3 ms·
[flagged]
by miroljub 7mo ago
[flagged]
- camgunz 7mo agoThey literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. Also compared to whom?
- miroljub 7mo ago> They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes. > Also compared to whom? Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
- vrganj 7mo ago"They" being the member states. The EU is the institution preventing them from implementing it, not enabling them. You're inverting roles here. Just look at the UK and how crazy they've gone now that the EU can't shoot their ideas down anymore.
- rsynnott 7mo ago> With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again. ... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament). But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
- ecshafer 7mo agoThe EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
- sveme 7mo agoThe commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the council is checked by the commission. Most other national organizations only have one check - Germany, for example, only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
- cbg0 7mo ago> The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances You're missing a [citation needed] on that.
- marginalia_nu 7mo agoNon-elected representatives from my country keep pushing for chat control via the council. How do I, as a citizen, hold them accountable?
- izacus 7mo agoThe article you're commenting on is reporting how directly elected representatives defeated the motion. Why do you keep lying?
- marginalia_nu 7mo agoThat's the parliament. What about the council and the commission? Am I not allowed to hold them accountable? Does my power as a citizen only extend to a fourth of the balance of power? They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting rights, or to purge jews?
- sveme 7mo agoSo in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take. You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
- miroljub 7mo ago> So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take. There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control. > You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all. Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular? The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
- miki123211 7mo agoThere are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed to "government by monoculture" With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done. In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names. Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
- bilekas 7mo ago[flagged]
- croes 7mo ago[flagged]
- andai 7mo agoWe already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really any such constitutional protections from what I can tell. Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever. It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
- hermanzegerman 7mo agoObviously you can revoke Laws. And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you don't have free speech
- dyauspitr 7mo agoWhat a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is probably the best example of functional government anywhere in the world right now.
- wolvoleo 7mo agoThat's sad but true :(
- mariusor 7mo ago"fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not whatever the EU would become if something like chat control ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious need to increase others' engagement.
- tomhow 7mo agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 and marked it off topic.