There's something called implicit context (this submission and the entire ongoing discussion), which clearly refers to the first group of people you mentioned. Why would I be talking about people who aren't involved in pushing this?

Usually, calling things by their proper name helps change perceptions, which often triggers other reactions. Language is very powerful.

The people in power.

I do think the ambition to spy on all private communication to be quite extremist.

Especially Germany should know better. If you build two autocratic dictatorships on average per century, maybe start to take care that state powers are restricted.

The US is fully correct in its criticism of Germany regarding freedom of speech and house searches. Sure, on surveillance their arguments would be very weak...

Absolutely nothing positive will be gained by this surveillance, so there isn't even the smallest security benefit. On the contrary.

Politics are an inherently violent affair. The government is simply a monopoly on legitimate violence. Politicians decide the laws, which result in people breaking them getting beaten up & dragged to a cell. Not to say this is always a bad thing: some people cannot be stopped from misbehaving just by talking, but it definitely is violent.

Define "extremist". Many people would argue mass immigration is an extremist position but was the normal accepted position for the people in power within the European Union but was never a popular position with the populations of Europe.

So these so called <<right wing extremists>> represent the normal position.

Right, because a commission that keeps bringing legislation to a vote until one of those two vote pools gets a majority, despite the law being against my government's constitution (in strong terms), and me having no way to stop it if all representatives of my country voted against, is totally not the EU imposing its way on my country.

I did send hand-written mails to several German representatives, and this is how I was rewarded.

Obviously I'm not expecting that my actions alone are enough to get the outcome I want, but it's difficult not to feel the bite of "if voting changed anything, they would make it illegal." It's just going to be some other paid-for dickface in corporate pockets, every time.

The problem is the indirection. Only the European Commission can propose legislation [1], so the legislative direction of the EU is entirely determined by them - MEPs can only slow it down.

And citizens don't vote for the Commission directly, meaning there's a lot of backroom dealing in its selection.

[1] Which also covers, I think, the act of repealing prior legislation.

You can't be serious.

There should't be a discussion at all.

This law proposal is explicitly against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the allegedly institutions that are supposed to upheld the charter are CJEU, European Commission, FRA, NHRIs, where are they?

>"Talk/contacts your ministers and MEPs if you want your voice to be represented."

And be told to sod off.

From Wikipedia: [0]-"Currently, there is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state."

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

> And who runs the EU?

How difficult is it to run? How much money do you need? What are the barriers to success? Is it set up so that only the already rich and powerful can run and win (and therefore they are just pushing their own interests), and if not do you need considerable financial support (and therefore are beholden to the already rich and powerful who funded your campaign)?

UK is much worse than EU in terms of privacy and encryption.

What do you mean by backfire?

EU skepticism is at a 15 year low, and general approval hasnt been higher since 2007.

Europeans in general like or is indifferent towards the EU.

Every country in the world has a "Commission". It's no different to the UK Civil Service or the various US Federal Governments. If it didn't exist then the EU would be unable to implement any of it's policies.

Can you explain how MEP's directly proposing laws would affect this? I really don't get it. In parliamentary systems it's normal that virtually all legislation originates in the executive. In the British parliament at least, that a law is privately proposed and then becomes law is rare and normally restricted to very simple legislation on specific issues.

> In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count that votes.

- Mogens Jallberg

Regarding your Stalin "quote", please see https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stalin-vote-count-quote/ .

Not to mention that once voted in they are not bound by their campaign promises.

I think the primary positive feature of democracy is simply that we have regular peaceful transitions of power. I'm not sure that the fact that the people choose their own leaders by itself leads to higher quality leadership, or even leadership that cares more about said people. But the fact that the baton passes every couple of years is absolutely invaluable.

> how much voting power so to say is left for.. which guy the party says they'll send to the european commission?

Short of a direct (referendum based) democracy how do you resolve that?

How many people participate in party candidate selection at all... it's a mixed bag to "primary" out an incumbent... sometimes it's easy as they don't see it coming or a threat... others the entrenchment goes deep.

In my country I vote for a person and that person gets a seat in parliament. That is democratic according to this definition.

Yes, that's exactly my point - it's important to understand the issue and the messaging about it.

Government "spies" on you for many many things and I think HN "all government is evil" panic isn't really reflected in outlook of EU citizens and won't be looked upon positively by public at large. So again, be careful what you're calling "undemocratic" because that's not the same as "different from my opinion".

It hasn't been resubmitted yet, has it? The proponents keep it alive without putting it to an actual vote, AIUI. They try to wait until they think they have a majority, and keep their proposal ready for a vote on short order before their majority dissipates.

Which is many things, I' might call it cynical, but it doesn't seem undemocratic.

> How do I vote out hostile countries? I’m Dutch, what can I do with my vote to have effects on Denmark, which seems to be the biggest proponent of this BS?

The same way you can vote out other politicians in your own country - you can't. Assuming you live in (say) Amsterdam, you have no right or control of who people from other regions of the Netherlands vote for.

She's facing two more no confidence votes in October. You just need to convince all 720 members of European Parliament from 27 countries to get rid of her and her commission. Easy.

Next European Parliament election will be in 2029.

Edit: there was a copypaste of voting requirements here, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/voting-ri.... This is apparently wrong; you can also vote if you're not residing in the EU, only EU citizen. (I thought this was the case, and that link not saying that made me suspicious.) How it is possible that they've put up incorrect information on voting rights, I have no clue.

Actual reference, this time legal text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

Any person who, on the reference date:

(a) is a citizen of the Union within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 8 (1) of the Treaty;

(b) is not a national of the Member State of residence, but satisfies the same conditions in respect of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate as that State imposes by law on its own nationals,

shall have the right to vote […]

So either citizenship or residency is sufficient.

> How do I vote out Ursula [von der] Leyen?

This can only be done indirectly.

Under https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/27/which-meps-bac... you can at least find a chart ("Von der Leyen 2 Commission: How political groups voted") how the political groups in the European parliament voted regarding Ursula von der Leyen's second mandate as European Commission President.

She was elected by the European parliament. As an EU citizen, you elect that one.

Yeah; it's even worse than that.