3 ms·

Ursula is basically a lobbyist without much expertise in anything. So she just parrots about how great xyz is, then she dishes out taxpayer's money to this or

Ursula is basically a lobbyist without much expertise in anything. So she just parrots about how great xyz is, then she dishes out taxpayer's money to this or that group - typically corporations. I think the whole EU should be reformed. We don't need lobbyists really.

barrkel 11mo ago
Lobbyists are how companies talk to governments. If you believe that companies create value, then you should believe that companies should communicate with governments. It can help prevent low quality regulations from being pushed through. Of course what they say should be validated and taken with appropriate weight. Companies are usually blinkered; they know a lot about their specialist area but aren't incentivized to consider collective action problems or externalities. Something similar can be said for every political interest group. Governing effectively means balancing everyone's interests.
- CPLX 11mo ago
  > If you believe that companies create value, then you should believe that companies should communicate with governments Sorry, you're going to have to prove that. Companies are made up of people, and it's completely reasonable to assume that if people were allowed to have a voice within government, then they could also speak on behalf of their own interests, which will often coincide with that of the companies that they're involved with. There's no reason to consider companies a separate entity that has its own power to communicate and many reasons not to do that.
myrmidon 11mo ago
I'm not a fan of her either, but what do you actually expect? Politicians are not generally domain specialists anywhere, their purpose is to make decisions and serve as a pretty face for some more or less coherent policy. Lobbyism is very easy to complain about and can easily devolve into corruption, but it has a very clear purpose: To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain. This is especially necessary at the EU level, because the main purpose of that whole organisation is to lower trade barriers and regulatory friction-- lobbyists are somewhat helpful and necessary in that. > I think the whole EU should be reformed What would you suggest?
- zwnow 11mo ago
  > To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain. Industries that cant comply to modern standards should be harmed. We dont need industries willing to pay lobbyists to keep fossil fuels alive for example.
  - myrmidon 11mo ago
    > Industries that cant comply to modern standards should be harmed. Those "modern standards" need to be codified into law, and feedback from established companies is valuable for doing that. > We dont need industries willing to pay lobbyists to keep fossil fuels alive for example. Those lobbyists represent the interests of a good portion of the economy. If you disregard their feedback, your risk damaging/destabilizing your economy for unclear gain, and the resulting backlash is going to more than undo any progress you made anyway.
    - LunaSea 11mo ago
      > [...] feedback from established companies is valuable for doing that. This is exactly what led us to fall behind in electric car development and construction. It's the "unreasonable" rules that were unilaterally implemented that made car companies panic and finally start competing. > Those lobbyists represent the interests of a good portion of the economy No, they represent the interests of a few shareholders.
      - myrmidon 11mo ago
        > It's the "unreasonable" rules that were unilaterally implemented that made car companies panic and finally start competing. I believe the margin for effective regulation is much smaller than you think. Sure, the EU could've mandated zero-emission vehicles from 2020 on in, say, 2010. But what would have happened? Carmakers would have made giant losses because their production facilities become worthless overnight (and laid off swathes of people); prices for vehicles and transport would've invariably gone through the roof and it is quite likely that the whole industry would have picked the "wrong" technology to bet on, like fuel cells, synthetic fuel or even hydrogen combustion. Compare how much pushback you get in the general population against costly pro-climate policy already (very important to look past your own bubble on this!) and it seems clear to me that this would have failed competely (doing great economical damage, possibly a full-blown crisis), and would have probably been rolled back by the next election at the latest.
zwnow 11mo ago
She's also 67 by now, which is the regular retirement age in Germany. Can we just get rid of all the old people in positions of power... ? It's happening over and over again that old people decide on things that mess up the younger generations.
slightwinder 11mo ago
> Ursula is basically a lobbyist without much expertise in anything. She doesn't need to have any expertise, nobody can have deep expertise on everything. It's basically a politician job to have no clue and find reliable sources for an educated decision. And this usually fails hard on bleeding edge topics, because not many have an educated opinion at that point. But as a side note, she did study something medical, so she does have some deeper expertise outside the political area. > I think the whole EU should be reformed. No reform can fix this problem. And always calling for reforms because of some detail not working how you want it is harmful.
- stabbles 11mo ago
  "I think the whole EU should be reformed" reads exactly like a junior dev demanding a full rewrite from scratch.
  - sam_lowry_ 11mo ago
    Sometimes you have to rewrite from scratch when the original is broken beyond repair and institutional knowledge is lost. A young dev may have an easier time seeing this.
    - octopoc 11mo ago
      Devs should not recommend rewrites until they have a workable plan on how to move forward without a rewrite, so they can compare the costs of rewrite vs. no rewrite.
- sam_lowry_ 11mo ago
  > She doesn't need to have any expertise By living in a bubble, she became less knowledgeable on common matters than an average citizen, and this even extends to her cabinet. The proof at hand is the story of her "GPS-jammed" landing in Plovdiv. She lied, her press secretary lied and there was none around to tell them about ADS-B, FlightRadar24 and how these lies can be trivially verified.
Etheryte 11mo ago
The EU comes with a whole range of flaws, that's true, but as far as I'm concerned it's still the best place to live in the world as far as personal freedom, quality of life, etc, go. Fixing the bad bits is important, yes, but you gotta be careful not to break too many of the good bits while you're doing it.
- Lapel2742 11mo ago
  Couldn't agree more. As a European: Yes, there's a lot (and I mean A LOT!) of things that could be improved but for all that is bad, it could be much worse. Especially when you look around. There are only few countries I would permanently move to. Nearly all of them are European.

barrkel 11mo ago

Lobbyists are how companies talk to governments. If you believe that companies create value, then you should believe that companies should communicate with governments. It can help prevent low quality regulations from being pushed through. Of course what they say should be validated and taken with appropriate weight. Companies are usually blinkered; they know a lot about their specialist area but aren't incentivized to consider collective action problems or externalities. Something similar can be said for every political interest group. Governing effectively means balancing everyone's interests.

CPLX 11mo ago
> If you believe that companies create value, then you should believe that companies should communicate with governments Sorry, you're going to have to prove that. Companies are made up of people, and it's completely reasonable to assume that if people were allowed to have a voice within government, then they could also speak on behalf of their own interests, which will often coincide with that of the companies that they're involved with. There's no reason to consider companies a separate entity that has its own power to communicate and many reasons not to do that.

myrmidon 11mo ago

I'm not a fan of her either, but what do you actually expect? Politicians are not generally domain specialists anywhere, their purpose is to make decisions and serve as a pretty face for some more or less coherent policy. Lobbyism is very easy to complain about and can easily devolve into corruption, but it has a very clear purpose: To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain. This is especially necessary at the EU level, because the main purpose of that whole organisation is to lower trade barriers and regulatory friction-- lobbyists are somewhat helpful and necessary in that. > I think the whole EU should be reformed What would you suggest?

zwnow 11mo ago
> To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain. Industries that cant comply to modern standards should be harmed. We dont need industries willing to pay lobbyists to keep fossil fuels alive for example.
- myrmidon 11mo ago
  > Industries that cant comply to modern standards should be harmed. Those "modern standards" need to be codified into law, and feedback from established companies is valuable for doing that. > We dont need industries willing to pay lobbyists to keep fossil fuels alive for example. Those lobbyists represent the interests of a good portion of the economy. If you disregard their feedback, your risk damaging/destabilizing your economy for unclear gain, and the resulting backlash is going to more than undo any progress you made anyway.
  - LunaSea 11mo ago
    > [...] feedback from established companies is valuable for doing that. This is exactly what led us to fall behind in electric car development and construction. It's the "unreasonable" rules that were unilaterally implemented that made car companies panic and finally start competing. > Those lobbyists represent the interests of a good portion of the economy No, they represent the interests of a few shareholders.
    - myrmidon 11mo ago
      > It's the "unreasonable" rules that were unilaterally implemented that made car companies panic and finally start competing. I believe the margin for effective regulation is much smaller than you think. Sure, the EU could've mandated zero-emission vehicles from 2020 on in, say, 2010. But what would have happened? Carmakers would have made giant losses because their production facilities become worthless overnight (and laid off swathes of people); prices for vehicles and transport would've invariably gone through the roof and it is quite likely that the whole industry would have picked the "wrong" technology to bet on, like fuel cells, synthetic fuel or even hydrogen combustion. Compare how much pushback you get in the general population against costly pro-climate policy already (very important to look past your own bubble on this!) and it seems clear to me that this would have failed competely (doing great economical damage, possibly a full-blown crisis), and would have probably been rolled back by the next election at the latest.

zwnow 11mo ago

She's also 67 by now, which is the regular retirement age in Germany. Can we just get rid of all the old people in positions of power... ? It's happening over and over again that old people decide on things that mess up the younger generations.

slightwinder 11mo ago

> Ursula is basically a lobbyist without much expertise in anything. She doesn't need to have any expertise, nobody can have deep expertise on everything. It's basically a politician job to have no clue and find reliable sources for an educated decision. And this usually fails hard on bleeding edge topics, because not many have an educated opinion at that point. But as a side note, she did study something medical, so she does have some deeper expertise outside the political area. > I think the whole EU should be reformed. No reform can fix this problem. And always calling for reforms because of some detail not working how you want it is harmful.

stabbles 11mo ago
"I think the whole EU should be reformed" reads exactly like a junior dev demanding a full rewrite from scratch.
- sam_lowry_ 11mo ago
  Sometimes you have to rewrite from scratch when the original is broken beyond repair and institutional knowledge is lost. A young dev may have an easier time seeing this.
  - octopoc 11mo ago
    Devs should not recommend rewrites until they have a workable plan on how to move forward without a rewrite, so they can compare the costs of rewrite vs. no rewrite.
sam_lowry_ 11mo ago
> She doesn't need to have any expertise By living in a bubble, she became less knowledgeable on common matters than an average citizen, and this even extends to her cabinet. The proof at hand is the story of her "GPS-jammed" landing in Plovdiv. She lied, her press secretary lied and there was none around to tell them about ADS-B, FlightRadar24 and how these lies can be trivially verified.

Etheryte 11mo ago

The EU comes with a whole range of flaws, that's true, but as far as I'm concerned it's still the best place to live in the world as far as personal freedom, quality of life, etc, go. Fixing the bad bits is important, yes, but you gotta be careful not to break too many of the good bits while you're doing it.

Lapel2742 11mo ago
Couldn't agree more. As a European: Yes, there's a lot (and I mean A LOT!) of things that could be improved but for all that is bad, it could be much worse. Especially when you look around. There are only few countries I would permanently move to. Nearly all of them are European.