Here's a pattern to observe: Whenever a #EU directive (which MUST be implemented in national law) is perceived as a net positive, the national governments will claim it is THEIR success when they (after max 24 months) implement it in national law. They will almost never mention that it was the EU that did it. When a directive is perceived as net negative, the blame goes to Brussels. The EU can never win and show how much good they do. That's why I use #ThanksEU.
Current example: USB-C as default charger connection for smartphones (and soon also laptops). It's an EU directive (the Common Charger Directive 2022/2380). But the German media are presenting it as a good decision by the German government. Who sent out press releases with that language. Le sigh. I say #ThanksEU.
I am NOT saying that all EU Directives are good decisions. But I am definitely also NOT saying that they are all bad. I just wish that more of my fellow EU citizens understand how Trilogue, Directives, the Commission, the parliament and the council work. Fun thing: Because not many people understand this dynamic, lobbying becomes quite simple. I know it is, because I did it a few times. Minimal effort, maximal impact. Learn how to write amendments and get them in the EU parliament, people ;)
As @etchedpixels correctly mentions in the comments, there is also a dark side to this. When one (or several) EU members want a law that is NOT popular, they can try to make it an EU directive that they unfortunately, really not our fault, HAVE to implement in national law. Evil EU! We didn't really want it, but now we HAVE to! The current commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, did exactly that when she was still in the German government. #Zensursula when you want to learn more about that.
@jwildeboer The EU is very corrupt and broken. It's less corrupt and broken than many of the alternatives however but things like lobbying need fixing badly.
It's what happens when you retrofit a trade scheme as a government and then don't actually redo the system design because nobody can agree whether it's supposed to be a trading scheme plus or a united states of Europe and each members position changes every few years. Plus half the the time they hate each other and it's only there by need.
@etchedpixels I am a bit more pragmatic. I guess we can agree that the EU took the right path many moons ago but didn't go beyond a fiscal/monetarian agreement. Mitterand and Kohl (and many more) wanted to see the Euro as a first step towards more integration, but for some/many reasons progress stopped after the introduction of the Euro. It is about time to get back on track, IMHO.
@jwildeboer I really think they have to figure out what they actually are and then figure out how to put the EU back together as whatever that is. You can't have a democratic european government IMHO without taking the unelected EU commission out of the equation
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@kazriko @jwildeboer It comes from the same concerns that made a mess of the US system too. That each state should have representation to some level of equality not each citizen. The former makes sense when the central body is there to just keep a few things in harmony so trade flows and nobody kills each other. Neither the US federal government or the EU are that any more however.