5 ms·

should be done at EU level and make it mandatory for all members

harvey9 5mo ago
France has been doing this in parts of its government functions for years, building expertise and learning what works. What do you imagine the EU institutions would bring to the table?
- picsao 5mo ago
  [dead]
- dbdr 5mo ago
  Good on France for doing that work. More countries and/or EU involvement could bring economies of scale: apart from translation, a lot of work on fixing bugs and adding features to the relevant open source projects can be done once and benefit all. So either get the same results faster, more cheaply per country, or both. Sure, that adds some bureaucracy and coordination cost too, but should be worth it overall.
  - harvey9 5mo ago
    The EU could perhaps fund some of the work but it is the Cathedral to Linux's Bazaar.
    - dbdr 5mo ago
      It would be the Cathedral if it made a 5 year plan to build the perfect solution (even more so if from quasi-scratch). But the EU is also known to offer (sometimes small scale) grants in specific domains. That's much more compatible with the Bazaar.
roysting 5mo ago
[flagged]
- EinigeKreise 5mo ago
  You forgot the part where the countries voluntarily join the organisation. By the way, the commission is subject to a vote of confidence by the parliament, which is directly elected. I'm pretty sure you don't get to directly vote for your cabinet members either, wherever you are.
  - hn_throw2025 5mo ago
    > You forgot the part where the countries voluntarily join the organisation. It might be worth examining the word “countries” there. Both France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed EU Constitution by referendum in 2005. It was then regurgitated as the Lisbon Treaty (with only superficial changes) in 2007, which was ratified with no public vote. The Irish people initially rejected both the EU-empowering treaties of Nice and Lisbon, and a followup vote was considered necessary. You get two bites of the democratic cherry if you have enough power. A majority of the British people voted to leave in 2016, and in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision. You might be spotting here a difference in desires and power between the governors and the governed.
    - gib444 5mo ago
      > and in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision News to me (as a Brit). Maybe my memory is hazy. Got any detail?
    - psd1 5mo ago
      That's one interpretation of the irish refs. I think the more obvious one is that the first result was very close and needed to be clarified. That also fits with the second one being emphatic. You're allowed to think that Lisbon warranted referenda in the member states, but it's a minority opinion. On Brexit, you should question your sources: > in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision. This is a disingenuous use of the passive voice. Lots of _Remain voters_ did everything possible - i.e. tweets and marches. The government didn't take a blind bit of notice. The government triggered Article 50 and then called a snap election - a damming order of events. They rammed it through. > A majority of the British people voted to leave Not by a mile, lol. The turnout was 37% and the result was 52% leave. Less than 20% of the electorate voted Leave. Weakest mandate since the hung parliament of 1912, which only lasted a few months. The electoral reform ref of 2010 got a 60% turnout. For the status quo. On a fringe issue. 37% is pathetic.
pixel_popping 5mo ago
It sounds actually nutts that governments are allowed to run unknown and uncheckable binaries as their(our?) infrastructure.

France has been doing this in parts of its government functions for years, building expertise and learning what works. What do you imagine the EU institutions would bring to the table?

picsao 5mo ago
[dead]
dbdr 5mo ago
Good on France for doing that work. More countries and/or EU involvement could bring economies of scale: apart from translation, a lot of work on fixing bugs and adding features to the relevant open source projects can be done once and benefit all. So either get the same results faster, more cheaply per country, or both. Sure, that adds some bureaucracy and coordination cost too, but should be worth it overall.
- harvey9 5mo ago
  The EU could perhaps fund some of the work but it is the Cathedral to Linux's Bazaar.
  - dbdr 5mo ago
    It would be the Cathedral if it made a 5 year plan to build the perfect solution (even more so if from quasi-scratch). But the EU is also known to offer (sometimes small scale) grants in specific domains. That's much more compatible with the Bazaar.

roysting 5mo ago

[flagged]

EinigeKreise 5mo ago
You forgot the part where the countries voluntarily join the organisation. By the way, the commission is subject to a vote of confidence by the parliament, which is directly elected. I'm pretty sure you don't get to directly vote for your cabinet members either, wherever you are.
- hn_throw2025 5mo ago
  > You forgot the part where the countries voluntarily join the organisation. It might be worth examining the word “countries” there. Both France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed EU Constitution by referendum in 2005. It was then regurgitated as the Lisbon Treaty (with only superficial changes) in 2007, which was ratified with no public vote. The Irish people initially rejected both the EU-empowering treaties of Nice and Lisbon, and a followup vote was considered necessary. You get two bites of the democratic cherry if you have enough power. A majority of the British people voted to leave in 2016, and in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision. You might be spotting here a difference in desires and power between the governors and the governed.
  - gib444 5mo ago
    > and in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision News to me (as a Brit). Maybe my memory is hazy. Got any detail?
  - psd1 5mo ago
    That's one interpretation of the irish refs. I think the more obvious one is that the first result was very close and needed to be clarified. That also fits with the second one being emphatic. You're allowed to think that Lisbon warranted referenda in the member states, but it's a minority opinion. On Brexit, you should question your sources: > in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision. This is a disingenuous use of the passive voice. Lots of _Remain voters_ did everything possible - i.e. tweets and marches. The government didn't take a blind bit of notice. The government triggered Article 50 and then called a snap election - a damming order of events. They rammed it through. > A majority of the British people voted to leave Not by a mile, lol. The turnout was 37% and the result was 52% leave. Less than 20% of the electorate voted Leave. Weakest mandate since the hung parliament of 1912, which only lasted a few months. The electoral reform ref of 2010 got a 60% turnout. For the status quo. On a fringe issue. 37% is pathetic.

pixel_popping 5mo ago

It sounds actually nutts that governments are allowed to run unknown and uncheckable binaries as their(our?) infrastructure.