6 ms·

You're doing God's work mate. It's really surprising to me that this issue keeps coming up time and time again, until I realised that it's non-voted in parties

You're doing God's work mate. It's really surprising to me that this issue keeps coming up time and time again, until I realised that it's non-voted in parties actually trying to pass this stuff! I didn't realise that the EU parliament simply says yes or no to bills and doesn't actually propose new laws, whilst the EU Commission are appointed and decide on what bills to push through.

hermanzegerman 7mo ago
The Commission consists of the Member States. So obviously they are also voted-in parties since the government of the Member States is democratically elected
- weakened_malloc 7mo ago
  True but it's a step removed. The MEPs are directly voted in whilst the EC are not, they're "voted in" on account of "voted in" people assigning them to the EC. I mean nobody argues that the FED governor is voted in, right? In reality a lot of people argue that they're unelected and yet making decisions that affect everyone.
  - markdown 7mo ago
    As it should be. It's good that both the US Fed Reserve Governor and EC appointees didn't have win popularity contests to get there.
    - weakened_malloc 7mo ago
      Eh in a way, I can see both sides of the coin. On one hand if Fed governors didn't have independence, the inflation rate would make Venezuela look like a bastion of economic management. On the other hand, you end up with situations like this where the EC can just keep trying to force in poor policy.
      - qwytw 7mo ago
        The Fed has a pretty strict and narrow mandate and an even narrower toolset. They can't start coming up and imposing random laws and regulations (outside the banking sector) just because they want to...
        junofan 7mo ago
        Worth noting they have a strong incentive to grow payroll, which currently stands at 25,000-ish.
    - DeathArrow 7mo ago
      You argue that people electing officials who make policies affecting those people is bad?
      - markdown 7mo ago
        Very, very bad. Have you seen the quality of politicians today?
  - 3836293648 7mo ago
    This in standard in europe. Most places don't vote for their PM or President either, they're just the leader of the largest party in parliament and chosen by parliament
    - verisimi 7mo ago
      Oh, if unelected officials is the standard, that's fine then. Move along.
      - hermanzegerman 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        andrepd 7mo ago
        No, but I vote for the Prime Minister. I don't vote for the European Commissioner or the President of the Council. What's idiotic is presenting these are the same.
        3836293648 7mo ago
        You don't vote for Prime Minister. Either Parliament votes for a Prime Minister or your country messed up the translation of President.
        andrepd 6mo ago
        You don't de jure vote for a Prime Minister but you de facto do so. Please, don't pretend to be obtuse.
        3836293648 6mo ago
        I pay just as much attention to the prime ministerial candidate as the Commission presidential candidate. Both are blatantly obvious per party. If what you really mean is that you don't follow EU level politics, just say so.
  - supermatt 7mo ago
    The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens. NO LAW CAN PASS without the consent of the citizens directly elected representatives. There is no "pushing through". If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours. Also, don't forget that the commission as a whole needs to be approved by a vote at European Parliament - i.e. by the directly elected representatives.
    - vintermann 7mo ago
      An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests. I hope you agree that elected representation isn't perfect - there is going to be disalignment, ways in which representatives resemble each other more than they resemble their voters. This disalignment can only get amplified with every layer of indirect election. It never gets better.
      - supermatt 7mo ago
        A states interests are long term and strategic. These aren't the same as an aggregation of citizens relatively short term interests, but should absolutely be influenced by them. I totally agree with what you say about elected representation - but I am also thankful that decisions aren't made through direct democracy given that so many people are often dangerously uninformed and easily manipulated.
      - indymike 7mo ago
        > An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests. Sometimes a government only cares about a few citizens, or in some cases one citizen.
    - RobertoG 7mo ago
      No, the European Council is suppose to represent the interest of the member states. The European Commission is suppose to be the executive of the European Union. Translating to the USA system, it would be like saying that the White House is suppose to represent the USA states. No, It's suppose to represent the interest of Europe as an entity. Any introduction to democracy explains that the power is separated in the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The European Parliament is suppose to be the legislative body but can't initiate legislation. The Commission is suppose to be the executive, but, somehow can also initiate legislation and is not elected directly by the citizens. And the council that, I suppose would be the equivalent to a senate, is not directly elected by the citizens. And we could talk about how all the important decisions are done in the dark, or how, like in this case, when something is not 'correctly' voted, they just keep bringing it back until it pass, or how they have started to 'sanction' people without judicial supervision. It's time to open the eyes, because this is not going to improve. The EU 'democracy' is a joke.
- DeathArrow 7mo ago
  The commissioners are a few but the people who make the actual bills and policies are clerks and bureaucrats who were never elected neither directly nor indirectly. And while the commissioners do change, the EU bureaucrats never change.
  - munksbeer 7mo ago
    They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments. So a law: Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly. Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly). Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.
- coldtea 6mo ago
  The first level democracy itself is a farce - coalition governments run by parties the majority doesn't want, MP seat allocations under ridiculous non-representative rules, campaign programs and pre-election promises broken all the time, 4 or 5 years of politicians left unchecked with no in-between recourse like referendums and assessments except to vote someone else next year, and that's without taking into account the mega-business interests sponsoring and controlling them. Once removed even from that, the E.C. second level democracy is beyond a farce.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
SiempreViernes 7mo ago
The EP has the right to make amendments to proposed legislation, its not simply a yes no vote. In fact what is described as "Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement" is exactly the EP voting to amend the Commission proposal on an extension of existing itermim rules with text that explicitly limits the scope.

hermanzegerman 7mo ago

The Commission consists of the Member States. So obviously they are also voted-in parties since the government of the Member States is democratically elected

weakened_malloc 7mo ago
True but it's a step removed. The MEPs are directly voted in whilst the EC are not, they're "voted in" on account of "voted in" people assigning them to the EC. I mean nobody argues that the FED governor is voted in, right? In reality a lot of people argue that they're unelected and yet making decisions that affect everyone.
- markdown 7mo ago
  As it should be. It's good that both the US Fed Reserve Governor and EC appointees didn't have win popularity contests to get there.
  - weakened_malloc 7mo ago
    Eh in a way, I can see both sides of the coin. On one hand if Fed governors didn't have independence, the inflation rate would make Venezuela look like a bastion of economic management. On the other hand, you end up with situations like this where the EC can just keep trying to force in poor policy.
    - qwytw 7mo ago
      The Fed has a pretty strict and narrow mandate and an even narrower toolset. They can't start coming up and imposing random laws and regulations (outside the banking sector) just because they want to...
      - junofan 7mo ago
        Worth noting they have a strong incentive to grow payroll, which currently stands at 25,000-ish.
  - DeathArrow 7mo ago
    You argue that people electing officials who make policies affecting those people is bad?
    - markdown 7mo ago
      Very, very bad. Have you seen the quality of politicians today?
- 3836293648 7mo ago
  This in standard in europe. Most places don't vote for their PM or President either, they're just the leader of the largest party in parliament and chosen by parliament
  - verisimi 7mo ago
    Oh, if unelected officials is the standard, that's fine then. Move along.
    - hermanzegerman 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - andrepd 7mo ago
        No, but I vote for the Prime Minister. I don't vote for the European Commissioner or the President of the Council. What's idiotic is presenting these are the same.
        3836293648 7mo ago
        You don't vote for Prime Minister. Either Parliament votes for a Prime Minister or your country messed up the translation of President.
        andrepd 6mo ago
        You don't de jure vote for a Prime Minister but you de facto do so. Please, don't pretend to be obtuse.
        3836293648 6mo ago
        I pay just as much attention to the prime ministerial candidate as the Commission presidential candidate. Both are blatantly obvious per party. If what you really mean is that you don't follow EU level politics, just say so.
- supermatt 7mo ago
  The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens. NO LAW CAN PASS without the consent of the citizens directly elected representatives. There is no "pushing through". If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours. Also, don't forget that the commission as a whole needs to be approved by a vote at European Parliament - i.e. by the directly elected representatives.
  - vintermann 7mo ago
    An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests. I hope you agree that elected representation isn't perfect - there is going to be disalignment, ways in which representatives resemble each other more than they resemble their voters. This disalignment can only get amplified with every layer of indirect election. It never gets better.
    - supermatt 7mo ago
      A states interests are long term and strategic. These aren't the same as an aggregation of citizens relatively short term interests, but should absolutely be influenced by them. I totally agree with what you say about elected representation - but I am also thankful that decisions aren't made through direct democracy given that so many people are often dangerously uninformed and easily manipulated.
    - indymike 7mo ago
      > An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests. Sometimes a government only cares about a few citizens, or in some cases one citizen.
  - RobertoG 7mo ago
    No, the European Council is suppose to represent the interest of the member states. The European Commission is suppose to be the executive of the European Union. Translating to the USA system, it would be like saying that the White House is suppose to represent the USA states. No, It's suppose to represent the interest of Europe as an entity. Any introduction to democracy explains that the power is separated in the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The European Parliament is suppose to be the legislative body but can't initiate legislation. The Commission is suppose to be the executive, but, somehow can also initiate legislation and is not elected directly by the citizens. And the council that, I suppose would be the equivalent to a senate, is not directly elected by the citizens. And we could talk about how all the important decisions are done in the dark, or how, like in this case, when something is not 'correctly' voted, they just keep bringing it back until it pass, or how they have started to 'sanction' people without judicial supervision. It's time to open the eyes, because this is not going to improve. The EU 'democracy' is a joke.
DeathArrow 7mo ago
The commissioners are a few but the people who make the actual bills and policies are clerks and bureaucrats who were never elected neither directly nor indirectly. And while the commissioners do change, the EU bureaucrats never change.
- munksbeer 7mo ago
  They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments. So a law: Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly. Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly). Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.
coldtea 6mo ago
The first level democracy itself is a farce - coalition governments run by parties the majority doesn't want, MP seat allocations under ridiculous non-representative rules, campaign programs and pre-election promises broken all the time, 4 or 5 years of politicians left unchecked with no in-between recourse like referendums and assessments except to vote someone else next year, and that's without taking into account the mega-business interests sponsoring and controlling them. Once removed even from that, the E.C. second level democracy is beyond a farce.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

SiempreViernes 7mo ago

The EP has the right to make amendments to proposed legislation, its not simply a yes no vote. In fact what is described as "Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement" is exactly the EP voting to amend the Commission proposal on an extension of existing itermim rules with text that explicitly limits the scope.