[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.

[saubeidl]

Or how that is in any way related to the other several instances of "ever closer union" wording that France signed up to.

[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.

[saubeidl]

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

I am an uppity Slav myself, brate.

> 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.

Sure, just like in the Soviet Union ;)

> 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.

Thank you for proving my point that nationalism is a poison to be overcome - by finally getting rid of our little tribal chiefdoms and creating a unitary state not defined by national identity.

> 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.

This is the way the world works, like it or not. The reason Europe has been doing poorly lately is because of deluded utopists thinking it isn't. It's the way the US operates. It's the way China operates. Only we in Europe think we're special little snowflakes and better than everyone else.

[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.

[saubeidl]

Speaking of a nation's constitution, how do you feel about Article 23 of the German Grundgesetz?

> (1) With a view to establishing a united Europe, the Federal Republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union that is committed to democratic, social and federal principles, to the rule of law and to the principle of subsidiarity and that guarantees a level of protection of basic rights essentially comparable to that afforded by this Basic Law. To this end the Federation may transfer sovereign powers by a law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union, as well as changes in its treaty foundations and comparable regulations that amend or supplement this Basic Law or make such amendments or supplements possible, shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 79.

I would hope the people, politicians and cops of Germany follow their constitution.

[surgical_fire]

> 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 am presuming that this nation is a democracy, with a legitimately elected government. "Brussels" (i.e.: The European Union), whether you like it or not, also is a democratic institution, with a legitimately elected parliament and other representatives appointed by the government of member states (all of those democracies; and also Hungary).

In the event where there is a contradiction (and there eventually are some), those should be solved by politicians, courts, governments. It's not up to a cop to choose allegiances. He should follow the law, to the best understanding and direction of the institution he serves.

The police is subject to local and national governments. The direction will come from those. And then it is up to this hypothetical nation government to sort out its differences with the bloc through the established channels.

Because, again, a serious and respectable country honors its commitments. When something becomes law in the EU, to my understanding, there is a period until this has to be adopted in the member states as part of their law as well.

> 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.

This ks absolutely irrelevant, and not how a serious country conducts itself. The constitution is not immutable. There are avenues for it to change, following established procedure. You for some reason pretend the constitution is overridden when no such thing happens.

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

The irony here is that the "Brussels" that in your view is "pushing" too hard, typically is the EU council or EU commission.

Those bodies are either formed by the heads of state and of each country, or by officials appointed by those same heads of state.

The countries are all in on those changes you think is being "imposed".