It is not a miscalculation, by design the European Commission is proprietary and almost always make proprietary decisions that often have to be corrected by the relative toothless European Parliament.
This us by far the biggest criticism that I have of the structures within the EU: far too often the Parliament takes up a position that is friendlier to the citizens themselves, but they are not heard or overpowered in the decision making process by the Comission or the Council of Ministers. Complex processes also help direct attention away from this.
If anything, I wish that the EU structures are reformed into something that resembles a "standard" modern democratic government with a clear balance of powers. But it seems people are preparing to tear it all down and plunge Europe into the next war instead of fixing it.
Oh, and just to finish my rant: even RMS calls for the dismantling of the EU! His argument is exactly that it is too friendly to corporations in his opinion. I came close to walking out of the room in anger when I heard him advocate for that. Don't throw good things away as long as there is a chance to fix them.
> I wish that the EU structures are reformed into something that resembles a "standard" modern democratic government
The problem with that is that it would give democratic legitimacy to the EU parliament and commission. This would then place them in conflict with national parliaments.
The EU is by design a "Union of States", preserving national sovereignty, rather than a "Union of people".
The Parliament is already legitimized by the people in a direct vote. Having multiple levels of governments legitimized by the people is nothing new, either. Both the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America work that way. This is a system that works in practice.
The council of ministers (delegates from each member state) can veto any legislation proposed by the commission or parliament.
In Germany, USA, etc, the demos elects the president, in the EU the president is proposed by the council of ministers. EU parliment is not allowed to do likewise.
This way ultimate power lies with the member nations, not in the Brussels hierarchy.
Not exactly. The German Bundespräsident is elected by the Bundestag (although that position is arguably mostly representative anyways).
Even the German chancelor is suggested by the Bundespräsident and then voted in by the Bundestag. Of course it's usually the leader of the largest faction in th last federal election that's suggested, but that's technically not a requirement.
Minor correction: The Bundespräsident (President of the Federal Republic) is elected by the Bundesversammlung (Federal Convention), which only exists for this purpose. It consists of the members of the Bundestag and an equal number of members chosen by the states.
It is a quirk of the German constitution that the executive positions in the government are voted on by the legislative branch and not by the people directly. It prevents populists from gaining easy access to important government positions.
> This way ultimate power lies with the member nations, not in the Brussels hierarchy.
This is a slight simplification. Only the executive branches of the state governments hold power over all branches of the EU. The legislative branches of the member states get none of that. This imbalance is part of what makes the EU lawmaking such an opaque (and arguably even exploitable) process.
Perhaps. However, EU legislation only covers a limited number of areas, mostly to do with trade and standards. With a few additional areas such as migration within the EU itself.
That is, it has limited impact on purely national matters, or military or foreign affairs.
I would put it differently: it is often easier to agitate people to be against something than convincing them of the good of something.
In a democracy, politicians need a power base made up of followers (future voters). The more, the better. And when the right conditions meet, sowing a seed of destructive opposition leads to a plentiful harvest of loyal voters.
Why people fall for this mostly nationalistic rhetoric that opposes the EU is quite complex. I don't think that I have a good enough picture of that to say more about it.
For political structures the NIH syndrome isn't as innocuous as for software, you can't have a powerful political organisation without a powerful mandate, if people feel like they didn't have much of a say in the creation and functioning of a political structure you can be certain they will want to tear it down and build it from scratch.
Remember that the leader of the Commission is chosen by the parliament. This is a recent development which massively increases the power of the parliament.
I guess this shows that RMS is no philosopher. If you want to promote openness in technology at such a fundamental level, I guess you need to start looking at how it fits into the bigger structure of ethics. You need to construct a consistent value system that includes all human rights and the tradeoffs between them.
I see no signs that RMS is going that far when forming his views. This makes him single minded, and I am tempted to say, even in a way very similar to religious zealots. I agree that open software and hardware can be good things. But you need to draw boundaries in practice. And when RMS seems to ignore these or moves them further out than anyone else would, he comes across as what you described so vividly.
