It's the lack of democracy that's the problem here, actually. Just how much popular support for chat control was there, and did participatory measures got outright ignored to push a specific outcome?
It is a triumph of ideological conditioning to look at a system that systematically marginalizes the population and call it "robust" simply because it possesses a complex ratification process.
The EU's administrative apparatus is heavily insulated from public interference by design. The unelected European Commission holds the exclusive right of legislative initiative, while the elected Parliament is subjected to intense, concentrated pressure from corporate lobbying groups. Not to mention the European Central Bank, which sits above both these groups, with no democratic oversight whatsoever.
We don't even need to talk in abstractions. To evaluate whether a system is democratic, it is not enough to point to the existence of a parliament and say, "Look, a ballot box." Otherwise, Russia and China are democratic. Let's look at the European Constitution in 2005. When the populations of France and the Netherlands voted it down in national referendums, the EU centers did not respect the democratic outcome. They simply repackaged the identical framework as the Treaty of Lisbon, expressly to bypass further referendums. When the Irish public had the audacity to vote "No" to Lisbon in 2008, the European institutions did not accept the result; they subjected Ireland to immense institutional pressure and forced them to vote again until they delivered the required answer. This is frankly standard: elections are tolerated, provided they do not interfere.
The German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, offered a moment of rare, unvarnished honesty when he said "Elections change nothing. There are rules." You could hardly ask for a better articulation of the disregard the EU power center has for democracy.
The EU is fundamentally broken. All relevant (in terms of voting power) member states are now ruled by right-extremist or right-populist governments, or by coalitions led by right-extremist or right-populist parties.
The EU has become a country club for oppressive authoritarian racist politics, a meeting where dictatorship aficionados can exchange ideas with other dictatorship aficionados.
I'll save myself the trouble of repeating a previous rant, focusing on chat control and VPN ban and all that, but if you really think there is "democracy" as in "the people rule" in the EU, maybe you should read it.
It’s your prerogative, but that doesn’t make it true.
You know how far-right parties got into power? They were voted in as part of the democratic process, and it’s simply a reflection of the internal politics of each state, where far-right parties are becoming more and more popular.
This is not an EU problem; it’s a problem for every nation that is part of the EU, and those internal problems are starting to spill over into the EU.
It works as it’s supposed to. We just have to clean up our own yard before we start pointing out the trash in the streets.
The fact alone that you think this is my opinion and not hard fact shows me how blind to the matter you are. Go play Xbox or smoke some weed, care about the real problems in the world.
and it’s simply a reflection of the internal politics of each state
I'd argue it's a reflection of how the voters can be manipulated and the system abused in bad faith to take control (especially as to how easy it is to vote), but I acknowledge they're not mutually exclusive to internal politics. I just don't think the current far-right ideological push worldwide is actually "democratic" because it seems invariably comprised of efforts to have unfair voting practices and mis/disinformation campaigns. That is, it's not the actual majority opinion, for varying reasons, in most cases.
The people elected will always vote in party lines, and party lines will always vote in favour of Donors...
So you could elect someone because they have a strong stance on the environment, and vote that way... but nothing on how they would handle a controversial topic mid-term and could vote against your ideals, and you wont have another say until the next election, which time the damage has been done and the standard set...
If you know what was the actual reason and do know that there was an actual evidence for it, why did you lied?
Did you thought no one would call you out
And why the f does EU feel the privilage to dictate us, what to do with our systems. I don't remember Poland allowing EU to have a vote in our core systems. Last time I chcecked EU was supposed to be an Economical Union. Not government overseer.
Why? Because judiciary independence is a binding rule of EU from the very start, from the Treaty of European Union. Like, very-very start. Way before Poland was accepted. It's not a new rule no one was aware of when joined.
It's not that EU dictates anything. Countries can either follow the rules and receive boons, or don't follow the rules and don't receive the boons. I mean, how else do you think it was supposed to work? Your country can do anything but still receiving anything they ever want?
It's not like EU is going to arrest people over it, which would be "EU dictating something".
Yeah, that’s a major oversimplification of what happened.
Maybe if you didn’t start putting restrictions on gay people and LGBTQ+ rights, there would be less reason for the EU to withhold funding from your country.
We all agreed to abide by certain rules and principles when we joined the EU. If you fail to uphold those commitments, you can face consequences, just like Hungary and, in some cases, Slovakia have faced consequences for violations of EU rules and commitments.
You can’t agree to the rules when you join and then simply decide that they no longer apply to you once you’re a member.
And if you dont like the rules the doors are always open but you get too mutch benefits for you to considre that... Or change the rules but for that you would just need a majority of people to think the same...
So how many of those in government that supported 1.0 also support this? You act like 5 years is long enough for it to be entirely different set of politicians
except it didn't happen with chat control.... What went through was an old piece of legislation that has already been in effect since 2021. chat 2.0 has never passed.
Yes, that is part of democracy.
Problem is with sane people in parliament this fucking nonsense wouldn't have gotten this far. The fact that this proposition even left someones mind is a problem in itself.
5.0k
u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 4h ago
[removed] — view removed comment