861–870 of 947 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then stop people from being able to afford cheaper stuff from china (without european middlemen) by implementinh a 3eur customs fee on an 1eur phone case!
That's a good thing. We complain about lack of industrialisation. China has historically protected their fledgling industries, if we want industrialisation back, we need to as well, to the detriment of mindless consumption of cheap stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Oh, yes, thankfully the protections for privacy are much better in the US... right? Right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
I understand, but my question is directed to the second point. Even assuming people like the EU in principle, it's constitutional structure seems bizarre and in need of major reform, at least from my American viewpoint. But there doesn't seem to be any movement to "mend it, don't end it." Do most EU supporters also think the constitutional structure of the EU is fine as-is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blackboxes which scan your messages and photos for anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria. Well the criteria is CSAM? Do you have any evidence that these systems have been used to imprison someone that wasn't CSAM related?
>Well the criteria is CSAM Could you confirm that in any way?
Given that big tech firms keep getting fined for doing stuff like this ("anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria"), clearly the answer is "yes, eventually".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Well the criteria is CSAM Could you confirm that in any way?
A better question is if the government can. Given that big tech firms keep getting fined for doing stuff like this ("anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria"), clearly the answer is "yes, eventually".
The EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I'm one of those to whom you refer (except that I'm already "awake", or at least I like to think so). I'm normally pro-EU but this chat control is anathema to me. I'll be voting anti-EU in future I think.
> I'll be voting anti-EU in future I think. You shouldn't go that far. Simply don't vote for the EPP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party_Grou... ) in your country. They are the driving force behind this. Other parties have mostly voted against this (depending on the country)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont disagree. But I am also limited in seeing practical solutions to make EU better in this sense for people to feel represented at all levels directly. Please note the practical thing here cause idealist solutions I have plenty. It is just that countries are too nationalistic. Why I find it hard: EU is another abstraction on top of what we already have: local, regional, national. EU is not just an alliance but a…
It seems to me that the nationalism issue is orthogonal to the representation issue. In the current structure, the EU government is even more powerful than the U.S. federal government. The U.S. federal government can only legislate in certain areas, and cannot compel the states to enforce federal law. This restriction is strongly enforced by the judiciary. That's why, for example, U.S. states effectively legalized ma…
Here is a clear list of areas: https://commission.europa.eu/about/role/law/areas-eu-action_...
Also EU does not have a government. There are 3 powers lets say:
- EU Council which represents the countries governments
- The EU Commission representing EU interests
- The EU Parliament representing citizens
We go back to what I said: when introducing a new level of abstraction we got a new governing power. But lets never forget that except the EU Parliament all the others are formed by people proposed by countries governments.
Thus as EU citizen one:
- influences EU direct by voting the EU parliament
- influences EU indirect by voting who rules their countries which will then send people to EU Council and Commission
As you notice the countries governments have more power (2 out of 3) than the EU parliament even if they are different kind of powers.
Still in the end each citizen that goes to vote is deciding the direction of EU in three ways (one direct citizen to EU and two indirect citizen to country to EU). Want more federalization then vote parties that go that way. Want more nationalism then vote that way. But nobody (or few people) really think then consequences of what they vote in their own countries and how that affects everybody in EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
The members of parliament are elected every 5 years by the citizens of the european union. What do you mean with unelected bureaucrats?