[sackfield]

This pops up every few years, and I bet once it gets in it never goes away. It seems asymmetric that one side only has to win once to win permanently while the other side has to win constantly. Is there any mechanism to stop this in the EU and make this kind of legislation explicitly barred?

[zackmorris]

This is the same problem in the US. Legislation (that protects the environment, minorities, the ability to compete in the market, etc) that took years, even decades to get signed into law, is getting repealed today by the current administration via executive order or simple majority vote. Because sabotage is much easier than building something.

Unfortunately the only answer that I know of is eternal vigilance, which is the price of liberty.

I decided to look up who that saying is attributed to, and apparently it's John Philpot Curran, not Thomas Jefferson. But I like Orwell's saying better, because it shows why all of you are just as ineffectual at steering government policy as I am:

https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpret...

[piaste]

I'm sure you just linked the first google result you found, and it's not like the internet wasn't full of crappy 'quote' websites in the halcyon days of 2021, but it's incredibly depressing to click that link and get drowned in paragraphs of worthless AI blathering.

After a quick search - and ignoring Google's helpful clanker who tries to point you to the _wrong_ Orwell text - it's not hard to find a clean source:

https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/RoadToW...

[jimmydddd]

It's amazing how much is done by executive order these days. Which means it can be instantly undone when the other party comes into office. And I assume that once an executive order is made, then the party has no interest in trying to have congress vote in a bill locking in the same issue.

[azmodeus]

Vote them out and never vote for their parties in your general elections

If your Member of European Parliament supports chat control stop voting for their parties and politically support their opposition

[kurthr]

Vote for an opposition which promises mass deportations? Certainly, they will never go back on their word to create a surveillance state?!? Asking your politicians to lie to you is not a substitute for changing their incentives.

The key point to make is that once you're spying on your own people, you've created the single weakest point of entry for your geopolitical opponents spying on you and manipulating the population as well. It's such a dumb political move, it seems like it could only come from extreme fear, greed, or manipulation. Switch it around and make them afraid of the alternative.

[raxxorraxor]

Every member (aside 2 crazy people I believe) of the European Parliament voted for age verification and more user surveillance. It isn't salvageable.

Maybe it is a result of sending the biggest idiots off to the EU when they failed in national politics, but the problem remains.

[wqaatwt]

Problem is that very few “normal” people are even aware of this. Very few people particularly interested about most policies on the EU level. So they pretty much have free reign to do anything with minimal repercussions.

For better or for worse the EU itself is about as much of a democracy as some of the European empires were back in the in early 1900s with their sham parliaments which had very little real power.

[progbits]

Not good enough. They can get in again next election.

[t0bia_s]

You still belive that vote solve anything? Divide and conquer is strong indeed. We should focus to abandoning giving our responsibility to unknown electorate.

[vaylian]

I agree. But also: I've been doing that for a long time already. The problem is that these surveillance laws don't get enough attention by the general public until they come into effect. For example: The UK's online safety act.

[Y_Y]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_...

Like when the Irish electorate rejected the Lisbon Treaty, and then was then harangued into accepting a reheated version. Opponents of the treaty reasonably asked if it could be best-of-three.

[sunshine-o]

The Dutch and French also massively rejected the first version of this in 2005. Strangely they didn't bothered to ask the citizens the second time.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut...

[messe]

> and then was then harangued into accepting a reheated version

After receiving concessions.

[munksbeer]

I'm failing to understand the problem here. The Irish rejected the proposed treaty, the took that rejection and the reasons, went back to rework it, and asked if the next version was suitable, and it was.

That sounds exactly like you'd expect it to work, and yet people seem outraged by it.

Why?

[raxxorraxor]

For me it is a sign the the EU construction does simply not work. It is an undemocratic technocracy that is easily lobbied by players pushing for this and I don't feel represented by a parliament where I don't know anyone.

They circumvent the accountability of nation states, it is a development catastrophe since people cannot have a reasonable influence on policies anymore.

[munksbeer]

Nation states are the ones asking for stuff like this. The EU commission focuses on objectives set by the heads of the nation states. The elected EU parliament then votes on the proposals.

The bad thing about the EU is that it opens up views like yours, trying to absolve your own nation of any culpability, when that is just not true.

If you don't like the direction of the EU, vote in a government and MEPs who will steer it in a different direction. If enough people do this, then the EU changes, as happens in every democracy.

What you're seeing is simply democracy in action. You think these things are going against the majority, but the reality is, the majority of citizens are ok for this to happen at the nation state level, and by extension at the EU level.

Stop blaming the EU. It is lazy and makes the problem worse. Look closer to home.

[AlecSchueler]

But it works the same at the level of national governments. What's the difference?

[dylan604]

It's funny to me that in the cops vs robbers scenario, it is the bad guys that have to be perfect to avoid getting caught while the good guys only have to get lucky once to catch the bad guys.

Your use of this then would translate to the governments wanting to read all the mail to constantly stay informed would be the bad guys where the other actors only have to get lucky once by having a mission complete would be the good guys?

[chii]

that analogy is drawing similarities when there is none. The "bad" guys in the cops vs robbers scenario is one where the bad guys have already done something worthy of needing to be caught.

[saltcured]

Metaphors matter, but often bias us.

Cops vs robbers? Christians vs lions in Rome?

Or, we're merely fish in a barrel and trying to convince ourselves we have any control over whether we get shot?

[AlecSchueler]

No, it couldn't be done without amending the treaties. Currently each Commission has to govern with the same powers as their predecessors so there's no mechanism for them to bind the power of those who come after them.

[nickslaughter02]

The legislation would have to be proposed by the very same people who are pushing for this. It's not going to happen.

[ThrowawayTestr]

Any kind of legislation to prevent it can be legislated away.

[ccorcos]

Sounds like you need a constitution.

[nradov]

Leave the EU.