[aestetix]

Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?

The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

[concinds]

The answer is pretty simple. This decision isn't "the EU".

The European Commission has fewer employees than the Luxembourg government (and keep in mind, they're "running" a continent).

This decision was the Council, i.e. simply the national member governments. Don't let anyone blame "the EU" for this, the national governments are the ones that proposed this, pushed it through EU institutions, and might now try to override the EU parliament about it. Just because national (elected) governments are pushing it through EU institutions doesn't mean you should blame "the EU". It wasn't the "Eurocrats".

[spurgu]

What you're describing is how the process in the EU works. So in essence it is "the EU".

It doesn't seem to have any limits or restrictions on what it can do as an institution. It forced idiotic bottlecaps on all of us for shit's sake... and it has little consideration for privacy laws or constitutions of individuals, otherwise this proposal would've been thrown out automatically each time, if there was anything resembling constitutional values governing the EU's mandates.

It's like being governed by a neurotic unhinged monarch.

[concinds]

But the national governments are the ones who gave themselves that power in the first place. Because they wanted to be able to do shit like this. Hopefully the EU Parliament will stop them.

But the takeaway from this shouldn't be: "screw the EU", it should be: make the EU more democratic, and give more power to the parliament and less to the backroom machinations of member states. That's exactly what the pro-EU reformists want to do. Or you could pass an EU Constitution that enshrines basic rights including privacy, which the pro-Europe activists tried in 2005 (it explicitly mentioned communications privacy) but failed due to anti-EU pushback and fears over "sovereignty".

[cbeach]

If it were national governments making laws like this (as opposed to the EU), citizens would be free to move to other European countries that respected their basic civil liberties. The first country that implemented Chat Control would suffer immediate brain drain, and it would be a lesson to governments elsewhere.

However, because the EU forces all countries to move in lock-step, it means citizens are denied the freedom to vote with their feet. They cannot move to the country next door. They'd need to flee to another continent, which is a much more significant move. The feedback loop (i.e. people voting with their feet due to govt policy) is then more coarse-grained, and less obvious for all to see.

[ben_w]

> The first country that implemented Chat Control would suffer immediate brain drain, and it would be a lesson to governments elsewhere.

I left the UK because of the Investigatory Powers Act, and because Brexit would make it hard to fight that act. I used my freedom of movement within the EU to get to an EU nation. Did the UK "suffer immediate brain drain"? Not from Brexit, from the Investigatory Powers Act.

The EU "lockstep" (except not really, see a few weeks ago) on stuff like this happen because the governments all talk to each other and negotiate their positions. It's not nefarious, it's basically the same as any other government having a debate in a parliamentary setting. Difference is, the EU needs either a supermajority or a unanimous result depending on the topic, it's not generally enough for them to have a simple majority like national governments do.

Chat control is QMV. Tougher to get that than any legislation in, say, the UK parliament.

[spurgu]

> Or you could pass an EU Constitution that enshrines basic rights including privacy

That, and (somehow) enforce the basic principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which they are supposed to do already. That would go a long way towards not misusing that centralized power.

I will have to read up on that 2005 event, sounds weird to me that countries would complain about there being constitutional rights at the EU level. Not sure how those rights would conflict with local ones. Unless there were positive rights, like "the right to internet" or the like, which would be ridiculous and not what I'm proposing (just basic negative rights).

[throw_a_grenade]

EU (and preceding organisations since European Coal and Steel Community) were created so that there will be no war in Europe. How exactly this objective is achieved is of secondary importance. It is economic institution, because someone calculated that this will be best shot, but if (or when) calculation credibly shifts (for example, that it would be better for them to be a religion, a feudal system, or a federation -- whatever), it will morph into something else.

I'd say that it has 100% fulfilled its primary goal that there is no military conflict between major European states for like 80 years and counting, which is longest period ever recorded and a historical anomaly. The means of how it was executed is obviously a matter of debate, mistakes were made etc., but we over here generally make love, not war.

[hshdhdhj4444]

The EU almost certainly has protected privacy for most European nations than it has hurt it.

You simply need to look at the precipitous decline in privacy in the UK after it left the EU to see some of the most stark examples of this.

[surgical_fire]

You speak as if the EU is somehow divorced from the national governments, and is imposing its will to the helpless states that compose it.

The commissioners that propose laws are appointed by each national government. The national governments of each member state is all in on this.

NATO is not a political institution. It is a defense treaty (this one completely outside the realm of democracy).

[SiempreViernes]

A defence treaty is obviously a very political institution.

[surgical_fire]

Obviously not in the sense the person I was replying to meant, considering their claim is that the EU should not be considered one.

[blibble]

ever closer union in the Treaty of Rome

the entire point is to build a country called Europe

and the EU is built on the "Monnet method", where it slowly ratchets forward taking more power from national parliaments and giving it to the EU council/commission

(with a useless parliament there to make it appear democratic)

the UK leaving is the only example of the ratchet being reversed

[hdgvhicv]

The useless parliament that’s stopped this legislation twice?

[saubeidl]

> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?

That is not the case.

The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.

> The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?

[spurgu]

> Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?

Powerful people get together and decide that they know what's best for people. Then they claim that there is "consent" because people are given the right to vote and that there is a "social contract" that no one actually has signed, which everyone should still abide by.

[aestetix]

That treaty was established just over a decade after Hitler surrendered, when there were two Germanys, an Iron curtain across Europe, and a lot of other things which changed significantly after the Wall fell. Surely you would agree that those words meant something quite different then than they do now?

I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat Control is using the threat of child porn to make people forget the reasons why the ECHR cares so deeply about privacy. I'm not sure why Denmark is pushing it so hard, but governments have long feared and hated encryption.

[saubeidl]

Not only are you moving your goalposts from "this wasn't the original purpose" (it was - it's part of the founding document!), but it has been reaffirmed and strengthened over and over again since: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

Don't get me wrong - I, too, care about privacy and think Chat Control is a horrible idea, that thankfully seems to be getting shut down. That doesn't mean the EU is somehow not legitimate as a governing body.

[aestetix]

I was not moving goalposts. I was saying that the way we interpret the words has changed over time, and therefore we are taking words that meant one thing in 1957 and reinterpreting them to fit assumptions for today. Thus the semantic drift creates a shift.

To address the other point, I think we're missing a question of scope. Is the EU a legitimate governing body for negotiating trade deals and employment regulations between countries? Absolutely. I question however whether in recent years EU has begun to either scope-drift or expand their scope beyond what might be considered reasonable.

I think this is a natural tendency within human nature, especially when a governing body is given some power. Over time new opportunities arise which allow the body to gain more power, and then they reinterpret founding documents to include some of the new powers they want. I think it is pretty clear this is happening with the EU. Look at the rise of nationalist parties in Germany and France, etc.

[inglor_cz]

"contained the objective of “ever closer union” "

Such words in any Preamble are usually meant as a lofty declaration of some ideal, not a concrete political goal.

After all, "ever closer" does not even mean federation, it means a unitary state, which is "closer" than a federation or a confederation.

If you believe that a single sentence in a 1957 treaty can be used as a ramrod to push European federalization from above, you will be surprised by the backlash. European nations aren't mostly interested in becoming provinces of a future superstate, potential referenda in this direction will almost certainly fail, and given the growth of the far right all over the continent, I don't expect the governments to agree to any further voluntary transfer of powers to Brussels.

Also, the European Commission is not a government and is not meant to act as a government that can decide "everything".

The countries that formed the EU have only agreed to transfer some powers to Brussels. Not give it an unlimited hand over everything. And Chat Control is a major infringement of constitutional rights in many countries, where inviolability of communication except for concrete warrants has been written into law for decades.

Imagine a situation if the German Constitutional Court says "this is illegal by the German Grundgesetz, and German law enforcement may not execute such laws". Do you believe that German authorities will defer to Brussels instead of its own Constitutional Court? Nope. Same with Poland etc. Local constitutional institutions have more legitimacy among the people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.

[saubeidl]

I don't think a mere Federalization should happen. I think a unitary state is - as you said! - what we all signed up for and what we should get.

There's a reason the "ever closer" phrasing has been repeated over and over again - in the 1983 Solemn Declaration, the 1997 Maastricht Treaty, the 2009 Lisbon treaty etc etc.

Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of centralization and the lack thereof.

[LunaSea]

> what we all signed up for

No, we didn't. The EU ignored the French and Dutch people's votes.

[saubeidl]

What are you even talking about

[hdgvhicv]

I suspect the elected French parliament ignoring the “no to eu constitution vote” in 2005

Not sure how the EU is blamed for the sovereign actions of the French Parliament.

[inglor_cz]

There is a reason indeed - unbridled utopianism that will eventually sink us.

In practice, the only political party that openly advocates for a European Federation, Volt, is polling around statistical error from zero in most EU countries. The will of the people isn't there.

Becoming a federation or even a unitary state isn't a self-executing protocol. Actual heads of governments have to meet, agree to dissolve their individual countries into a superstate with one central government, and actual parliaments have to ratify this.

You don't have the vote to do this democratically. European nationalisms were at their lowest ebb in cca 2000; since then, they have returned with vengeance.

You don't have the force to do this forcibly. No Genghis Khan or Napoleon on the scene.

And in the current connected world, you can't even do this by stealth. The only result of the people actually learning of such a plan would be far-right governments in France and Germany at the same time, ffs.

Please stop. Just stop. When I was a youngster, I witnessed violent collapse of Yugoslavia, somewhat less violent collapse of the Soviet Union and fortunately non-violent collapse of Czechoslovakia, three entities whose constituent nations didn't want to be tied together. I don't want to see 2.0 of those, continent-wide, when I am old.

"Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of centralization and the lack thereof."

Becoming more like China is not particularly attractive for former Eastern Bloc countries. Chat Control is enough of a window into such future that I don't want to go there. Also, your history is massively incomplete. Cherry-picking of some events while ignoring others.

The pinnacle of European power, with the European countries controlling half of mankind, happened around 1900, with no centralization of the continent in place. And we have been losing our relative strength since 2000, which is precisely the time when the continent is most integrated ever.

Chinese central government unleashed at least two total disasters on its own population in the 20th century - the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. It can unleash some more if a sufficiently unhinged person gets into power again. With centralized power, you are free to make some Huge Mistakes.

I certainly don't want future Brussels to start some European versions of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, just because they can. Austria-Hungary collapsed on such stupidity after 400 years of continuing integration.

[saubeidl]

> The will of the people isn't there

The will of the people never mattered. All that matters is ideology and force to execute on it.

> Becoming more like China is not particularly attractive for former Eastern Bloc countries

Yeah, what's attractive for former Eastern Block countries is mooching off Western Europe, taking our money and then blocking any progress and electing regressive autocrats. In some ways, it was better when you were one of our (Austrian) colonies. At least we managed to drag you into modernity against your will.

> Chinese central government unleashed at least two total disasters on its own population in the 20th century - the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. It can unleash some more if a sufficiently unhinged person gets into power again

That's the beauty of it! They did all of that and yet they are thriving now. None of this shit matters in the long term. To quote Mao - "A revolution is not a dinner party".

[inglor_cz]

"The will of the people never mattered. All that matters is ideology and force to execute on it."

OK, hence your admiration of China. Now I understand.

"Yeah, what's attractive for former Eastern Block countries is mooching off Western Europe, taking our money"

As of now, places like Germany are stagnating so much that they are called "the sick man of Europe" again, while places like Poland show enormous economic upswing. You can lie to yourself that this is caused by "taking our money", but what really kills growth in the West is bureaucracy running amok + deep anti-growth mindset of the Green part of the political spectrum. Which is negligible here, and which is both a self-inflicted wound in the West.

"and then blocking any progress"

How dare those uppity Slavs have any ideas that conflict with our better wisdom, right?

I will tell you where this sea change began: in the "wir schaffen das" autumn of 2015. That is when the eastern half of the EU found out that Western elites are suicidal or, at best, totally unrealistic, and that we cannot simply follow them into their abyss of stupidity.

Ten years later, only fanatics will call the Wilkommenskultur a success. We were right, you were wrong, and you have to live with the consequences.

"and electing regressive autocrats".

Says Austria, which elected a Nazi president (Kurt Waldheim) and introduced the FPÖ into its federal government already in the 20th century? I still remember the boycotts that resulted from that move.

"In some ways, it was better when you were one of our (Austrian) colonies."

Neither Czech lands, nor Slovenia, Galicia etc. were, in any sense, Austrian colonies. It was an amalgamation of old medieval kingdoms under one ruling house. As citizens of the old empire, we were all equal under the law - not a colonial situation where the natives are usually second-class people.

"At least we managed to drag you into modernity against your will."

Half of the people who dragged Austria-Hungary into modernity were Jewish intellectuals and businesspeople who were then massacred by German nationalists in one of the greatest crimes of history, and Austria was a massive hotbed of anti-Semitism since the era of Georg von Schönerer and Karl Lüger. Not to mention a certain unsuccessful painter on the top of it.

So thanks for precisely nothing. The worst of the rot started in Vienna, which even had the gall to call a neighboring capital "Judapest".

But you have shown your colors pretty well. Force, ideology, subjugation, agree with us or else. Fortunately modern Austria or Europe isn't really made for people like you anymore. Still a surprise to meet someone like you here on Hacker News.

[constantius]

I assume this is sarcasm, but, for those reading, a unitary state is definitely not what those words meant. If they did, that would mean that 27 countries willingly and fully signed away their sovereignty, without knowledge of the public. The only times where this has happened before in world histoey was either surrender in the face if insurmountable odds, or a decision by the elites in exchange for unimaginable riches. As far as I know, the politicians and bureaucrats who made/signed those treaties didn't become billionaires since.

[saubeidl]

This has happened many a time. The US constitution is one such example.

[constantius]

Surely you can see the huge differences between EU and US? The context and outcome of these unions are incomparable.

[surgical_fire]

> Local constitutional institutions have more legitimacy among the people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.

Repeating this bullshit over and over does not make it true.

The EU has a parliament that approves laws. The commissioners are appointed by the democratic elected governments. It has a legitimate mandate.

[inglor_cz]

Ask local armed forces, judges or police whether they would back Brussels or their local government if it came to an actual forceful showdown.

This is the ultimate legitimacy test, not things written on paper.

[surgical_fire]

> things written on paper.

"things written on paper" is the basis of any serious, respectable country. "Things written on paper" should be respected, because when you are serious about your commitments, words matter.

I don't want to see the country I live in become a shithole because local armed forces or police think themselves above the law.

The ultimate legitimacy test is whether you are serious about the things you sign. Not if some proto-fascist wants to tear down institutions.

[inglor_cz]

OK, let me formulate this better. Let us say that you have a serious conflict between two such papers.

One of them is the nation's constitution, the other is a decision from Brussels, and people from politicians down to the regular cop will have to choose their allegiance, A or B.

I claim that in such situation, in most EU nations, their constitutions will win. They are held in higher emotional regard, as they have behind them a long legacy of struggle and memory of people whose lives were martyred in a fight for national freedom.

Which is actually why Brussels shouldn't push some things too hard.

[pessimizer]

> a weird political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?

NATO is a military alliance, not a government.

[sunaookami]

>How has it morphed into a wierd political institution

Von der Leyen, an autocratic fascist that is ruining this continent. She failed to push her agenda in Germany so she "failed upwards". Even how she got this position was highly controversial and went against the top candidate principle. The EU commission is exceeding their competencies. The EU is not democratic, there is no parliamentary oversight, the parliament can't even introduce legislative proposals. No one can vote for the EU commission, only the parliament can vote for or against all the proposed candidates (not one by one). Parliament is essentially a rubber stamp for the commission.

I could be jailed for this comment btw.

[saubeidl]

All of this is disinformation and propaganda.

There is parliamentary oversight, it's literally the next step in the process.

We all voted for the EU commission through our respective elections for national governments, who appoint the comission.

You could not be jailed for this comment, though sometimes I wish you could. Information warfare is real.

[sunaookami]

>All of this is disinformation and propaganda.

I suggest actually looking at how the EU operates instead of accusing others of "spreading disinformation and propaganda" which is a typical response when someone critizies EU institutions.

>There is parliamentary oversight

A rubber stamp is oversight I guess. Laws like the DMA and DSA give the commission way too much power without being kept in check.

>it's literally the next step in the process.

Ah yes the "informal trilogue" where all parties meet behind closed doors and the public and most parliament members are excluded. Only ten members allowed! Did you know that from 2009 to 2014 at least 93% EU-wide laws were "debated" this way?

>We all voted for the EU commission through our respective elections for national governments, who appoint the comission

That's a very generous definition of "voted". As I said people can't vote for the EU commission nor can the parliament vote for the members of the commission. Remember that the EU commission is the ONLY one that can propose laws, the parliament CAN NOT do this even though it's their job.

>You could not be jailed for this comment, though sometimes I wish you could

Yes let's jail everyone for online comments you do not like. How about that German journalist that critizied a politician regarding free speech and got probation? Or when the police raided someone's home because he called a politician on Twitter a "dick"? Is this your idea of democracy?

[saubeidl]

> That's a very generous definition of "voted". As I said people can't vote for the EU commission nor can the parliament vote for the members of the commission. Remember that the EU commission is the ONLY one that can propose laws, the parliament CAN NOT do this even though it's their job.

People can't vote for ministers etc either. That's how representative democracy works.

> How about that German journalist that critizied a politician regarding free speech and got probation?

You mean a neonazi that was spreading Nazi propaganda in Germany, which is a bit sensitive when it comes to that sort of thing for obvious historical reasons?

> Or when the police raided someone's home because he called a politician on Twitter a "dick

That was in fact ridiculous and I agree with you that this shouldn't have happened. But that isn't "the EU" that's German conservatives.

[sunaookami]

>That's how representative democracy works.

You can't compare voting ministers with how the voting for EU institution works. The votes get so watered down that its far away from representative.

>You mean a neonazi that was spreading Nazi propaganda in Germany

Ah yes everyone is a Nazi... no I'm talking about David Bendels. You may not like Deutschland-Kurier (I certainly do not, that's also not relevant) but going after a journalist because he posted a meme picture of Nancy Faeser with the text "I hate freedom of speech" is way over the top (and proves him right ironically).

>But that isn't "the EU" that's German conservatives

That was the SPD which is on the left spectrum.

You don't seem to know much about this stuff so why bother replying trying to make other readers think I were some sort of disinformation spreader? That's incredibly dishonest.

[izacus]

Your blatant lying and propaganda does not belong to this site (or anywhere).

Why are you posting this?

[sunaookami]

So where exactly is the lie and the propaganda? Do I have to ask you before posting here or what?