[m132]

The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.

[junto]

I’m convinced of widespread corruption here. We need to follow the money. Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? I guess my question is rhetorical.

[sunshine-o]

> I’m convinced of widespread corruption here.

I might not be corruption, it might be worse.

I was told by Brussels insiders a few decades ago the Commission people are not really corruptible. They are guaranteed a very comfortable life and the sanctions are harsh. That might have change, I don't know.

What I was explained is the system is designed for lobbying. The main input is by the lobbies, not the people.

Most of us assume the EU is designed like the US system or individual countries like Germany, Italy or France but it is not. The power of the Parliament is very limited, but we see here that little power has become too much of an inconvenience for the people in power.

For anyone daring to look into the boring design of that thing will come to the conclusion it is absolutely not democratic.

[greensh]

Also the democratic systems like Germany are not known for their pro people / worker law decisions, the opposite actually in the last couple of years.

This Democracy does not equal "what people want". It's a system designed to make people feel like they have the power for change. Knowing that, many people just vote to stop the far-right party from gaining power.

The EU similarly is working as designed. It's a symbiosis between State and Capital and in hard times it has to regulate peoples rights in order to maintain stability. Or in this case open the door to stop anti-state/EU propaganda.

I'm not against Democracy, just want to lay out it's limitations as it is applied.

[cryo32]

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or corruption. It’s just design by committee bureaucracy. It always fails into that state.

[bob001]

Gerhard Schröder would like to have a word.

[everyone]

And no committee, no bureaucracy, no regulations, just let corporations do whatever they want, works great right!? It's not like it immediately collapses to despotism as the slightly bigger fish gobbles up everything in a positive feedback process.

With an egalitarian government, corruption is a problem, its bad, its something we try to fight and there are mechanisms to do so. Having no government is just giving up and going straight to 100% corruption.

[cryo32]

I’m not suggesting that at all. I am simply suggesting that bureaucracies have their own specific failure models.

I am very pro regulation.

[everyone]

Ok, theres defo a lot of idiots on HN and in USA who disagree with you.

Still, kinda weird to complain about bureaucracy and regulations in this context cus its the only solution to these problems of egality and corruption which humanity has been struggling with ever since the dawn of civilisation.

Tho, It's kind of a solved problem too. We should all just try to be like Denmark, they at the top or near the top of practially every metric. Happiness, corruption index, Gini, Quality of life, healthcare, education, carbon. They have a massive powerful bureaucracy, lots of strong regulation, extremely high taxes, low corruption.

The solution to any eco-geo-political issue is just "be more like Denmark". Once everyone gets to that level we can think about further improvement.

[Ray20]

> We should all just try to be like Denmark

Wait, but doesn't Denmark have the strictest immigration policies in the entire EU?

> they at the top or near the top of practially every metric. Happiness, corruption index, Gini, Quality of life, healthcare, education, carbon.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting deporting all migrants to improve the statistics to Denmark's level? But that's impossible in our legal system. We've been actively importing culturally incompatible foreigners for decades now, and many already have citizenship. You can't just strip people of their citizenship in an attempt to improve the statistics.

[blackqueeriroh]

Denmark has half the population of just the Los Angeles Metropolitan area and is 85% white. Most countries cannot be like Denmark.

[munksbeer]

Denmark seem to be the ones pushing chat control the hardest.

[hobo123]

Is that the same Denmark that tried to push Chat Control 2.0 in the EU?

[greenavocado]

It’s just design by committee bureaucracy and its members attend Bohemian Grove

[cryo32]

I genuinely don’t think such folk have as much influence and power as everyone thinks. In my (direct) experience it’s just a complete mess and they’re reacting naively to every problem.

They’re fighting a battle against the real problem which is the paid up influence campaigns that give them problems to defend. Start at the press, the social media companies and the think tanks.

[greenavocado]

They form these groups to network and do favors for each other and provide cover for each other. After a while you are asked to do increasingly compromising things to yourself to do deeper into/stay part of the club such as blood rituals. Bohemian Grove high priest Henry Kissinger led simulated animal sacrifice rituals attended by many others in the "inner circles" of the top strata of decision makers and wallet holders. They do this because engaging in a common taboo unites the group extremely strongly, and these behaviors are the ultimate taboo.

[einsteinx2]

> They do this because engaging in a common taboo unites the group extremely strongly, and these behaviors are the ultimate taboo.

This last sentence immediately made me think of Epstein’s island and the “ultimate taboo” they were engaging in there.

[wartywhoa23]

> They do this because engaging in a common taboo unites the group extremely strongly

Nothing unites the scum stronger than a guaranteed scorching pan in hell for all of them.

[joe_mamba]

>Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans?

Why are we ignoring the other side of the transaction? The side responsible for taking the money.

Giving bribes for lobbying is bad, but that would not be an issue if those found taking the bribes would be guillotined or hanged.

[zrn900]

> recent (15) years

Not really - all of these have been happening in the past 5-6 years, since the surprisingly London-linked von Leyen and her cadres somehow ended up at the helm.

So it's not a surprise that whatever law the UK passes has been carried over to the Eu recently - the social media ban, digital ids, chat control and everything.

[kingleopold]

they dont investigate themselves, I hope you understand those details some day.

[m132]

They do, albeit it's a slow process:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate

- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-secret-gr...

Ironically, those are two separate cases of one high-profile EU politician (in fact, the very head of the same parliament that pushes for mass scanning of private messages) BOTH involving secret text messages that the mentioned politician refuses to reveal.

[theodric]

The government will investigate the government and find that the government did nothing wrong. A subsequent government review of the government's investigation of the government will find no wrongdoing on the part of the government. Ain't democracy grand?

[ipaddr]

Then blame Russia. Rinse and repeat.

[joe_mamba]

>The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated.

By WHO?! They are THE (unelected) ruling elite. Who's gonna prosecute them?

[surgical_fire]

They are not unelected. The EU Council is made up of the head of government of each member state. They are all elected.

The commissioners are picked by the heads of state (elected) and the EU parliament (also elected).

This does not absolve them from wrongdoing, but you should understand where your complaints should be directed at.

[mattrighetti]

They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.

[surgical_fire]

Ao is the prime minister in any country that adopts parliamentarism.

I am still to see as many people getting riled up about how those countries are not democratic.

[josefx]

The candidates for prime minister and similar positions tend to be front and center during an election.

From what I remember the head of the european commission was picked from a group of people that weren't even up for election after the official candidates that were paraded around during an EU wide election where dismissed.

[mattrighetti]

Again, not a single word I’ve posted says “it’s un-democratic”

[Obscurity4340]

Ao?

[pqtyw]

Straw man... voters in parliamentary democracies generally are fully aware of whom the prime minister is going to be if the party wins.

Nobody really knows or cares who is going to be appointed to the commission since domestic issues always completely over shadow it.

[surgical_fire]

The EU Council is composed of heads of government of each member state.

Are you really trying to imply that voters don't know who the fuck their heads of government are?

I mean, this is a rhetorical question. I don't really expect people who keep repeating misinformation about EU to be arguing in good faith.

[vrganj]

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types.

Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

[sampo]

> So is the US president (Electoral College)

It has never happened, but if there once would be enough faithless electors to swing the election (choosing a different president than what people voted for) it would be a huge scandal and it would be widely condemned as undemocratic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

[mdp2021]

(Did this not happen in 2016? I understood the absolute aggregate count in the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college differed.)

[jandrewrogers]

In the US the President explicitly does not represent the people. It is the President of the States and only the States vote for President. Until the 20th century people weren't even involved in selecting who their State voted for.

Many people are confused by the fact that only States can vote for President. The most a person's vote can do is provide input into their State's votes for President.

[inigyou]

And the EU Council represents the governments.

[mattrighetti]

The criticism is about accountability, not whether the system is democratic.

The UK pm and the POTUS are both ultimately accountable through elections. In the UK, a general election can change the government. In the US, people vote specifically for presidential electors, even if it’s through the Electoral College.

The EU commission is different. People don’t vote for commissioners or the president, and they can’t vote them out in the same direct way.

[8note]

Im having a hard time following what is making the US presidental system different from the EU commission?

the US president is appointed by politicians who are elected, and the only accountability mechanism for president is impeachment, which is again, indirect via elected politicians.

[munksbeer]

The EU Commission does the bidding of the elected EU Council. The Commission is sort of a civil service.

[briandear]

100%. This is why many of us have a problem with the EU. And world governments in general — the more power they have and the further away from the elections that keep them accountable, the more tyrannical they become.

[zrn900]

If you water down democracy 2-3 times, it's no longer democracy.

[joe_mamba]

>They are not unelected.

After how many layers does the democratic part get watered down and is just members of the elite picking other elites?

  Role                         | Chosen by                                            | Direct citizen vote?
  -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------
  Commission President         | European Council proposes, European Parliament elects| No (indirect via EP)
  European Council President   | European Council (27 heads of state)                 | No
  European Parliament President| MEPs elect from among themselves                     | No (indirect via EP)
  ECB President                | European Council, after consulting Parliament        | No

[yorwba]

Those are primarily figureheads with limited power. The EU is not a presidential system. Which is good, because a single person can never well-represent an entire population, directly elected or not.

The council is more problematic, since a blocking majority might only represent 25% of the population (half of the EU member governments, each elected by majority vote), but in this case they voted in favor, so it's as if they didn't exist and the decision lies with parliament, whose composition is determined by proportional representation. Excellent!

The interesting thing here is that the EU is accused of being undemocratic not because special interests killed a law with wide support among the populace, but because all the different bodies might actually agree and pass a law that privacy activists don't like. Legislation by agreement of multiple cross-cutting majorities must clearly be undemocratic!

[izacus]

By this standard there are no democracies in the world. Stop being ridiculous and repeating dumb russian propaganda.

[surgical_fire]

I live in a country where the prime minister is picked by the parliament. I don't directly vote for him.

By your own ridiculous standards, I don't live in a democracy. I fact, any paliamentarism would not be democratic based on that.

[constantius]

Not the parent, but chill with the aggressive tone.

When you vote in your elections, you almost certainly know who's going to lead the country.

Not so with the EU: look up Spitzenkandidat method and the deviations from it, including von der Leyen in 2019 being parachuted into her post not based on any vote.

[surgical_fire]

No, I would rather people in this thread chilled with misinformation.

My tone is appropriate.

[joe_mamba]

>I live in a country where the prime minister is picked by the parliament. I don't directly vote for him.

That's kind of whataboutism. If that works for your country and the people are happy with the arrangement and the results of this system, I don't see an issue.

>By your own ridiculous standards

I don't think direct accountability to the citizens is a ridiculous concept. If you're unhappy with a MEP, your prime minister, you can vote them out or protest till they quit. But the head of the EC, Ursula, is impossible to dethrone by the people via democratic vote or protest. You're stuck taking up the ass from someone you never voted for and don't support.

[CrisMystik]

> the head of the EC, Ursula, is impossible to dethrone by the people via democratic vote or protest

The Commission can be dismissed by the Parliament, with a majority of its members and 2/3 of votes cast

[tokai]

OLAF I would assume.

[penguin_booze]

By WHOM!!