[Abfrage]

The election to the EU Parliament is a farce. The parliament has no power. It cannot propose laws. It only votes on the laws of the Commission. In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission. The person elected did not get the office. They simply put von der Leyen in that position while she was investigated in the German parliament.

[wolverine876]

Having done a lot of work in politics, I see the same things frequently: how easy it is for even a few people to accomplish things with a little effort (and that's with a level of organization and management that is shockingly low - as in, if you have competent business skills, you'll walk in and think 'this can't possibly be as bad as it looks'), and then on the outside there are a lot of people calling it a 'farce', saying it's hopeless, etc. etc. It's just kind of silly, like people telling me heavier-than-air flight is impossible. OK, if that's what you obviously want to think.

It's like the naysayers for anything, such as startups. 'It doesn't work', 'it can't be done', 'nobody will let you', blah blah blah. And all the time you are doing it. What can you say to them?

[tsimionescu]

> In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission.

What are you basing this on? The President of the Commission is, by law, proposed by the European Council and validated or not by the European Parliament. Since there was no single majority party after the election, it's not completely surprising that backroom deals led to a different president than the desire of the party holding the most seats.

[66fm472tjy7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm...

> The Spitzenkandidat of the largest party would then have a mandate to assume the Commission Presidency

While this is not de jure, German-speaking media did report on the 2019 election as if the above were consensus. It is my understanding that this was not the case in all EU countries.

[tsimionescu]

Interesting, I had never heard of this, and this was not in any way how the election was presented in Romania where I live.

[pas]

The power to veto is not a farce.

[blibble]

it is because the commission just has to bide its time

once the law is passed future parliaments can't modify or repeal it

[pas]

it doesn't depend on time. the parliament can reject it every single time without it ever getting tired.

and since the MEPs represent the same people who elect governments who then delegate to the commission, it's strange if the commission continues to propose regulations that are unpopular.

[blibble]

you're thinking on a sub 5 year scale

the commission can wait for a parliament that will pass its legislation

and once it's passed: that's it, future parliaments can do nothing about it

and if a member state wants it gone: it has to leave the EU entirely

and politically the commission is the same as it has always been (by design)

[pas]

the commission does what the member states want. obviously it has its own agency in the matters, but members don't send someone who would totally disregard their wishes.

the whole problem with these security-privacy ideas is that the member governments want to reign in the Internet, just as they did with every other phenomena for the past hundreds of years. (with varying degrees of "success".)

CSAM is especially a big red cloth that catches the eye of governments. It's not like there was less child abuse before the Internet, and if there were absolutely no CSAM on it from tomorrow ther wouldn't be less actual abuse... :/