people are the same. I can quote that sentence from memory. The text follows with the goals for creating a federal government (e.g., "establish justice" and "provide for the common defense"). It ends by saying that We the People "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, it's clearly stated that the government is not the people. The US federal government is instead an organization established by the people under rules defined by the Constitution. So Americans would generally agree that the US government is NOT the people. The US government is instead an organization set up by the people, in order to accomplish certain goals. If we don't like how its current leadership runs things, the intent is that We the People can change the leadership via an election (as established by the Constitution). > but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. You'll find lots of claims about incompetence, especially at political rallies where someone is trying to convince everyone to vote for them. But while many people want someone or other voted in, and there are always proposals for changes, few call for the elimination of the US government. They just want "their side" voted in. > Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. Americans also view their government as necessary to resist undesirable forces. Per that sentence, the government exists to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". However, the American view is that governments can also be the source of tyranny. This is not a crazy view; see the various dictatorships around the world. Governments can be powerful entities. Therefore, there needs to be a way to ensure that they are (1) representative and (2) constrained so they don't become tyrannical. > This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. The US has lots of regulations, so it's not that the US doesn't have any. However, Americans are generally more skeptical of regulation than Europeans. All regulations have unintended consequences; if the regulation is not carefully crafted, the regulation can be worse than the problem. For example: I would instinctively ignore the goal of any proposed law or regulation. I don't really care what its goal is. That is mostly irrelevant. What is the actual impact of the law or regulation? If it does something good, but overall makes things worse, then it should be rejected even if it has a good goal.

hosteur 3y ago

They can’t. And they shouldn’t. Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda is pumped out in each country every year though.

Krasnol 3y ago
How about: less drama? There are things where you can't trust "the EU" (whatever this is supposed to be, the Parliament? The Commission? The countries?) and there are things where you can and absolutely should. Generalizations are propaganda, and this is what you do here.
- zosima 3y ago
  EU legislation has a long history of being overly complex, unnecessary and unnecessarily detailed and perfectly hostile to both EU citizens and companies. I don't see exactly what part of it you should be trusting. I'd never trust neither the commission nor the parliament. They have so many ridiculous failures under their wings, that nobody well-informed would. The best you can hope for with new legislation is that it's so vague and incomprehensible that in practice it's going to be unenforceable. But that's only so long as the judicial stays sane, which you can only hope for. In addition EU is working hard to gain control of information flows at the moment. Censoring and cooperating with censors to block information providers in EU. All of this happens very discreetly and very silently. And I'd wager 95% of citizens are unaware that their right of free speech and information about events is being curtailed to degrees that is completely incompatible with a free society. How you can even begin to trust a creation acting like this, is beyond my imagination.
  - toyg 3y ago
    The EU also has a long history of raising standards in many, many areas across the continent. From worker rights to environmental rules to building codes to car manufacturing to passport controls to food quality standards, the EU pushes most members to raise their game every day. Yes, there are failures because nothing is perfect, but they pale in comparison to the massive amount of work that improves European lives every day.
    - zosima 3y ago
      All of these things could, and usually have, as well be done by national parliaments. In fact many a time national environmental legislation has been kept back, waiting for EU legislation on the subject matter. (Which can take many, many years). The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I can understand how lawyers see this monster as a great. It's an infinite source of income. But for the average citizen and cooperation, the good EU legislation would have been much better, had it been implemented by national parliaments. And much of the bad legislation would not have been possible in the national parliaments, where completely obscure nonsense usually is read by at least someone, that will call it out.
      - Swenrekcah 3y ago
        >The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. Isn't this true of any complex law anywhere? The interpretation varies and is eventually decided upon by the courts and following that sometimes additional rectifying legislation. >On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I'm curious about what you mean here, do you have any specific examples? I'm from a country that would benefit immensely from EU laws in pretty much every area, but I also recognize the hazards of pushing legislative decisions too far away. But for all the criticism the EU gets on that point, it is actually much easier for individual countries to disagree and do their own thing in the EU than it is for states in the United States, it seems to me. It's not like there are "federal" EU agents running around and arresting people.
- seydor 3y ago
  for one, the EC & EP are among the top 5 spenders in political ads on facebook in most EU countries https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-header&paipv=0&eav=AfY-MLs0axwMPAYF8SSt7x8dnsQucPt6IFwMxonTpkiRIMUgoIBXc_ZiIgRCS_AeRE0&_rdr https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-head...
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    So what? What's the problem with that? In several countries, they even put up billboards next to projects they paid for.
    - seydor 3y ago
      First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies. Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights.
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        > First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Many things actually since most people know not enough about what, why or how they do things. See my billboard example. > Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies It's not their fault that those popular companies are from the US. What's your point? > Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights. Why?
        seydor 3y ago
        If you fail to see an issue here, then the ads clearly worked
        Krasnol 3y ago
        I haven't seen a single one of them. I don't have a Facebook account and even if I had, they seem not to run them in Germany.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda You mean when Brexit compaign was financed by dark money, broke electoral law, they were fined wopping £50,000, the parliament has asked Zukerberg to testify and he simply refused to come to uk? Or how the failure of brexit is good pro-eu propaganda?

pornel 3y ago

US firms buying politicians can only be called "lobbying" when it happens domestically in the US. Outside of the US, you have to call it "sparkling foreign interference". It is always a shame when governments get corrupted, but the European view is usually not "welp, the experiment failed, let's get rid of the government completely", but rather "we need to make the government stronger, to have it resist interference harder". US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We", but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. It's not "oh no, those dumb politicians stifle our precious job-creating businesses", but rather "we're the labor force, we're the consumers, and the businesses depend on us, so we won't let them fuck with us". So US firms fucking with us is a terrible thing, but the reaction will probably be to make more regulations to resist US tech even harder.

junofan 3y ago
To be fair, the European tendency to push the government to resist undesirable forces is kinda the whole reason for the Treaty of Brussels in the first place.
dwheeler 3y ago
> US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We" ... I think you misunderstand. I'm an American, so I should probably clarify a typical American perspective. Caveat: you probably can't find any statement all Americans agree on :-) ). The US Constitution does begin with the phrase "We the people", but I think you misunderstand its context. It never says the US government and its people are the same. I can quote that sentence from memory. The text follows with the goals for creating a federal government (e.g., "establish justice" and "provide for the common defense"). It ends by saying that We the People "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, it's clearly stated that the government is not the people. The US federal government is instead an organization established by the people under rules defined by the Constitution. So Americans would generally agree that the US government is NOT the people. The US government is instead an organization set up by the people, in order to accomplish certain goals. If we don't like how its current leadership runs things, the intent is that We the People can change the leadership via an election (as established by the Constitution). > but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. You'll find lots of claims about incompetence, especially at political rallies where someone is trying to convince everyone to vote for them. But while many people want someone or other voted in, and there are always proposals for changes, few call for the elimination of the US government. They just want "their side" voted in. > Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. Americans also view their government as necessary to resist undesirable forces. Per that sentence, the government exists to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". However, the American view is that governments can also be the source of tyranny. This is not a crazy view; see the various dictatorships around the world. Governments can be powerful entities. Therefore, there needs to be a way to ensure that they are (1) representative and (2) constrained so they don't become tyrannical. > This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. The US has lots of regulations, so it's not that the US doesn't have any. However, Americans are generally more skeptical of regulation than Europeans. All regulations have unintended consequences; if the regulation is not carefully crafted, the regulation can be worse than the problem. For example: I would instinctively ignore the goal of any proposed law or regulation. I don't really care what its goal is. That is mostly irrelevant. What is the actual impact of the law or regulation? If it does something good, but overall makes things worse, then it should be rejected even if it has a good goal.