I never understand this apparent motive of "elected officials getting power hungry". How would this legislation make the people in the EU Commission more powerful? Am I just lacking imagination?
Just look at the history of any mass surveillance state to see how that works out in practice. The East German STASI is a relevant example, and there are others one could think of as well. Recommended watching: "The Lives of Others".
Like the US did with Airbus in the echelon scandal even before the pervasive surveillance that came in after 9/11. Just saying this is not a remote "worst case" scenario but a real-world one.
Yes.
The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites.
Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European...
It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pa...
All the good things are going out the door and all the bad things are walking on in.
It’s trolling at worst and nerd sniping at best. The author of this comment knows this full well. His comment history is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap.
“covid passports” being required is not exactly the fault of the EU, if anything it’s because of the freedoms the EU still has. Anti-covid rhetoric needs to die, anti-EU bad faith propaganda needs to die.
This is a legitimate constitutional crisis, not a time to try to pile on with nonsense.
Hello. I usually keep responding to people. I'm not from the EU, so if you disagree with me I'll respond. It's not unlikely I'm wrong.
I am a crazy anti-government guy though, so you've got me there.
I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can.
FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as me and disagree, the EU is trade-offs and I'm personally in favour of those trade-offs; I can understand why some people would not.
----
The EU, at its core started off, as everyone mentions repeatedly: as an economic union; the purpose of which was to make the idea of war in Europe unpalatable.
This core fact is why when people complain about "jobs moving to x,y,z EU country where the labour is cheaper" they're right, but that was the purpose of the economic union from the beginning and not the EU; since that's the point of the EEC (the pre-cursor to what became the EU).
Over time it became apparent (during the cold war, specifically) that Europe is directly in the crossfire of two super powers, and each of us alone is not capable of fending off either of them, either economically (since the power imbalance in economics means Russia, the US or even China can basically dictate terms to us) or in terms of defence (a scrambled response will be slow and ineffective).
Thus: the EU was formed, to try to compete at the same level as the Soviet Union and USA. (and, recently, China is a super power).
The way the EU functions is actually the most democratic system that exists in Europe itself; no government is more transparent, more directly elected or more advanced with regards to how it decides who gets seats. This is probably contestable on some level, maybe there's some more balanced democracy that I'm not aware of, but as a Swedish/British citizen: the EU parliament is far more representative of votes than the UK parliament or Swedish Riksdag (though the Swedish one comes a lot closer).
Every time someone complains about the EU they're doing so from either a place of ignorance ("the EU mandates bananas cant be too bendy!"[0]) or a place of understanding of inefficiency (France being unwilling to release the EU parliament from being moved between cities half of the year[1]; or the growing right wing totalitarian regime in Poland and Hungary[2]).
When you conflate ignorant topics with important topics it muddies the water; it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about reform.
Why would we need reform instead of abolishing the institution though?
Because the EU countries are actually under serious threat from Russia, the USA and China (as mentioned). While it might not be obvious to those living in the EU; the same way the presence of a military or police is sort of invisible and people act "reasonably" most of the time; you might wonder if you even need the police or the military.
I might sound like I'm fear mongering, but I'm not, it's just the reality of trading and defending as a bloc; the same is true at nearly any scale. For example in Sweden it's common for an entire apartment building to negotiate for internet, and the rates that they get are significantly cheaper than if they had negotiated alone. Apes together strong.
The downside of that negotiation is: everyone must be aligned on the decision being made, and you lose the individual freedom to choose a provider. But the result is a better experience for everyone. Most of the time you elect representatives, in Sweden this is a board in a housing community, and they act on behalf of the interests of the bloc.
Crucially, this is what the EU is doing; and what you said about COVID passports is one of those things that's there because the EU does not impose itself on member states, the EU is very hands off on many areas.
There's a few projects or initiatives which go through the (directly) elected parliament, but they often must get unanimous consent of all member states, not just "Germany throwing its weight around" as is commonly suggested, that's not really possible with the way the EU is structured, the EU is structured in a way that it's easy for most member states to stop the EU from doing something; and really difficult to make something new happen.
This is why certain problems are occurring: the French holding on to the EU parliament for 6 months of the year, the French can simply say "no" to proposals to stop that inefficiency from existing and the EU can't really do anything about it.
The same is true for any potential sanctions against Poland and Hungary suppressing freedom of the press. Obviously the potentially sanctioned country can't vote on if it gets sanctions, but if Hungary say "no" to sanctions against Poland, there's nothing the EU can do.
The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will, except in rare cases where everyone but 1 member state agrees; but historically there have been "opt-outs" to many things. The UK being in the country in the EU has the most asterisks of every country combined in any treaty usually.
[0]: Overly disfigured bananas are supposed to bear a classification, they're not banned: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre...
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parli...
[2]: https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/
Particularly the following statement.
> The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will
To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't mean that individuals aren't being made to do something against their will.
Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. On top of that their are many issues with representative democracy to begin with including media manipulation and corruption.
As a defensive mechanism against other blocs I see your point, and its a catch 22. Governments are generally the cause of major wars. So, it feels counterintuitive to band together as another larger government with centralized control.
I wish that people would never rationalize "following orders." If that alone went away, then governments would become impotent.
I'll try to do some more research regarding my original post and get back to here again. These are just some of my initial thoughts. At this point, nobody else is watching this comment thread, so it's really just a discussion between you and I. No need to prove anything, so I'll try to be correct, researched, take my time.
Good chatting, and I'll follow up again in another day or so.
Cheers!
> Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority.
this is true and it has a name I believe; the "Tyranny of the Majority", I think.
> The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.
Unfortunately, as you mentioned, being _more democratic_ ultimately lends itself to being this way.
However one neat trick the EU has (and I promise I'm not trying to spin this as pro-EU, as it's only in one place): is that the direct votes are split proportionally. This means that lesser represented groups get a voice in the EU parliament.
For the UK with their "First past the post" system, and winner take all government; where a party like UKIP can get 12.6% of all votes and win 0 representation in parliament.... well, lets say it's a stark contrast. explained very nicely; here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I
The EU voting system (the way in which we elect MEPs to parliament) is detailed in this video by the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CU3F3ToIIg ; as you'll see it's much more representative.
I know of other videos that speak pragmatically about the EU, its problems and if it's worth it (though with a slight pro-EU stance): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU
I also found this video that asks the question if the EU is democratic, which I think makes good points and you can draw different conclusions from it: https://youtu.be/XxutY7ss1v4
I like this explanation of what the EU even is, since you mentioned you might not be informed I think it's beneficial and very impartial (and pre-brexit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg
That's pretty cool. There are a lot of voting systems that make a ton more sense than first past the post.
One of my favorites on the topic is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
CGP Grey's video uses animals and whatnot. It's cute, but then he talks about alternatives and it's clear anything would be better than first past the post.
In the US, this is one of many reasons why I'm cynical about the federal government. Everyone knows our voting system is useless--none more than the politicians in the system. But, once they're in the system, they're taking advantage of it and never bother with voting system reforms.
I also still mostly disagree with governments in general. A group of people shouldn't be allowed the rights a single person doesn't have. No matter the system, there are people in it that never agreed to be a part of it. That said, from a pragmatic standpoint it doesn't really matter. As you've mentioned, it's dog-eat-dog out there.
I've been fairly busy these past few days, but I'll make it a point to watch the videos you've linked today (not to exceed 1hr of viewing--I haven't checked the length, lol).
> All the good things
when you wrote your comment? Those that
> are going out the door
?
Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.
My view (although very limited and I'm here to expand it) is that every time a larger governmental body takes some power with some promise of prosperity, it's nice for a short while, but governments only grow till they crash.
Much of the promise of the EU (again a feeling that I'm researching so I can back up or disprove) is being lost to the trend of governments that grow until they no longer represent their people and then fall.
It is a valid approach to naively ask for the obvious repercussions even if it isn't done honestly.
> Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence.
Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. If you look at politics in the US in recent years a very sane thing to do.
EDIT: I mixed up passport and official ID below, still not needing a passport (or more precise being able to use your ID as passport) was more a beneficial side effect then a core goal.
> It was supposed to prevent the need of passports.
No definitely not. All or at least many of the EU countries have relatively strict requirements for citizens owing a passport. Strict as in _it being legal required for all adults_. You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU you just practically could (and still can) travel a lot without showing it. Having a passport is the norm in the EU, you won't get more or less anything done without. For EU citicens it can be quite hard to understand why "requiring a passport" (e.g. for votes) is a problem in the US, as it isn't in general in the EU.
> totalitarian regional government of elites
No, it's a mess without question. But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Or at least most member states are. There are a few problematic exceptions.
Sure. And that's reasonable. The US will do that.
I just think it goes against the original promises, and national sovereignty is being widdled away by larger governing bodies like the EU.
> But it's very far away from being totalitarian.
Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian?
There are regulations on toasters!
Problematic, Misguided, and can be abused by totalitarian regimes. Oh and also likely in conflict with EU law, Human Rights and some member constitution.
Which are very good reasons to prevent it.
But it's not necessary totalitarian by itself.
Yes and no. A passport is a specific means of a legal identity document, and specifically a passport is not mandatory: you can also use a European Identity Card [1]. This serves as legal identification anywhere in the EU, but not outside. And inside your home country, a driver's license also suffices as legal identity document (for certain uses: in NL, you can use it to identify yourself to the police or when collecting packages at the post office, but you can't use it to open a new back account).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the...
It is about the doing already, and less about what can be even done afterwards.
"Becoming"? That's how it was designed. Well, not "totalitarian", exactly; it was designed to make sure that the member governments stayed tightly in charge. The EU Commission is composed of government appointees from the member governments, and is the most powerful EU institution. EU commissioners don't go rogue (not against the wishes of their own government; but they are infinitely corrupt).
The ability to almost arbitrarily spy on people especially in a politicized environment is 'powerful'.
It's the 'most powerful thing'.
There are innumerable ways for a program like this to go wayward.
There are a few legit reasons for such things but 'proper oversight' is hard.