[cameronbrown]

No. The vast majority of the informed peoples of the EU campaigned and pleaded them not to pass Article 13. The fact they turn around and basically call us too stupid to know what's best is just icing on the cake. They ignored the people.

Honestly, the entire institution gets what it deserves. I've never seen such an utter shambles of democracy as bad as the Article 13 one.

[derefr]

I mean... zooming out here, and ignoring the specifics of this case in favour of the “shape” of it—this is basically the point of representative democracy! What it’s supposed to enable, I mean. A group elects someone who’s better at statecraft than the group is; and then that elected representative uses their statecraft abilities to make choices and deals that are optimal for their constituency’s long-term benefit, but which the people could never have made on their own, because those choices don’t have a compelling narrative or “image” to garner populist sentiment. (Or, from the people’s perspective: elected representatives engage in awful horse-trading and disrespect their constituency’s opinions, and yet gradually everything gets better “somehow.”) Or: the people hire a sausage-maker, and then get mad at the process of making sausage.

Sometimes representative democracy has problems, sure; the usual generation gap between politicians and their constituencies is a big reason it takes so long for human-rights legislation (on e.g. gay marriage) to catch up with public sentiment.

But it’s still probably better than the alternatives, e.g. direct democracy. There are a lot of things you just can’t get done using direct democracy. Imagine a nation run by referendum trying to negotiate e.g. a distasteful-but-strategically-necessary wartime alliance with another nation. Sausage needs to get made; but who has the political capital to make it?

[fsloth]

"this is basically the point of representative democracy"

Democracy is not a system to promote meritocracy. It's a system to avoid autocracy, and all other things are exernalities rising from this core purpose.

The point of democracy is to have a constant churn within a large enough powerpool to discourage formation of ruling cliques and oligarchies. It's nice if the chosen representatives are efficient and skillfull, but that's not the point of the system.

[shkkmo]

I've always thought that one the the biggest benefits of democracy was to provide a mechanism of power transfer / competition between groups of elites that uses the votes of the masses rather than the blood of the masses as a medium.

[Mirioron]

The problem with the EU is that the most important institution in it is an extra step removed compared to most representational democracies. The heads of state select the Commission, not the people nor the EU Parliament. And the Commission is the only one that can propose laws.

There are two other important problems with the system as well: voter turnout and voting in blocs (country or EU party). The reason this is a problem is that the candidates campaign as individuals, but act according to what their group tells them. Sometimes they vote along what their country votes, other times they vote along the lines off what their parliamentary group tells them. But where are the interests of the actual constituents here?

[em-bee]

this shows that the only way to really achieve democracy is to get rid of any form of party or bloc. the elected candidates must only be responsible to the constituents that elected them and no-one else.

[repolfx]

this is basically the point of representative democracy!

The EU isn't a democracy or even a representative democracy. Notice how lots of people wrote to their MEPs and nothing happened other than MEPs calling their voters stupid? That's because in the EU all decisions are ultimately made by the Commission. The Commission started this, the Commission made it happen and by treaty the Commission is the only body able to actually propose changes to the law.

The EU Parliament quite literally doesn't fit the dictionary definition of Parliament. There isn't any way voters can change this law by voting, not even if every party was for changing it, because even a majority of MEPs cannot change the law. But changing the law is the entire and sole purpose of politicians, so we can observe that MEPs aren't really politicians.

A group elects someone who’s better at statecraft than the group is

That has never been part of the idea of democracy. What makes you think politicians are so great at statecraft? There are no tests they have to pass, assuming you could even make such a test to begin with. What's the definition of statecraft, even?

There's no evidence politicians are smarter or better than the average voter. That's why anyone can turn up and get votes.

Or, from the people’s perspective: elected representatives engage in awful horse-trading and disrespect their constituency’s opinions, and yet gradually everything gets better “somehow.”

For a whole lot of people in the EU things are either stagnant or getting worse. Look at the dire economic performance of Italy since joining the Eurozone: was growing, since flat.

Things don't get better because people repeatedly elect politicians who are superior to themselves. Things, by and large, get better when governments shrink and stay out of things. The fate of the eastern bloc under Soviet rule and then capitalist democratic rule shows that in action (although, now they are at risk of going backwards thanks to things like Article 13).

There are a lot of things you just can’t get done using direct democracy.

Tell that to the Swiss. Most successful country on the continent, by far.

[dane-pgp]

> There isn't any way voters can change this law by voting, not even if every party was for changing it, because even a majority of MEPs cannot change the law.

It's true that the EU Parliament doesn't quite work the way you want it to, however it does have the ability to "Censure" the EU Commission by a vote of no confidence:

http://en.euabc.com/word/151

If it did so, a new Commission President would then be nominated, which the EU Parliament could approve based on the nominee's support for a change to the law.

This would be a way of working around the fact that the EU Parliament does not formally possess legislative initiative, which you seem to think it is missing, despite the fact that the law in question was amended and approved by the parliament as part of the legislative process.

[Mirioron]

It's essentially impossible for that kind of a vote to succeed though. Requiring a two thirds majority among MEPs against the Commission is going to be very difficult, because those MEPs still have to deal with their national governments and parties at home. The Council is the one that put the Commission in place and the Council is the national governments.

[repolfx]

New President would be nominated ... by the same people who nominated the last one.

The Parliament doesn't get to choose the leader. They can only ratify or delay the decision of those who do. That makes them useless. Even if they fire the entire Commission, the Council will just immediately re-appoint a new President who has exactly the same views and policies.

This kind of "you may be a nuisance but not change anything" arrangement is everywhere in the EU's structure. It's infantilising. It says you can cry if you like and get some attention for a while, but ultimately, the decisions aren't being made by you.

[cameronbrown]

> The EU isn't a democracy or even a representative democracy.

> ...

Thank you for pointing this out.

Edit: Why is the parent comment being downvoted? All of the facts presented are quite public knowledge.

> What's the definition of statecraft, even?

A member of the old boys club who graduated from Eton college seems to be the British definition.

[namdnay]

Probably because his argument is “the commission decides everything”. Except that the commission is controlled by... the democratically elected representatives of each country! So how is that not a representative democracy?

[cameronbrown]

Correct - in theory.

In practice, MEPs are told who to vote for by their advisors. Who had even heard of Ursula von der Leyen until she was voted in?

[repolfx]

In this case actually MEPs were told who to vote for by the Council. The Parliament was presented with a vote on who to run the Commission ... which had a single name on it. The only obtains were to vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all.

It's common for europhiles to describe this sort of process as democratic because the Council is made up of national leaders. Unfortunately there's a key detail that makes this step non-functional: Council meetings are held in secrecy. No minutes or voting records are published.

How was von der Leyen selected and why? Nobody knows outside of the national leaders themselves. And there are sadly good reasons to believe that they systematically lie to their populations about what happens in those meetings. For one, Juncker himself has complained about this: leaders support a policy in private at the Council level, then go back home and tell their populations they fought against it and are being forced to do it by the EU.

Given the staggering amount of mendaciousness and duplicity the current anti-Brexit Parliament has been revealing amongst the ruling classes, I have no doubt at all Juncker's complaint is valid. But of course if the EU wanted it could easily fix this: just make Council meetings public so people can see if their leader's acts in those meetings matches their acts back home.

The other problem is the number of levels of indirection. Politicians don't base campaigns on who they'll vote for as leader of the Commission. It's "democratic" only in tortured theory.

[Mirioron]

So, if the prime minister of your country delegates all of their power to a private company (or group of non-elected people) then you'd still consider that to be a representative democracy? Especially when the only one that is allowed to propose laws and propose amendments would be that same company?

I think it's a question of how many steps removed the decision makers are from elected officials.

[pessimizer]

> Why is the parent comment being downvoted?

Probably by people not reading it and having a kneejerk Brexit-related response.

[raverbashing]

Or maybe reading it and not getting taken by spin and misinformation

[cameronbrown]

I was being genuinely honest asking why there was downvotes.

The words I read were what I already believed to be true and indeed would've written myself - and if it wasn't true I'd want to know.

[vonmoltke]

Feel free to point out the spin and misinformation, instead of drive-by downvoting.

[benologist]

Would you rather they iterate towards a solution or have giant corporations calling the shots?

They're just trying to fix Google's mess, like when they have to litigate to collect taxes or when the DOJ litigates to prevent colluding to depress employee wages or when customers litigate to collect their refunds. It's Google forcing new laws and litigation, the EU is much their victim as their employees, customers and users.

https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/05/24/2025223/google-fran...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-refund-advertisers-af...

[cameronbrown]

Article 13 is medieval era legislation. We should be undoing copyright laws, not clamping down on the most fundamental freedoms.

I say this without jest: At least the giant corporations can be held to account - I can choose not to use their services, or decide to use an adblocker. The EU can't and I can't opt out of it.

[dane-pgp]

Consumer choice can have a positive effect on giant corporations, but it can fail just as often. For example, how easy is it for average consumers to avoid websites that use tracking cookies to follow them around the web? Similarly, how many consumers care enough about the emissions of cars or power stations to base their purchasing decisions on that?

In matters such as these (and others, such as food, medicine, and transport safety), it makes more sense to have government regulation rather than relying solely on consumer pressure. Moreover, it is more efficient for businesses to have one consistent set of rules to follow, rather than a patchwork of 28 contradictory rules, and it is harder for large corporations to pressure countries if those countries are acting together as a bloc.

If you want to opt out of the EU, I'm sure there are several territories in the world that would welcome you to live there. Alternatively, you have EU protected free speech and voting rights to convince your fellow citizens that your country should end its EU membership. You just need to get enough of those citizens (and their elected representatives) to agree on what specific alternative to EU membership they want instead.

[cameronbrown]

> example, how easy is it for average consumers to avoid websites that use tracking cookies to follow them around the web?

The reason nothing has been done is because the majority are uninformed or just don't care. I'd argue we still get the better end of the deal with free as in beer content.

> Moreover, it is more efficient for businesses to have one consistent set of rules to follow, rather than a patchwork of 28 contradictory rules, and it is harder for large corporations to pressure countries if those countries are acting together as a bloc.

What do you personally think is better? A huge institution with power to regulate the markets of 28 nations, or 28 independent nations?

It's not about money. I think it's too much power concentrated into a single body. Would you prefer a business-first approach for anything else?

> EU protected free speech

Not allowing parody and remix is also an attack on my free speech.

[shkkmo]

I am confused as to your point, it is SOOOO much easier to block cookies and buy an EV than it is to get citizenship in a foreign country.

That is why EU wide regulations need to be considered with more considation for the needs of EU users and less consideration for the demands of private industry lobbyists.

[kiba]

They're just trying to fix Google's mess, like when they have to litigate to collect taxes or when the DOJ litigates to prevent colluding to depress employee wages or when customers litigate to collect their refunds. It's Google forcing new laws and litigation, the EU is much their victim as their employees, customers and users.

None of which had anything to do with Google News and publisher demands.

[jimmaswell]

I'd rather have giant corporations calling the shots than whatever's going on in Europe, yeah.

[pnako]

> The vast majority of the informed peoples of the EU campaigned

I wonder where those informed people got their information from.