[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.

[meta_gunslinger]

Well they weren’t silly but they were definitely deluded. They still are.

[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.

[KoolKat23]

You're correct on me posting the wrong link sorry. Thank you for the detailed reply.

But I disagree slightly with your take on the secrecy thing. Many of those discussions are diplomatic or internal administration. It is normal for these things to be kept private even in domestic governments. As it can put the state at a disadvantage to have the matters disclosed publicly (the state acts on behalf of the people).

There seems to definitely be shortcomings in transparency however on legislative debates like you mention, and should atleast have a period of public consultation on all of them. Also the presidency sets the talking points and just ignore legislative proposals they don't like.

It is democratic but yes I 100% agree it's entirely open for abuse, and I'm sadly sure is being abused. Separately and unrelated, imo lobbyists should not feature on the system at all.

Legislative matters are supposedly not secret and appointments can be (whether it's wrong or right is a bit grey imo, and that isn't a good thing).

1. The European Council The European Council primarily decisions by consensus. However, where the EU treaties specify a formal vote, certain appointments allow for or require a secret ballot. When it is used: Secret votes are strictly reserved for specific appointments or personnel decisions, most notably the election of the President of the European Council. Legal Basis: Article 4(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council states that a secret ballot shall be held if requested by any member of the European Council supported by a simple majority. 2. The Council of the European Union Because the Council of the European Union acts as a legislative body, its operations are bound by strict transparency requirements under the Treaty of Lisbon. Legislative Debates: When the Council deliberates or votes on a draft legislative act, the meeting must be public, and voting records are made visible. Secret votes are prohibited for legislative matters. Non-Legislative/Administrative Matters: Secret ballots are permitted only for specific appointments or selections to individual positions (such as nominating members of the European Central Bank Executive Board or Court of Auditors) if a member state requests it and the decision receives majority support to proceed secretly.

And dog welfare being across borders make sense legally (single market) and ethically.

[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.