I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but I love what all the EU bureaucracy does for us.
Ofc it can’t be 100.0% efficient, but why would anyone expect that, or fault it entirely for it. We should be glad we can spend like 1% of our time filling in various reports or talking with regulators or whatever - that indirectly gets us a society not run by corporations, an economy where demand is more of a driver than supply, etc.
It really shouldn’t be unpopular. EU bureaucracy might be slow, but it really does make a difference. Remember how you had to pay ridiculous roaming mobile charges if you crossed into another country? Or how you has to pay ridiculous money to transfer money between countries ridiculously slowly? Or how you had to charge that iphone with a ridiculous connector?
Or how EU employment contacts stack up against US ones?
Regulation works. The EU works.
And regarding ‘slow’, while I agree, I also might not want them to act any quicker in a lot of situations because some systems are just really big & complex (even w/o counting lobbying from corps & foreign politics). And some systems even need to develop a best practice approach (with help/push of regulation ofc) because some bureaucrats just can’t know or predict everything. Multi-tier (eg every couple of years an upgrade to a directive) and decade-long legislation development whilst gathering data to see effects & what makes most sense to develop further … is actually efficient.
But climate change & other ESG stuff? I would gladly have a faulty over-reaching system sooner (what, worst case some rich ppl will get less rich?) than a mildly better system later. They could easily mandate for like every company over 100 employees to employ a person/department that can perform one job only - to follow & report companies effect on environment, socials, and governance (along with future plans on the subject, owner effects, etc). And by report I mean to the regulators and general public. Would “people” complain about how regulation is only costs? Ofc, ppl like to complain (or just repeat the complains their bosses said). But I’m sure the net benefit for Europe would still be positive because ppl that have a job usually tend to get good at it. And even if not, ppl get jobs, we get statistics, and all for extremely negligible or no effect on economy (one salary lower profits for the owners on one hand, but a development of a whole new industry sector on the other).
And it does not only work against cooperations, but against things like surveillance laws as well. Those have been fought successfully on an European level.
I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but I love what all the EU bureaucracy does for us.
Ofc it can’t be 100.0% efficient, but why would anyone expect that, or fault it entirely for it. We should be glad we can spend like 1% of our time filling in various reports or talking with regulators or whatever - that indirectly gets us a society not run by corporations, an economy where demand is more of a driver than supply, etc.
It really shouldn’t be unpopular. EU bureaucracy might be slow, but it really does make a difference. Remember how you had to pay ridiculous roaming mobile charges if you crossed into another country? Or how you has to pay ridiculous money to transfer money between countries ridiculously slowly? Or how you had to charge that iphone with a ridiculous connector? Or how EU employment contacts stack up against US ones? Regulation works. The EU works.
Or how you had to go around with different currencies, stop at all borders with your passport etc
Exactly!
And regarding ‘slow’, while I agree, I also might not want them to act any quicker in a lot of situations because some systems are just really big & complex (even w/o counting lobbying from corps & foreign politics). And some systems even need to develop a best practice approach (with help/push of regulation ofc) because some bureaucrats just can’t know or predict everything. Multi-tier (eg every couple of years an upgrade to a directive) and decade-long legislation development whilst gathering data to see effects & what makes most sense to develop further … is actually efficient.
But climate change & other ESG stuff? I would gladly have a faulty over-reaching system sooner (what, worst case some rich ppl will get less rich?) than a mildly better system later. They could easily mandate for like every company over 100 employees to employ a person/department that can perform one job only - to follow & report companies effect on environment, socials, and governance (along with future plans on the subject, owner effects, etc). And by report I mean to the regulators and general public. Would “people” complain about how regulation is only costs? Ofc, ppl like to complain (or just repeat the complains their bosses said). But I’m sure the net benefit for Europe would still be positive because ppl that have a job usually tend to get good at it. And even if not, ppl get jobs, we get statistics, and all for extremely negligible or no effect on economy (one salary lower profits for the owners on one hand, but a development of a whole new industry sector on the other).
And it does not only work against cooperations, but against things like surveillance laws as well. Those have been fought successfully on an European level.