[shykes]

> Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services

It's been a while since I left Europe, and I'm rusty on that particular layer of civics. Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation? Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

[tonoto]

It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in. Such as: - Chat Control - Vehicle regulations (mandates on "eCall", disturbing audio visuals and other "safety measuers) in Regulation (EU) 2018/858 - Eventual upcoming ethanol restrictions - Ban on plastic drinking straws - Drink caps that are stuck to the bottles - Ban on plastics with one hand, on the other handd there are huge plastic enclosers for batteries, scissors and in countries with a "green" profiles, such as Netherlands it seems impossible to just buy one or two apples - you have to buy a emplastered six pack of apples (lots of waste if I just wanted one apple).

[mountain_peak]

Maybe this is just a fantasy, but drink producers were previously responsible for their "waste". Bottlers would pick-up and recycle glass bottles, but the onus shifted completely to the consumer - first with a glass bottle deposit, then with the advent of disposable plastic containers. Glass bottles largely didn't require a straw, unlike the latest frappuccino, which generally comes with a plastic container, lid, and soggy paper straw.

Instead of banning plastic bottles or unrecyclable plastic-lined paper cups (or, as you mention, apple blister packs...what?) where the vast majority of plastic resides, we now have paper straws to deride. Each time you peel your lips off a dry paper tube, you're reminded of your personal culpability in the global waste shell game.

The only viable solution seems to be to stop consuming (see 'fantasy' in the opening line). I'm guilty as charged, BTW, but will politely decline paper straws (I have my own stash of plastic straw contraband).

[tonoto]

I don't even know whom they try to fool (apparently, they are succeeding in many ways...), but as you mention.. they (the politicians and institutions) complain about nanoplastics, and at the same time moves towards a plastic world. It is hypocrisy of many degrees. Milk containers used to be only paper, but now they are both paper and plastic for some reason. It's hard to find drinking bottles that are glass as they most turned plastic (I do, however, choose metal before plastic due to taste). Drinking straws.. in the super market it's now possible to buy "reusable" (Made in P.R.C) drinking straws for a really cheap price (that they are in practise, one time straws)..

[bratwurst3000]

the idea was to have less of those things people buy and consum on the way and throw them away and the wind puts them put of the trash and now shitload of plastic everywhere .... i switch between clean beaches in europe to cigarrete and plastic straw infested ones on other parts of the world. As a european i like thos clean beaches etc

[fragmede]

The only solution? Not "carry a metal reusable straw around with you"?

[cogogo]

Have to say I love the drink cap thing. It makes a lot of sense. The caps wind up everywhere so the regulation probably/most likely does some good (have not seen any data so who knows). But once you get used to it you appreciate not being able to lose the cap. Straws seem pretty useless to me in general so why not avoid plastic? but that is probably a me problem. Plastic on fruit is annoying as hell but it is not a mutually exclusive problem.

[fc417fc802]

If you don't personally find straws useful that's fine but why should something like that be dictated for everyone else let alone at such a high level of government and without a direct vote by the citizens?

To make matters worse the expected environmental impact is miniscule and the entire thing is predicated on a popular misconception that gained virality. It's a perfect example of the government failing to function well.

[cogogo]

Is that really a perfect example of a government failing to function well? In what country government does every action require a direct vote? Representative democracy is by definition imperfect.

Bet you can think of a better “perfect” example of a government failing to function well. It all depends on which government you are referring to but the best example to me would probably be a government needlessly bombing another country. Not a ban on plastic straws.

[fc417fc802]

Who said anything about a direct vote for every action? You're putting words in my mouth.

Yes, I think it's a particularly good example of government dysfunction. The issue itself is simple enough to easily make sense of and it's clear that it's a suboptimal outcome. The regulator should obviously not be getting caught up in nonsensical hype.

Don't confuse impact of the described action with quality as an example. The best examples of mathematical concepts are usually not particularly useful for anything in the real world.

[cogogo]

> If you don't personally find straws useful that's fine but why should something like that be dictated for everyone else let alone at such a high level of government and without a direct vote by the citizens?

That is cleary advocating for something as small straws being worthy of a direct vote.

Is there a reasonable expectation for government to be mathematically optimal in any possible way? Why should I not confuse your example as an example?

[consp]

Don't know where you get your apples but I can buy 1 if I want. Just not at the supermarket since they optimise to sell you more than you need. No regulation involved here.

[tonoto]

I believe it was both in Albert and Aldi (during 2023). Felt really awkward to waste fruit, but that's nice that there are sanity among other stores. I get it that folks can be annoyed when I hand pick my potatoes at the grocery store to match for size and to have good coloured exemplars, but to pick and choose is one of the few delights buy groceries.

[singpolyma3]

I can also buy 1 at the supermarket

[mulmen]

Care to share your secret?

[speleding]

The ideal solution for all this is would be what the Japanese have: a population trained to just throw garbage in the bin instead of on the ground. I don't think I've heard any politician who is even considering measures to get there. He would get my vote.

[mschuster91]

> It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in.

Well... your government certainly has a say in Brussels. Often enough, national politicians use "Brussels" as a scapegoat... nothing can happen in Brussels if national governments (or the Commission) don't propose it first, the Parliament has no right to initiative.

If people would stop electing dumb fucks to national governments or to at least hold their dumb fucks in national governments accountable (yes, it is possible, even Hungary managed to do so), you'd get a lot less "Brussels" bullshit.

(And yes, I am aware, this statement is particularly ironic given I'm German and we were utterly infamous for shipping off utter wastes of space to Brussels)

> and in countries with a "green" profiles, such as Netherlands it seems impossible to just buy one or two apples - you have to buy a emplastered six pack of apples (lots of waste if I just wanted one apple).

That's a Dutch specialty. Here in Germany, I can buy single apples, pears, bananas or whatever just fine if I want - although I don't because apples suck.

If I were to guess, it's a logistics thing. Sixpacks of apples are easier to handle and transport than a bunch of loose apples.

[Yhdz]

Not sure where you live in the Netherlands, but where I live we have plenty of places where you can buy single pieces of fruit. Maybe it changes per supermarket.

[coldtea]

>Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation?

Barely.

>Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

It's decided by a mix of unelected bureucrats and opaque procedures people track even less than their national politics.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

They do have a say. They can elect representatives who could change the legal framework and the incentives for the bureaucrats, or even remove the ability of the bureaucrats to regulate certain things. Then these regulations would not get passed and that would be that.

[eastbound]

We have a say at a 4th level of derived decision, which is 2 levels more than what people call a democracy. Also, the other political party will do it too.

= We don’t have a say. We voted NO to the new EU treaties in 2008 and the new president decided that electing him meant that we approved the same treaties.

They only let us vote when we agree, anyway.

[Muromec]

The lower chamber of parliament that votes on the regulation is directly elected and can rewrite and amend proposals. The higher chamber (EU Council) is comprised from government (or state?) heads which are either directly of indirectly elected with a length of 1. The commission (executive branch) that drafts the laws that are amended and passed by the parliament is voted in by a parliament which is directly elected.

Where do you get 4th level of deriviation exactly?

[coldtea]

It's even less direct than national parliaments, which already are a joke.

And the unelected bureucracy, careerists, and 2-3 big country interests pressuring others under the table, are driving the show...

[kergonath]

It’s just as direct as national parliaments. Citizens vote for MEPs.

[racingmars]

But MEPs can't even introduce legislation, they have to get all of Parliament to ask the European Commission to initiate legislation, and the Commissioners are pretty far removed from direct election. Nobody elected by the citizens can initiate legislation.

[meta_gunslinger]

Please stop spreading misinformation, the European Parliament constituted by the MEPs has zero legislative powers.

[coldtea]

Sure.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Not sure what other mechanism would be possible for creating a rule system like the DMA presuming that the EU countries remain independent. Treaties are too slow, and direct democracy on an issue this complicated is the realm of science fiction (see Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space universe for a take on this -- particularly the Demarchist faction).

[Henchman21]

Voting the world over is a joke. IIRC it was Carlin who said “if voting mattered they wouldn’t met us do it”.

[afthonos]

People the world over: (die for the right to vote)

One comedian: LOL they only killed them to make you think it was valuable.

The Internet: (sagely) What a wise assessment by a wise man of wisdom.

[meta_gunslinger]

Tons of people have died for a variety of causes throughout human history. It does not mean that the causes were not silly or deluded. (e.g religious wars, Communism, Fascism etc.)

[afthonos]

Carlin didn’t say it was silly, he said it didn’t matter. Religion, communism, fascism were all world-defining ideas, and they very much mattered to those who fought for them and against them. What am I saying, “mattered”. Go check social media, they matter right now.

[dotancohen]

Carlin was excellent at delivery, but don't confuse clever delivery with wisdom.

[mike_hearn]

> They can elect representatives

They cannot. The EU Parliament cannot pass, change or repeal laws. Its representatives can't represent.

If you mean elect national representatives, then the EU treaties were deliberately written to only give them one option - exit entirely and be trade sanctioned by the others as a result, who must obey constitutionally even if it's self harm and they don't want to do it.

The EU is designed from the ground up to look slightly democratic from a distance without actually being so. Ordinary people living and working in member states have zero influence over these kinds of regulations which is why stuff like the DMA doesn't reflect their actual legislative priorities, which according to polls for a long time are primarily economic and immigration related, sometimes climate.

If you look at how the political class treated Brexit, you can see why it's so hard to influence these decisions.

[KoolKat23]

If it's not in the EU parliaments jurisdiction, it's in the EU council's. As a rule, all members states have to be democratic and you can simply vote out your EU council member i.e. your head of state. It is democratic.

[mike_hearn]

The EU Councils decisions are taken in secret. You have no idea if it's democratic or not, nor does it matter even if they do hold a vote because by convention none of them ever campaign on the decisions they make there.

To see this, try and find out how Ursula von der Leyen ended up the most powerful woman in Europe. What qualified her for that, who were the alternative candidates considered, what was said during the debate and by whom.

You can't because the entire process was secret from end to end. Was she even voted on? Nobody knows.

Again, the EU is designed to pass itself off as democratic without being so. But so is China.

[KoolKat23]

As far as I understand the council's votes are made public.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-c...

But the European Parliaments votes can be by secret vote, which is bad in my opinion, and ironic considering they're the ones we directly elect.

[mike_hearn]

Ah but look closely at those votes - do you see anything strange about them? Anything at odds with the idea that they are being cast by directly elected heads of government based on national policy programmes?

Edit: Nevermind, I'll be more direct.

What you linked to isn't the European Council that has elected heads of state in it. It's the votes of the Council of the European Union. Yes, this naming choice is astoundingly stupid, and because it's never been fixed despite many decades of confusion there are many who speculate the confusion is deliberate. It creates exactly the kind of false appearance of democracy that's tripped you up here.

The European Council, the one with Macron, Merz, etc in it, doesn't publish anything about their decision making process. There probably aren't votes. They don't approve or disapprove laws, either. Officially they decide things by consensus. Unofficially nobody knows because they all swear each other to secrecy.

The laws are approved by the Council of the European Union who are, theoretically, still ministers from the different governments i.e. a vote on a trade law would have trade ministers. In reality, that's not how it works either. You can easily verify it. Here's a random law that got approved recently by the 'democratic' parts of the system, on "the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability":

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9729-2026-I...

Obvious questions one might ask include:

1. Why does dog welfare have to be imposed on members via transnational law they can't change?

2. Why are nearly all the votes of the Council passing with 95%+ support, all the time? Aren't they supposed to be from different political parties in different countries?

3. Is it really plausible that elected trade ministers from all over Europe travelled somewhere, met and had a meaningful debate about dog welfare?

The answers are respectively:

1. It doesn't and shouldn't.

2. Because they aren't real votes.

3. https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13873/27/eu-counc... says "The EU Council adopted the regulation ... without debate." (note the same naming confusion in the EU's own websites - they use "EU Council" to mean the body that approves laws, which isn't the body made up of heads of state that calls itself the European Council).

This law was waved through by some low level civil servants on behalf of the ministers. Probably neither group even read it. As is true for almost all EU law: most of the work is done by lobbyists.

So, when people tell you the EU is a democracy because of the Council, think about that. Or just ask them which council they mean, because they probably don't know themselves. Fun fact: there's also the Council of Europe which isn't connected to the EU at all.

[M95D]

> The EU Parliament cannot pass, change or repeal laws.

I suggest you verify that.

[mike_hearn]

It's a constitutional fact. The most they can do is propose amendments to laws proposed by the Commission, but the Commission drives the whole process and isn't required to accept them (worst case, they just cancel the law and then try again later).

There is literally nobody you can vote for to if you want to repeal the DMA.

[M95D]

I had the impression they can amend and repeal them. I was wrong.

[mike_hearn]

No worries. It's called a Parliament despite not being one by the definition of the word, specifically to create this confusion.

[Danox]

The lawyers and the politicians make the decisions. You really don’t think it’s the common man or woman. So there’s a year or two year tape delay.

[BurningFrog]

You get to vote for one of ~5 alternatives every 4 years. This then propagates to hundreds of decisions in a way that dilutes your influence to practically nothing.

[miroljub]

> Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation?

EU voters don't have any saying in any EU level regulation. The EU regime do basically what they want.

[mrln]

While the democratic process in the EU deserves its criticism, this is plain wrong. EU citizens can vote for the EU parliament.

[miroljub]

And EU Parliament can't propose a new law. Or propose to change a law. How super democratic.

[mrln]

Yup, but laws have to be approved by the EU parliament and that's not just a formality. As I said, I do think it is valid to critizise that system, but what you stated is plain wrong and even when I pointed it out you wouldn't admit it.

[christkv]

None. The EU is getting more and more un democratic by the year. More power centralized in the bureaucracy vis regulations and other mechanisms.

[solid_fuel]

You have anything to back up that claim, or is it just knee-jerk drivel with no evidence based on your feelings and distrust of scary government bureaucrats?

[Saline9515]

Why is chatcontrol being pushed every year by the european commission, while people and their representatives are in majority against it?

Besides given the amount of lobbying in the EU institutions, it's obvious that citizens don't have a chance against corpos with infinite money.

[jyounker]

And how is that different from any other governmental level? Seriously, we in Berlin got a freeway that nobody I know wanted or wants. It's not the EU's fault.

[Saline9515]

In a classic democracy, the Parliament can repeal laws, unlike in the EU.

[Muromec]

Because puritans gonna puritan and security services want to read your comms. That's like any day of the week everywhere since forever.

[miroljub]

Do you have any evidence supporting the notion that EU decisions process is democratic?

[aucisson_masque]

EU has a parlement and a commission.