upvote

points

by ur-whale1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby dgellow1 days ago|
[-]
It’s the council. We have to be clear which institution we are talking about within the EU, otherwise that doesn’t make any sense. The European Parliament already pushed back that proposal. The EU is made of a lot of different actors with their own agenda.

Here the council, with the help of the EPP party is doing that undemocratic maneuvering: They made it on purpose so that the parliament is unlikely to be able to push back a third time (all of that leaked a few days ago)

reply
upvoteby vslira1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If the EU as a system has an undemocratic backdoor it's descriptively correct to call it undemocratic. Not to play too hard on the HN user stereotype, but you wouldn't call a computer system that is mostly secure other than a known privilege escalation exploit secure, would you?
reply
upvoteby dgellow1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Every single democratic system relies on norms at some level. Democratic isn’t a boolean flag. When the French prime minister is using the 49-3 rule to bypass the parliament that’s undemocratic, that doesn’t make the system itself undemocratic. When a US president is using an executive order to pass a law that’s undemocratic, that doesn’t make the system itself undemocratic. Here the maneuver goes against the spirit of democracy and against the expected norms, however the EU itself is democratic
reply
upvoteby inigyou1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If France has a way for the prime minister to bypass democracy that's undemocratic.
reply
upvoteby dgellow1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That’s what I wrote
reply
upvoteby breach0501 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby Jblx21 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
>When a US president is using an executive order to pass a law

An executive order isn't a law. It is an instruction for an executive branch agency or committee.

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...

reply
upvoteby gunalx1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Pragmatically the difference does not really matter, om the other hand a executive order migth have more action behind it than a law.
reply
upvoteby Jblx221 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Even with the hugely expansive U.S. government and executive branch, an executive order is much more restricted in scope than a law passed by congress.
reply
upvoteby gf00016 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, we don't really see all the democracy in the US, especially in this last term.

When the congress doesn't even know that the president can do this or that, it's just dictatorship with some theater. In Europe, the EU's powers are much much more limited.

reply
upvoteby sunshine-o1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No.

The way the EU is designed has nothing to do with the US or France. First the Parliament and Council (the bodies democratically elected) do not have power of legislative initiative.

Then the Commission, which is a "super" executive power, is not democratically elected. Unlike France or the US (the two you mentioned).

The EU has an architecture that is fundamentally different from the US or French system. In many way it is actually closer to something like the UN or PRC.

reply
upvoteby lxxxvi22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In parliamentary democracies, governments tend to not be democratically elected. The Commission is no different than most European governments when it comes to that.
reply
upvoteby dgellow16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You’re missing the point I’m making, which is about how „democratic“ is a nuanced spectrum. I’m not drawing parallels regarding the way the institutions are implemented. Also, the French prime minister and government isn’t democratically elected. Only the president is
reply
upvoteby sunshine-o14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Only the president is

The head of the executive is elected, that makes quite a big difference.

> You’re missing the point I’m making, which is about how „democratic“ is a nuanced spectrum.

Yes and some have the right to argue that China is a democracy. They do have a lot of elections. And the CCP has a very broad spectrum of ideas and politics within it, in fact much broader than the people you will find in the EU Commission.

In the end it is about how much you perceive the common will is represented and served by the regime in place. Chat Control has openly gone against it for years and is being shove down our throat.

And there is a reason why farmers have been driving their tractors to Brussels from all over Europe for decades. The trip ain't cheap.

reply
upvoteby bigyabai1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> you wouldn't call a computer system that is mostly secure other than a known privilege escalation exploit secure, would you?

People do this all the time, regardless of whether or not they're right or wrong. "This product I own is definitely secure because the marketing says so, even if the CVEs prove me wrong" is a common sentiment online and in real life.

Not to play too hard on the computing-detatched normie stereotype, but this type of surveillance is bound to succeed due to their apathy. We've seen this play out in the US before, and it's always a shoo-in for the surveillance legislation. Security, privacy and fairness doesn't even cross most people's minds anymore.

reply
upvoteby nickslaughter021 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> The European Parliament already pushed back that proposal. The EU is made of a lot of different actors with their own agenda.

It doesn't matter how the European parliament voted.

https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-robe...

reply
upvoteby dgellow1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
It does matter, the parliament vote is precisely what pushed the council/EPP to do their most recent push in such a disgusting, undemocratic way. The parliament still has a say, but elected are likely to already be on vacation (which is another dumb thing, but what the bad actors here are actively taking advantage of)
reply