[teekert]

This is a nice piece of democracy right here:

"a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028."

"Oh no we can't get a majority to pass the law!"

"Have you tried getting a majority to not pass the law?"

"Worth a shot!"

"It worked, should we also do this multiple times?"

"Of course not! Pass the law, quickly!"

[spikels]

Not only was Chat Control 1.0 already rejected twice by the European Parliament but:

- This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation - 112 MEPs of 719 didn't vote.

- The vote was called only two days before as an "Rule 170 - Urgent procedure" - 73 MEPs missed the vote making it "urgent". Normally it takes months of procedure to come up for a final vote.

[maxloh]

I think that means those MEPs are not doing their jobs. They are the representatives of their people, but somehow they left for vacation before the last day of the session. They failed in the most important part of their duty.

[Obscurity4340]

Its beyond political malpractice

[mike_hearn]

Around ten years ago I watched some MEPs on YouTube talk about their jobs. A lot of them were scathing. The EP isn't a real parliament and the people in it don't have any real power, so it fills up with cheerleaders and hecklers.

Attendance isn't just low before the summer break, it's low all the time. MEPs miss votes for reasons as trivial as there being a football game on, because why not? It's not like their votes matter much anyway. Everything important is decided upon long before they get involved, they aren't allowed to actually write laws or pass them or repeal them, and so nobody with any political ambition goes there unless they're using it as a springboard to national politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=166SAhPB5-Q

> "Mr President, our parliament in the United Kingdom sat for 142 days last year and it was criticized widely for only sitting for that amount of time yet we in Brussels and Strasburg in the plenary and mini plenary, we sit for just five days a month and on three of those days it's only part of a day that we actually sit for. So we end up with debate in this chamber where microphones of speakers are cut off after 60 seconds, 90 seconds or 2 minutes, and we have no way of expanding on a point, we have no way of properly challenging a speaker, we have no means of proper scrutiny of proposed legislation that comes through. Surely it would make more sense to have sufficient time allocated to proper debate to reason debate and those who actually believe in the structures and institutions of this place should surely welcome that. I think my 60 seconds is up."

You can tell it's a joke institution because they regularly penalize MEPs for the content of their two minute speeches. Britain has the concept of parliamentary immunity but the EU does not, so you get "politicians" who are told what they can and cannot say by the leaders of other parties.

[Nursie]

As much as Brexit was a footgun, this has always seemed to me a very valid criticism of the EU that the remain side of that debate never really tackled. There is a huge democratic deficit in the organisation.

The Council, made up of heads of state, set the direction.

The Commission, made up of whoever is nominated by those heads of state, usually some mate of theirs with no democratic accountability or mandate of their own (see: Peter Mandelson), is the body that decides on and creates legislation.

The Parliament, made up of the actually elected members, seems to exist just to rubber-stamp the output of the other bodies. Or occasionally not, but look what happened here, they were asked again until they did * .

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot that's good about the EU too, but it's in need of serious reform before it can claim to be a truly democratic set of bodies.

(* Which is incidentally another criticism of the EU, mostly centred around the time of the Lisbon treaty, which was first put forward as the new EU constitution but, after rejection in some popular referenda in some countries, was renamed the Lisbon Treaty and pushed through again. In the UK this caused waves because the populace was not asked at all about the treaty and Gordon Brown was reported to have snuck-off and signed it into law on the quiet)

[DrBazza]

> because the populace was not asked at all about the treaty

Well, the UK has only been asked about Europe twice - once to join and once to leave. Unlike many other European countries that frequently ask their populace as a way of standard governance.

The only other UK referendum in my lifetime was the 'alternative vote'

The UK government (no matter the party) just doesn't seem to like asking the public's opinion, on things. And after 2016, I'd be very surprised to see another referendum on anything, any time soon as the outcome of that was opposite to what the 'establishment' wanted (cue the last decade of squabbling). They will instead use the excuse: 'you gave us the mandate choosing us at the General Election'.

[mike_hearn]

Both EU referendums were about whether to leave. Labour took Britain in without a referendum and only held one on reversing it due to the outrage that caused.

[bialamusic]

It is a global push to kill technology

[naruhodo]

It's a push by oligarchs to establish total surveillance and control of the masses to protect themselves from the coming environmental (climate change) and economic (mass unemployment) collapses.

In a functioning democracy, the masses would demand higher taxes on the wealthy to fund social support. The oligarchy has already bought out democracy in the US and other places to ensure that doesn't happen. So to keep the masses in line, a system of totalitarian oppression is required.

[omicronxt]

It's amazing more people don't recognize this and judging from some posts in this thread as a solution they will support oligarch backed alt-right like that will fix the problem.

[bko]

That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote.

Even relying on people to vote no is not enough.

[logicchains]

Some European countries like Germany do, but the EU somehow can override those national constitutions.

[LtWorf]

It cannot. EU laws are completely useless and must be implemented by every government as a local law, which won't be more powerful than the constitution.

The problem is that constitutional courts should then say the law was against the constitution and cancel it, but will that happen?

[DiogenesKynikos]

In theory, it can't. But in reality, it does in important cases.

Germany has implemented EU sanctions against a German journalist, which deprive him and his family of the ability to conduct basically any economic activity in Germany or even to leave the country. He is not allowed to work. No one is allowed to pay him money. He has to petition the government every time he wants to access even a small amount of the money in his own bank account. The same restrictions apply to his close family members, because they are suspected of helping him survive financially. He is barred from crossing any border in Europe, including to leave.

He has not been accused or convicted of anything in court. The only procedure that was required to hand down an economic death sentence was for the EU Commission to put his name on a list.

The German government claims this is all okay, because the journalist can proactively challenge his sanction listing in Brussels. It's a years-long process that will require paying lawyers - using money he is not allowed to access.

Needless to say, this is all highly unconstitutional. But the German government simply doesn't care. They just say they're implementing EU sanctions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru

[patates]

Very weird case. I don't think anyone can survive here in Germany on a 503€ allowance he gets, and let alone having some probable but unproven ties to a state considered an enemy since only recently, I would find crippling someone to that degree harsh even for a convicted war criminal. He's apparently not even allowed to pay rent!

[msdz]

Genuinely thank you for linking to him and his case.

I live in Germany and am -principally- a massive advocate for and proponent of the free (or liberal) democratic basic order ("FDGO" [0]) we have had here for the last decades, and apart from Chat Control, I’m usually very highly pro-EU, too.

But reading this has genuinely left me in a bit of a shock now, and created some (for lack of a better word) FUD I haven’t felt before with regard to these two, eh, institutions governing us.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democratic_basic_order

[LtWorf]

That's what I'm saying. It's completely illegal but nobody cares.

[petesergeant]

> EU laws are completely useless and must be implemented by every government as a local law

This isn’t true. Regulations are directly applicable and don’t require national legislation; directives generally do. Individuals affected by a failure to implement a directive can complain to the European Commission, which can bring infringement proceedings against the member state and potentially seek financial penalties.

EU law also has primacy over conflicting national law, and the CJEU’s position is that this includes constitutional provisions. Courts in Germany and Poland have challenged that position, but refusing to comply can put the countries in breach of their EU treaty obligations and lead to infringement proceedings and penalties.

[wojciii]

The Danish government is pro spying on its people.

Currently we have numberplate recognition everywhere and logging of SMS and position info of phones.

So this is just another step into the direction where we will be watched everywhere by our government in case we step out of line.

[petesergeant]

> The Danish government is pro spying on its people.

It would be more surprising if the organisation ultimately responsible for security did not want to.

[rowyourboat]

No, it can't. It's going to be an interesting legal challenge.

Also, the European Court of Justice has, to the best of my knowledge, not ruled on this yet, either. The fact fight isn't over.

[LtWorf]

We already have a constitution like that in Italy, not that anyone cares to enforce it though…

[XorNot]

The sheer optimism of posting this as an American right now...

[oofdere]

our rights have largely held up even in the absurd world we live in, and the constitution continues to be a thorn on the side of those trying to abridge them. what we are seeing now is the conclusion of decades of eroding our rights and the tower still refuses to topple. though of course we're going to have a lot of work to do fixing it up after all is said and done.

[MaxwellJensen]

Have you heard of the Patriot Act?

[ToValueFunfetti]

Have you heard of ACLU v. Clapper, HLP v. DoJ, Doe v. Ashcroft, or US v. Moalin? Parent acknowledges decades of degradation and points to thorns like these.

[int_19h]

Have you seen Wickard v. Filburn?

[solidsnack9000]

I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.

[solidsnack9000]

Everything in the US Constitution is amendable, though -- in other words, the whole Constitution can be changed with a vote.

The US is founded on certain ideas about natural rights -- hence not granted, per se -- but that's somewhat orthogonal to this whole issue. Even if there were an unwritten constitution, a country could base its institutions, philosophy of lawmaking, jurisprudence, &c, on natural rights doctrine (and for a time, the British did exactly that).

The earlier post mentions "That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote." but if what they mean is natural rights, that goes well beyond any procedural issue around the basic law.

[WatchDog]

The US constitution is one of the few constitutions that _does_ grant rights[0].

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[ToValueFunfetti]

That page specifically says the constitution grants rights to the government and reserves the rights of the people. There is a lot in there about the case against the bill of rights, a big part of which is that itemizing the rights implies that they are limited to the list.

Editing to clarify that this isn't just semantics: under the 'grant rights to the people' model, a government that grants one set of rights is just as legitimate as one that grants another. It was the position of the founders that governments which deny certain rights are infringing on the pre-existing rights of the people. This is the basis for their position on revolution.

[kevin_thibedeau]

That is a list of restrictions on government power, not a grant.

[nine_k]

Mr Madison, and a bunch of other Founding Fathers, might disagree a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[nine_k]

Amending the US Constitution takes a lot of voting, with very large majorities in Congress / Senate and state legislatures. This has been achieved a number of times, and some of these decisions were rather unwise, like the Prohibition (18th amendment).

[solidsnack9000]

Yes, there is a separate, harder procedure for changing the Constitution of the United States -- but that procedure is also a vote.

[int_19h]

Germany is one prominent example for obvious historical reasons.

But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause are not all that uncommon in general.

[solidsnack9000]

The page you link contains many interesting examples; but many of them are simply cases of making the vote harder -- requiring unanimous consent to change English-French bilingualism in Canada, for example -- rather than cases where the law simply can not ever be changed by a vote.

With regards to Germany, the page says:

...if a constitution provides for a mechanism of its own abolition or replacement, like the German Basic Law does in Article 146, this by necessity provides a "back door" for getting rid of the "eternity clause", too.

It's really hard to have a legal system that literally can not be changed by any legitimate vote -- only by revolution -- because what sits at the bottom of most of them (all of them?) is that the consent of some body politic is necessary and sufficient to legitimate a law.

[int_19h]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the constitution says if a large enough supermajority is unhappy about it. Constitutions by themselves are pieces of paper, they only work when society as a whole chooses to treat them as more than that.

[maxweylandt]

The bill of rights section of the Namibian constitution may not be amended

[SV_BubbleTime]

> This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation

Surely this was not by someone’s design. Maybe though… you don’t leave a day early for your vacation?

[trinsic2]

Sounds like an unlawful law to me, but hey. Im an American, what do I know.

[stingraycharles]

And then people wonder why there’s so little faith in the EU and why there is a perception of them being disconnected from the real interests of the people.

[LtWorf]

Oh but they keep reposting how phones will have replaceable batteries now, so it's all fine, they are good guys!

I've seen several posts with the photo of Ursula (one of the most hated politicians of all times) associated with the batteries thing.

[GiorgioG]

So 112 MEPs didn't do their job...got it.

[rowanG077]

Politicians can take vacations. Many things went wrong here but this ain't it.

[alberto467]

Exactly. The issue is them being automatically in favor, that’s a really extreme measure I as an eu citizen did not know about, even though I’d say I’m probably more informed then the average and was made to study eu history, structure and laws in school. That kind of stuff is really weird, even weirder is that such an emergency measure can be activated without countries being in active war or the like.

[blackqueeriroh]

Nobody is automatically in favor. What are you talking about, that’s not how it worked at all.

[andrepd]

Make a "reverse vote" to reject passing a law = abstentions mean you don't reject passing the law = abstentions mean you support passing the law

[joe_mamba]

>That kind of stuff is really weird, even weirder is that such an emergency measure can be activated without countries being in active war or the like.

What's also just as weird is how the EU can just straight up sanction, debank and make European citizens virtually homeless overnight, without even a trial day in court. Absolutely insane.

This is some NAZI/USSR shit, except you don't get executed, you just get deranked and made homeless and maybe die from that on the whims of some bureaucrat in another country.

We gave the EU superpowers to "protect us" but never asked ourselves what happens when they use those powers against us when people vocally don't agree with their agenda.

[mflaherty22]

Very reductionist comment- if you're an elected representative and you leave early to take a vacation knowing you'll be missing votes, you're not doing your job..

[JumpCrisscross]

> knowing you'll be missing votes, you're not doing your job

If you knowingly miss a vote, that’s part of the job. If your OOO gets played, that’s fucking up.

[rowanG077]

They did not know this, this was an emergency vote literally injected two days ago.

[tedggh]

Perhaps there should not be a vote while so many representatives are absent, unless it’s about a truly critical issue, like war.

[joe_mamba]

This. When I need to take my summer vacation, I need to request it to my manager in due time so the team can plan customer deliveries accordingly, and in my last day before leaving I need to do a handover of my open tasks to whoever will do the work in my absence. I can't just spontaneously decide one day that tomorrow I'm leaving for 2-4 weeks on vacation with no notice and no handover to my team.

What's stopping MEPs from having to do that? Do they have literally zero responsibilities and accountabilities? Because their job is pretty critical for our society an security, even if a trained monkey could do it in theory.

[quantum_magpie]

Oh, so it's also your fault when you plan, and get approved a vacation, and then in the middle of it (lets's say on week 2 out of 4) you're notified that in two days you must be in the office, or, according to you, you should get canned?

[NikolaNovak]

It is my limited understanding this is other way around - you plan your vacation, you get it approved, then on your vacation an emergency vote to reduce your salary is called and you automatically voted yes.

[win311fwg]

> I can't just spontaneously decide one day [...]

Sure you can. What unstoppable force is going to prevent you?

You might find out there are undesirable consequences if you make that choice, but that is only if the employer decides to bring undesirable consequences. MEP employers in particular are generally apathetic about having an employee on staff. Extremely so — to the point that they won't even take a minute out of multiple years to say "hi" to the person they hired, never mind give any direction to the employee.

It doesn't have to be that way, but when the employer doesn't care, that is the way it will be.

[mvdtnz]

Ever worked with Europeans? This is how they treat work. In their culture taking vacation and actually switching off is part of the job. I'm not making a value judgement but their approach to work is very different to what some of us are used to.

[mikestorrent]

So they should prorogue the entire Parliament and they all take a month off together. Why the fuck should some particular province or riding or whatever miss out on representation on an important issue just because their rep is out for a week on an island somewhere? Could they not have a proxy / surrogate??

[znort_]

taking vacation and switching off is actually the sane thing for a person to do. the problem is that there is no provision for your post being covered while on vacation, and it's a problem in the enterprise/organization.

imo that a representative of the people misses a vote should just not be acceptable under any circumstances.

that's of course if we had to take "democracy" as an actually meaningful representation of the people. this was a cheap political maneuver to get a bill passed. happens everywhere. they would have gotten the bill through by any other means anyway.

that would be in an ideal democracy, though, in reality european parlamentarians don't even draft laws, they are only able to sign off on laws drafted by shady appointees of an equally shady and largely unelected (by the people) comission, take it or leave it. that, photo ops and declarations is their whole job, it shouldn't be too complicated to have a fucking substitute when on vacation.

[Towaway69]

The idea behind _representative_ democracy is that _we_ take holidays and our representatives do the work of upholding _our_ democratic values. These MEPs took their holidays before the parliamentary session was complete.

If we're talking about _direct_ democracy then we have to do the work ourselves but because we don't want to do that (because we want to go on holydays), we give up our rights to those who _want_ to represent us.

That, of course, falls apart once those representing us start to only represent themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)#Book_III

[rendaw]

This is an absurdly bad take.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/9/plenary-session...

> Plenary sessions of Parliament take place 12 times per year in Strasbourg and last four days

There are 48 days in sessions over a year. You're saying that it's too much to ask MEPs not to take holidays during those 48 days? Am I missing something here?

[rowanG077]

Do you those 48 days are the total number of working hours these MEPs have? Of course not. Something always needs to give when going on vacation. And usually missing a a plenary session is not weird or the end of the world. The problem here is that in this case the rules were abused.

[gmueckl]

Most of the work of an MP is not sitting in plenary sessions looking bored. The normally important bits are in-between - committee and office work. This specific event here is an example of a plenary session suddenly being made extremely important by a procedural trick.

[xienze]

But it _was_ a plenary session, was it not? One of only 48? That someone could easily avoid scheduling a vacation during?

[paulddraper]

What is the out of session time for?

[gmueckl]

For doing actual work? Getting in touch with constituents, listening to them, faction internal coordination, working on committee specific stuff, understanding proposals and motions of others, maybe filing their own... when taken seriously, this can be an intense job.

[paulddraper]

Most of that list is done in session.

This was just everyone leaving on a Friday, sort of a work day, sort of not.

[bdelmas]

Or exactly as planned.

[hintymad]

Honest question: when Europeans give so much power to EU and usually favor regulations by the government, isn't it natural that the government will try to implement more control? And it looks EU officials do not have to accountable for anything. They will not suffer personally even when their policies wreck havoc. I don't quite understand why Europeans can trust EU at all. Case in point, EU HQs shut down its air conditioning on floors 1 through 7 to prevent electrical overloads, leaving the upper levels used by top officials unaffected. Yet did anyone like Leyen get punished? Note I'm not naive enough to believe politicians don't have special treatment in other countries. But at least in some countries, politicians will not be so shameless that they'd do it in broad day light.

[tadfisher]

> Europeans give so much power to EU and usually favor regulations by the government

This antecedent is far too broad; what regulations, benefiting whom? It's pretty obvious in this case that the majority of their representatives do not favor at least this type of regulation. In other cases, the majority of representatives favor regulation which prevents private corporations from selling their PII to the highest bidder. So you're going to have to reckon with the nuance of the real world if you don't want to make obviously leading statements like this.

[hintymad]

You're right, there are nuances in different policies. I was referring to the general power and consent that Europeans grant to the EU council. In my naive view their power is unchecked. As a result, we can start with good intent and good regulations, but eventually they will abuse their power as its the nature of power.

[gmueckl]

The power is checked in multiple ways: confirmation by the parliament is required in many cases and the court can overturn council decisions. The only issue is that one check is weak amd the other one is very slow.

[galangalalgol]

The question I would ask next is that if a majority don't actually favor it, who will vote to sanction member countries that refuse to implement it in protest? Giving a central authority significant power likenthis inevitably leads to autocracy per Montesquieu.

[philipallstar]

Representatives are different to all of the EU bureaucracy and NGOs that make up the long-term powerful influentials in the EU. Representatives come and go.

[vixen99]

I don't understand either but just for reference on your point:

Trust in the EU is at its highest in 18 years

'52% of Europeans trust the EU, the highest result since 2007. The level of trust is highest among young people aged 15-24 (59%). Setting another 18-year record, 52% of Europeans say they trust the European Commission, with scoring again particularly high among young citizens (57%). At the same time, 36% of Europeans say they trust their national government and 37% say they trust their national parliament.Three quarters of respondents (75%) - the highest level in more than two decades - say they feelthey are citizens of the EU.'

On the other hand look at who issued this report. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume...

[Towaway69]

> 52% of Europeans trust the EU,

Who was asked, i.e. tourists visiting Brussels? How many were asked? How were they asked, i.e. leading questions such as "you do like the EU don't you"? Who didn't respond?

And more importantly, who is doing the asking? Oh, the EU itself is doing the asking. They are, of course, not biased in any way at all.

These numbers are then provided by the same folks that just timed a vote on our privacy when a) MEPs were known to be on holidays b) reversing the vote procedures, i.e. the 'no's have reach a set minimum c) are happy to sign away our collective privacy.

All that for 52% - all time high. When I was going to school, 52% wasn't a score that I went home to my parents with and told them how good things were going - even if it was an "all time high".

Crazy, how the EU have mixed up mediocrity with democracy.

[greatgib]

Just to be clear, here you see the EU, but behind this there are a few corrupt national government officials that are pushing hard for this.

[gorwell]

But hundreds voted?

314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions

[greatgib]

Let's be honest, like for national assemblies, lots of members of the parliament are quite dumb.

I think most of them will not even look at the biggest part of the laws they are supposed to vote. They will vote for whatever they are told to vote for by the party or carefully crafted lobbying.

For something like chat control, you don't see it but there are probably a dozen lobbyist that went to see them in turn, feeding lies and propaganda that they will not challenge because they have other "important" political subjects they are busy looking at.

The commission is leading the game with lots of tricks like what was done here to get what they want in the end.

Just look at the fact that very very few of member even realized or complained to have been played fool by the last vote.

And I mean that it is wonderful already that some many members did the right choice (and I hope because they understood the issue and not because they were told to vote this), but it is crazy that so many still voted in favor.

And who knows, maybe a lot of them didn't even understand the question and were thinking that the "no" was "no to chat control", but here it goes back to my initial point that they are dumb enough to be easily manipulated by the commission members.

[HNisCIS]

Yeah, it always strikes me when this crazy, obviously stupid stuff ends up "49 to 51" like either there are active forces fighting each other ending in an equilibrium, or the equilibrium is arising passively, everyone and their representatives are just randomly scribbling in the circles.

[inferniac]

>This is a nice piece of democracy right here:

this is just eu in a nutshell, the irish were made to vote on both nice and lisbon treaties twice (both were voted no in the first vote)

[selfmodruntime]

Any time now even the most pro-european EU defender will realise that what was once a trade union has slowly transformed itself into an undemocratic, bureaucratic monster.

[Mountain_Skies]

A surprisingly large amount of people are quite alright with that as long as they perceive that those undemocratic processes are producing the end results they desire. It's not unique to the EU, though they do play this game very well, or even to this time period. Once the powers have been granted, the public has only limited ability to revoke the power, with many of them easily swayed that it's good for this power to exist by having a red meat issue thrown to them to chew on as a distraction.

[gwerbin]

The USA is a nice demonstration of how far it can go if you can manufacture enough "red meat issues" and keep going for decades.

[onetimeusename]

It wasn't really a trade union. It's purpose was to stop the re-emergence of something like the Nazis and to prevent wars. I don't think it's instincts were ever really democratic.

[gorwell]

Reddit still thinks the EU represents democracy.

[guelo]

Reddit is one of the few remaining platforms where reach is determined democratically. You demean that populous by calling it the singular "reddit", as if it's a single hive mind. But you'll probably get your way, I imagine the billionaire censorship campaign will come for it too eventually. Then you'll only ever get to hear thoughts you agree with, glorious day ey?

[canadiantim]

Reddit is the most censored platform out there… posts and users that are not aligned with subreddit mods get banned or deleted prolifically. Subreddits that do not align similarly soon find themselves banned

[HNisCIS]

Idk if many people remember how Reddit was when it started, its whole draw was that it was a bunch of relatively intelligent/friendly western internet people who liked to kinda role play as a hive mind.

I wouldn't call it the most censored platform, but it still has vestiges of its old self, particularly with respect to philosophy and politics.

[intended]

Subreddits get banned for egregious shit. Reddit stays on the side of letting subs up, rather than banning.

Reddit has made it harder for mods to find out which subs you are active in, so that you can’t be banned for activity in subs that are in cold wars with each other.

[selfmodruntime]

Reddit is one of the most, if not the most astroturfed and botted platform on the internet today.

[guelo]

It's a problem but I don't believe it's worse than X or Instagram or Facebook. I'll prefer human filters over biased algorithms every time.

[joe_mamba]

Only in some bubbles. But most normies I know are massive EU fanboys and showing them the malicious things the EU is doing, they just shrug at best, or call you a Putin supporter at worst.

They'll only realize this when the jackboot is on their neck. But probably not even then because in some EU countries government obedience is like a religion.

[gorgoiler]

I recommend my own personal democracy metric: your level of democracy is proportional to how easily you can shout “moron!” at your representative and have them hear you. Do you know who they are, can you find them at a public meeting, and will they be able to hear you? For the EU, all three combine to give a pretty low score.

As we’re seeing in the UK right now, if you stump up £500 and find ten people to counter-sign your candidacy, you can even run against your MP as a novelty candidate. If you choose your novelty name right you also get to stand next to them at the alphabetically-ordered result announcement.

Compare with comatose Kentucky senators on their deathbed or EU commissioners based in a country with French train signs. Neither are insurmountable obstacles to democracy — hold up a sign? Google Translate? — but, by my metric, they are lesser options to something more local and accountable.

I’m sure, back in the day, rural folk took umbrage at having to ride their donkey to the local town just to be able to throw cowpats at their despised burghers. We of course can do it on TikTok nowadays but nothing beats yelling in person.

[realityking]

EU commissioners are similar to minsters/secretaries in national governments. My chance of getting within earshot of German federal minister are only slightly better than those of an EU minister - especially those that are not also members of parliament.

But if I’m unhappy with EU policies I can talk to a member of the EU parliament (and yes I know two of the members from my city) or I can talk to a member of the Bundestag since national governments have a large role in the EU.

In the end, my voice is tiny. Which is expected, after all I’m just one of over 450 million people living here.

[selfmodruntime]

I would wager a good amount of money that below 1%, maybe even lower, could name the 5 most basic EU institutions and how they intertwine.

[NikolaNovak]

What is "normies" in this context?

I'm neurodivergent, and on various nerdom bell curve tails, including know more than averga bear about technology societal implications and misuses, but I still wouldn't use that term; here in particular, it seems a strong pejorative for anybody who disagrees with your world view :-/

[joe_mamba]

>What is "normies" in this context?

normie = normal "average" people; People who aren't terminally online and up to date on tech and politics drama. Exactly the ones oblivious to negative things the EU is doing in the background, because stuff like Eurovision or the World Cup takes up more of their attentions span than complex tech or politics.

>here in particular, it seems a strong pejorative

Only because that's how you choose to see it.

> for anybody who disagrees with your world view

So having a world view where government surveillance state should NOT be OK makes me the bad guy?

[selfmodruntime]

That is because they are so far removed from the actual proceedings and processes of the EU.

[Flere-Imsaho]

Here in the UK, a large proportion of the population still think the EU is a good idea... Despite all the evidence proving otherwise.

[dzikimarian]

Did leaving the EU actually fixed anything for the UK?

[Flere-Imsaho]

> Did leaving the EU actually fixed anything for the UK?

Yes - it fixed the attribution of our problems. Politicians, leaders, judges, etc will find it harder to "blame the EU" - when then blame is squarely on them.

This will then have an effect during voting.

[Lio]

I know I do.

I think the main purpose of the EU is to prevent wars between European states by providing a forum for compromise and cooperation.

I’d say it’s succeeded in that nicely since its founding. Not one war between member states despite ongoing disputes.

Seems like a very good idea.

I hate this law though, it’s undemocratic.

[rayiner]

Okay, but couldn’t a more transparent and accountable structure have accomplished the same result? Why do you need a system with seven different bodies, more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws?

For example, why have an elected parliament that can’t even originate law, but an unelected commission that can make regulations that are effectively laws?

[NikolaNovak]

That's implementation details though; one can absolutely think that "EU is a good idea" and "specific EU systems need improving" simultaneously, without contradiction.

It's like thinking "I like Canada and am a proud Canadian, though I think there's still a lot of inequality and many policies can be improved upon and we can certainly be more efficient".

[Barrin92]

>Why do you need a system with seven different bodies more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws?

because the European Union contains more than 600 million people and almost 30 very diverse countries (and is a supranational, not federal body). It's institutions also do mirror the structures of most other large unions.

The Commission is an executive body, the parliament is a legislative body, and the council is comparable to the state bodies in bicameral governments. You may as well ask why you have a Senate or Bundesrat when you have a HoR and Bundestag. Because minoritarian and majoritarian interests need to be balanced, even more so in the EU. If even actual nation states a fraction the size of the EU and bona fide countries aren't governed in unitary fashion, why do you expect anybody would centralize so much power in the EU.

[selfmodruntime]

> I think the main purpose of the EU is to prevent wars between European states by providing a forum for compromise and cooperation.

It should have stayed this way.

[sveme]

Well, the No vote triggered some adjustments, so this is indeed relatively democratic. What would be the alternative?

[rayiner]

The revised law not passing until it gets a majority would seem more democratic.

[blackqueeriroh]

So is it undemocratic if a law is voted on by a majority and doesn’t pass because the law says it takes 3/4 to make that type of change?

[int_19h]

"The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last."

[rayiner]

It’s less democratic, yes.

[ndarray]

Let's just as enthusiastically revote on the chat control law right now then! Oh, wait... revotes only happen when the bureaucrats/lobbyists want them

[ThatMedicIsASpy]

And then politician always wonder why nobody has any trust left.

[xaitv]

What I don't understand, based on this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 the votes are the other way around, with the majority being for. I'm guessing that site has it reversed then or I don't fully understand the proposal? Looking at which politicians from my country voted "no" on this site it seems to be mostly the ones that I'd expect to vote "yes", so that would support this site just having the options reversed.

[sampo]

> What I don't understand, based on this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 the votes are the other way around

They voted for "Proposition de rejet". It's written there, but it's in French.

[dmichulke]

Found this, source: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

On 7 July, MEPs voted 331–303 to fast-track the return of Chat Control 1.0 mass scanning. A binding vote follows Thursday, 9 July, where an absolute majority of 361 MEPs is needed to stop it. Take action now to demand they defend your private messages.

"Yes" means stop control, because it's a "proposition de rejet" we're looking at. rejet = reject. Parties in favor of chat control were:

- European People’s Party and

- Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

Countries in favor of chat control were:

Spain, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Hungary, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus

If you look at the initial vote from July 7, there are a few countries who actually wanted to make it an "urgent decision" (other than the countries above):

France, Czechia, Finland, Croatia, Luxembourg

[thisOtterBeGood]

The selection of countries seems so random. The poorer countries seem to be in favor, no judgment there... It looks like a pay-off list, though.

[omnimus]

The whole thing also played like a game. 6 months ago the vote was signaled as pretty safely against chat control. You could watch how one by one the MEPs switched their positions. I assume they realized the vote wont hurt them because it's under the radar of general population. So it was safe to follow the lobby money.

[tsimionescu]

I don't know about the other countries, but in Romania most politicians are aligned with our secret service (quite a few even in the upper echelons are literally undercover agents - which sounds like a conspiracy theory but is well documented in some cases), so they are quite naturally aligned with this initiative.

[teekert]

Maybe the voters also got confused and that's why it passed?

[gus_massa]

They have one job (with a high salary), a lot of personal assistants and technical support from specialist from their own party. They only have to remember if they have to press the red or the blue button.

[sysguest]

well... maybe color blindness?

[petre]

Hmm most MPs from Renew, Greens and eurosceptics (ECR) from my country voted yes. I'm a bit surprised since some of those are hardliner Christian conservatives that I'd never vote for under any circumstances.

[globalnode]

EU cant claim the moral high ground anymore with the way this was done. They've joined the rest of the world now. This was a win for foreign companies and makes me wonder if the EU has been infiltrated by outside interests.

[RealityVoid]

Oh, yes, thankfully the protections for privacy are much better in the US... right? Right?

[throw-the-towel]

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

[izacus]

Ah, "it's only democracy if you vote my way" argument. We usually call that type of governing something else.

[fschuett]

Democracy is when you just try and try again and again until it passes with 51/49. Then its democratic and legitimized and only evil terrorists would oppose those laws we have all democratically agreed upon.

Also, see the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru - if you aren't liked by the EU courts, they just accuse you of "collusion with Russia" and ban your bank account via "sanction policies". The ECJ doesn't have to provide any evidence of crime, you have to provide counter-evidence of the absence of crime (and good luck defending yourself without money). The ECJ judges, who interpret and impose these laws, are also not democratically really elected or anything, yet they hold power over your bank account. Makes ya think.

[ivan_gammel]

How did you connect the linked Wikipedia article to EU courts and ECJ?

This journalist was not sanctioned by the court.

[Pragmata]

The court approved the sanctions when he tried to challenge them.

[ivan_gammel]

I do not think this is true. Do you have any proof? I‘m aware only of German court refusing to apply urgent procedure to unblock his bank accounts. The sanctions were applied not that long ago for him to get decision by German courts or ECJ.

[Pragmata]

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/article/gericht-bestaetigt-k...

You're right, it's about the injunction.

Can you explain how he is supposed to house and feed a family of 5 on 500€ a month?

Or is this a "he should starve to death" situation?

What right does the EU even have to "sanction" a German citizen? None.

[NamlchakKhandro]

Sounds like something a Russian colluder would say

[gmueckl]

No, this is a valid point. Court cases are usually playing out slowly amd carefully. So, in order to prevent harm to the parties involved caused by that slowness, injunctions can be issued by the court that can provide reasonable relief from immediate damages from the dispute that can't be compensated for or reversed later. In Germany, getting relief through an injunction really is about proving that lasting damage is caused while the case drags on. The full merrits of the case are explicitly excluded from consideration.

[realityking]

That’s not true. The case is still pending in the CJEU’s General Court.

https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/affair?publishedId=T-...

[gib444]

> Also, see the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru - if you aren't liked by the EU courts, ...

This was done by the Council of Europe (an organisation made up of a mix of member state foreign ministers and member state parliament members)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:...

No court was involved as far as I can tell...

[ClumsyPilot]

That’s even worse

[gib444]

Indeed

[tormeh]

Is this the first court system you ever hear about? Judges are never democratically elected.

[crooked-v]

Except in this case it actually passed 49/51.

[fer]

>Redfish forced to cease operations as an official subsidiary of Ruptly/RT

>Immediately after Red Media gets founded by the guy, but now in Turkey

>Redfish social media presence gets renamed to Red Media

>Red Media kept staff, equipment and reused content from Redfish

Tbh I'd be pissed if sanctions could be bypassed by simply changing your logo and handle.

I'd go further and suspect the Russian disinformation apparatus just threw them under the bus for "EU bad" points.

It's such a textbook and standard Russian propaganda practice to finance and push divisive and partial views I'm even surprised people keep falling for it.

Another "journalist" the far left (in Spain at least) considers a martyr. The whole coverage of his arrest was a shitshow (Freedom of expression! Poland is fascist! Freedom for Pablo!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Yag%C3%BCe

Then it was shown he spied on Nemtsov, Polish journalists... and he even hugged uniformed GRU officers upon arrival in Russia as part of a prisoner exchange, while wearing a "my empire needs me" t-shirt.

But this doesn't affect only the far left:

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

Anti-immigration, anti EU narratives, solid antisemitic (not just anti-Israel) stances, interviews with all sorts of sketchy characters, the whole set. Luckily for de Vlieger, he had sold the operation to literal Viktor Medvedchuk (and then the platform took a further Russia victim, Ukraine bad turn), so he remains unsanctioned.

[rustystump]

Can it be undone? One of the key aspects of any society is that it can in fact change law/policy/leaders/etc without war/rebels. yes harm happens when bad crap gets in but if the system still supports change, it is working.

For all the bad in trump era like roe vs wade among many others. The same mechanism are what allowed roe vs wade to exist. A double edge sword but better than alternative variants of totalitarian multi decade long regimes.

[RealityVoid]

This has an expiration date baked in for 2028 so if no new legislation comes in until then, it will undo itself on its own.

[sebastianconcpt]

Adding the reminder that these votes and majority rejecting are of unelected bureaucrats, so the way that it was framed was approved from above while making practically impossible to reject but still theoretically possible so people are forced to swallow it.

Soviet Union 2.0

[master-lincoln]

The members of parliament are elected every 5 years by the citizens of the european union. What do you mean with unelected bureaucrats?

[sebastianconcpt]

You're right, I meant the Commissioners which are the ones essentially designing how to legislate, which is the traditional name for "engineer society behavior"

[rayiner]

Wow does it become law if the majority of those present opposed it? The American Congress might be utterly dysfunctional, but we’ve never had a law pass despite the majority of members voting against it. What am I missing?

[izacus]

The fact that there was a second vote on a modified law which passed.

[rayiner]

Did it pass because a majority voted for it?

[izacus]

Yes.

[kypro]

> What am I missing?

Nothing really.

Some will disagree with this, but this is neither new or surprising behaviour from the EU. In the EU if the political class want something, it doesn't really matter what the public want or vote for.

In the US a lot of your dysfunction is from the fact that your political system actually "works". You maniacs actually can vote for someone like Trump (twice), and he can do stuff regardless of how unpopular he is among the political class.

Here in Europe things like democracy and freedom of speech are only permitted if our political class approves. We can decide things like tax rates, but some things we're not allowed to express opinions on, and some things we have no power to vote for or against.

With some exceptions most European democracies work like this and EU is really the gold standard of this system. They have lots of ways to do what they want regardless of how popular it is, and regardless of what the opinions of our elected representatives are.

[blackqueeriroh]

This is incorrect.

Meet the senate, where most stuff doesn’t pass unless you get 60 votes, not 51

[Eueudhsbsj32]

Who is the "political class" of the EU?

In the US, it seems more obvious how corporate money pulls the political strings, but my impression is that corporate influence is a lot weaker in Europe..

[kypro]

> Who is the "political class" of the EU?

Highly educated people, often from wealthy backgrounds, who are very globally orientated.

They are generally not representative of the average person in Europe.

They are the people who European government appoints.

> In the US, it seems more obvious how corporate money pulls the political strings, but my impression is that corporate influence is a lot weaker in Europe..

I agree, but not sure that directly contradicts what I said?

[Eueudhsbsj32]

> I agree, but not sure that directly contradicts what I said?

I wasn't disagreeing with you; I just added that to explain why it wasn't obvious who the political class is there because their incentives are more opaque to me.

What do you think is the main reason these highly educated people act against the interests of the common people?

For example with Chat Control, are they worried about preventing populism from taking hold? Or do they personally gain something financially?