Hacker News Reader

> It is much easier for lobbyists with deep pockets to influence policies on the continent.

I don't know what you're comparing it with (i.e. easier than what?), but in my mind one advantage of the "bureaucracy" of the EU is that you have to convince way more people to get them to execute on your wishes. You can influence a Commissioner (the Commission is indirectly elected, i.e. appointed by the member governments, which are often appointed by the majority parties in a government, which are elected), but then it also needs to be approved by Parliament (directly elected) and the Council (the governments, usually appointed by the elected majority parties). And then I assume there's also a whole bunch of roadblocks that civil servants can throw up if a plan is really inconvenient.

Bingo, the EU is optimised to _not_ do things against the will of member states, both at the EU government and national government level.

Many things are proposed, very few make it through, meaning the number of people you have to influence has to be extremely tactical or total.

You can see this with the proposal to stop moving the EU parliament and commission to Strasbourg every year (just to move it back again), France says no, therefore it can't happen.

Same is true with sanctions against .pl for freedom of the press violations, Hungary says no and that's all it takes for nothing to happen.

this is not entirely accurate, it depends on the policy area: the parliament shuffling bullshit is part of the treaties, so France has a veto there

whereas most policy is done via QMV, so the veto isn't a problem, especially if you can wait for a compliant set of governments

once it's implemented: getting another majority to initiate the legislation to remove it is even harder by the very nature of the mechanism

Yes, but getting a qualified Majority is also very difficult

55% of countries by population and 65% of countries of total need to vote yes: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/...

yes, but you only need it once

and then your legislation is essentially eternally protected because you'd need the same QM to remove it, which will practically never happen

the system empowers the legislators of the past over the legislators of today, which is fundamentally undemocratic

The EU isn't democratic in the first place. Partly is the reason why it needs to go away.

You're obviously here for a reasonable discussion.

The only people who benefit from the EU dissolving are nationalists and enemies of the block of countries that make up the EU (Russia, China and to some extent the Allied US whom would prefer us not to be united).

Which are you?

I'm not a nationalist, I'm an immigrant in the UK.

I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians, neither am I fond of fascists governing my community from far away.

Which are you?

> I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians

You should be very concerned about our House of Lords, our Monarchy and the cronyism and corruption that is currently plaguing our elected officials, and lovely "unelected" advisors to the prime minister such as Dominic Cummings, who's policies used to be followed almost as religious dogma.

You can worry about the "big bad EU" when you understand the EU more.

I'm aware that it is a bold and inflamatory claim to say you don't understand it enough; but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians".

Lets start with the unelected bit:

EU Commission is elected by Parliment. (IE; indirectly elected)

EU Parliament is directly elected by you, the individual, they are your MEPs, and they're elected in one of the most democratic ways we know of.

EU Council is heads of state (IE; Elected)

Council of the European Union is non-heads of governments of European countries. (IE; Elected).

> neither am I fond of fascists

Might want to look up what that word means, the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterised by nationalism.

> governing my community from far away.

The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow..

(489km vs 556km as the crow flies)

I'm British, I was a little bit nationalistic before I left the UK and realised that I was foolish.

I'm not accusing you of being a fool but you're certainly misinformed.

I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in a glass house.

the irony is that you're criticising the parent for not understanding the EU, but then you seem to have a limited understanding of how your own country works in reality (vs. someone doing quick read of its description on wikipedia)

the modern house of lords is advisory and completely subordinate to the commons

it is a glorified select committee, there to scrutinise the law and slow it down

the commons can override it, but to do that it has to wait

it's essentially the EU parliament: the inferior chamber that can slightly amend and block law

the sovereign is similar, the commons is superior and last time there was a fundamental disagreement the country became a republic

the UK is full of contradictions like this: formally we're theocracy ruled by an absolute monarch appointed by god

but that's not how it works in practice

vs. say the US, which is the complete opposite on paper (strict republic, limits on power, strict separation of church and state), but then has presidents constantly referring to god and religion being a huge thing in politics

> I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in glass houses.

yes, quite

Ah, so unelected officials are ok.

Just not when it's the EU?

And also, not when they're actually elected. Got it.

> Ah, so unelected officials are ok.

maybe you could point out where I said that

Well, since you glossed over it and then defended it I kinda assumed.

Please explain why the house of lords is ok but the EU commission is not.

If you're not in favour of the HoL maybe we should start there and not spend ages talking about an institution our country does not need to try to ruin anymore: since it left.

and since I now live within its borders, and it applies to me.

> and not spend ages talking about an institution our country does not need to try to ruin anymore: since it left.

absolutely, once "continuity remain" ceases to be a threat to the UK political system

until that happens, I will continue to refute the misinformation of its supporters

> You should be very concerned about our House of Lords...

I think that's ridiculous, though they don't affect much. Waste of money. Not really with the Monarchy, as they aren't affecting anything at all.

> but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians".

Why would you assume that? Because I am an immigrant? How progressive. FYI you're wrong. What a shock.

> the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism

One fundamental characteristic of Fascism is the centralisation of power in the state, and control/partnership with the private sector (which acts both for itself and for the benefit of the state). This is core to the EU. The logical conclusion of the EU project is a larger, more powerful government. It can't move into a different direction.

Are you aware of the thread that you're into? You can't possibly be missing the irony, but it seems you are.

> The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow..

"far away" can also mean culturally, and BTW I'm not in favour of London governing anything in Glasgow either.

But that wouldn't fit into your preconceptions, would it?

> but you're certainly misinformed.

Why would you assume I don't already know everything that you said? I know: because you might be a bit arrogant. That is very apparent.

Just so you know, you contradicted yourself: The EU commission is made of UNELECTED people. They are the ones who draft the laws. Being appointed by someone does not mean elected, it means precisely being unelected.

How silly does one have to be to try to twist the basic meaning of accountability in government?

Now, even if they had been elected directly, the people making laws, or voting on said laws, or influencing policy that affects my country were elected somewhere else.

Nobody outside a given sovereign body should have a say in anything policy-wise within it.

Some political scientist argue that after the Lisbon treaty the deficit is a myth but I don't think their statements have much merit. They often argue that parliamentary control wouldn't be the only metric that would quantify democracy but fail to give an answer what would compensate this deficiency.

Not only did the treaty get rejected by some states that were allowed to vote on it, the fact that it is too far removed from citizens and their inadequate participation. In fact I would argue the treaty made it even more undemocratic. The influence of Kutcher compared to European individuals is not the only empirical evidence for that.

The parliamentary control is minimal and there is little overarching political discourse beyond the borders of the nation state. Language barriers are strong and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Until then the commission will run the circus.

Not to pick a point, but that's true of all legislation.

Making something illegal is much easier than making something that was previously illegal: legal.

That's just how legislation works in all systems. One need only look at constitutions.

"undemocratic" is a stretch, people are still voting for representatives, representatives of the people are still voting. Nobody is deciding something by themselves. Unless we've changed what democracy means.

that is definitely not how it works in all systems

a future government should be able to roll back legislation as easily as the past government implemented it, otherwise the process fundamentally undemocratic

this is true for the UK

constitutions that require super-majorities to change are fundamentally undemocratic

the US founding fathers considered this to be a feature to prevent mob rule... they were probably right here

but it's really quite hard to argue that elevating the principles of dead slave owners 200 years ago (extreme example) over those of voters alive today is democratic

The distance to representatives does matter a lot. The EU even agrees with the principle of subsidiary policy making.

>Most people in the EU not from Germany don't know UvdL

Oh, we do, and we hate her and unfortunately Germany too, because they push their incompetent and corrupt politicians to the EU, where they're using the country's immense economic leverage to push unpopular policies across EU level.

On that note, other EU countries should pull their heads out of their asses and start creating better environments for business and especially small business/startups.

You know what happens in my country when you get a big sum of money from crowdfunding or the tax authority thinks you owe them money? They block your bank accounts. Yeah, they actually do that, and then tell you to come and resolve the problem. Which can take weeks to months.

You know what happens in a "normal" country like the UK, Germany, Netherlands or any other with a healthy number of small/medium business? They notify you and tell you to come and resolve the issue asap. If you fail to do that, they can block and check your bank accounts.

In the meantime, you can continue doing business. The punishment for tax evasion/etc is about the same all over.

So why the extra totalitarianism? Anyone with half a brain would never want to deal with that bs. And that's just one example, there's lots more.

You know where big companies come from? Small ones grow into them. Good luck growing much of anything with this kind of approach. Sit there and be envious of Germany and everyone else.

What does 'your country ' whichever that is, and their abusive way of way of handling business have to do with Germany's way of doing business and their corrupt politicians?

The US is number one in the world for top companies, does that automatically make them the best example for policies on everything and the best politicians?

I just don't understand where you were going with this off topic rant.

> It is much easier for lobbyists with deep pockets to influence policies on the continent

That's not how things go, in fact that's very opposite of how things go

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'"

So, no, you're wrong about how easy it is. And where the fault lies.

Yes! EU citizens, arm yourself with information about UvdL and cronyism. Start with the Mc Kinsey affair:

https://www.dw.com/en/german-opposition-to-probe-defense-min...

It says something if the usually cautious dw.com uses the term "Nepotism and spending suspicions".

> Most people in the EU not from Germany don't know UvdL and they should know that she has the capability to severely damage the net

I gave a bit of context on UvdL (Ursula von der Leyen) in a comment a few hours ago in the thread “European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31344817

> incompetent

They are not incompetent. Their goal is to install a totalitarian surveillance state. They become exceedingly efficient at it.

If you assume your politicians are doing this because they are stupid or because you think they can not see the bigger picture you already lost. At centers of concentrated power everything happens for a purpose.

Yep, hanlon's razor does not apply to centers of power, where anyone present had to fight cunningly just to get there.

Given that these are positions that have to be filled by someone, it's also possible that they're filled by people who happened to have had the winds blowing in their direction, and that if events had been different, other people (more or less cunning) would have been there.

This relies on the assumption that there are powerful offices that no one wants to have, and that if they aren't filled a lottery would be run and someone picked up randomly from the street to fill those offices.

Why would it need no one wanting to have the positions? I just said that of the ones that do want it, the one that happens to succeed needn't necessarily succeed because of their cunning scheming - they may just have been lucky.

We need more democracy - pan-EU elections for the President, pan-EU parties for the Parliament, etc.

> pan-EU

This would mean less democracy. As much as possible should be decided decentralized at a local level. I know where my mayor lives. He can't act against the interest of his own people for too long without some serious consequences. A pan-EU organization can.

> He can't act against the interest of his own people for too long without some serious consequences.

If there is one thing where incompetent buffoons can act for far too long with impunity, it is local politics.

Local politics usually don't interest anyone except pensioners with too much free time on their hands, and even if people care about local politics that doesn't mean they take care about democracy. The result are people like the disgraced Sheriff Arpaio.

The reason for the lack of interest is that local politicians don't have enough power. If all the local mayor decides about is whether the town hall is going to be blue or green, people don't care. If he can decide if people are allowed to visit local businesses with or without a vaccination verification people did care... a lot.

I used to think that. Who would get elected for EU president? I believe we have such diversity that the risk is that only the right wing hardliners could agree on a common candidate and we’d risk getting something like Orban or Berlusconi as EU president. I think you can see the trend in the US. So no thanks.

I find the complexity of EU actually to be a feature, not a bug. There are drawbacks, but I’ll take them over the alternative you paint.