←back to thread

Germany is not supporting ChatControl – blocking minority secured

(digitalcourage.social)
1121 points xyzal | 1 comments | 11 Sep 25 08:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
ManBeardPc ◴[11 Sep 25 09:27 UTC] 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 ◴[11 Sep 25 09:55 UTC] 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 ◴[11 Sep 25 09:59 UTC] 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 ◴[11 Sep 25 10:13 UTC] 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 ◴[11 Sep 25 10:19 UTC] 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 ◴[11 Sep 25 11:00 UTC] 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. pas ◴[11 Sep 25 11:48 UTC] No.45210446[source]▶
there will be always inequalities and "blind spots", just look at the US, more homogeneous in many ways, yet still there's no single market for many things (healthcare for example)

education seems similarly harmonized in both unions (the Bologna system works pretty well)

but just as in the US border issues are always affecting members differently (migration flows North, right? so southern borders are affected more; at the same time migrants went to NYC and Berlin because they are rich cities with opportunities and very migration-friendly policies)

and of course federalism in the US is also suffering from vetocracy (aka. tragedy of the anticommons), see housing, which very directly leads to "blue states" losing seats in the House (and similarly housing issues are catalyzing radicalization in the EU too)

(and the solution to the housing challenges are not obvious, and even if there are success stories - like Vienna - city-state politics is stuck in the usual local minimas)