4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - zosima 3y ago
      > 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. Yes, but it'd definitely be nice if the lawmakers put some effort into avoiding it. E.g. by considering, whether we really need one more law for this situation (which is probably covered by 20 others anyway) > I'm curious about what you mean here, do you have any specific examples? There are many, a famous example was the regulations with regards to size and shape of fruits and vegetables, one example here for bananas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No.... but there are many more. Standards to this level of details is definitely uncalled for. But you can find these tidbits around a huge amount of legislation. See e.g. section (20) of the ePrivacy directive: "(20) Service providers should take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of their services, if necessary in conjunction with the provider of the network, and inform subscribers of any special risks of a breach of the security of the network. Such risks may especially occur for electronic communications services over an open network such as the Internet or analogue mobile telephony. It is particularly important for subscribers and users of such services to be fully informed by their service provider of the existing security risks which lie outside the scope of possible remedies by the service provider. Service providers who offer publicly available electronic communications services over the Internet should inform users and subscribers of measures they can take to protect the security of their communications for instance by using specific types of software or encryption technologies. The requirement to inform subscribers of particular security risks does not discharge a service provider from the obligation to take, at its own costs, appropriate and immediate measures to remedy any new, unforeseen security risks and restore the normal security level of the service. The provision of information about security risks to the subscriber should be free of charge except for any nominal costs which the subscriber may incur while receiving or collecting the information, for instance by downloading an electronic mail message. Security is appraised in the light of Article 17 of Directive 95/46/EC." This is all good and fine advice. But for a small company it's really not clear when it's appropriate to give advice on proper security habits for users. More, the vast majority of companies, dealing with communication, will be completely unaware of this law (and the 1000s of others similar provisions in other laws). This level of detail and vagueness should definitely not be in legislation. A third recent example is the infamous AI act: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/202... See e.g. any AI system used in education need to be registered in a EU registry. In general there is a lot of good intentions, but there is simply no clear reason why there is a need for special regulation on AI. Everything that is forbidden to do without AI is also forbidden with AI. But EU constantly sees the need to spin new regulation, and all companies without an army of lawyers will be breaking one rule or another entirely without intent. And these were just the ones on top of my mind. Go dig yourself, there are hundreds of thousands of pages of it.
- seydor 3y ago
  this was happening decades before the big powergrabs that led to micromanagement of EU people's life. EU is a great economic union, but powerhungry politicians are destroying it
anigbrowl 3y ago
A federation of 27 different countries (many of which used to war with each other) with nearly as many languages is sometimes complex and unwieldy? Who could have seen that coming. Maybe people should incorporate that reality into their political thesis instead of always assuming the worst case scenario.

by zosima 3y ago

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.
  - zosima 3y ago
    > 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. Yes, but it'd definitely be nice if the lawmakers put some effort into avoiding it. E.g. by considering, whether we really need one more law for this situation (which is probably covered by 20 others anyway) > I'm curious about what you mean here, do you have any specific examples? There are many, a famous example was the regulations with regards to size and shape of fruits and vegetables, one example here for bananas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No.... but there are many more. Standards to this level of details is definitely uncalled for. But you can find these tidbits around a huge amount of legislation. See e.g. section (20) of the ePrivacy directive: "(20) Service providers should take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of their services, if necessary in conjunction with the provider of the network, and inform subscribers of any special risks of a breach of the security of the network. Such risks may especially occur for electronic communications services over an open network such as the Internet or analogue mobile telephony. It is particularly important for subscribers and users of such services to be fully informed by their service provider of the existing security risks which lie outside the scope of possible remedies by the service provider. Service providers who offer publicly available electronic communications services over the Internet should inform users and subscribers of measures they can take to protect the security of their communications for instance by using specific types of software or encryption technologies. The requirement to inform subscribers of particular security risks does not discharge a service provider from the obligation to take, at its own costs, appropriate and immediate measures to remedy any new, unforeseen security risks and restore the normal security level of the service. The provision of information about security risks to the subscriber should be free of charge except for any nominal costs which the subscriber may incur while receiving or collecting the information, for instance by downloading an electronic mail message. Security is appraised in the light of Article 17 of Directive 95/46/EC." This is all good and fine advice. But for a small company it's really not clear when it's appropriate to give advice on proper security habits for users. More, the vast majority of companies, dealing with communication, will be completely unaware of this law (and the 1000s of others similar provisions in other laws). This level of detail and vagueness should definitely not be in legislation. A third recent example is the infamous AI act: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/202... See e.g. any AI system used in education need to be registered in a EU registry. In general there is a lot of good intentions, but there is simply no clear reason why there is a need for special regulation on AI. Everything that is forbidden to do without AI is also forbidden with AI. But EU constantly sees the need to spin new regulation, and all companies without an army of lawyers will be breaking one rule or another entirely without intent. And these were just the ones on top of my mind. Go dig yourself, there are hundreds of thousands of pages of it.
seydor 3y ago
this was happening decades before the big powergrabs that led to micromanagement of EU people's life. EU is a great economic union, but powerhungry politicians are destroying it

anigbrowl 3y ago

A federation of 27 different countries (many of which used to war with each other) with nearly as many languages is sometimes complex and unwieldy? Who could have seen that coming. Maybe people should incorporate that reality into their political thesis instead of always assuming the worst case scenario.