7 ms·

As mentioned, the shittiest part of the EU is that we don't ever get any insight. I wish we could launch some civil legal probe into EU institutions themselves,

As mentioned, the shittiest part of the EU is that we don't ever get any insight. I wish we could launch some civil legal probe into EU institutions themselves, but that would probably end up being like staring at floating points of a tensor.

barbazoo 2y ago
> As mentioned, the shittiest part of the EU is that we don't ever get any insight. You can get quite a bit of data, what are you looking for?
- Vinnl 2y ago
  One thing would be interesting was to know who pushed for it to be withdrawn for now, and why.
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    This is trying to be a democratic process. There is no single "hero" to worship, but a number of things to consider. The German Bundesregierung signalled a few days ago they would vote against Chatcontrol (IIRC, it is part of the Ampel coalitions founding contract to vote against surveillance enhancing measures on the EU level.) Nancy Faeser, Social Democrats, Germany's interior minister and usually not against surveillance, and Marco Buschmann, Liberal Democrats, Germany's justice minister, released statements that Chatcontrol is irreconcilable with liberal democratic states of law. The Greens were opposed anyhow and said so the last few weeks. So, unity of sorts. France had said from the start they would vote against it (but apparently backtracking after the EU election) and with the two biggest countries in the EU against it now, the law had little chance to pass the informal council vote. Add on top that around 30 MEPs from the Greens, Liberals and Social Democrats already wrote a letter stating that their fractions are opposed, thus ratification would have been unlikely. Add on top strong efforts by economic lobby groups, I guess the Belgian president of the council saw no reason to put the vote forward anymore. Of course, all this could be wrong. I'm just puzzling things together I read over the last few days and weeks.
    - Vinnl 2y ago
      Yeah I think you're right, but it's a shame that we have to piece the puzzle together ourselves, and still don't have complete certainty. It's certainly a process where more transparency is possible, as a general point.
EasyMark 2y ago
I think this is what happens when you get an appointed council making decisions rather than a democratically elected one. It's a bad idea because it lets the appointees and appointers to point fingers and dilute blame, which is another weapon the 1% can use to get policies in their best interest (often the opposite of those for the 99%) passed.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> which is another weapon the 1% can use to get policies in their best interest Mass surveillance is one of the few areas where the 1% generally align with the other 99%. Rich or poor, we all use the same communication infrastructure. Rich people don't want their chats monitored either. People don't want this. Intelligence agencies want this. But ask the people working at those agencies, ask them as individuals, and they won't want this on their phones either.
  - chongli 2y ago
    Mass surveillance is one of the few areas where the 1% generally align with the other 99% Ideally, yes. In practice, the 1% have resources the 99% don't which allow them to minimize their exposure to mass surveillance. Whether this means carving out exemptions for their own communications or conducting their meetings in person, in private, in other jurisdictions.
    - quonn 2y ago
      Who do you imagine the 1% to be? Probably I‘m the 1% in my country. I have no extraordinary power whatsoever. Maybe you mean the 0,1% or the 0,01%.
      - chongli 2y ago
        Yes, your family doctor is also likely part of the 1%. Unfortunately, the term 1% has shifted to basically mean "the people with most of the wealth and power in a country" which is a much smaller group of people, perhaps even less than 0.01%. Quibbling over the mathematical inaccuracy of the term is tilting at windmills. You'd have better luck getting people to stop using the word "literally" to mean its opposite.
fredgrott 2y ago
makes a nice plot for a Dr. Who episode.
- justinclift 2y ago
  Didn't they can Dr Who finally?
  - swarnie 2y ago
    No its still going on as "The most BBC show ever made by the BBC"
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Why would they end it?
    - semanticist 2y ago
      They did in the '80s, after a run longer than the current revival. Sometimes things come in and out of fashion.
  - maleldil 2y ago
    They did a soft reset, with Ncuti's new season being marked as the Season 1 of the 2023 version. It's still going strong, with this season being very strong, IMO.
tpm 2y ago
That wouldn't help anyway because most important things happen between national governments and the people they nominate. The EU institutions would work very differently if they were directly formed and managed by the European parliament. Alas the national governments know very well why they won't ever allow that.
Vinnl 2y ago
We don't get a lot of insight, but we do get some. For example, when it does come up for a vote in the Council, we'll know which countries voted in favour (something you can take into account in your next national elections). Then the Parliament will have to agree as well, and we can see which parties there voted in favour, which you can take into account in the next European elections. The Commission is toughest to hold accountable. The Commissioner pushing it (Ylva Johansson in this case) was nominated by a country's (Sweden, in this case) government, so Swedish voters could hold the parties in that government accountable in their next national election, I suppose, but that's a very weak signal.
- throwAGIway 2y ago
  What can I do about foreign politicians?
  - toyg 2y ago
    Push your own politicians to talk to them. Most serious EU Parliament groups are trans-national. It's like asking what can you do about parliamentarians elected in other districts.
  - Vinnl 2y ago
    That's always problematic. The best shot you have is pressure your own politicians (at whatever level) to try to strongarm them. For example, US policy has quite a lot of influence on me, but I can't vote for US politicians. Or Russian policy, for that matter.
  - DoughnutHole 2y ago
    Your MEPs are likely part of a parliamentary group with foreign politicians and coordinate with them on policy. If your commissioner and MEPs have been solidly opposed to a policy there might not be much you can do. But do you know that that’s a case? Many governments tend to blame unpopular proposals on the EU while the commissioner that they themselves chose vote in favour.
    - deleted 2y ago

barbazoo 2y ago

> As mentioned, the shittiest part of the EU is that we don't ever get any insight. You can get quite a bit of data, what are you looking for?

Vinnl 2y ago
One thing would be interesting was to know who pushed for it to be withdrawn for now, and why.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  This is trying to be a democratic process. There is no single "hero" to worship, but a number of things to consider. The German Bundesregierung signalled a few days ago they would vote against Chatcontrol (IIRC, it is part of the Ampel coalitions founding contract to vote against surveillance enhancing measures on the EU level.) Nancy Faeser, Social Democrats, Germany's interior minister and usually not against surveillance, and Marco Buschmann, Liberal Democrats, Germany's justice minister, released statements that Chatcontrol is irreconcilable with liberal democratic states of law. The Greens were opposed anyhow and said so the last few weeks. So, unity of sorts. France had said from the start they would vote against it (but apparently backtracking after the EU election) and with the two biggest countries in the EU against it now, the law had little chance to pass the informal council vote. Add on top that around 30 MEPs from the Greens, Liberals and Social Democrats already wrote a letter stating that their fractions are opposed, thus ratification would have been unlikely. Add on top strong efforts by economic lobby groups, I guess the Belgian president of the council saw no reason to put the vote forward anymore. Of course, all this could be wrong. I'm just puzzling things together I read over the last few days and weeks.
  - Vinnl 2y ago
    Yeah I think you're right, but it's a shame that we have to piece the puzzle together ourselves, and still don't have complete certainty. It's certainly a process where more transparency is possible, as a general point.

EasyMark 2y ago

I think this is what happens when you get an appointed council making decisions rather than a democratically elected one. It's a bad idea because it lets the appointees and appointers to point fingers and dilute blame, which is another weapon the 1% can use to get policies in their best interest (often the opposite of those for the 99%) passed.

sandworm101 2y ago
>> which is another weapon the 1% can use to get policies in their best interest Mass surveillance is one of the few areas where the 1% generally align with the other 99%. Rich or poor, we all use the same communication infrastructure. Rich people don't want their chats monitored either. People don't want this. Intelligence agencies want this. But ask the people working at those agencies, ask them as individuals, and they won't want this on their phones either.
- chongli 2y ago
  Mass surveillance is one of the few areas where the 1% generally align with the other 99% Ideally, yes. In practice, the 1% have resources the 99% don't which allow them to minimize their exposure to mass surveillance. Whether this means carving out exemptions for their own communications or conducting their meetings in person, in private, in other jurisdictions.
  - quonn 2y ago
    Who do you imagine the 1% to be? Probably I‘m the 1% in my country. I have no extraordinary power whatsoever. Maybe you mean the 0,1% or the 0,01%.
    - chongli 2y ago
      Yes, your family doctor is also likely part of the 1%. Unfortunately, the term 1% has shifted to basically mean "the people with most of the wealth and power in a country" which is a much smaller group of people, perhaps even less than 0.01%. Quibbling over the mathematical inaccuracy of the term is tilting at windmills. You'd have better luck getting people to stop using the word "literally" to mean its opposite.

fredgrott 2y ago

makes a nice plot for a Dr. Who episode.

justinclift 2y ago
Didn't they can Dr Who finally?
- swarnie 2y ago
  No its still going on as "The most BBC show ever made by the BBC"
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Why would they end it?
  - semanticist 2y ago
    They did in the '80s, after a run longer than the current revival. Sometimes things come in and out of fashion.
- maleldil 2y ago
  They did a soft reset, with Ncuti's new season being marked as the Season 1 of the 2023 version. It's still going strong, with this season being very strong, IMO.

tpm 2y ago

That wouldn't help anyway because most important things happen between national governments and the people they nominate. The EU institutions would work very differently if they were directly formed and managed by the European parliament. Alas the national governments know very well why they won't ever allow that.

Vinnl 2y ago

We don't get a lot of insight, but we do get some. For example, when it does come up for a vote in the Council, we'll know which countries voted in favour (something you can take into account in your next national elections). Then the Parliament will have to agree as well, and we can see which parties there voted in favour, which you can take into account in the next European elections. The Commission is toughest to hold accountable. The Commissioner pushing it (Ylva Johansson in this case) was nominated by a country's (Sweden, in this case) government, so Swedish voters could hold the parties in that government accountable in their next national election, I suppose, but that's a very weak signal.

throwAGIway 2y ago
What can I do about foreign politicians?
- toyg 2y ago
  Push your own politicians to talk to them. Most serious EU Parliament groups are trans-national. It's like asking what can you do about parliamentarians elected in other districts.
- Vinnl 2y ago
  That's always problematic. The best shot you have is pressure your own politicians (at whatever level) to try to strongarm them. For example, US policy has quite a lot of influence on me, but I can't vote for US politicians. Or Russian policy, for that matter.
- DoughnutHole 2y ago
  Your MEPs are likely part of a parliamentary group with foreign politicians and coordinate with them on policy. If your commissioner and MEPs have been solidly opposed to a policy there might not be much you can do. But do you know that that’s a case? Many governments tend to blame unpopular proposals on the EU while the commissioner that they themselves chose vote in favour.
  - deleted 2y ago