$grisendo

The key point is that what has been slipped through the back door today, twisting Parliament's own rules, is one more step toward that Orwellian Europe represented by the AI Act, eIDAS 2.0 / the European Digital Identity Wallet, the Digital Euro, the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Entry/Exit System (EES), ETIAS, Prüm II, the Age Verification Regulation, the UK Online Safety Act... Each regulation is born with a different alibi, and all of them build the same skeleton: mandatory identification, permanent traceability, a citizen who stops being presumed innocent and becomes a suspect by default. The trick isn't in the law that gets voted on. It's in the one that slips through without a vote, the one disguised as a delegated act, a technical amendment, an "update" nobody reads because nobody expects anything important to be at stake there. And that's precisely the pattern: democratic substance keeps getting hollowed out through the back door while the front door still carries the sign "European Parliament," clearly visible for the photo. What gets approved in committee wouldn't dare defend itself on the floor. What gets negotiated in trilogue wouldn't survive a public debate. And when someone points this out, the official answer is always the same: that it's a misunderstanding, that the intention is to protect, that whoever objects hasn't understood the text. But the text is understood perfectly well. What isn't understood, or rather, what nobody wants to explain, is why protection always demands the same toll: less anonymity, more centralized databases, more power to scan the private life of someone who hasn't committed any crime.