7 ms·
Roberta Metsola's actions this week jeopardise the legitimacy of the EU project as a whole. It's clear that member countries use the EU as a blame-laundering m
by budududuroiu 2mo ago
Roberta Metsola's actions this week jeopardise the legitimacy of the EU project as a whole.
It's clear that member countries use the EU as a blame-laundering mechanism to pass domestically unpopular laws, but the forcing of this vote under the urgency procedure that requires absolute majority to reject, on the last EP session before summer break is so blatant that it might awaken people that might've overlooked the structural failures of the EU and finally radicalise them
EDIT: bad wording, it's not that the urgency procedure causes the voting to require absolute majority, it's that an absolute majority second-reading is forced through an emergency procedure which is designed for first readings of legislation that's the implied meaning above
- miroljub 2mo agoYes, this basically means the EU pushed a new censorship regulation using lawfare tricks without ever having a majority vote for the proposal. If it's not a dictatorship, a regime, a shithole, a kleptocracy, or whatever name they use for a government they don't like, I don't know what it is.
- budududuroiu 2mo agoThe regulation was rejected today with 314 votes against, 276 in favor, and 17 abstentions, but because of Metsola's lawfare that classified this regulation as under an "urgent procedure", an absolute majority was required to reject.
- raverbashing 2mo agoI wonder if the abstentions are counting "missing MEPs" or MEPs present but who did not vote
- b3orn 2mo agoThe EU parliament has 720 representatives (at the moment 719, one seat is vacant apparently), so 113 representatives didn't show up for the vote. The absolute majority would've been reached with 361 votes.
- omnimus 2mo agoAnd there were a lot of them. Some i assume just couldn't give a fuck and are on vacation. The others for sure did it to help approval while keeping "clean" to their audience.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- inigyou 2mo agoChat Control 2.0 is the censorship regulation. Chat Control 1.0 just legalized what Facebook was doing anyway.
- budududuroiu 2mo agoSure, then just let the normal legislative process run its course, no need to bleed political capital and get an already polarised electorate to hate the EU even more by shoving this legislation through in this way.
- logifail 2mo ago> no need to bleed political capital I'm not sure the EU needs to worry about political capital in the way that many national and regional governments do. Power moves through negotiations between institutions, party groups, lobbyists, activists, and heads of government rather than through anything voters can trace. If one is being unkind, it's basically backroom deals all the way down. Naturally, the EU has more respectable terms for this sort of thing, like "trilogue". Look at how the President of the European Commission got her job in 2019 - there was an election campaign in which major parties presented lead candidates for the post and she wasn't one of them, then post-election - ta da - she's nominiated for the post and there's a confirmatory vote in the Parliament on which the ballot paper had precisely one name listed - hers. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48853746 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48853746 https://www.alamy.com/16-july-2019-france-france-straburg-a-man-holds-a-ballot-in-the-chamber-before-the-election-ursula-von-der-leyen-is-applying-to-become-the-new-president-of-the-eu-commission-the-heads-of-state-and-government-of-the-eu-had-proposed-the-cdu-politician-as-successor-to-eu-commission-president-juncker-photo-michael-kappelerdpa-image260428365.html https://www.alamy.com/16-july-2019-france-france-straburg-a-...
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- budududuroiu 2mo agoI agree, my point about political capital was about the overton window shifting to allow a more mainstream EU-skeptic platform for national parties, platforms which up until recently were easily labelled Russophiles or European traitors for US money. I was aware that VDL obtained her role by routing around the Spitzenkandidaten process, but I was never aware that her confirmatory vote was done in this way. Her unpopularity at home also reinforces the idea that unpopular politicians can be sent to Brussels, because "in Brussels, you can't hear them scream".
- dbdr 2mo agoIt's absolutely legitimate to be upset. However, identifying a lawfare trick in a close vote to a dictatorship is serious hyperbole. I'm afraid that's counterproductive.
- miroljub 2mo agoClose vote? They passed a regulation with 276 votes in favor, 314 votes against, and 17 abstained. The minority decided instead of the majority. If this is not a dictatorship, what is it then? In any case, it has nothing to do with the democracy.
- dbdr 2mo agoMy point is that this was a minority of 46.7% making that decision (because of a technicality that has been pointed out already). In a dictatorship, a minority of 1 against a million or more makes all the decisions. Even though you can say 46.7% and 0.0001% are both below 50%, it's missing a lot of nuance to claim they are of the same nature.
- superloika 2mo ago> it might awaken people that might've overlooked the structural failures of the EU and finally radicalise them Haha, no. As long as there is bread and circus, nothing wil happen.
- riddlemethat 2mo agoThis removes circus from the children.
- throw-the-towel 2mo agoChildren are politically irrelevant.
- bluebarbet 2mo agoThis comment does not add any value to the discussion. PS: Sorry, but "haha nothing matters" cynicism does NOT add anything to the discussion. In fact it straightforwardly breaks a whole bunch of HN guidelines: "Be curious", "Don't be generically negative", "Don't be snarky", "Don't post shallow dismissals", etc. This forum is supposed to be better than the R-site.
- baerbelblue 2mo ago[flagged]
- SalemSaberhagen 2mo agoYes it does. Your comment does not add any value to the discussion.
- theodric 2mo agoMany of us find it difficult to be relentlessly positive as we watch organizations that constantly paint themselves as the epitome of democracy act in a way counter to the repeatedly-expressed will of the people. I cannot smile my way into fascism.
- Vinnl 2mo agoTo understand whether/to what extent this is brazen, I'd be interested to learn the reasoning why urgency procedures are possible, and in particular, why the apparent majority against shouldn't have been enough, and what is needed to classify something as urgent.
- budududuroiu 2mo agoAfaik, EU rules provide for urgent procedure only for proposals at first reading, while here it was used to compress a second reading vote and skip committee, just perfectly timed for the last sitting before recess. The absolute majority seems to be an anti-paralysis instrument, where the onus is on the Parliament to reject something put in motion by the Council. I think the the asymmetry is that a vote to trigger the urgency procedure only requires a simple majority, whereas a rejection of that same legislation requires absolute majority. To my reading, this reinforces the idea that Parliament is designed to be more of a rubber stamp for the Council.
- Vinnl 2mo agoThanks. Do you know then why of the majority that voted against today, enough people voted in favour of the urgency procedure?
- CrisMystik 2mo agoThe urgency procedure is not the issue here, the problem is that this was Parliament's second reading, and the treaties (article 294 TFEU) say: > Second reading > 7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament: > (a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the Council; > (b) rejects, by a majority of its component members, the Council's position at first reading, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted; > (c) proposes, by a majority of its component members, amendments to the Council's position at first reading, the text thus amended shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission, which shall deliver an opinion on those amendments.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- nick486 2mo agoI'm really surprised at the hurry. The EU, and many EU governments, have been ramming through deeply unpopular legislation at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason, lately. It feels like the last turn in a board game where everyone is busy taking points with no regard for the impact of the decisions on the theoretical next turn - because there is no next turn. Its really weird. > blame-laundering mechanism Also, I'm stealing this.
- lopis 2mo agoWhenever you see people complaining that the EU is "too slow", more often than not it's because they benefit directly from EU rushing things without thinking.
- matly 2mo agoAt least in some member states, that's a well used pattern when the soccer world cup is on (as in: people are focused on something else). Which at least has been going on in the last weeks.
- sReinwald 2mo ago> at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason, lately. This isn't surprising to me at all. The World Cup is on, and it draws attention away from politics. This has been a pretty common observable pattern for as long as I can remember.
- inferniac 2mo ago>for no apparent reason, lately. for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do this is becoming more and more unpopular with the voters, leading to right wing parties surging across europe (Denmark, which has an immigration restrictionist left wing government doesnt seem to have an issue here, true mystery) obviously the solution here is total control of the internet, so that you can suppress dissent
- wolvoleo 2mo ago> for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do This is completely BS. Nobody wants to let in unlimited migrants. This is not a goal of anyone, including the left-most left. In fact on the left we are very aware that our welfare systems can't support unlimited people. The left wing parties just wish to honour existing international treaties which we have signed to allow genuine asylum seekers. There's processes in places to determine whether they deserve this. The right just want to turn their boats back as they approach (pushback) which is literally illegal. It's important to realise though that asylum seekers are not the root cause of most of our issues even though they are portrayed as such by the right in deflection from the real issues. For example here in Holland the biggest societal issue is the farmers who pollute too many nitrogen compounds and that causes housing projects to be put on hold. The number of asylum seekers has been steadily decreasing over the years. But farmers make up a huge piece of the right wing so they'll never take ownership of the problem. Better to deflect on someone else.
- sunshine-o 2mo agoWhat should worry everybody is the big picture (trying to abstract from politics, ideologies and specific situation). In recent years we had: - Europe is now at war with Russia (neighbor) - Its relationship with the US is rapidly deteriorating (main partner, de facto protector) - Its relationship with China is also rapidly deteriorating - It is getting very antagonistic with it own citizen and some individual member countries (such as Hungaria or Romania recently) So there are a lot of justifications in each case but the overall picture is worrisome. You can't be antagonistic with everyone. There is a reason why the North Korean regime is still around, they never forgot they need to keep a good relationship with at least one powerful ally.
- onemoresoop 2mo agoEU is doing some concerning moves but, looking at your points, Russia attacked Ukraine. EU is not at war with Russia, only supporting Ukraine. Second, the relationship with US is deteriorating due to Trump. As a matter of fact all US relationships are deteriorating for the same reason. Where have you been the past years? Im not going to bother to respond to the following points because you mix some reality with propaganda and seem to live in a paralel reality.
- tempfile 2mo agoThey didn't attribute any fault to these patterns, just said the pattern itself is concerning. It is bad for the EU to be mistreated by the US!
- wolvoleo 2mo agoYeah US is threatening to invade and take over Canada, Greenland, I mean no wonder the alliance is no longer strong right? And the internal struggles are indeed a problem, this is due to the extreme right which has completely taken over America (and is sponsored by Russia). It was good to see the Hungarians came to their senses but it's worrying that the EU doesn't have a mechanism to expel countries. The problem is who do we ally with that we can trust now. Russia and America obviously not. Canada yes but they're not big. China just serves its own interests, they will never care about a partnership. They just want our money to buy their products, nothing else. I think South America is another potential one and the EU is trying to connect there with eg Mercosur. But America is sponsoring the extreme right there too as you can see in Honduras and Colombia recently. And in Venezuela of course.
- jingpostmedia 2mo ago[flagged]
- CrisMystik 2mo agoThe urgency procedure has nothing to do with the absolute majority requirement. It's necessary because, in the second reading, the Parliament should have an absolute majority to reject or amend the Council (i.e. the governments of the member states) position but only a simple majority to approve it
- marsven_422 2mo ago[dead]
- techpression 2mo agoThey've been doing this with unpopular votes since the inception of the EU, nothing new and people definitely haven't woken up, unfortunately.
- lyu07282 2mo agoIts honestly a bit sad that this in particular got people up in arms on social media, nobody gave a single shit when they sacrifice millions of people and entire nations on the periphery to their death cult of market orthodoxy. The media is barely covering it at all, the sheep are well asleep, online some just lucid dream about the democracy they never had.
- tenthirtyam 2mo agoI think I'm one of those to whom you refer (except that I'm already "awake", or at least I like to think so). I'm normally pro-EU but this chat control is anathema to me. I'll be voting anti-EU in future I think.
- zelphirkalt 2mo agoYeah, this is also a step too far for me. The EU has also done good things, like GDPR, right to repair, fining big tech again and again ... but it rarely follows up as much as it needs to. The problem is though, that countries in the EU by themselves are economically not powerful enough, to hold up any ethical values against the giants US and China. So we need some alternative to the EU, some other union, that at least contains the economically most powerful EU countries, so that we have enough economical weight, that the other big players cannot simply push us around. Currently, the EU seems to be hellbent on losing its support. But how to prevent that other union to go down the same road? Anyway, it seems clear, that we can no longer allow EU decision makers to make rules for us. They are not to be trusted.
- anonzzzies 2mo agoThe alternatives are also not to be trusted: if the EU falls we will have war between EU countries and hitlers and francos back in their seats but now with mass AI; Hello Frank, we detected in your email sent 21 years ago that you made fun of Mr Klein, his son, our glorious leader, has auto signed the documents for you to be sent to NeoWitz where you will spend the short remainder of your life.
- LtWorf 2mo ago> I'll be voting anti-EU in future I think. You mean the far right that talks about EU all the time and loves when EU does things like this?
- ImJamal 2mo agoAfD doesn't support this. I don't know about other right wing parties.
- __turbobrew__ 2mo agoI don’t understand how a governing system requires a majority to reject a change to the status quo. The status quo must be maintained unless a majority decides to change the status quo. It is the equivalent of having a gas pedal in a car that is fully activated unless you put your foot down.