undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJumpCrisscross8y ago0 comments

> Sometimes in the American system the initial text-writing is done entirely by lobbyists

But many times it's not. Any Congressman or Senator can introduce legislature onto the floor of their house. The requirement that proposals originate in the Commission is problematic.

The Council, moreover, is analogous to a meeting of State Governors or Attorneys General. The only truly democratic arm of the EU is the Parliament. Its role at the end of the chain is problematic. (Contrast that with the analog in the American system, the House of Representatives, where appropriations bills are required to originate.)

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

laumars8y ago· 1 in thread

It's not ideal - I'll agree with you on that. But pragmatically I think it's really more of an illogical debate than one that makes any practical difference. Elected officials are still all too easily swayed by lobbyists and we see all too often that elected governments can get away with pushing unpopular legislation (UK Snoopers Charter, for example) if they want to.

The problem with democracy is people vote once every few years and see that as their voice being heard. In the meantime governments are free to do whatever they want just so long as they can win back public support in the weeks leading up to the next election.

Silhouette8y ago

You keep claiming the Snooper's Charter was unpopular and went through anyway, but sadly you are wrong:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/18/more-surveillance-pleas...

Overall, the UK population has consistently supported stronger surveillance powers for a long time and by a clear margin. For better or worse, we tend to trust our authorities here. And to be fair, most of the time, our authorities do seem to use their powers responsibly, so to some extent that trust has been earned.

One problem with this is that whenever surveillance issues have been discussed in the media and these polls have been carried out, they invariably talk about giving powers to the most serious policing and national security organisations using the powers to defend against the most serious of crimes and security problems. However, the reality is often that the laws allow for much more than that, with many more people getting powers and access to surveillance data, with much less control and oversight than the public might expect, to deal with minor issues where intrusive surveillance is wildly disproportionate, but most people who aren't heavily into tech or civil liberties don't realise any of this at all.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse