Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#111

Post by spurgu »

saubeidl wrote: post #16
aestetix wrote: post #14

Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? That is not the case. The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe…

> Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?

Powerful people get together and decide that they know what's best for people. Then they claim that there is "consent" because people are given the right to vote and that there is a "social contract" that no one actually has signed, which everyone should still abide by.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#112

Post by surgical_fire »

inglor_cz wrote: post #105
surgical_fire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> things written on paper. "things written on paper" is the basis of any serious, respectable country. "Things written on paper" should be respected, because when you are serious about your commitments, words matter. I don't want to see the country I live in become a shithole because local armed forces or police think themselves above the law. The ultimate legitimacy test is whether you are serious about the things y…

OK, let me formulate this better. Let us say that you have a serious conflict between two such papers. One of them is the nation's constitution, the other is a decision from Brussels, and people from politicians down to the regular cop will have to choose their allegiance, A or B. I claim that in such situation, in most EU nations, their constitutions will win. They are held in higher emotional regard, as they have b…

> One of them is the nation's constitution, the other is a decision from Brussels, and people from politicians down to the regular cop will have to choose their allegiance, A or B.

I am presuming that this nation is a democracy, with a legitimately elected government. "Brussels" (i.e.: The European Union), whether you like it or not, also is a democratic institution, with a legitimately elected parliament and other representatives appointed by the government of member states (all of those democracies; and also Hungary).

In the event where there is a contradiction (and there eventually are some), those should be solved by politicians, courts, governments. It's not up to a cop to choose allegiances. He should follow the law, to the best understanding and direction of the institution he serves.

The police is subject to local and national governments. The direction will come from those. And then it is up to this hypothetical nation government to sort out its differences with the bloc through the established channels.

Because, again, a serious and respectable country honors its commitments. When something becomes law in the EU, to my understanding, there is a period until this has to be adopted in the member states as part of their law as well.

> They are held in higher emotional regard, as they have behind them a long legacy of struggle and memory of people whose lives were martyred in a fight for national freedom.

This ks absolutely irrelevant, and not how a serious country conducts itself. The constitution is not immutable. There are avenues for it to change, following established procedure. You for some reason pretend the constitution is overridden when no such thing happens.

> Which is actually why Brussels shouldn't push some things too hard.

The irony here is that the "Brussels" that in your view is "pushing" too hard, typically is the EU council or EU commission.

Those bodies are either formed by the heads of state and of each country, or by officials appointed by those same heads of state.

The countries are all in on those changes you think is being "imposed".

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#113

Post by saubeidl »

inglor_cz wrote: post #104
saubeidl wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty much diametrically opposed to Yarvin ideologically. I think his plans are for a dystopia. I do think that bourgeois democracy is just a thin veil for capitalist interest and that unless the economy is democratized, nothing is. The closest model to follow would probably be post-Stalin-Split Yugoslavia under Tito. I especially like the concepts of worker self-management, which imo is a much more meaningfull…

Tito was, by all accounts, a very capable politician, but he also built a system that, 10 years after his death, disintegrated in a fountain of blood. I like systems that withstood some test of time and adversary winds. Titoist Yugoslavia didn't. OK, so you like the concept of worker self-management. At the same time, you admire the economic power of the US and China. Neither seems to be based on worker self-manageme…

I think the mistake of Yugoslavia was letting reactionaries and nationalists creep back in after Tito's death. To me, it proves the necessity of some domestic repression to keep our worst impulses in check.

Regarding worker cooperatives and competitiveness, as a socialist I do not believe the market is a good indicator of a systems quality. This, too, can be solved with a bit of state force. If the only legal structure for a company is a worker's coop, then we don't need to worry about talent loss to non-coop companies.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#114

Post by LunaSea »

saubeidl wrote: post #100
hdgvhicv wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the elected French parliament ignoring the “no to eu constitution vote” in 2005 Not sure how the EU is blamed for the sovereign actions of the French Parliament.

Or how that is in any way related to the other several instances of "ever closer union" wording that France signed up to.

This is about the vote on the EU Constitution in the early 2000s during which both French and Dutch people voted against. Later the EU decided to pass it without a referendum to side step this "democracy issue". Something you would have know about if you actually understood the topic.

So no, "even closer union" is not something that most europeans want, especially not in the current climate of corruption and fuckups by the commission.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#115

Post by saubeidl »

LunaSea wrote: post #114
saubeidl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how that is in any way related to the other several instances of "ever closer union" wording that France signed up to.

This is about the vote on the EU Constitution in the early 2000s during which both French and Dutch people voted against. Later the EU decided to pass it without a referendum to side step this "democracy issue". Something you would have know about if you actually understood the topic. So no, "even closer union" is not something that most europeans want, especially not in the current climate of corruption and fuckups…

"The EU" is our elected governments, not some third-party institution. An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#116

Post by saubeidl »

sunaookami wrote: post #107
saubeidl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this is disinformation and propaganda. There is parliamentary oversight, it's literally the next step in the process. We all voted for the EU commission through our respective elections for national governments, who appoint the comission. You could not be jailed for this comment, though sometimes I wish you could. Information warfare is real.

>All of this is disinformation and propaganda. I suggest actually looking at how the EU operates instead of accusing others of "spreading disinformation and propaganda" which is a typical response when someone critizies EU institutions. >There is parliamentary oversight A rubber stamp is oversight I guess. Laws like the DMA and DSA give the commission way too much power without being kept in check. >it's literally th…

> That's a very generous definition of "voted". As I said people can't vote for the EU commission nor can the parliament vote for the members of the commission. Remember that the EU commission is the ONLY one that can propose laws, the parliament CAN NOT do this even though it's their job.

People can't vote for ministers etc either. That's how representative democracy works.

> How about that German journalist that critizied a politician regarding free speech and got probation?

You mean a neonazi that was spreading Nazi propaganda in Germany, which is a bit sensitive when it comes to that sort of thing for obvious historical reasons?

> Or when the police raided someone's home because he called a politician on Twitter a "dick

That was in fact ridiculous and I agree with you that this shouldn't have happened. But that isn't "the EU" that's German conservatives.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#117

Post by LunaSea »

saubeidl wrote: post #115
LunaSea wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about the vote on the EU Constitution in the early 2000s during which both French and Dutch people voted against. Later the EU decided to pass it without a referendum to side step this "democracy issue". Something you would have know about if you actually understood the topic. So no, "even closer union" is not something that most europeans want, especially not in the current climate of corruption and fuckups…

"The EU" is our elected governments, not some third-party institution. An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish.

> "The EU" is our elected governments

Is that why the EU MEP can't propose laws?

Is that why the Commission can ignore the MEP's votes?

Also, many European governments have not been elected by people voting for them but by people voting against their opponent. Hardly a vote of confidence.

> An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish.

Yes, so foolish to ask people their opinion. If only we could have one strong man or woman decide everything.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#118

Post by saubeidl »

LunaSea wrote: post #117
saubeidl wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The EU" is our elected governments, not some third-party institution. An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish.

> "The EU" is our elected governments Is that why the EU MEP can't propose laws? Is that why the Commission can ignore the MEP's votes? Also, many European governments have not been elected by people voting for them but by people voting against their opponent. Hardly a vote of confidence. > An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish. Yes, so foolish to ask people their opinion. If only we could have one…

The Commission is literally our elected government's representatives.

It's not some outside power. It's people our governments send there. And it's exactly the same amount of democratic as a ministership is.

> Yes, so foolish to ask people their opinion.

The average voter doesn't know everything about everything. That's the whole point of representative democracy, to elect a representative to deal with the intricacies of governance. That's how most democratic countries in the world are structured.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#119

Post by saubeidl »

inglor_cz wrote: post #105
surgical_fire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> things written on paper. "things written on paper" is the basis of any serious, respectable country. "Things written on paper" should be respected, because when you are serious about your commitments, words matter. I don't want to see the country I live in become a shithole because local armed forces or police think themselves above the law. The ultimate legitimacy test is whether you are serious about the things y…

OK, let me formulate this better. Let us say that you have a serious conflict between two such papers. One of them is the nation's constitution, the other is a decision from Brussels, and people from politicians down to the regular cop will have to choose their allegiance, A or B. I claim that in such situation, in most EU nations, their constitutions will win. They are held in higher emotional regard, as they have b…

Speaking of a nation's constitution, how do you feel about Article 23 of the German Grundgesetz?

> (1) With a view to establishing a united Europe, the Federal Republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union that is committed to democratic, social and federal principles, to the rule of law and to the principle of subsidiarity and that guarantees a level of protection of basic rights essentially comparable to that afforded by this Basic Law. To this end the Federation may transfer sovereign powers by a law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union, as well as changes in its treaty foundations and comparable regulations that amend or supplement this Basic Law or make such amendments or supplements possible, shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 79.

I would hope the people, politicians and cops of Germany follow their constitution.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#120

Post by concinds »

spurgu wrote: post #109
concinds wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is pretty simple. This decision isn't "the EU". The European Commission has fewer employees than the Luxembourg government (and keep in mind, they're "running" a continent). This decision was the Council, i.e. simply the national member governments. Don't let anyone blame "the EU" for this, the national governments are the ones that proposed this, pushed it through EU institutions, and might now try to ove…

What you're describing is how the process in the EU works. So in essence it is "the EU". It doesn't seem to have any limits or restrictions on what it can do as an institution. It forced idiotic bottlecaps on all of us for shit's sake... and it has little consideration for privacy laws or constitutions of individuals, otherwise this proposal would've been thrown out automatically each time, if there was anything rese…

But the national governments are the ones who gave themselves that power in the first place. Because they wanted to be able to do shit like this. Hopefully the EU Parliament will stop them.

But the takeaway from this shouldn't be: "screw the EU", it should be: make the EU more democratic, and give more power to the parliament and less to the backroom machinations of member states. That's exactly what the pro-EU reformists want to do. Or you could pass an EU Constitution that enshrines basic rights including privacy, which the pro-Europe activists tried in 2005 (it explicitly mentioned communications privacy) but failed due to anti-EU pushback and fears over "sovereignty".

Post reply on HN