5 ms·

> The EU Council did not make a decision on chat control today, as the agenda item was removed due to the lack of a majority, confirmed by Council and member st

> The EU Council did not make a decision on chat control today, as the agenda item was removed due to the lack of a majority, confirmed by Council and member state spokespersons Wait so does it mean they will only propose when they have chance to pass? Is it just me or here is something really wrong with this? It has no chance to be rejected and gone for good?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> does it mean they will only propose when they have chance to pass? This is typically how legislative bodies work--it's why vote counting is an essential component of whipping. (Sorry, American political terminology.) > It has no chance to be rejected and gone for good? I have never seen a way to do this proposed that doesn't have horrific side effects. (One, who decides which issues are too similar to previously-mooted ones. Two, how do you avoid one side deliberately "spoiling" an issue to prevent the other from taking action on it in the future.) The best you can do is require a total process re-start each time. That doesn't prevent reintroduction, but it adds significant cost and delay.
- gpderetta 2y ago
  The best way to do this is via constitutional protection that can't be overridden by ordinary law. The EU has a de-facto a constitution in the form of the ECHR and the various treaties, which do protect fundamental rights, but there are so many caveats on those rights that a carefully worded law always risks slipping through.
- arlort 2y ago
  > I have never seen a way to do this proposed that doesn't have horrific side effects There's some sort of fetishism of systems and technology on the internet and especially in technical forums like HN where people have this idea that technical solutions can fix social issues Governance systems have mostly been unchanged at their core for the past 100-200 years and people are under the impression that makes them somewhat antiquated so we definitely can fix this with some good code and automated judging. It helps that that's much easier than having to accept the responsibility of being involved and proactively interested in the work of institutions which most people find boring and not worth the effort to learn about
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Governance systems have mostly been unchanged at their core for the past 100-200 years I actually disagree with this notion. We had three big spurts of new-country formation in the last 100 years: after WWI, after WWII/decolonisation and after the collapse of the USSR. I'd argue we've been better each time around at creating a larger fraction of resilient governments. > easier than having to accept the responsibility of being involved Correct. Strongmen are convenient.
    - arlort 2y ago
      > new-country formation in the last 100 years Yes, but they didn't really introduce new ideas and philosophies of government, at most slightly different ways of implement old ideas
    - toyg 2y ago
      > I'd argue we've been better each time around at creating a larger fraction of resilient governments. Looking at the state of a lot of ex-USSR countries, I'd say this is not correct. Quite a few of them ended up as dictatorships. If anything, I would argue the immediate post-WWII was an apex of democratic creation that we are unlikely to match any time soon.
- rhetenor 2y ago
  I'm definitely with you on your first statement, but > The best you can do is require a total process re-start each time. That doesn't prevent reintroduction, but it adds significant cost and delay. Democracy is not all about efficiency. In fact it is important that these costs are added, especially for passing new laws. As it is in IT Security, there is always DoS Potential if the defender has to do more work than the attacker. As such the one proposing a new law must be seen as the attacker and it is important that he must do a significant more amount of work than the defender. An example where this fails, also for the EU legislative, are the various Safe Harbor Agreements with the US and their corresponding Schrems judgements. They all passed more than easily and Schrems needed years to fight against their unjustice. As a result the EU had many years under an unsound law. I think there is much potential to improve the democratic institutions of the EU and not being able to withdraw a proposal (or maybe only in extraordinary circumstances) would be one of them.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Democracy is not all about efficiency In that context, I meant cost and delay as a benefit. > not being able to withdraw a proposal This empowers anyone who can introduce proposals with fillibustering the forum.
    - rhetenor 2y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. Misread that it's something unwanted. In my opinion filibustering would only be a problem, if there are no speech limits. As far as I'm aware of the internal workings of the EU institutions there are tight schedules and every member has limited speech time and the vote is set on a fixed date. And as I stated, there should also be exceptions which allow for a withdrawal. It just shouldn't be as easy as: Let's withdraw until I got a stable majority. Stable and flexible legislative sure is an important thing in democracy, but there must also be some kind of disruptive process to correct and the MPs should only be bound to their own conscience at the end of the process. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further how this would enable filibustering?
gostsamo 2y ago
That's how EU politics works. There is no sense of officially voting on something if it is clear from previous negotiations that it will not pass. With only 27 members, the counting usually is done well in advance and the final vote is showing that agreement has been reached. If someone votes against, it is for pr purposes, because if they are really against it, they have a veto right.
- toyg 2y ago
  There is no veto right anymore. Most decisions are taken by simple majority. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/ The veto right was effectively removed once certain countries started abusing it.
  - dbttdft 2y ago
    It's always funny to see how these simple things play out in the obvious way.
    - toyg 2y ago
      That's why we cannot have nice things. The stuff that worked with a dozen members didn't work as well with twice the participants (some of them with little respect for compromise - which is effectively the founding value the whole Union apparatus is based on). Removing veto powers in the Council was the only way to ensure things could keep getting done. Note this was done through treaty amendments, which were agreed by all participants.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > how EU politics works It's how any sovereign body must work. Putting something to a vote and failing demonstrates weakness, so it's avoided. And the body cannot be bound in deliberation. (Else it's not sovereign, but a vassal of whoever sets the agenda.)
  - gostsamo 2y ago
kergonath 2y ago
> It has no chance to be rejected and gone for good? Not really. Besides, how would that work? Wouldn’t a new law proposal be just that, a new proposal to be debated and voted on, even if its intent or wording is similar to a previous rejected proposal? Is there any country with the equivalent of dismissal with prejudice for new laws?
- account42 2y ago
  A constitution kinda is that - limits on what laws the country can make. Maybe there should be another softer but automatic mechanism though. For example you could increase the required consensus for passing laws with similar goals to those that that have failed recently.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > A constitution kinda is that - limits on what laws the country can make. Right, but constitutional changes can be unmade or superseded. Even in a notoriously conservative country like the US, constitutional amendments are repealed on occasion. And a lot of other countries’ constitutions get complete overhauls every now and then, at which point the details of the previous constitution cease to matter. So the fact that something gets to the constitution does not mean that nobody can discuss it, ever, it just changes the process of doing it. I don’t know if any country where a draft law is rejected because it was too similar to another failed proposal. Although I wouldn’t put past the English having something like that in a dusty corner of their constitutional hodgepodge.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> does it mean they will only propose when they have chance to pass? This is typically how legislative bodies work--it's why vote counting is an essential component of whipping. (Sorry, American political terminology.) > It has no chance to be rejected and gone for good? I have never seen a way to do this proposed that doesn't have horrific side effects. (One, who decides which issues are too similar to previously-mooted ones. Two, how do you avoid one side deliberately "spoiling" an issue to prevent the other from taking action on it in the future.) The best you can do is require a total process re-start each time. That doesn't prevent reintroduction, but it adds significant cost and delay.

gpderetta 2y ago
The best way to do this is via constitutional protection that can't be overridden by ordinary law. The EU has a de-facto a constitution in the form of the ECHR and the various treaties, which do protect fundamental rights, but there are so many caveats on those rights that a carefully worded law always risks slipping through.
arlort 2y ago
> I have never seen a way to do this proposed that doesn't have horrific side effects There's some sort of fetishism of systems and technology on the internet and especially in technical forums like HN where people have this idea that technical solutions can fix social issues Governance systems have mostly been unchanged at their core for the past 100-200 years and people are under the impression that makes them somewhat antiquated so we definitely can fix this with some good code and automated judging. It helps that that's much easier than having to accept the responsibility of being involved and proactively interested in the work of institutions which most people find boring and not worth the effort to learn about
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Governance systems have mostly been unchanged at their core for the past 100-200 years I actually disagree with this notion. We had three big spurts of new-country formation in the last 100 years: after WWI, after WWII/decolonisation and after the collapse of the USSR. I'd argue we've been better each time around at creating a larger fraction of resilient governments. > easier than having to accept the responsibility of being involved Correct. Strongmen are convenient.
  - arlort 2y ago
    > new-country formation in the last 100 years Yes, but they didn't really introduce new ideas and philosophies of government, at most slightly different ways of implement old ideas
  - toyg 2y ago
    > I'd argue we've been better each time around at creating a larger fraction of resilient governments. Looking at the state of a lot of ex-USSR countries, I'd say this is not correct. Quite a few of them ended up as dictatorships. If anything, I would argue the immediate post-WWII was an apex of democratic creation that we are unlikely to match any time soon.
rhetenor 2y ago
I'm definitely with you on your first statement, but > The best you can do is require a total process re-start each time. That doesn't prevent reintroduction, but it adds significant cost and delay. Democracy is not all about efficiency. In fact it is important that these costs are added, especially for passing new laws. As it is in IT Security, there is always DoS Potential if the defender has to do more work than the attacker. As such the one proposing a new law must be seen as the attacker and it is important that he must do a significant more amount of work than the defender. An example where this fails, also for the EU legislative, are the various Safe Harbor Agreements with the US and their corresponding Schrems judgements. They all passed more than easily and Schrems needed years to fight against their unjustice. As a result the EU had many years under an unsound law. I think there is much potential to improve the democratic institutions of the EU and not being able to withdraw a proposal (or maybe only in extraordinary circumstances) would be one of them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Democracy is not all about efficiency In that context, I meant cost and delay as a benefit. > not being able to withdraw a proposal This empowers anyone who can introduce proposals with fillibustering the forum.
  - rhetenor 2y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Misread that it's something unwanted. In my opinion filibustering would only be a problem, if there are no speech limits. As far as I'm aware of the internal workings of the EU institutions there are tight schedules and every member has limited speech time and the vote is set on a fixed date. And as I stated, there should also be exceptions which allow for a withdrawal. It just shouldn't be as easy as: Let's withdraw until I got a stable majority. Stable and flexible legislative sure is an important thing in democracy, but there must also be some kind of disruptive process to correct and the MPs should only be bound to their own conscience at the end of the process. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further how this would enable filibustering?

gostsamo 2y ago

That's how EU politics works. There is no sense of officially voting on something if it is clear from previous negotiations that it will not pass. With only 27 members, the counting usually is done well in advance and the final vote is showing that agreement has been reached. If someone votes against, it is for pr purposes, because if they are really against it, they have a veto right.

toyg 2y ago
There is no veto right anymore. Most decisions are taken by simple majority. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/ The veto right was effectively removed once certain countries started abusing it.
- dbttdft 2y ago
  It's always funny to see how these simple things play out in the obvious way.
  - toyg 2y ago
    That's why we cannot have nice things. The stuff that worked with a dozen members didn't work as well with twice the participants (some of them with little respect for compromise - which is effectively the founding value the whole Union apparatus is based on). Removing veto powers in the Council was the only way to ensure things could keep getting done. Note this was done through treaty amendments, which were agreed by all participants.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> how EU politics works It's how any sovereign body must work. Putting something to a vote and failing demonstrates weakness, so it's avoided. And the body cannot be bound in deliberation. (Else it's not sovereign, but a vassal of whoever sets the agenda.)
- gostsamo 2y ago

kergonath 2y ago

> It has no chance to be rejected and gone for good? Not really. Besides, how would that work? Wouldn’t a new law proposal be just that, a new proposal to be debated and voted on, even if its intent or wording is similar to a previous rejected proposal? Is there any country with the equivalent of dismissal with prejudice for new laws?

account42 2y ago
A constitution kinda is that - limits on what laws the country can make. Maybe there should be another softer but automatic mechanism though. For example you could increase the required consensus for passing laws with similar goals to those that that have failed recently.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > A constitution kinda is that - limits on what laws the country can make. Right, but constitutional changes can be unmade or superseded. Even in a notoriously conservative country like the US, constitutional amendments are repealed on occasion. And a lot of other countries’ constitutions get complete overhauls every now and then, at which point the details of the previous constitution cease to matter. So the fact that something gets to the constitution does not mean that nobody can discuss it, ever, it just changes the process of doing it. I don’t know if any country where a draft law is rejected because it was too similar to another failed proposal. Although I wouldn’t put past the English having something like that in a dusty corner of their constitutional hodgepodge.