[jimmy1]

I am not sure why you are being down-voted. I know people have a distaste for political insights in general here, but it seems apt to have comments like these on an article about protesting a governing body. Why is German Wikipedia having to have a blackout? They are unhappy with the EU restricting their freedoms.

[p1necone]

I downvoted it because the comment has no substance besides "EU bad". It adds nothing of value to the discussion.

Explain why the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy".

[whycome]

What are you talking about? I don't necessarily support the view of the commenter, but it basically has 3 parts: States what the organization was, what it has become, and why criticism is a point of contention. For someone who knows little about the EU, it's exactly a starting point for discussion. An article like this invites opinions - does one agree with the action of Wikipedia or not? It's a comment - it does not express 'EU Bad' and does what a comment does - it comments. Now, the further discussion can be about whether one agrees with the position put forth. Every comment on here doesn't need to be some essay explaining an opinion - a succinct opinion that invites discussion is actually healthy.

[ar0]

I also don't see the link to the topic at hand: It's not the (debatable) "oversized bureaucracy" that has drafted and works on passing Article 13: It is national governments (see the French / German "deal" on this topic) and the European Parliament (and particularly the EPP) that are the source of Article 13 and the frustration that lead to this blackout.

[sonnyblarney]

" It's not the (debatable) "oversized bureaucracy" that has drafted and works on passing Article 13: "

Article 13 is 100% an EU law.

Pointing to the fact that maybe it's really just in the interest of specific French and German entities really only serves to highlight possible existential issues of legitimacy of that body politic.

Also, the fact that Wikipedia and other entities have to take such drastic action, never before seen, leaves no doubt as to how out of touch and unrealistic this legislation is.

Together with the $1.5B in fines today, and of course recent special French taxation legislation intended to get around the fact they view Ireland/Ducth systems as 'havens' ... well it would seem there are indeed some existential problems.

A 'winning' position would be to have something like Google based and operated on the Continent somewhere, generating real returns and exports as well.

All of this is good for discussion, but ultimately they're moves of players with a weak hand.

If long term conditions were set appropriately, the tables would be turned and the problem would be Trump threats on imports (as he does with Volkswagen). Those are 'good problems' to have.

[jimmy1]

> I downvoted it because the comment has no substance besides "EU bad". It adds nothing of value to the discussion.

A pretty unfair characterization. I found value in of itself, even if that value was merely "this opinion exists"

> Explain why the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy".

In order to explain why you must define how big a bureaucracy must be in order to be considered oversized. Unless two parties can agree on some ground level items, you can't hope to have a productive conversation in good faith.

I am assuming you are at least starting from the position that the EU is indeed a bureaucracy? If not, then allow me to at least explain why I believe it to be so: the EU is very formal and rigid in it's mode of action. It loves process, and it loves sticking to it. It's full of, ironically, idealistic technocrats.

It is, in theory, "oversized" because of the mere principle that bureaucratic processes can have sweeping changes that affect every member. (as an aside: often times without those members having been able to sufficiently voice their opinion, concerns, or have proper representation, thus also making it undemocratic in my opinion. Representation is democratically elected, but it is unbalanced, and all votes don't have equal influence)

Many political thinkers believe the EU should have never expanded beyond Western and Northern Europe, because, among numerous other reasons, the economies and cultures were too different. Indeed, the members that typically have the most grievances with the EU body are those neglected eastern European states, or those of the Mediterranean, namely Greece. In fact one could argue the Euro in of itself brought many of Greece's financial problems onto itself, much less the unfair-to-Greece trade mandates of the EU, but that's a story for another day.

All of this to say, there is plenty of reasoning to argue either way that the EU is "too big" or "just right", but ultimately you have to define what "too big" is, and agree on what you believe the function of governments should be.

[repolfx]

It loves process, and it loves sticking to it. It's full of, ironically, idealistic technocrats.

I used to believe that, but the problem is, there's a lot of evidence that the EU is a more classic style of bureaucracy - it sticks to rules when they work in the favour of what the bureaucracy wants, and tears them up the moment the rules would work against them.

There are lots of examples of this in action. The eurozone bailouts. The reclassification of low Irish taxes as a "state subsidy". The ECJ ruling that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked, even though it says clearly in the treaty that revoking it requires unanimity amongst members. The way Selmayr was elevated to GS of the Commission. The way the Commission changes its mind about whether countries have "equivalent" financial regulations even when no regulations have changed, because they want to impose trade sanctions on those countries as part of unrelated negotiations. There are many more like this.

What's amazing is how flagrant and open it is. The people who ultimately wield the power in the EU simply void the rules publicly and noisily, because they know nothing will happen to them at all. It's very much not a technocratic body, it's entirely and completely political in nature.

[raverbashing]

> Explain why the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy".

Well if it wasn't then it would be a collection of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels

But that's not what the EU Parliament is, as much as there are issues with it, both people pushing for Art 13 and people against it there were elected.

[ionised]

He is being downvoted because his comment was factually incorrect. That's not why the EU was started.

[jimmy1]

Sure, the historical reason was to end conflict between neighbors, piggybacking off the already formed connections between European Steel and Coal community.

But indeed, parent's comment was codified in the "four freedoms" explicitly laid out in the early 90s: movement of goods, services, people and money. But even as early as the 1960s, most union members stopped strictly enforcing custom laws with respect to trade, and it was well known border enforcement was extremely relaxed, especially when it came to labor movement. Only the '73 Oil crisis forced some members to crack down on migrant workers, but again, by the time that was resolved, the EU was back to the status quo.

I do not think calling his comment factually incorrect is warranted, but more fair to say it is a more modern take.

[ionised]

He said that's why the EU was started. Now you are talking about the EU in the 90's.

A modern take on the EU now or in the 90's doesn't change anything about how and why it was started.

He said something that was simply untrue.

[jimmy1]

> He said that's why the EU was started. Now you are talking about the EU in the 90's.

And in the 60s, and 70s...re-read my comment. It is clear you are being intellectually dishonest, and no point in continuing this discussion with you.

[ionised]

> And in the 60s, and 70s...re-read my comment. It is clear you are being intellectually dishonest, and no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Okay, firstly, calm down.

Secondly, I missed that part of your post the first time I read it.

Either I didn't read it thoroughly because I'm at work and my attention is divided (for which I apologise); or you edited your own comment before you replied to me, in an attempt to discredit what I'm saying.

As I'm not as uncharitable as your are in interpreting the intent of other people's posts, I'll assume the mistake was on my part and you are not just a troll.

I'd appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy.

[jimmy1]

Duly noted. It has been extended it. It wasn't a long comment. Edits were made within the first few minutes, but they were clarifying edits, the content remained the same. Either way, I will chalk this up to a big misunderstanding.