[arlort]

They're not complicated for anyone with above room temperature IQ. And they're almost identical to how it works in the member countries anyway

And in a democracy if you don't know how your own laws are made the fault is always yours as a voter

[hn_throw2025]

Identical in every respect other than those with the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure. The Commission have no direct link to the electorate and the your country's (sorry, “state”) Council representatives can hide behind collective consensus.

[arlort]

> the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure

Completely immune is overstating it, and the power to initiate legislation is not that meaningful given that the EC initiates what the council tells it to initiate and can't actually turn it into law without parliament and council

[surgical_fire]

> Identical in every respect other than those with the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure.

You are aware that those with power to initiate legislation are appointed by national governments right?

If you are unhappy with how your country posed itself in those propositions, you can and should vote for parties that have different stances.

[lenkite]

How do the people kick out a EU representative ? Without the power to do so, it is not a "democracy".

[surgical_fire]

There are elections for the EU parliament.

As for council or commission, I presume you can elect different national governments from time to time? I mean, unless you are in Hungary.

[hn_throw2025]

Your link to the Commission and Council is homeopathic democracy, right?

In the UK with a Parliamentary democracy, unpopular policy ideas can be abandoned. Manifestos are not always adhered to, but they typically include ideas that their canvassers can sell on the doorstep and there is robust media criticism when they abandon their promises. We have a strong history of U turns because our politicians are wary of unpopularity. The most recent big backlash was the Winter Fuel Allowance cut which was proposed by the two parties (with the Treasury pushing for it behind the scenes) and abandoned by both due to deep unpopularity in the Country. Even the budget this week had a run-up where various fiscal changes were unofficially floated through the media, to see which ones had the smallest backlash.

This is completely different to the EU, where the Commission and Council arguably get what they want even if it takes several attempts.

[gpderetta]

Interesting you say that, after the UK already passed the equivalent of Chat Control with cross party support, without the law being part of the mandate of either party.

[hn_throw2025]

Which is terrible legislation, I agree on that.

But my point elsewhere in this thread is that we have the ability for future governments to overturn unpopular legislation, something that is not unusual at all in the UK.

Consider it read/write versus write-only in the EU, which doesn’t give a damn about unpopularity.

[surgical_fire]

You speak as if the Commission and Council are somehow divorced from ne national governments of the member states.

Those are not Lovecraftian entities that came from undersea. Their members are appointed from the national governments. If you dislike how your country position itself on those organs, this should change your view on how the ruling parties in your country took decisions at the EU level.

[hn_throw2025]

Your theory is that democracy would trickle up. I am saying in practice it is homeopathic democracy.

[elenchev]

Why do people get so defensive about obviously flawed processes? This reply reads like a 4chan comment written by a frustrated teenager

[input_sh]

Quite the contrary, you don't get to claim that the entire process is flawed while failing to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of it.

[4bpp]

"The plans for scanning your chats were on display for fifty Earth years at the local planning department in Alpha Centauri"?

Nobody's attention span is infinite. I don't doubt I could understand all details of the EU legislative process and keep track of what sort of terrible proposals are underway if I put in the time, but I have a day job, hobbies that are frankly more interesting, and enough national legislation to keep track of.

If you then also say that the outcome is still my responsibility as a voter, then it seems like the logical solution is that I should vote for whatever leave/obstruct-the-EU option is on the menu. I don't understand why I am obliged to surrender either a large and ever-growing slice of my attention or my one-over-400something-million share of sovereignty.

[oblio]

> I don't understand why I am obliged to surrender either a large and ever-growing slice of my attention or my one-over-400something-million share of sovereignty.

Because your puny state is no match for the US, China or soon enough, India. Heck, even Russia in its current incarnation outmatches 80% of the EU countries.

That's it, it's that simple, conceptually.

It's basically the Articles of Confederation vs the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, it's not a pretty process, but the alternative is worse.

We can all live in La-La-Land and pretend we're hobbits living in the Shire ("Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you") until reality comes crashing down.

[4bpp]

If the end result is going to be that the EU turns into Russia or China under the pretext of standing up to them (because apparently building an opaque process that civil society can't keep up with to ram through authoritarian laws is what it takes to be competitive?), then I'd rather they cut out the extra steps and let the Russians/Chinese take over. At least then nobody would be telling me that what I got is the outcome of some sacred democratic process I am obliged to respect.

[anonymous908213]

Why, then, is the supposed anti-US/China/India/Russia power bloc trying to pass laws to mandate absolute surveillance of all private communications? If the EU is going to continue attempting to legislate away people's freedoms for purposes that are completely out of scope for the reason it exists, then the natural result is that people will turn on the EU. There is little purpose in staving off the surrendering of independence to US/China if the process entails surrendering even more freedom than they would demand to the EU, all the more so when the EU already rolls over to the US/China on almost everything anyways. I am supportive of a pan-European unification in theory, but if the result looks anything like this, no wonder people are disillusioned with the European project. With friends like the EU, who needs enemies?

[oblio]

Every government has abhorrent proposals. This is a PROPOSAL.

Then proposals maybe turn into laws, through a complex process. We are HERE.

A good government doesn't have many with abhorrent LAWS.

[anonymous908213]

I understand that it is not currently law. I also understand that the EU has been dedicated to this road of eroding citizen privacy for decades, constantly trying to pass more and more egregious legislation. For example, the Data Retention Directive of 2006 was abhorrent law. After 8 years in force, it was struck down by the ECJ, which would be somewhat reassuring if not for the fact that the EU appears to consider the ECJ a thorn in its side that it seeks to undermine at every turn. I have very little faith that this will not eventually become abhorrent law given the persistence with which the EU pursues becoming a surveillance state.