CrisMystik

Is it too much to ask to consider that the people on the banknotes are/will be depicted because they are European, and not because they come from any member State in particular?

The underpinning ideology is that Europe (meaning the EU) should have no history, no culture and no identity because they are monopoly of the member States/nations. And, as always, if you put a monument or person from some country in the banknotes, the other states will complain

Yes, it was the second reading; because of that, the motion for rejecting the Council common position was not approved, since it received a majority, but not an absolute majority, of votes

The new reading will happen if the Council rejects the amendment approved by the Parliament. When it does they have 6 weeks to negotiate, and then 6 weeks to approve the result of negotiations, if any.

Basically, the hope is that the Council rejects that amendment in its second reading (but right, the probability of this is not really high, since it codifies what was already true). I should have explained it better in my comment

One thing that should be noted is that, since the Parliament has been able to approve an amendment by absolute majority (which explicitly excludes E2E chats), the procedure is not over and the law is still not enacted, a third reading is still needed, after negotiations with the Council and the Commission, and in this case the Parliament will be able to reject the act by a simple majority

The urgency procedure is not the issue here, the problem is that this was Parliament's second reading, and the treaties (article 294 TFEU) say:

> Second reading

> 7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament:

> (a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the Council;

> (b) rejects, by a majority of its component members, the Council's position at first reading, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted;

> (c) proposes, by a majority of its component members, amendments to the Council's position at first reading, the text thus amended shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission, which shall deliver an opinion on those amendments.

The urgency procedure has nothing to do with the absolute majority requirement. It's necessary because, in the second reading, the Parliament should have an absolute majority to reject or amend the Council (i.e. the governments of the member states) position but only a simple majority to approve it

The Parliament has many committees that do exactly what you're saying, while the Council meets in various configurations of national ministers depending on the law being voted on

The first sentence is correct, but

> The Council decided Chat Control was on the agenda

The Council is different from the European Council (yes, the treaty drafters were not much creative in naming institutions), the latter is composed of the heads of states and sets the agenda like you said, while the former is composed on ministers in the policy area under discussion, and it's a "co-legislator" together for the Parliament (on most areas, including Chat Control 1.0 & 2.0, both must agree to pass an act).

The issue here (it's part of the "democratic deficits") is that, in its second reading, the EP needs an absolute majority to amend/reject the Council first reading, and a simple majority to approve it and pass it into law.

MEPs are directly elected by citizens, not governments. It's the Council instead where representatives (ministers) of all national governments sit

The ordinary legislative procedure applies to both:

- Chat Control 1.0 (now expired): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

- Chat Control 2.0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52...

In both cases you can read "Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure", and it's not possible to adopt a different one, since it depends solely on the appropriate legal basis for the act.

In fact, both are based on Article 114 TFEU, which reads: "The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market."

> and, the part not said out loud, due to bypassing the EU commission makes country vetos null

The Commission is not an intergovernmental institution. The "veto rule" exists in areas where the Council - not the Commission - acts by unanimity, which is not the case for article 114 TFEU (and all acts under the ordinary legislative procedure, unanimity is present in (most) SLPs only).

This is completely wrong. Under the ordinary legislative procedure (used for Chat Control 1.0 & 2.0) the Commission proposes an act, then the Council and Parliament can approve it, reject it or amend it.

The act can be approved only if and when the Council and Parliament approve the exact same text

In that case you're against the people currently in government, not the body itself, i.e. some people against Chat Control ask for the dissolution of the EU, but would they ask for the dissolution of their national state if a similar law was passed in their national parliament? I think no

> 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

It's not as complete as the compiler proposed by this article, but there is a tool for Italian laws which can, among other things, recognize (parse) and apply amendments:

https://igsg-marker.gitlab.io/

I use Bird in Rome and it's the operator whose scooters I see the most around. However, it could also be due to the fact that the municipality has enacted strict rules allowing only 3 companies to operate and forcing a certain number of scooters to be placed in peripheral areas.

> The other 26 are selected by the Council of Ministers, without Parliamentary oversight.

No, after the European Parliament has approved the proposed President of the European Commission and the Council has chosen the other 26 commissioners, the Commission as a whole is subject to another vote of confidence by the European Parliament.

What's the problem with the Lisbon Treaty?

In my country, Italy, all online public services already must accept government-issued digital IDs only, by law.

They come in two forms: SPID (which is just username and password + TOTP, issued by private companies on behalf of the State, but allowing you to change your provider without becoming "a completely different person" [1]), and CIE (which is the new national ID card, and can be used as an electronic ID using any NFC reader). Additionally, some services allow to log in using equivalent eIDs from other EU countries [2].

[1] https://www.spid.gov.it/en/frequently-asked-questions/

[2] https://eid.gov.it/?lang=en-001