←back to thread

1121 points xyzal | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
ManBeardPc ◴[] No.45209514[source]
Glad we could delay it for now. It will come back again and again with that high of support though. Also the German Bundestag is already discussing a compromise: https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1108356. They are only unhappy with certain points like breaking encryption. They still want to destroy privacy and cut back our rights in the name of "safety", just a little less.
replies(8): >>45209583 #>>45209689 #>>45209691 #>>45210026 #>>45210110 #>>45210215 #>>45210343 #>>45210669 #
uyzstvqs ◴[] No.45209691[source]
The bigger issue is that we need to make the EU actually democratic. Start by removing every branch but the European Parliament. That's the only solution.
replies(16): >>45209723 #>>45209744 #>>45209801 #>>45209870 #>>45209875 #>>45209929 #>>45210037 #>>45210135 #>>45210150 #>>45210195 #>>45210556 #>>45210659 #>>45210665 #>>45210877 #>>45213389 #>>45220083 #
Vespasian ◴[] No.45209723[source]
The EU council is formed by the democratically elected member states. This follows an "upper house" approach used in many european countries.

I'm strongly in favor of giving the parliament the ability to propose laws (directives). Currently only the comission can do that.

replies(3): >>45209831 #>>45210011 #>>45213725 #
lmpdev ◴[] No.45209831[source]
As an Australian normally subject to two upper houses (the current state I happen to live in is the only unicameral state) that seems very counter intuitive

The way it seems to work in practice (here at least) is most partisan/normative legislation goes through the lower house upwards

And bipartisan (or broadly unpopular or highly technical) legislation goes from the upper house down

It’s more complicated than that, but a one way flow committee sounds extremely restrictive for meaningful reform

A small number of pathways is a good thing, one lone process is probably not (you risk over fitting on both sides)

Edit: Australian legislation has a lot of flaws, but this multimodal setup from my experience is not one of them

replies(2): >>45209864 #>>45209984 #
boxed ◴[] No.45209864[source]
I believe the point of the EU structure is precisely to make it hard to make laws, because the EU was designed to NOT be a federalist system.
replies(2): >>45209939 #>>45210109 #
graemep ◴[] No.45210109[source]
What is it designed to be? The aim is "ever closer union". right? Every change in the EU treaties inches closer to federalism.

A common currency without a common fiscal policy has already proven not to work well.

replies(3): >>45210185 #>>45210446 #>>45212581 #
1. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.45210185{5}[source]
> Every change in the EU treaties inches closer to federalism.

The Treaties haven't changed since 2011 or so, and I don't expect any changes in the next decade at the very least.

replies(1): >>45210875 #
2. graemep ◴[] No.45210875[source]
Agreed, no big changes imminent. I was thinking more about the longer term. I would expect change in 20 or 30 years, and a lot of things could happen to change things even in the next decade (another financial crisis like 2008, another pandemic, wars, etc.).
replies(1): >>45213018 #
3. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.45213018[source]
Personally I'd love to see a more federal EU but it's very unlikely to happen barring some absurdly large crises.