This type of legislation should never ever be proposed in a democratic system, so had disagree.

This is an extremely totalitarian-style move from EU - governing bodies are exempt from the law, meanwhile peasants have to be watched 24/7 for wrongthink, all under guise of protecting the children.

Yes, there is. This shouldn't move forward at all, regardless of how many steps are involved and how small they are.

While I disagree with your position for the reasons already given by others, it's quite ironic that in this thread about government censorship that your opinion is in the process of being censored by other HN users.

There is nothing democratic about the process. It's all unelected politicians ruling for you

There is the Parliament's legislative train website [1]. However, it only tracks actual legislative steps, not the intra-Council negotiations, so the proposal's page appears to be have been largely inactive since 2024 [2].

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/

[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new...

We clearly live in different worlds.

I wouldn't be so sure of that assertion regarding attention span. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance granted, it's about opinion rather than capability but the same bias would explain such a reflexive judgment, and such a judgment will have negative consequences if it is false. (Consensus can be shaped, as can the perception of consensus be.)

That could still be democratic in principle if it weren’t for lobbyists

If legislative processes are so drawn out and complex that no more than a handful of ordinary citizens could keep track of them, the advantage that paid lobbyists have over the public is enormous

Is the process democratic if citizen's opinions are irrelevant?

No matter who's in charge, no matter the election results, no matter the protests - the same style of legislation is pushed.

and once something's in it is almost impossible to remove.

> The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians.

It would work if we could elect politicians who were both competent and trustworthy.

Of course that would require successfully electing people who are competent about a broad range of issues, able to see through well funded and clever lobbying, unblinded by ideology, and able to resist pressure.

My problem is that i as a citizen can vote for my heads of state, but if other parts of EU decided something my vote is null and void, EVEN if majority of EU citizens are against such issue.

Imagine is those issues were campaign promises and part of internal(country's) elections - they aren't in reality but we can set that aside for now. as it was extremely well said by sibling post.

My country is 80% against 20% in favor(in practice it is even more skewed towards 'no' for chat control!), other EU countries are 51% for, 49% against.

Yet such 'vote' by heads of state counts whole countries in,if you were to count individual votes majority of EU citizens would be against it.

This allows you to pass undesirable or extremely contentious legislation, that would most likely prevent you from being elected in the future in your local elections but you can easily shift the blame too!

This is as far form democracy as possible, it is pure bureaucracy that serves it's own goals.

The culprit is correct. If the EU exists for political laundering, then it is the organisation which is harmful to the people's interests. Nobody voted for any of these heads of states on a platform of enacting Chat Control. That was not on the ballot or the platform of any party in any individual EU country. If it was, they would not have voted for it. If an individual party tried to initiate a chat control bill in its own country, it would surely face a massive reckoning at the next election[1]. Therefore, an individual party would likely not undertake to enact chat control. It is the existence of the EU which is enabling politicians to force undesirable legislation on their populace. In that environment, it is entirely correct to call the EU an un-democratic process. If it exists to pass legislation nobody would vote for and take the blame, then it will in fact be rightfully at blame and provide a strong motivation for people to exit the EU.

[1] In fact, we have helpfully seen this play out with our friendly early exiter. The remarkably self-destructive Labour party has passed their own absolute nonsense "online safety" bill, and are likely to be utterly destroyed in the next election with repealing the bill being part of the platform of the party that is polling at ~twice the share of the next largest party. With the EU providing blame-as-a-service, though, it is unlikely that anybody will be able to repeal Chat Control once rammed through, without exiting the EU entirely.

Identical in every respect other than those with the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure. The Commission have no direct link to the electorate and the your country's (sorry, “state”) Council representatives can hide behind collective consensus.

Why do people get so defensive about obviously flawed processes? This reply reads like a 4chan comment written by a frustrated teenager

"The plans for scanning your chats were on display for fifty Earth years at the local planning department in Alpha Centauri"?

Nobody's attention span is infinite. I don't doubt I could understand all details of the EU legislative process and keep track of what sort of terrible proposals are underway if I put in the time, but I have a day job, hobbies that are frankly more interesting, and enough national legislation to keep track of.

If you then also say that the outcome is still my responsibility as a voter, then it seems like the logical solution is that I should vote for whatever leave/obstruct-the-EU option is on the menu. I don't understand why I am obliged to surrender either a large and ever-growing slice of my attention or my one-over-400something-million share of sovereignty.

[flagged]

> can browse for example

can't browse?

>America also has a party that always runs on the idea of small government and restoring rights to the people. Every time they get power, they do the exact opposite.

You seem to be confused. The Libertarian Party never gets any power. The closest we get is representatives like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie, who run as Republicans (which are NOT the party of small government, despite what you may have been told) while acting much more like Libertarians.

Thomas Massie in particular is famous for frequently and routinely standing up against Trump, much to Trump's chagrin.

[flagged]

Yelling 'racist' at Farage for over a decade hasn't got rid of him. Maybe 4 more years of doing the same thing will do the job?

Can't see the Tories bouncing back in a few mere years. Labour are heading rapidly into the same unelectable territory.

Which leaves us with Reform vs a Green-LibDem coalition?

But the Greens have chosen to embrace their own form of populist lunacy. And some will never forgive the Lib Dems for their last coalition.

I think it’s plausible that the UK electorate are sick of switching between Tories and Labour for the last hundred years, especially as they have become indistinguishable in many respects. They were held back because there wasn’t a plausible alternative that had a hope of being elected. Reform has been leading the polls for nearly all this year, so let’s check in a year to see where they stand. But Labour (especially) and the Tories are not going to see an upswing any time soon. The problems in the country (mostly economic due to policy) continue, and their supporters are doomed to the madness of doing the same thing but expecting different results.

I’ve seen white British a couple of times in this thread.

Reform policy is being drawn up by a team that’s led by a British Pakistani : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_Yusuf

This is because politicians who fill the country with immigrants do so because they don't care in the slightest about the population and it shows in all facets of governance.

You are in Europe and whites are native to this continent, which belongs to them.

Please go be jewish somewhere else.

> libertarian is not what that government will be

How can you be so sure? Why do you assume that everything that the Reform chairman, Zia Yusuf (head of policy) is lies? What, from his history, suggests that he is a liar?

> catastrophic issues already affecting Reform councils like Kent.

A small number of councillors left, but KCC is still a strong Reform majority. Councillors come and go throughout the year (just look at the constant stream of council by-elections), so to call Kent a "catastrophe" is hyperbole.

> It will be populist, white and significantly authoritarian

Populist yes. But I've never understood why popular polices get such a bad rep in a supposed democracy?

White? So what? Although it's rapidly changing thanks to Tory/Labour policies, the UK remains a majority white country. Why is politicians' skin colour an issue in your mind?

"Significantly authoritarian" how? Can you name an "authoritarian" policy in Reform's last manifesto?

> Do you think Reform could succeed without Farage?

Yes. Zia Yusuf is an extraordinary man, and my money would be on him becoming the leader when Farage inevitably steps down. And your concerns about white politicians will hopefully be soothed when a second-generation Sri Lankan is our Reform prime minister.

https://www.youtube.com/@ZiaYusufOfficial

> the parliamentary maths to get to an outright majority is really extreme; the system does not support such things easily.

For that to happen, you need a strong i.e. 30%+ share, and you need numerous opposing parties with similar policies, and all polling at similar levels. That's EXACTLY what's happening, and the electoral calculus puts Reform on a strong majority (low = 325, high = 426)

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/...

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

But it can block laws. Which matters. Just like in this case.

And guess what, national governments are the ones blocking the European Parliament from proposing laws, the EP has proposed multiple times that it be allowed to laws.

So EU member states themselves are the ones that don't want the EP to become a full blown parliament.