[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).