6 ms·

I'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 r

by nick486 2mo ago

I'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 ago
Whenever 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 ago
At 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.
  - jalapenoj 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - spwa4 2mo ago
      For the insane part of the left, yes. For the majority, let's be honest: no. And for the centrist voters without whom neither the left nor the right can do anything: absolutely not. Immigration was going to solve our economic troubles. Immigrants would bring welfare. That was the idea. Well, that didn't happen. As to whether that's to blame on immigration ... I would argue it's to blame on the rate and the source of immigration. At a slow rate, selective immigration brings welfare, certainly. At this rate? Of course not. Infinite, mostly fake, refugees? No they don't bring welfare. Of course not.
      - wolvoleo 2mo ago
        Nobody's talking about allowing infinite numbers of immigrants. I don't know where that story even comes from.
redsocksfan45 2mo ago
[dead]
attila-lendvai 2mo ago
for no apparent rason? the way they are preparing to bring the population into a war hardly can be any more apparent...
- dismalaf 2mo ago
  War is less imminent now than ever. Ukraine has caused a ton of damage to Russia and at this point the Kremlin has more to worry about than EU countries (pretty much every Russian government ever is brought down from within). No, leftist governments in the EU have failed to provide prosperity and failed in all their promises, now they're going for total control to try to stay in power. Look at France, as soon as Le Pen was cleared to run for the presidency they start talking about anti "misinformation" laws...
  - geysersam 2mo ago
    Are you calling Macron a "leftist"? It does help your argument because it's a tautology that "the leftists failed to provide prosperity" if the entire political spectrum counts as such.
  - gambiting 2mo ago
    I don't share this outlook, sadly - given that military figures especially around the Eastern side of EU keep saying military conflict with Russia is "inevitable" in the next 4 years. Of course - they are in the military, their job is specifically to look at the worst case scenarios. But I wouldn't be so sure the risk is not there.
    - dismalaf 2mo ago
      I do think there's the possibility Russia attacks a NATO country in an attempt to save face. I don't think they have the manpower or equipment to sustain an assault that would require any level of mobilization from EU countries.
      - redsocksfan45 2mo ago
cess11 2mo ago
It's a US data pump, and the EU is a bunch of vassal states. That's the hurry, shutting down the data flow because the permissive legislation runs out is not allowed.
- throwaway27448 2mo ago
  I think that's a little naive. This sort of legislation is much more useful in terms of managing the local population and what they are allowed to talk about than it is in terms of profit—except, I suppose, in the sense that holding companies liable for what is said with their software is unprofitable.
  - cess11 2mo ago
    I didn't mention profit.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway27448 2mo ago
      Why mention the US if you're not referring to the GDPR?
strideashort 2mo ago
The reason is more than apparent. So long freedom, it’s been nice living in STASI free society for a while. Too bad power attracts the people who will make sure they keep it in their hands.
- marginalia_nu 2mo ago
  Honestly where do you even go if you want to get out from under this? The US was the option, but is clearly circling the drain. The EU is democracy theater at best, a democratic mandate that can be set aside any time it's inconvenient for Ashton Kutcher, and speedrunning the rebuilding of a new Soviet Union. Feels like a matter of time until they start building a new wall to keep you from leaving.
  - Avicebron 2mo ago
    In all these places I imagine the people making these decisions are members of the populace. They need to be gently reminded that they are not more equal than others and people do not like their decision-making habits. The way anyone else engaging in anti-social behavior would be reprimanded.
  - tanseydavid 2mo ago
    > Honestly where do you even go if you want to get out from under this? Mars is nice this time of year.
  - bigyabai 2mo ago
    Are you going to take your phone and laptop with you? If so, then it doesn't really matter where you're going. You'll be populating multiple surveillance systems regardless of where you choose to live.
  - Eueudhsbsj32 2mo ago
    Maybe Latin America. Their governments are generally less powerful and have less resources to enforce laws like this.
shevy-java 2mo ago
> I'm really surprised at the hurry. Well, once you realise that the so-called "EU parliament" is nothing but a lobbyist group (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...) it is no longer surprising. To me nothing here is surprising, neither the hurry nor any slowness. Lobbyists are winning the war.
znpy 2mo ago
My guess is that with non-left political movements on the rise better surveillance tools were needed to prevent them from winning the elections around europe. I really don’t but any other reason, as other tools (legal and technological) are already in place.
- omnimus 2mo ago
  If you look at who voted for chat control approval you would find that it's majority the currently in power centre right parties. The more far right or left you go the more likely they were against. It's like the one issue where AfD, die Linke and Greens are aligned. That suggests that it's most likely hard lobby that bribes the established class. Nt being able to scan personal communications would break big tech platforms main monetisation strategy (selling peoples data).
- AngryData 2mo ago
  To me it seems like the minority would be far more interested in implementing surveillance tools so they can target the majority in order to try and gain and maintain power.
- dxuh 2mo ago
  None of these will be used to attack the far-right parties on the right though. They barely investigate those parties in the individual countries, but they focus more on the moderate left already.
coldtea 2mo ago
>with no regard for the impact of the decisions on the theoretical next turn They know the impact of the decisions: more power for them as bodies.
tjwebbnorfolk 2mo ago
[flagged]
- anonzzzies 2mo ago
  Do they? What I read now and in the past is mostly Americans being proud somehow (with Trump doing whatever he feels like to fill his family's pockets).
  - tjwebbnorfolk 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - anonzzzies 2mo ago
      Is it not comparable in this case? Two western rich nations being undemocratic. At least in the EU there is voting (pointless in this case, but often effective); the US dude just does whatever he wants while the people are against it (ratings and wars which were promised would not happen etc).
elictronic 2mo ago
Multiple active wars on the global stage, huge changes in tariff and job impacts, large scale shipping and oil impacts. I’m not saying this legislation impacts any of this positively or negatively, but we can’t pretend the prior world order isn’t making some drastic changes lately. Governments are slow to change laws but I would expect much of the current push has actual ties to the larger global shifts.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
natebc 2mo ago
Didn't Steve Bannon do a tour in Europe recently to dispense some of his strategy? This smells like him, honestly.
ClumsyPilot 2mo ago
> at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason So many reasons: unpopular wars in the Middle East, repeated embarrassments in international arena, domestic unrest, decadent elites…
HeartStrings 2mo ago
The reason they do this is preparation for war. Also, foreign influence bots and hostile active measures.
quotemstr 2mo ago
> ramming through deeply unpopular legislation at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason, lately It's only a matter of time before EU-skeptical opposition parties achieve absolute majorities in critical EU constituency states. They're aware of this fact and are trying to adopt as much of their agenda as possible in the time they have remaining.

by nick486 2mo ago

lopis 2mo ago

Whenever 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 ago

At 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.
- jalapenoj 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - spwa4 2mo ago
    For the insane part of the left, yes. For the majority, let's be honest: no. And for the centrist voters without whom neither the left nor the right can do anything: absolutely not. Immigration was going to solve our economic troubles. Immigrants would bring welfare. That was the idea. Well, that didn't happen. As to whether that's to blame on immigration ... I would argue it's to blame on the rate and the source of immigration. At a slow rate, selective immigration brings welfare, certainly. At this rate? Of course not. Infinite, mostly fake, refugees? No they don't bring welfare. Of course not.
    - wolvoleo 2mo ago
      Nobody's talking about allowing infinite numbers of immigrants. I don't know where that story even comes from.

redsocksfan45 2mo ago

[dead]

attila-lendvai 2mo ago

for no apparent rason? the way they are preparing to bring the population into a war hardly can be any more apparent...

dismalaf 2mo ago
War is less imminent now than ever. Ukraine has caused a ton of damage to Russia and at this point the Kremlin has more to worry about than EU countries (pretty much every Russian government ever is brought down from within). No, leftist governments in the EU have failed to provide prosperity and failed in all their promises, now they're going for total control to try to stay in power. Look at France, as soon as Le Pen was cleared to run for the presidency they start talking about anti "misinformation" laws...
- geysersam 2mo ago
  Are you calling Macron a "leftist"? It does help your argument because it's a tautology that "the leftists failed to provide prosperity" if the entire political spectrum counts as such.
- gambiting 2mo ago
  I don't share this outlook, sadly - given that military figures especially around the Eastern side of EU keep saying military conflict with Russia is "inevitable" in the next 4 years. Of course - they are in the military, their job is specifically to look at the worst case scenarios. But I wouldn't be so sure the risk is not there.
  - dismalaf 2mo ago
    I do think there's the possibility Russia attacks a NATO country in an attempt to save face. I don't think they have the manpower or equipment to sustain an assault that would require any level of mobilization from EU countries.
    - redsocksfan45 2mo ago

cess11 2mo ago

It's a US data pump, and the EU is a bunch of vassal states. That's the hurry, shutting down the data flow because the permissive legislation runs out is not allowed.

throwaway27448 2mo ago
I think that's a little naive. This sort of legislation is much more useful in terms of managing the local population and what they are allowed to talk about than it is in terms of profit—except, I suppose, in the sense that holding companies liable for what is said with their software is unprofitable.
- cess11 2mo ago
  I didn't mention profit.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway27448 2mo ago
    Why mention the US if you're not referring to the GDPR?

strideashort 2mo ago

The reason is more than apparent. So long freedom, it’s been nice living in STASI free society for a while. Too bad power attracts the people who will make sure they keep it in their hands.

marginalia_nu 2mo ago
Honestly where do you even go if you want to get out from under this? The US was the option, but is clearly circling the drain. The EU is democracy theater at best, a democratic mandate that can be set aside any time it's inconvenient for Ashton Kutcher, and speedrunning the rebuilding of a new Soviet Union. Feels like a matter of time until they start building a new wall to keep you from leaving.
- Avicebron 2mo ago
  In all these places I imagine the people making these decisions are members of the populace. They need to be gently reminded that they are not more equal than others and people do not like their decision-making habits. The way anyone else engaging in anti-social behavior would be reprimanded.
- tanseydavid 2mo ago
  > Honestly where do you even go if you want to get out from under this? Mars is nice this time of year.
- bigyabai 2mo ago
  Are you going to take your phone and laptop with you? If so, then it doesn't really matter where you're going. You'll be populating multiple surveillance systems regardless of where you choose to live.
- Eueudhsbsj32 2mo ago
  Maybe Latin America. Their governments are generally less powerful and have less resources to enforce laws like this.

shevy-java 2mo ago

> I'm really surprised at the hurry. Well, once you realise that the so-called "EU parliament" is nothing but a lobbyist group (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...) it is no longer surprising. To me nothing here is surprising, neither the hurry nor any slowness. Lobbyists are winning the war.

znpy 2mo ago

My guess is that with non-left political movements on the rise better surveillance tools were needed to prevent them from winning the elections around europe. I really don’t but any other reason, as other tools (legal and technological) are already in place.

omnimus 2mo ago
If you look at who voted for chat control approval you would find that it's majority the currently in power centre right parties. The more far right or left you go the more likely they were against. It's like the one issue where AfD, die Linke and Greens are aligned. That suggests that it's most likely hard lobby that bribes the established class. Nt being able to scan personal communications would break big tech platforms main monetisation strategy (selling peoples data).
AngryData 2mo ago
To me it seems like the minority would be far more interested in implementing surveillance tools so they can target the majority in order to try and gain and maintain power.
dxuh 2mo ago
None of these will be used to attack the far-right parties on the right though. They barely investigate those parties in the individual countries, but they focus more on the moderate left already.

coldtea 2mo ago

>with no regard for the impact of the decisions on the theoretical next turn They know the impact of the decisions: more power for them as bodies.

tjwebbnorfolk 2mo ago

[flagged]

anonzzzies 2mo ago
Do they? What I read now and in the past is mostly Americans being proud somehow (with Trump doing whatever he feels like to fill his family's pockets).
- tjwebbnorfolk 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - anonzzzies 2mo ago
    Is it not comparable in this case? Two western rich nations being undemocratic. At least in the EU there is voting (pointless in this case, but often effective); the US dude just does whatever he wants while the people are against it (ratings and wars which were promised would not happen etc).

elictronic 2mo ago

Multiple active wars on the global stage, huge changes in tariff and job impacts, large scale shipping and oil impacts. I’m not saying this legislation impacts any of this positively or negatively, but we can’t pretend the prior world order isn’t making some drastic changes lately. Governments are slow to change laws but I would expect much of the current push has actual ties to the larger global shifts.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

natebc 2mo ago

Didn't Steve Bannon do a tour in Europe recently to dispense some of his strategy? This smells like him, honestly.

ClumsyPilot 2mo ago

> at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason So many reasons: unpopular wars in the Middle East, repeated embarrassments in international arena, domestic unrest, decadent elites…

HeartStrings 2mo ago

The reason they do this is preparation for war. Also, foreign influence bots and hostile active measures.

quotemstr 2mo ago

> ramming through deeply unpopular legislation at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason, lately It's only a matter of time before EU-skeptical opposition parties achieve absolute majorities in critical EU constituency states. They're aware of this fact and are trying to adopt as much of their agenda as possible in the time they have remaining.