Comment by saubeidl
2 days ago
> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?
That is not the case.
The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
> The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?
> Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?
Powerful people get together and decide that they know what's best for people. Then they claim that there is "consent" because people are given the right to vote and that there is a "social contract" that no one actually has signed, which everyone should still abide by.
That treaty was established just over a decade after Hitler surrendered, when there were two Germanys, an Iron curtain across Europe, and a lot of other things which changed significantly after the Wall fell. Surely you would agree that those words meant something quite different then than they do now?
I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat Control is using the threat of child porn to make people forget the reasons why the ECHR cares so deeply about privacy. I'm not sure why Denmark is pushing it so hard, but governments have long feared and hated encryption.
Not only are you moving your goalposts from "this wasn't the original purpose" (it was - it's part of the founding document!), but it has been reaffirmed and strengthened over and over again since: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
Don't get me wrong - I, too, care about privacy and think Chat Control is a horrible idea, that thankfully seems to be getting shut down. That doesn't mean the EU is somehow not legitimate as a governing body.
I was not moving goalposts. I was saying that the way we interpret the words has changed over time, and therefore we are taking words that meant one thing in 1957 and reinterpreting them to fit assumptions for today. Thus the semantic drift creates a shift.
To address the other point, I think we're missing a question of scope. Is the EU a legitimate governing body for negotiating trade deals and employment regulations between countries? Absolutely. I question however whether in recent years EU has begun to either scope-drift or expand their scope beyond what might be considered reasonable.
I think this is a natural tendency within human nature, especially when a governing body is given some power. Over time new opportunities arise which allow the body to gain more power, and then they reinterpret founding documents to include some of the new powers they want. I think it is pretty clear this is happening with the EU. Look at the rise of nationalist parties in Germany and France, etc.
"contained the objective of “ever closer union” "
Such words in any Preamble are usually meant as a lofty declaration of some ideal, not a concrete political goal.
After all, "ever closer" does not even mean federation, it means a unitary state, which is "closer" than a federation or a confederation.
If you believe that a single sentence in a 1957 treaty can be used as a ramrod to push European federalization from above, you will be surprised by the backlash. European nations aren't mostly interested in becoming provinces of a future superstate, potential referenda in this direction will almost certainly fail, and given the growth of the far right all over the continent, I don't expect the governments to agree to any further voluntary transfer of powers to Brussels.
Also, the European Commission is not a government and is not meant to act as a government that can decide "everything".
The countries that formed the EU have only agreed to transfer some powers to Brussels. Not give it an unlimited hand over everything. And Chat Control is a major infringement of constitutional rights in many countries, where inviolability of communication except for concrete warrants has been written into law for decades.
Imagine a situation if the German Constitutional Court says "this is illegal by the German Grundgesetz, and German law enforcement may not execute such laws". Do you believe that German authorities will defer to Brussels instead of its own Constitutional Court? Nope. Same with Poland etc. Local constitutional institutions have more legitimacy among the people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.
I don't think a mere Federalization should happen. I think a unitary state is - as you said! - what we all signed up for and what we should get.
There's a reason the "ever closer" phrasing has been repeated over and over again - in the 1983 Solemn Declaration, the 1997 Maastricht Treaty, the 2009 Lisbon treaty etc etc.
Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of centralization and the lack thereof.
> what we all signed up for
No, we didn't. The EU ignored the French and Dutch people's votes.
10 replies →
I assume this is sarcasm, but, for those reading, a unitary state is definitely not what those words meant. If they did, that would mean that 27 countries willingly and fully signed away their sovereignty, without knowledge of the public. The only times where this has happened before in world histoey was either surrender in the face if insurmountable odds, or a decision by the elites in exchange for unimaginable riches. As far as I know, the politicians and bureaucrats who made/signed those treaties didn't become billionaires since.
2 replies →
There is a reason indeed - unbridled utopianism that will eventually sink us.
In practice, the only political party that openly advocates for a European Federation, Volt, is polling around statistical error from zero in most EU countries. The will of the people isn't there.
Becoming a federation or even a unitary state isn't a self-executing protocol. Actual heads of governments have to meet, agree to dissolve their individual countries into a superstate with one central government, and actual parliaments have to ratify this.
You don't have the vote to do this democratically. European nationalisms were at their lowest ebb in cca 2000; since then, they have returned with vengeance.
You don't have the force to do this forcibly. No Genghis Khan or Napoleon on the scene.
And in the current connected world, you can't even do this by stealth. The only result of the people actually learning of such a plan would be far-right governments in France and Germany at the same time, ffs.
Please stop. Just stop. When I was a youngster, I witnessed violent collapse of Yugoslavia, somewhat less violent collapse of the Soviet Union and fortunately non-violent collapse of Czechoslovakia, three entities whose constituent nations didn't want to be tied together. I don't want to see 2.0 of those, continent-wide, when I am old.
"Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of centralization and the lack thereof."
Becoming more like China is not particularly attractive for former Eastern Bloc countries. Chat Control is enough of a window into such future that I don't want to go there. Also, your history is massively incomplete. Cherry-picking of some events while ignoring others.
The pinnacle of European power, with the European countries controlling half of mankind, happened around 1900, with no centralization of the continent in place. And we have been losing our relative strength since 2000, which is precisely the time when the continent is most integrated ever.
Chinese central government unleashed at least two total disasters on its own population in the 20th century - the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. It can unleash some more if a sufficiently unhinged person gets into power again. With centralized power, you are free to make some Huge Mistakes.
I certainly don't want future Brussels to start some European versions of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, just because they can. Austria-Hungary collapsed on such stupidity after 400 years of continuing integration.
7 replies →
> Local constitutional institutions have more legitimacy among the people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.
Repeating this bullshit over and over does not make it true.
The EU has a parliament that approves laws. The commissioners are appointed by the democratic elected governments. It has a legitimate mandate.
Ask local armed forces, judges or police whether they would back Brussels or their local government if it came to an actual forceful showdown.
This is the ultimate legitimacy test, not things written on paper.
4 replies →