French "Three Strikes" Law Gets New Life

Kjella writes "A little over a week ago we discussed the EU's forbidding of disconnecting users from the Internet. But even after having passed with an 88% approval in the European Parliament, and passing through the European Commission, it was all undone last week. The European Council, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, removed the amendment before passing the Telecom package. This means that there's now nothing stopping France's controversial 'three strikes' law from going into effect. What hope is there for a 'parliament' where near-unanimous agreement can be completely undone so easily?"

Comments

None, not without massive reform

[Nursie]

The EU is a great idfea but the execution is terrible. The council should be destroyed, stricken from the legislature.

That anyone on the council thought that this was even remotely conscionable tells you just how undemocratic the people on it are. The fact that they could then go and do this tells you how undemocratic the council system is.

Get rid of it. It's sick.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Fluffeh]

Hmmm, I guess it's sort of like Al Gore winning the presidential election, but George Bush ending up the President?

It's all about thinking you are in a democracy, not actually being in one. Happy people are easier to control.

Lordy, I think all this /. paranoia is finally starting to rub off on me.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore did not win the election. He had the majority of the popular vote. That's it. The popular vote means nothing in itself. It doesn't even mean, that if the popular vote WAS the determiner for election that Al Gore would have won, since the entire campaign would have been conducted differently.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Randall311]

You're a nitwit. The popular vote determines what representatives will be voting in the electoral college and that is all. The only thing Al Gore ever won in his life was a double chin.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Mathonwy]

Well, and Florida.

And a Nobel prize.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[xant]

And an Oscar. I'm pretty sure he won a few Senate elections too.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Toonol]

Well, he did win a Nobel Prize. Florida not so much.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

One more time:

Gore would not have won Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties in the recount.

Gore would have won a state-wide recount, a common-sense solution BushII et alia prevented by having the GOP use the Federal court and then the Supreme Court to kick the Florida courts and state law in the teeth.

All in all, an interesting overriding of "state's rights" by a party that claims to highly prize those rights. (For the irony-impaired, that's what irony sounds like.)

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

i lost all respect for the noble prize as soon as that money hungry hippo won it.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

One more time:

Gore would not have won given recounts in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties.

Gore would have won in a state-wide recount, a common-sense solution the GOP prevented by having the Federal courts and then the Supreme Court kick Florida courts and law in the teeth.

That was an interesting override of "state's rights" by a party that claims to highly prize those rights. (For the irony impaired, that is what irony sounds like.)

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

... and Obama won by a "landslide".

Despite the popular vote being only 6% or so apart, and with McCain winning the majority of states.

The Electoral college called the election before even CNN, and while it is clear Obama won, I don't think he's quite got the mandate he thinks he does.

Not that that really matters, either, since the Democrats are going to rain all over his "change" message with more of the same political BS that both parties have been shoveling for 40 years now.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[M1rth]

Bullshit.

All voting machines have a margin of error - accounting for the likelihood of a misread, a data entry error (someone hitting the wrong button), or other malfunctions.

The voting machines used across the USA have an average margin of error of at least 1.5%, sometimes more depending on whose analysis you are using.

Al Gore "won" the popular vote by less than 1% nationwide. That means that all you can say is he had a statistical dead heat in the popular vote. If you wanted to have a national recount, there were plenty of states with margins that could easily have swung the other way around and not gone for Gore in a recount, it's just that Florida (and in particular, a couple of Florida counties) got focused on.

Of course, the OTHER option would have been to throw Florida's votes out, and then turn it over to the constitutional option when nobody has a majority... which means... oh, yeah, a vote by Congress with one vote apportioned to each state delegation. And the Republicans handily controlled that particular vote method at the time.

Frankly, given Florida was as close as it was, and a recount effort was not possible, and a federal deadline was looming, the fairest thing for Florida to have done, would have been to allocate its electoral votes evenly ... say 13 for Bush, 12 for Gore. (Given that Bush had won the initial count.) And the election would have gone to Gore (278 to 259). Of course that would probably violate the Florida constitution/rules/whatever...

You're right, it would have violated the Florida statutes on electoral apportionment. And frankly, setting it up that way would be pretty lousy policy regardless, since it would give Florida that much less clout overall (ever noticed that nobody, political campaigning/advertising-wise, gives a crap about the couple of states that DO send in a "roughly proportional" number of electors?)

Re:None, not without massive reform

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

nice troll.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

They simply should have counted it all the way to the end.

I can't see whats the point in rushin things. The old presidenicy continues for a few months anyway...

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

All of that means nothing unless he can capture manbearpig.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[lordholm]

Well, if the council changes it, the new proposal has to pass through the parliament again (they cannot just change the directive and be done with it (they could in the 80s, but the world have changed since then and the EP have a lot more power)):

Look at: http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm

I think that they just finished point 9. This means that the EP must take the councils amendments and their common position into account and vote again, the parliament have all the rights to reintroduce the amendment that was dropped by the council.

If they do, they are putting a clear message to them that the amendment is critical and the directive will not pass without it.

This is why you have a bicameral system. You cannot just remove the points by the other camber and be done with it.

Although the EU legislative system has it's flaws, it is often criticized today for how it worked in the 80's at which point it was still an international organisation (and a lot of the critics believe it still works as in the 80s).

There are problems for sure, such as that the council is not appointed as a separate body, but it consists of the member states governments (i.e. it would be better with senators that do not have a foot in the member states' governments since the council would then be accountable to Europe and you could in theory fire the entire council, but any way... I am drifting of my main points now).

I do not like the council, but it is not really as bad as you think. Please write your parliamentarian and ask them what they will do for the second reading.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[amorsen]

There are problems for sure, such as that the council is not appointed as a separate body, but it consists of the member states governments

The council isn't part of the member states governments. It is simply a collection of unelected officials without accountability. I.e. an oligarchy.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[amorsen]

Sorry I'm wrong. The commission is like that, the council is the way you described it.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[lordholm]

The commission is appointed by the council, but subject to the scrutiny and approval / disproval by the parliament.

The commission does not have lawmaking rights in general (they do in two small areas, but have basically only used that power twice in 30 years or so).

From wikipedia:
-------------------
The Commission can adopt laws on its own initiative concerning monopolies and concessions granted to companies by Member States (Article 86(3)) and concerning the right of workers to remain in a Member State after having been employed there (Article 39(3)(d)). Two directives have been adopted using this procedure: one on transparency between Member States and companies[16] and another on competition in the telecommunications sector.
-------------------

So, two cases where the commission unilaterally did something in 30 years or so.

The telecom directive in question here is probably the capping of roaming fees, but that is typically not something that would go under law, but rather regulation of law (which is not necessarily handled by an elected body anyway) in the member states, so I cannot really see that they stepped over the line in that case, but yeah... in theory they have the power.

The important thing from the start of this post, is that the commission needs the approval of the EP, if the loose that approval, they can no longer remain in office.

No one in Europe elects their government directly, typically the prime minister is appointed by the head of state that may or may not be elected, but this is only a rubber stamp and the head of state has to appoint a prime minister that in term will name his ministers and then get the approval of the parliament for his government.

So I really cannot see the difference between how the commission is appointed and how each member states government is appointed. So blaming the commission for being unelected is a bit strange I think if you at the same time does not criticise all the parliamentary systems in Europe for having the same flaw.

The main problem as said is the council, but in many cases, the system of the Union gets a lot more critique than it has earned, and for the commission this is certainly so. Because, people does not really bother about checking the facts about how things work. If you criticise something, then make sure that you know how things actually work and you can make some concrete suggestions for improvements.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Yvanhoe]

Agreed. As an European who likes the whole idea, I would happily get rid of the European Council which serves nothing except providing an easy point of entry to lobbyists and corruption.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[amorsen]

The commission is completely unelected. Part of their rules of conduct is to NOT act with any favour towards those who picked them. The commission isn't a political body, but it has extensive political powers, including being the only body who can actually propose new laws.

The government isn't elected directly in most European countries, but parliament gets to pick the prime minister, and they can vote them out again. In contrast, the European parliament is a squabbling mess who doesn't accomplish anything. They could in theory dissolve the commission, but it didn't happen even when the commission became so obviously corrupt that it had to step down.

If the commission was abolished, I'd have fewer reservations about the EU. I still don't believe that you can actually have a well-functioning democracy the size of EU, and India and USA don't particularly challenge that belief.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[vidarh]

The biggest problem is trying to build a supernational government without actually going the full hog. The EU today is a little bit like the US when it was still a confederation of sovereign states, and there's the constant battle between the elected EU parliament and the appointed organs and individual member state governments.

The EU is going to remain a mess until support for a federal model gets strong enough. However, the populations in most member states are for the time being more likely to support the status quo which gives them less say, than to support a federal model with a stronger EU parliament.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a partially flawed analogy, at least in respect of British Parliamentary democracy, when you compare the appointment of commissioners with individual states' governments. You're presumably aware that the crooked bastard Mandelson until recently held the position of trade commissioner and yet he has never stood in any EU election.
In Great Britain all members of the government are either elected or members of the House of Lords. The reason I say your analogy is only partially flawed is that Mandelson was made a Lord(*) by Gordon Brown so that he could return to government and try and lie his way out of the shit heap that Brown and Blair have turned Great Britain into.

(*) Mandelson of course is now known as the Dark Lord but unfortunately has none of Voldamort's redeeming characteristics.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Freultwah]

Part of their rules of conduct is to NOT act with any favour towards those who picked them. The commission isn't a political body, but it has extensive political powers, including being the only body who can actually propose new laws.

Can you elaborate? That is a bad thing exactly how? And how is this so far any different from any national government? Also, quantify "squabbling mess" in the context of the EP. What we've seen so far in the real world, apart from the inevitable swinging between Brussels and Strasbourg, has been overwhelmingly positive, at least while I've been looking closely enough and I am saying this regardless of not having elected any of my country's representatives. (The one I voted for ended up president of the country, bummer.)

One wants the council gone, another wants the commission gone... I don't think we're entirely ready for an EU where only the parliament is acting in the capacity of both legislative and executive (some of us still care for separation of powers), plus has all the expertise necessary to be competent in all question areas. I don't think an EP that consists for a large part of retired national politicians is up to snuff.

Funny that no-one is attacking COREPER, yet that is the only completely unelected body whose decisions go through rubberstamped. I do not mind.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[amorsen]

Apparently you don't think that an apolitical body having a monopoly on introducing new legislation is a problem. I don't see how I can elaborate more on that, it seems self-evident to me.

Anyway, I don't think we're ready for the EU at all, but there isn't much that can be done about that right now. All we can do is trying to keep it as powerless as possible, and hope that the inevitable civil war (every union has one, sooner or later) won't be too bloody.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[PinkyDead]

The council of ministers consists of ministers from each country in the EU. Those ministers represent the democratically elected governments of each of the EU member states. Those governments are answerable to their parliaments and as such are directly answerable to the electorate. How much more democratic do you need?

There is of course a slight imbalance in that smaller states have proportionally greater power than larger states - this is a common problem in the EU which could be rectified if the EU parliament had a little more say in the decisions in the EU.

If only there was a Reform Treaty that could sort all this out? They could call it after one of the capital cities of Europe - maybe say Portugal's capital, yes that's a good idea - call it the Treaty of Lisbon. Then we can all ratify it and there will be reform.

What's that you say? 25 of the 27 countries have already ratified it - Wow! They work fast in Europe.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, the only reason we (the dutch) ratified it is because our politicians sold us out. In 05 we had a referendum on the european constitution (the precursor to the lisbon treaty), and the majority of the people said no. Then in the elections in 06 one large party (PvdA) promised that should such a treaty be on the table again, a referendum would be held again. What happens, the lisbon treaty comes along and the PvdA fold like the opportunistic lying bastards they are. No referendum, we'll accept it, not matter what the people think.

Honestly democracy is a nice idea and all, but the fatal flaw is that you end up needing (or breeding) politicians, the scum of the earth.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[M1rth]

just a reality resulting from the demographics the parties draw from... poor non-english speaking people trend as democrats

In other words, the Democrat party and their policies are defined by getting the votes of the stupid, uninformed, and clueless.

Glad to know they're being guided by an informed electorate as George Washington warned us we needed... uhm whoops!

Really? What voting system requires you to have a majority of the POSSIBLE votes?

The electoral college.

All that I've ever seen have required you to have the majority of CAST votes.

See above re: democrats voted for primarily by the uninformed and the stupid. Which are you, merely uninformed or stupid?

Its pretty lousy policy at the -federal- level that you can even have swing states that decide elections.

No, it's great policy for a country consisting of states themselves. The US presidential election is decided not by one "national" election, but by 51 (50 states plus DC) simultaneous STATE elections.

Of course you would know this were you not a democrat and therefore at very least uninformed if not worse by your own admission.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

If Florida abstained from the electoral vote, that would not have been an automatic Gore win. He needed 270 votes. If he couldn't get that, the election would have been determined by the House of Representatives.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[PinkyDead]

The reason democracy is failing you and most other people is that you don't seem to have the faintest idea how it works.

The European Constitution would have superseded your own constitution, therefore without a referendum you would not have been able to accept it.

Voting against the Constitution did not change the underlying fact that in order to expand the EU required reform - hence the 'Reform Treaty/The Treaty of Lisbon' was born. Lisbon does not supersede your constitution, it is subservient to it and therefore does not need a referendum.

This continuous clamour for direct democracy in Europe is just ridiculous. If you want direct democracy, first establish it locally, then nationally, and if you manage to live through all that get it at a European level - but until then you live in a representative democracy, don't be expecting the rules to change every time you don't like the way things are going.

I find that politicians give you what you want - it's a cowardly approach to say that you have no responsibility for not examining their offerings critically and then blaming them after the fact.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[PinkyDead]

IANAL definitely required here, but....

The 3 strikes clause comes under the Telecommunications policy area of the Trans European Network. And, while Transport is covered by co-decision, Energy and Telecoms are not (yet). Now while, the whole proposal comes under co-decision, this element does not and so they can bypass the approval process, if the changes are to element not requiring co-decision.

(I'm totally open to correction on this).

Re:None, not without massive reform

[nxsty]

But the article gives the impression that there will be no second reading in the parliament. :(

The Council, Commission and Parliament now want firmly to lash down the final regulatory framework in what they call a "trilog" procedure. If this works, no second reading in Parliament will be necessary.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[stdarg]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I don't see anything in GP that implies a direct democracy. Why do you think you need a direct democracy to have the government do what the majority wants?

Re:None, not without massive reform

[PinkyDead]

Having a referendum for every EU treaty is an attempt to manage it though direct democracy.

In a constitutional democracy the constitution provides a mechanism whereby the government doesn't have to have a referendum every time it needs to act. The current EU treaties should be implemented by simple acts of parliament and not by complex referendum processes. If those treaties are in conflict with the constitution then they can be rejected at any time. If the GP has a problem with the constitution then he should work to have it changed so that it can provide the protection he desires.

Unfortunately, most recent referendums on Europe have been polls on national government policy by a disgruntled electorate and nothing to do with the EU.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[maxume]

The United States is a republic operated as a representative democracy.

That you are ill-informed is probably your own fault.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[the_womble]

Al Gore did not win the election. He had the majority of the popular vote. That's it. The popular vote means nothing in itself.

Can you not see there is something wrong there?

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Bigjeff5]

Pure democracy is, to put it simply, Tyranny of the Masses. A representative republic (which is what the US is) is NOT a pure democracy, it's not even "really close" to a democracy.

A representative republic is a system which attempts (and I think succeeds in) balancing the over-all will of the people with the needs of the minority. In a democracy, the needs of the minority are meaningless. In America, the needs of the minority actually get a significant voice, though if the will of the majority is opposed to the minority, the minority will still lose.

For example, my great state of Alaska. We have the second-lowest population of any state. We only have about 600,000 people, and so only get one congressman in the House of Representatives because of this. New York, however, has 19 million people, and so get quite a few congressman in the House, 29 in fact. That is the balance that gives majority more power over minority.

What gives smaller states more power, is the Senate. Each state gets 2 senators, regardless of population. Alaska gets 2, and New York gets 2. In the Senate, we are both exactly equal. Also, the Senate, with 100 members, has equal power as the House of Representatives, which has 500+ members. So even though Alaska has 1/600'th (ish) of the representatives, we actually get about 1/200'th (ish) of the power. Majority still holds most of the power, but Minority gets a great increase in power.

See how things balance?

And a state gets as many votes in the electoral college as they have representatives. So, if you're still with me, Alaska gets 3 votes, and New York gets 31. That makes New York only 10 times more powerful than Alaska, even though it has 40 times the people.

Now, the popular vote only matters WITHIN each state. It doesn't matter on the whole, nobody counts that, and you're ignorant of American Government, and really what a fair government should look like in general, if you think the overall popular vote should determine who is president.

So each state sends representatives to the electoral college, which forms every presidential election, according to how many representatives they have in congress. Alaska sends 3 according to their own system. In Alaska, one candidate or the other will "win" all three electoral votes in the popular vote. A candidate can win this with 90%, 51%, or, depending on the other candidates involved, 40% or even less. It doesn't matter if 60% of the population did not vote for that candidate, if he had the most he gets all 3 electoral votes.

MOST states do it this way, New York included. So, in New York, a guy can get 19 million votes, and only gets 31 electoral votes. 19 million is about 15% of the total population of the US. Are you starting to see how the popular vote can get skewed? That's why we don't use it.

The needs of the US as a whole is NOT determined by what 51% of the people want. That would degenerate into anarchy in 50 years or less. The needs of the US is determined by a weighted majority. Alaska gets more influence per citizen than New York does, but New York has more influence than Alaska as a whole.

See how it works? It's how we do major government here. It's fair, because it gives the majority enough power that, generally, things go the way the majority wants. That's a good thing. It also, however, prevents the majority from trampling the minority just because they can. That is also a good thing. :)

Re:None, not without massive reform

[HuguesT]

Hello,

No, in Europe we had our wars *before* we did our union :-)

That's innovation for you.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, dictators love having no democracy.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[MSZ]

directly answerable to the electorate

Surely you jest?

The problem is exactly that those democratically elected governments are *NOT* answerable to the electorate. Once chosen, they do what they please and what highest paying lobbyists want. As a voter, I can do exactly nothing effective to stop them from selling out, doing stupid and evil things.

Case in point: year ago there were elections in Poland. Record turnout, previous ruling party lost significantly. New ruling party... continues most of the failed policies. Like accepting Lisbon treachery without referendum (they know well it would fail) or continued selling out to Shrub.

If only there was a Reform Treaty that could sort all this out? They could call it after one of the capital cities of Europe - maybe say Portugal's capital, yes that's a good idea - call it the Treaty of Lisbon. Then we can all ratify it and there will be reform.

Right. Remove some braindead organizational problems. Also, while we're at it, take another step or five towards totalitarian pan-european megastate. If that treaty is so good, why are the leaders of EU so afraid of it being approved through referendums?

Re:None, not without massive reform

[MSZ]

Lisbon does not supersede your constitution, it is subservient to it and therefore does not need a referendum.

Since it DOES reduce the member states' independence, it should be ratified by referendum. It may not have to, but I am very suspicious of the changes of this magnitude being made secretly and without popular mandate by "our" governments. Also, it is well known that the real reason they don't want referendum is that this "treaty" is in fact V2.0 of "EU Constitution" - a piece of fecal matter previously thrown away by the people.

I liked it here, but it seems it's time to look for other place to live. Europe had it's better days, but it's going down. Sad that history did not teach people anything.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for that. Too bad nobody but me read it all the way through.

How'd you get in here, anyway?

Re:None, not without massive reform

[operagost]

Lordy, I think all this /. paranoia is finally starting to rub off on me.

Yup. Fortunately, knowledge is the remedy.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[EasyTarget]

So why the F**K do you keep sanctioning, insulting and invading other countries for being 'undemocratic'?

I ask in a spirit of pure enquiry :-)

Re:None, not without massive reform

[brandon.excell]

But abstaining would have been practically equivalent (Gore wins 266 to 246)

There is but one minor flaw in this statement. If neither candidate receives the necessary electoral votes to win, then the House of Representatives must choose from among the top 3 electoral finishers. See link for source.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Joint_session_of_Congress_and_the_contingent_election. As Gore would have only had 266 of the needed 270, the House would have decided the winner. How that would have gone is something only an alternate timeline knows.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was a terrible idea meant to destroy national sovereignty; and democracy always leads to tyranny.

Re:None, not without massive reform

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't believe that you can actually have a well-functioning democracy.

Fixed that for ya.
 

Re:None, not without massive reform

[vux984]

There is but one minor flaw in this statement. If neither candidate receives the necessary electoral votes to win, then the House of Representatives must choose from among the top 3 electoral finishers.

You might be right. That's certainly true in the case of a tie, for example.

However, under normal voting systems, if a party abstains, the total needed for a majority is -reduced-. e.g. If Florida abstains, than instead of 538 electoral college votes, there are only 513 electoral college, and you only need 257 to have a majority of them. I'm not saying this is how it =is=, but it it is how it =should be=.

Your scenario raises an interesting question -- what happens in a theoretical United States with 3+ strong parties? Is 270 REALLY needed to win an election by actual US LAW, or is that merely the simple mathematical result calculated by the media of a 538 vote pool where its been =assumed= all votes will be cast in an effectively 2-party system.

Forget abstentions for a minute... what if Florida had cast its 25 votes for Bob Barr? So we had: Gore 266 / Bush 246 / Barr 25, then the House of Representatives picks a president? That doesn't seem democratic.

For even more fun and games take a look at Canada. Their minority government is likely to be broken by a vote-of non-confidence 6 weeks after it was elected --- (that in and of itself isn't unusual fate for a minority government, although 6 weeks is unusually fast) but the interest pieces is the potential for a 2+1 coalition of the other minority parties to attempt to form a government... bizarre to say the least. But at least the 2+1 coalition genuinely reflects the majority of Canadians better than the current minority government does...so at least its reflective of the democratic process...)

Re:None, not without massive reform

[brandon.excell]

Your scenario raises an interesting question -- what happens in a theoretical United States with 3+ strong parties? Is 270 REALLY needed to win an election by actual US LAW, or is that merely the simple mathematical result calculated by the media of a 538 vote pool where its been =assumed= all votes will be cast in an effectively 2-party system.

Yes, the law is that you must win a majority (not a plurality) of electoral votes to win the presidency. In fact, there have been a couple occasions in the past where this very thing happened. I'm too lazy to go look them all up right now, but 1800 was one of them. As for your point about abstentions, I don't believe I have ever heard that raised, and as I don't have all the answers to constitutional law, not sure how it would be affected.

European Commission to stop the 3-strikes?

[Anonymous Coward]

European Commission to stop the 3-strikes?:

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises/communication/telecom-internet/20081127trib000314818/loi-antipiratage-sur-internet-les-observations-de-bruxelles-.html

An french2english translation not done by robots might be welcomed.

Usually I'm rather pro-European

[sveard]

The European parliament in Strassbourg (France): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4292.jpg

I see my country's flag. Yet my voice can not be heard.

Re:Usually I'm rather pro-European

[thesaurus]

Maybe they were all in Brussels at the time...

Re:Usually I'm rather pro-European

[sveard]

As was I (and still am now) with a political scientist, thank you :)

No standing anyway

[l2718]

\begin{rant}

This French law is stupid, but to what extent should the badly-run shady organization in Brussels overturn by fiat laws made by the National Assembly?

The European Union executive runs roughshod over the European Parliament; there is much backroom dealing and invisible lobbying. Under such conditions I don't think the laws passed have much legitimacy, even if they achieve good results (they rarely do). Depending on the dictators from Brussels to enforce freedom in France is a contradiction in terms.

\end{rant}

Re:No standing anyway

[Nursie]

That's the problem, the dictators in Brussels.

The parliament also needs reform, greater visibilty and greater accountability. The reason they can ride roughshod over national laws is because member states lead by France gave them that power. It's perfectly legitimate, or at least it would be without the damned comission.

Re:No standing anyway

[marnues]

As an American, I want a strong EU. They are an entity that would bring very positive competition that I'm not certain China or India can offer. So please take your rant and turn it into activism. Change those "dictators in Brussels" into democratically elected and fully responsible civil servants. The world would be a much better place.

Re:No standing anyway

[Idiomatick]

It is relatively new. And it is a force of good. But it has much to improve. We shouldn't call for destruction of the EU but rather better mechanisms.

Re:No standing anyway

[xant]

As an American, I agree. If we can depose our dictator, so can you guys.

un changement que nous pouvons croire en

(I don't speak French; blame Google.)

Re:No standing anyway

[eiapoce]

You miss a point: The whole concept of europe is based on the concept that some selfappointed burocrats run everything while the elected MEPs have absolutely no power, the parlament "rubberstamps" decisions taken by others... Nations can't decide anymore what's legal nor how to regulate the invasion from north africa even inside their borders. New laws against "xenofobia" are coming into effect whose aim is to suppress free speech.

The problem, or good part of it, is that Sarko is such a id..t that he makes this process remarkably evident to anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

Re:No standing anyway

[Nazlfrag]

Yeah that plan you had to deposed him was sublime in its genius. Getting rid of him by letting him serve his full term of office was a masterstroke.

Re:No standing anyway

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I dunno, I'd translate it as "un changement en ce que nous pouvons croire". But then, I'd be correcting the grammar as well. Not sure if it was an intentional thing or not.

Re:No standing anyway

[rve]

The EU isn't like the US federal government. The EU is a group of independent nations that have voluntarily chosen to cooperate economically rather than violently competing over scarce resources as in the period up to 1945.

In this sense, the EU has been a great success. War between EU member states is now pretty much unimaginable.

The EU council is not a 'government', the power lies with the various national governments. The primary function of EU regulations is to make the one common market possible without forcing the various member states to revert to the lowest common denominator in terms of quality control, labor laws and taxation in order to prevent their businesses from moving elsewhere.

The EU does not have a lot to do with civil liberties and policy on the national level, which explains the widespread lack of interest in EU politics among voters. Simply making the EU more democratic for the sake of making it more democratic would inevitably amount to making it exclusively pursue the national interests of the largest member states at the expense of the EU as a whole.

I personally like the EU the way it is now. I don't want a European president, a European army or a single European foreign policy. I like my country to be independent as well as having a common European market without internal border controls.

Re:No standing anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously some useful idiot modded down the post. Truth still remains that the EU is NOT a democratic institution and does NOT rapresent its people.

Re:No standing anyway

[Aceticon]

I bet you live in the UK.

<rant target="average_brit">

The locals (yes, I'm living here ATM) are constantly brainwashed by the local politicians and media with bullshit talk of British exceptionalism and that only bad things come from the EU.

Well, I have news for you:
- The Empire is long gone. Nowadays the only thing the British are exceptional at is extra shoddy management (as compared with Northern European nations - I've lived in Holland so i can compare), an unhealthy level of consumption of stories about (mostly media created) celebs and ever lowering standards of education.
- The UK politicians actually use European institutions to introduce controversial laws into the UK by the back door. They then proceed to blame the "unaccountable" EU, thus getting the law they want without the blame. Yet, somehow it seems that most of the locals don't see through the thin veil of deceit (see my comment above about "ever lowering standards of education") and proceed to repeat all the pap about the dictatorship of the EU overriding national sovereignty ...

I work in Investment Banking in London and from the percentage of non-brits in positions of importance here (something like 70% or more) it seems to me that the (in the past) most successful economic activity in the UK is only here because foreigners choose to come here. My personal pet theory is that due to the popularity of English as a second language (thanks to Americans made movies and TV series) people find it much more easy to move here (i remember how hard it was to learn Dutch when I went to Holland).

</rant>

That said, although I'm pro-European (after all, it allows me and many like me - including many brits - to live and work anywhere we choose in Europe) I do believe that the EU institutions as they are at the moment are not democratic and representative enough and that at least the European Commission and the European Council need to be scrapped or loose a lot of their power.

Re:No standing anyway

[Hognoxious]

the EU has been a great success. War between EU member states is now pretty much unimaginable.

Without another Europe, that didn't have an EU and did have a war in the late 20th/early 21st century, that claim is totally unproven.

Re:No standing anyway

[Hognoxious]

I can't speak for all of Europe but from what I've seen, Belgium, Italy and France aren't all that different.

If you don't like it, then why don't you just fuck off?

Re:No standing anyway

[Thiez]

You misunderstand GP. He didn't say 'The EU has prevented one or more wars between member states', he said 'War between EU member states is very unlikely, this can at least partially be explained by the existence of the EU'. Which is true. The whole point of the EU was to give European countries common economic interests, so they would work together instead of attack eachother. The fact that a European constitution was even considered should be an indication of how well the member states work together these days.

Re:No standing anyway

[Kijori]

I dunno, I'd translate it as "un changement en ce que nous pouvons croire". But then, I'd be correcting the grammar as well. Not sure if it was an intentional thing or not.

I think "le changement auquel on peut croire" is probably the best translation. It's the translation I've seen used in the papers here in France.

Re:No standing anyway

[theaveng]

You said the EU is not like the U.S., and then proceeded to describe the U.S. circa 1780. The U.S. was not just born... it was a gradual process from 13 independent states to a confederation of states, to a union of states, and finally a nation under one supreme government.

The EU is slowly but surely marching down the same path. If the Constitution had passed, the EU would be like the U.S. around the year 1900.

Re:No standing anyway

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

good call

Re:No standing anyway

[LandDolphin]

What a wonderfully well thought out and educated response.

Re:No standing anyway

[Aceticon]

Money, obviously.

I'm hardly working in the UK 'cause I'm a charitable person.

That said, if the new proposed high rate of tax does come into effect in 2011 I'll be decamping for better pastures: as a serial emigrant, with portable skills and speaking 5 languages I can easily go to where my income is maximized (taking in account that moving countries can cost between £500 and £3000 depending on how much stuff u move, not to mention lost income during the time u are not working).

Re:No standing anyway

[KostasPlenty]

You might want it but the US arms industry doesn't : If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industry). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers... :-)

Re:No standing anyway

[trewornan]

Hey, do you want to buy a stone that keeps away tigers?

Re:No standing anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there many tigers round here?

Well that's what you get

[Sycraft-fu]

The EU is something of the worst parts of a government and a diplomatic organization. It wants to pretend to be the unified European government, but it really isn't. It also isn't democratically elected or directly accountable to it's constituents.

The basic problem is that the European nations wanted to create a union that was along the lines of the United States (which as the name implies is a union of independent states). However they half-assed it. The reason the United States is so powerful is because of the united nature. While the states are independent, the laws of one do not affect the laws of another, they are all a lesser part of the whole. The states have to do as the federal government says and there is no leaving the union (that was what the civil war was actually about, can you leave the union). Though separate, they act as a whole.

Now this means two important things on a governmental level:

1) The federal government has real power. It can make laws, treaties and so on that the several states are required to abide by (within the bounds allowed in the Constitution). There isn't any weaseling out of it or leaving. Thus the government can speak for the US as a whole.

2) The government is directly accountable to the people. The federal government is elected by the citizens of the states, and thus is accountable to them. If they behave in a way the citizens don't like, they can be ousted as happened in this most recent election. Though it is a republic, not a democracy, it is still a democratic process where the people in the states say who will lead, not the leaders of the states.

Well unless the EU is willing to do this sort of thing, then crap like this ruling will happen. It isn't a real government. It has some trappings of a government, and some authority like it, but it isn't really a government.

I really think the EU needs to change. They either need to go all the way, become a unified nation fully, or they need to scale back, and basically become a trading bloc. This "We're a European government but not really and you don't get to elect us," is just bad news IMO.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Nursie]

We elect the european parliament.

Just not the commission. This must change, starting with the scrapping of the commission.

Re:Well that's what you get

[cobraR478]

But then how would those in power in the particular countries ensure that the EU was their, respective, bitch?

Re:Well that's what you get

[arthurpaliden]

The federal government has real power. It can make laws, treaties and so on that the several states are required to abide by (within the bounds allowed in the Constitution). There isn't any weaseling out of it or leaving. Thus the government can speak for the US as a whole. Wrong. The judiciary can overide and ignore laws and treaties negotiated and approved by the federal government. For an example see the Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada & the US.

Re:Well that's what you get

[KostasPlenty]

The European Parliament gets elected directly by the people whereas the other bodies get assigned by the national governments. In regards to whether it is half-arsed or not you will find that the US does not want a united Europe because it will not be able to sell as many weapons / interfere as easily in domestic politics like the various US government bribing groups dictate (see political party donations in the US). If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industries). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers.

Re:Well that's what you get

[KostasPlenty]

The European Parliament gets elected directly by the people whereas the other bodies get assigned by the national governments. In regards to whether it is half-arsed or not you will find that the US does not want a united Europe because it will not be able to sell as many weapons / interfere as easily in domestic politics like the various US government bribing groups dictate (see political party donations in the US). If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industries). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers.

Re:Well that's what you get

[mrsquid0]

Actually, the US is a republic and a democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Well that's what you get

[eiapoce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68 > this is how they are building the uberstate: violating the rules

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Cowpat]

this would be the state judiciaries? No - the federal judiciary overturned a decision taken by the federal government. However the mechanism actually works, the GP's point, that the federal government actually runs the country that the rest of the world sees, is still valid.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Narpak]

I really think the EU needs to change. They either need to go all the way, become a unified nation fully, or they need to scale back, and basically become a trading bloc. This "We're a European government but not really and you don't get to elect us," is just bad news IMO.

There is strong sentiment within several of the member states of the EU to withdraw from the organization. The European Parliament and Commission is seen, by many, as weak and/or corrupt (depending on who you ask); and the rest don't really know who they are or what they do.

The Governments of England, France and Germany do not wish to give away more of their own sovereignty or power, yet they wish to maintain or increase their influence upon the management and direction of the EU itself. At the same time as they want to remain as much a part from it as possible. If the EU were to become a proper union it would drastically reduce the power of some of the founding states, while increasing the influence of economically weaker nations (such as Poland).

Cultural, economical and political factors ensure that the EU as it stands today will never become a Union and if the governing body of the EU tried to do anything that seemed to pull towards such a scenario the Union would dissolve in a heart beat. It has no military power, and none of the member states wish to give their military, or security, forces over to EU control. Not to mention the fact that some member states are a member of NATO while others are not.

In practical terms as it today the EU drafts various trade laws that it tries to enforce upon weaker nations while the stronger nations decide if they want to implement, ignore, claim to lack the resources to implement, really lack the resources to implement or simply decide that it is not in their best interest to implement.

Then there is the EEA (European Economic Area) which binds the signing Nations to parts of the EU laws. EEA is the members of EU and Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. Oh and Switzerland isn't part of the EEA because they got a special deal with the EU (since their constitution requires them to vote upon ever part of the "Deal" offered by EU membership). These nations gets free trade within the EU (kinda, but not really); but they have to follow parts of EU law (those outside the EU gets no say or influence upon those laws).

If you are confused by any of this, or don't get how this really is supposed to work in practice; then don't worry; most of us Europeans don't get it either. For the most part we refuse or neglect to do any sort of personal research on the subject; much rather we listen to our own national politicians who have a real self interest (as I mentioned earlier) in keeping what power they have within their own Nation.

Re:Well that's what you get

[The Master Control P]

In short, they don't realize that it takes both the United part and the States part before the United States of Europe will work. So until they do, we're trapped in a metastable state and waiting for it to decay.

Re:Well that's what you get

[mcnellis]

It sounds like basically the European Union is analogous to the United States under the Articles of Confederation. All of these problems are the reason for the drafting of the current Constitution. How long before the European Union is reformed? Will they reform for a more powerful European Union or will the independent states cut back on their centralization of power?

Re:Well that's what you get

[jrumney]

Right, but that would not have had an effect in this case, since the Commission rubber stamped the Parliament's decision, and it was the European Council (made up of the elected heads of member states) that vetoed it.

Re:Well that's what you get

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Sounds an awful lot like the states now a days...

Re:Well that's what you get

[Teun]

We (Europeans) elect the commision too, directly via our national governments.

Indirect voting is just another form of democracy, a bit like the electoral vote in the USofA.

The real problem are France and the UK, they form an axis of evil that refuses to grant the European Parliament full rights.
This is especially cynical when you see and hear how the British press is always going on about the so-called non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels, I believe the British scandal press is part of the European problem not getting solved.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Teun]

There is strong sentiment within several of the member states of the EU to withdraw from the organization.

But none of them is a key member.

The Governments of England, France and Germany do not wish to give away more of their own sovereignty or power, yet they wish to maintain or increase their influence upon the management and direction of the EU itself.

You are wrong about Germany, historically it's only the UK and France that limit the rights of the European Parliament.

At the same time as they want to remain as much a part from it as possible. If the EU were to become a proper union it would drastically reduce the power of some of the founding states, while increasing the influence of economically weaker nations (such as Poland).

Re:Well that's what you get

[major_fault]

Not in terms of relations with Russia. Germany has strong self-interests there with most nations bordering Russia opposing these interests.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong about Germany, historically it's only the UK and France that limit the rights of the European Parliament.

This is completely related to the fact that Germans form the largest group in the parliament, and they regularly vote on a national basis instead of a political basis everytime the German industry says so (see every directive that could have any impact on Volkswagen or the german chemical companies).

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

"However they half-assed it."

The money quote. We have a Frankensteinian political system that is still designed to be run by states and their governments rather than by their people.

While we don't have the same amount of "people power" spirit that the Americans have, we're still a whole lot better than China or Russia, and if we don't get out act together they're the ones who're going to be running the show.

What we need to do:

1. The Parliament needs increased powers
2. The Commission needs to be taken from the largest party in the parliament (kind of happens already) OR we elect its President directly
3. The Council needs to become a real senate, where each state's representative is directly elected

I.e. we need to get over our big fucking egos and take it all the way out. That means a real constitution (not that cobbled together piece of crap they tried to force on us earlier), a real, elected government (the Commission) with a foreign minister who will be the union's representative to the rest of the world. We need a real federal structure with the right balance between federal and state power. The national governments always act on short-term self interest and many are prone to, shall we say, interesting solutions to some problems (read: protectionism, nationalisation of industries, etc). Sarko, Berlusconi and their other friends would be quite amusing if only they didn't have so much power.

We need clarity, simplicity and real democracy.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, the Commission has to be approved by Parliament. The Council is also "indirectly elected" in the same way; it's made up of ministers from each state's government. It's half-assed and not good enough, but not as bad as it might look at first. As you say, the parliament should be the one point where all laws are made or discarded.

Oh, and the STUPID "rotating presidency" has to go. How can a state be the president of a union? It's completely retarded.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

Ganley is an interesting figure. His views on European politics (the ones that are out in the open, anyway) are quite sensible, but his (alleged) connection with US military or whatever is disturbing.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

Woaw, much misleading information here. The Commission has nothing to do with this.

Let's try to make things clear. The Council of the EU is roughly the equivalent of a senate in a federal state (e.g. the US): it's the second legislative body (with the Parliament), that's supposed to be the voice of the states (the Parliament is the voice of the citizens), each state being represented by one minister or the head of the state/government, depending on the issue that is discussed (e.g. ministers of agriculture when talking about agriculture, etc.).

The main differences are that (1) it's not a 1 country/1 vote system. Votes are weighed so that bigger states have a bigger say, though smaller states have more importance than what they really represent in terms of population and (2) the members of the Council are not directly elected: they are the heads of state or government of the member states, or the ministers of the member states.

Those who bitch about the fact that decisions are taken by an "unelected" Council should remember however that, AFAIK, all EU member states are democracies where people can control the composition of their government through elections. Sarkozy was directly elected. Unfortunately, as the federalist vision of the EU has lots its momentum, this second branch of the legislative, which should have less power than the Parliament, has in fact taken the lead legislative role.

If you want the EU to be more directly democratic, support those national politicians who advocate a more "federalist" vision for the EU, in which the Parliament would have more weight and which would get rid of the rotating presidency. BTW, it would have been the case with the failed constitution.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just total crap. We don't elect the commission at all. It's appointed by the national government and doesn't have to be formed from elected individuals at all.

We do elect our share of the Council. Perhaps that's what you meant?

Re:Well that's what you get

[Zoxed]

> This is especially cynical when you see and hear how the British press is always going on about the so-called non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels,

It always makes me laugh when I read this kind of stuff in the press: coming from a country with a non-elected 2nd house, and a non-elected *head of state* (who can dissolve parliament, declare war etc!!).

Re:Well that's what you get

[weber]

The summary says it was the *Council* (not the commission) which removed the amendment. Neither the Council, nor the Commission are elected directly. See here how the governance works in the EU.

Apart from that, I agree that all representatives with legislative power in the EU should be directly elected by the people.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that the Framers of the US Constitution got right and most modern constitutions get wrong is simplicity. Look at how many pages and how unwieldly the proposed EU constitution was going to be. The US constitution, on the other hand, delineates how the government is to function and the most important rights to be protected. The rest is left to ordinary laws.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Narpak]

But none of them is a key member./quote Which makes it more understandable why they want to withdraw. All members are equal, but some members are more equal than others.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Teun]

Hey dumbo AC, how do you think we get our national governments?
In Europe they don't generally appoint themselves.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Teun]

Come on!
That elderly Lady is the best you have...

Re:Well that's what you get

[Teun]

Hey, that sounds like democracy, the majority decides!
But you also point out why we need a 'Level Playing field', it is not a Dictatorship of the Majority we want or need.

Re:Well that's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

and there is no leaving the union (that was what the civil war was actually about, can you leave the union).

Texas can leave anytime it wishes and/or split into multiple states.

Re:Well that's what you get

[intheshelter]

Both points you make are complete BS.

1. The federal government has real power, but unfortunately it is unchecked power that has far exceeded its' constitutional mandate.

2. The government is NOT directly accountable to the people. It hasn't been for decades.

Various forms of government will work fine assuming one thing, honest and moral people must be running it. Unfortunately the people who are likely to go into government and debase themselves to win an election are only concerned with ego, power and money, so NO government works well.

Re:Well that's what you get

[plasmacutter]

> This is especially cynical when you see and hear how the British press is always going on about the so-called non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels,

It always makes me laugh when I read this kind of stuff in the press: coming from a country with a non-elected 2nd house, and a non-elected *head of state* (who can dissolve parliament, declare war etc!!).

and of course, the biggest umbrella of irony over the whole situation is that unelected second house is doing a better job serving the british public right now than the elected one.

This sort of gives some credit to dissent some regimes (labeled "evil" by the west) have offered toward representative democracy.

It's almost like...

[AgentFade2Black]

...having a measure to reduce income tax pass, then the legislature raising it back to normal the next day.

True story. Happened in the "wonderful" state of Massachusetts.

Re:It's almost like...

[hairyfeet]

Hey, you ain't telling me nothing new. here in AR We, The People, have voted like 4 times for a damned lotto. And so far the bible thumpers have found some legal BS way to weasel out of listening to us 3 times. This past election yet again we voted for a lotto, this time by nearly 3 to 1. The profits will ensure that all the children of AR can have a free college education if they keep up their grades.

So now I am just waiting on those God Damned bible thumpers to find yet ANOTHER way of screwing us out of what we voted for. You know, it really is a shame we can't have a "thump a bible thumper" day, as that would be something I would look forward to like Xmas and 4th of July all wrapped together.

Re:It's almost like...

[Anonymous Coward]

here in AR

Did you find a way to do way instain mothers?

Re:It's almost like...

[rossz]

And yet the same idiots keep getting re-elected.

Who's fault is that?

Re:It's almost like...

[AgentFade2Black]

Not mine.

I ain't old enough to vote yet. :)

Here in New Zealand too

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got Section 92a of the copyright act being voted for in February here. It's all prepared and last time they voted this way

* New Zealand Labour 49
* New Zealand National 48v * New Zealand First 7
* ACT New Zealand 2
* United Future 2
* Progressive 1
* Independent 2 (Field, Copeland)

Noes 10
* Green Party 6
* Mori Party 4

There's no good reason to think New Zealand won't have this by the end of February.

Re:Here in New Zealand too

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect a flight Australia is cheaper than paying for everything I download.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with all these copyright if little countries like NZ weren't overcharged and way latter than everyone else. For example, Desperate Housewives is mid season in the US, but we won't get it until late January, and then when I want to buy it off of iTunes (when they add the feature here), I'll still have to wait until it airs on NZ TV. Or, I can torrent it the day it airs in the US, costing me only the high bandwidth internet plan.

Re:Here in New Zealand too

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, sorry about the formatting. That was 111 votes for the three strikes law in New Zealand and only 10 against. We're so fucked :(

Sarkozy = French Version of Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder I've seen so many French people describe Sarkozy as a French version of President Bush. I remember many people protested his election, too, saying he was only elected due to playing off of people's prejudice.

Re:Sarkozy = French Version of Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

And the last time Bush did something without the legislature voting for it was when?

Re:Sarkozy = French Version of Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Executive order * fill it in, come on, any number or word combination will be good!

Re:Sarkozy = French Version of Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the answer to the question here is actually... today was the last time, so far.

See this page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

What would prevent the French people ...

[pwilli]

... from dragging this issue to the European Court of Justice and therefore forcing a definite decision? The support for striking down any such restrictions on internet access for copyright infringements seems to be broadly available.

Who else saw the headline ...

[Samschnooks]

and got "excited"?

Hmmm?

"French" and "Three" and, ooohhh , "Strikes"... in the same sentence? I mean ... come on!

Never mind. I need to be alone with my computer now.

The French

[theredshoes]

Well here is my opinion about the three strikes law. France is very steeped in taking their time, they take long lunches and dinners, have more conversations in person over dinner I bet than in an online forum. Repeated illegal file sharing is not a good thing IMHO. I guess they are just trying to weed out the people online that keep it up after being warned. Maybe their thought process is, well people spend a lot of time online, why not treat it in the same way that you would in a real life situation. Also, the French are not enforcers, their dogs poop everywhere, they don't have dog parks like we do, and people smoke everywhere there, even if it is prohibited, and not too much happens. The three strikes deal sounds like a panacea or a band aid to me.

Re:The French

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Time for another line from yes minister (about a compulsory European ID card): "The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it and the Italians will be too disorganised to implement it; it's only the British who will resent it"

While 'Let the French do what the Fench think is good for France' is a good sentiment, the way it works is that the EU presidency rotates around every 6 months, and during those 6 months, whichever country hold the presidency has a completely free hand to try and force the craziest nonsense from their law books onto the rest of Europe.
The UK forced 2 years retention of electronic communications particulars through, for instance. (Which I suspect that they did because they wouldn't have got enough support for the measure at home)

Re:The French

[theredshoes]

But what about the Americans? We think we are so superior and if you think about, our country hasn't had much to feel very superior about in about 10 years. No major accomplishments lately for the ol' US of A.... I honestly didn't know that about EU presidency. Thanks for the insight on their process. Also, Cowpat, this article seems like it was posted before, I don't remember though.

Re:The French

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

But what about the Americans? We think we are so superior and if you think about, our country hasn't had much to feel very superior about in about 10 years. No major accomplishments lately for the ol' US of A....
Hey we've been pissing the rest of the world off, that should count for something, and don't forget after Nov. 4th all americans have been absolved of their white liberal guilt, let's welcome the age of aquarius!

Re:The French

[plasmacutter]

Well here is my opinion about the three strikes law. France is very steeped in taking their time, they take long lunches and dinners, have more conversations in person over dinner I bet than in an online forum.

Repeated illegal file sharing is not a good thing IMHO. I guess they are just trying to weed out the people online that keep it up after being warned.

Maybe their thought process is, well people spend a lot of time online, why not treat it in the same way that you would in a real life situation.

Also, the French are not enforcers, their dogs poop everywhere, they don't have dog parks like we do, and people smoke everywhere there, even if it is prohibited, and not too much happens.

The three strikes deal sounds like a panacea or a band aid to me.

I see, so if somebody speeds they should be banned from all public roads (through ANY means, including taxies) and not be able to get to work?

The internet is not "TV-2.0", and most companies now require resume submission online.

To deny someone access to the internet through blacklisting is to deny them fundamental liberties, such as the liberty of obtaining a job.

And people like to call the US corrupt

[TOGSolid]

Between Britain's massive, rapid drive towards becoming a complete police state and things like this story illustrating just how easily a few hacks in a backroom can completely undermine a democratic vote, it almost makes the US look like a fairytale paradise in comparison. Not to say our country isn't going to shit as well, it's just taking longer.

Unsurprising

[hyades1]

They're Europeans. Do you think the agreement would have had so much support if it actually meant anything, or had real-world consequences? That's not how things work over there. Look what it's like trying to get them to do anything as NATO partners besides sit around and pull their peters.

Re:Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

And the above is not modded flamebait, because?

Nepotism at work

[Opportunist]

Why is Sarkozy so keen on draconian copyright laws and punishments for people breaking it? Could it be that his latest wife is a singer, composer and model?

I mean, most politicians are pretty self centered and don't give a rat's ass about their subjects, but I have rarely seen it used with such bluntness.

Re:Nepotism at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be because Sarkozy has been mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine for twenty years, a town that hosts SACEM, the biggest society of French artists? Not saying that they are intimate friends but proximity may help among people of power.

Why don't they want people copying music?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all about the music industry trying to disconnect people from the internet who copy music. What is their problem? Turn on the radio, there's some of their precious music playing. Turn on the TV, you can hear their music. Go into a shop, it's playing there too. They even have special shows on TV, just about commercial music. Even special TV channels about commercial music.

Record companies pay radio stations to play their songs so that people can hear it. They put a lot of effort into making video clips so that the song can get on TV so that people can hear it. Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV? Nope. Do they want you to hear their music? They say they do, and they act like they do.

But if you copy a song on the internet because you want to hear it, suddenly they are all screaming "Cut them off from the internet! We're going to sue those illegal downloaders who tried to hear our music! We'll sue them for thousands of dollars per song!" Why? Don't they want people to hear their music? Isn't that why they pay radio stations to play their songs? Isn't that why they make expensive video clips?

Why do they want to cut people off from the internet? Why aren't they saying "This is a great way to get people to listen to our music! And we don't even have to pay, unlike the radio and TV stations"? Why are they trying to kick people off the internet, sue them, bankrupt them, wreck their lives? But if you listen to a song on the radio, they're really happy about it. Listen to it on the internet, you're dead meat.

Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either. It costs them money. What's the real problem?

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[pipatron]

Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV?

They used to whine a lot, until they managed to get a lot of countries to put a sort of fee or tax on recordable media.

Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either

Sure they do. A lot. The TV or radio can't play a song without paying for it. Usually lots and lots of money. Normally you also have to pay to hear it, be it a radio/tv license or by listening to commercials.

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[theaveng]

>>>Don't they want people to hear their music? Isn't that why they pay radio stations to play their songs?

Your whole message is founded on an invalid idea. Record companies don't pay. The collect. Every time a song plays on the radio, or on a television, or on a DVD or VHS video, the record companies earn a few pennies. That may not sound like much but it adds-up to millions of dollars each year.

Their goal is to earn fees off the internet too, either through streaming music fees, or through direct ~$1 Itunes sales. If you're hearing their music for free, then the record companies consider that "lost fees" and that's why they are suing internet users to recoup their lost fees.

Now that you better understand how record companies think, you'll be better armed to fight them.

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[TehZorroness]

Why do people pay for television service just to view endless commercials?

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[redxxx]

Well, there used to be the whole Payola thing, but that isn't exactly legal. He could be getting today confused with the 1950s. It's an easy enough mistake to make, if you aren't paying overly close attention to current events.

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[the_womble]

Sure they do. A lot. The TV or radio can't play a song without paying for it. Usually lots and lots of money. Normally you also have to pay to hear it, be it a radio/tv license or by listening to commercials.

The payment often goes the other way.

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[Golddess]

Record companies pay radio stations to play their songs so that people can hear it

I don't know where you live, but over here in the USA, radio stations pay the record companies for the privilege of playing their music, even if they don't play any of their music!

And radio in shops? Yeah, they don't like those either. You can play it just loud enough so that you can hear it, but if it reaches your customers ears you gotta pay. And this is over the air FM radio, which as I pointed out above, was already paid for once by the radio station.

I'd link to sources, but I don't have time right now. But anyone who is a regular /. reader will know what I'm talking about, both situations have been on the front page previously.

Re:Why don't they want people copying music?

[Endo13]

Exactly. But in addition to that, a radio station has to pay a HUGE initial price on each song they want to play on the air, not including the royalties they pay each time they play it. A friend in the business once told me approximately how much that price is, but I don't recall the exact amount. As best as I can remember, it was into the thousands of dollars per album. So what the big labels do is make a deal with the radio station: play our special mix of "new hits" and we won't charge you the initial cost, just the royalties each time it gets played. And of course radio stations do it to save money. So the labels have gotten so used to dictating exactly what people are supposed to listen to, they go nuts when they can't have that same control over the internet to maximize revenue.

I was thinking the same thing...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

The EU is a great idfea but the execution is terrible.

You know, I was thinking the same thing about the united states political system... er, what is left of it, anyways.

Re:I was thinking the same thing...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

aw, c'mon. troll for truth? what is next, flamebait for my honest opinion?

Re:I was thinking the same thing...

[Smauler]

You were asking for that, to be honest. Wait a minute...

What is next, insightful for a flippant 1 line response?

European Council does not have legislative powers

[jrumney]

What was the European Council doing passing legislation? They are not supposed to have legislative powers, they get together a couple of times a year to propose policy direction for the Parliament and Commission to follow.

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[OrangeTide]

The French healthcare system is good, but it's certainly not the greatest system in the world. The US system has the benefit of it's not a system so much as a free market, enabling those with the cash to buy the most advanced healthcare in the world. If only everyone was rich, then the US system would be perfect. But I digress and cease this route because it seems very offtopic.

The French people fought hard and once the war was over pretty much murdered in cold blood anyone who cooperated with the Germany. I'm not sure if the French should feel pride or shame for what happened after the war, but it is what it is. France gets a bad rap for what went on in WWII, but one could just point to how long the Americans took before entering. But really, I would place most of the blame on Germany and more specifically the Nazis for starting the whole thing or at least keeping it going.

Also France is not socialist by any textbook definition of the term, nor it is communist. Those terms, when applied to EU members, are pure hyperbole as an attempt to show widely contrasting ideologies where the difference in actuality is relatively small.

Yurp

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah thanks, because as everyone knows, we all speak French here in Europe...

Re:Yurp

[Guignol]

No you miss the point
Most of us european don't speak french, but it's because we don't care or are too lazy to learn it or some combination of those reasons
This guy has been denied the joy/privilege of learning french because of google !!!
(he said 'blame google' not 'thank google' so I guess he takes it as something bad where, again, most of us european would be most thankful for it).
This is yet again google doing evil !!! (although it probably started with the best of intentions).
sad times, sad times
Also it would translate better as "Un changement en lequel nous pouvons croire"

Re:European Council does not have legislative powe

[Cochonou]

We are speaking here about the Council of the EU, which owns co-decision power along with the Parliament of the EU (with historically more power to the Council until the Lisbon treaty is ratified). There is a lesser known "European Council" which gives orientations, but it is not the subject of this article.

EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[theocrite]

A little note. From the article :

The European Council, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, removed the amendment before passing the Telecom package.

Well not exactly.
First of all, this is the Council of the European Union, not the European Council. Everybody confuses them (and also with the Council of Europe, with is not related with European Union. Someone even mixed up with the European Commission some comments above). Some people argue that people make things hard (like similar names hard to remember), so that it's harder to fight (you can't fight what you don't understand).

Also, the Council wasn't led by Sarkozy, but by Luc Chatel, secretary of State for Consumer affairs and Industry. But it's true that nobody in the French government would have the guts to make Sarkozy unhappy on purpose. They are totally devoted to him. So incidentally we can indeed say that Sarkozy led the Council even if he wasn't here.

Laquadrature published something more accurate : Citizen safeguards striked out in EU Council

This means that there's now nothing stopping France's controversial 'three strikes' law from going into effect. What hope is there for a 'parliament' where near-unanimous agreement can be completely undone so easily?"

Woa, kinda alarmist, don't you think ?

The text hasn't been adopted yet. You can fin a nice diagram describing where we are in the current procedure. The step described in this article is the point #4=>#9. The next step will be #11. But first, there will be a tripartite meeting (Council + MEPs + commission) and probably a #10 as commission and council doesn't agree.

So there will be a second reading by the EP. So please stop saying that UE is a dictatorship. There are a lot of things to notice before we can say that :

• As you can see on the diagram 1/ there will be a second reading by the EP 2/whatever happens then, after the second reading by the council, the act cannot be adopted without EP approval (steps #15, #28 and #30).
• At any moment, the commission can change the text (or withdraw it).
• Remember that the two legislative chambers are composed by MEPs (elected), and by ministers (witch are named, this is true, but you elected the guy who names them).
• As a French, I can say that it's way much easier/friendlier to reach MEP, than member of my own national parliament. I can argue with them (and by them, in most case, I mean their assisants), I can know what they do, what they vote etc. For example : if I want to know who voted for 138, then I just wget the pdf from the EP webside, and I can see a list of names page 43 : http://quadrature.theocrite.org/results_of_roll_call_votes_20080924.pdf . This allows people to script the results and make it more user friendly, like this : http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_package_directives_1st_reading_details_by_score . Pretty transparent for a dictatorship, isn't it ?

Again, nobody says that EU is perfect. Of course it isn't. But saying that "The EU is a great idea but the execution is terrible.", or other thing I read in the comments, seems disproportionated to me. It's probably due to the fact that the article was mis

Re:EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[SomeKDEUser]

I wish I had mod points...

One of the larger problems with the EU is that in general, it is a better, more transparent government than the national ones. It panders very little to special groups, and does almost non of the politics meant to please people instead of doing the right thing.

Because the national governments are so opaque, the people can maintain the illusion that their is democratic. And in general, when something bad comes from the EU, you can trace it to some local political squabble...

Re:EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[Wheely]

It is really refreshing to read a post about the EU from someone who seems to know something about it.

Discussions about the EU tend to be full of hysterical nonsense with no facts. Your post is an exception.

By the way, the only part of your post that made me realise you are not a native English speaker was the apology at the end.

Re:EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[Cochonou]

It will be stronger and totally focused on the 3-strike approach and the french law (HADOPI) with is being examined by the French Parliament and Senate.

Wouldn't such a focus weaken the 88% agreement of the European Parliament ? The amendment was previously written in general terms, which seemed like a good idea in order to make it relevant to the whole European Union. I fear that if it becomes too obvious that some MEP are fighting at the European Parliament level a national battle, the support might vanish.

Re:EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[jamesmcm]

Reminds me of a line from The Life Of Brian:

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

Re:EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[Kjella]

This means that there's now nothing stopping France's controversial 'three strikes' law from going into effect. What hope is there for a 'parliament' where near-unanimous agreement can be completely undone so easily?"

Woa, kinda alarmist, don't you think ?

From what I've understood, the "three strikes" law is a French law that has been / is getting passed into law. The EU directive would prevent it, but if the EU drops the amendment, is lost in some endless deliberations or in fact reaches no final decision at all then there is nothing stopping it. And yes, the last sentence is a bit alarmist but I don't know when almost 90% of the politicans agreed on something that's good for the people...

Re:EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ?

[master_p]

Thank you for the enlightening post.

What is terrifying, at least for me, is the amount of bureaucracy involved: for all these councils to exist, there are hundreds of thousands of people revolving around those councils...people that, in most cases, push papers around, and do nothing essentially productive.

I think that EU needs to be simplified (just like many other things :-)). There should be a EU government, much like the Federal Government in the USA. This government should be electable directly by the people.

It seems to me that the existence of so many 'councils' is deliberate...it allows those in power to handle affairs without the common people watching them. If a poll asking EU citizens about the structure of power in the EU went on, I highly doubt that more than 1% would reply that 'there are 3 councils', let alone one...

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[Cochonou]

A third time ? There have been more than two conflicts between German and French people. Have you forgotten about the 1870 war, which was also quite bloody ?

The parliament is GREAT

[Nicolas MONNET]

They're mostly on the side of angels. Seriously. Maybe the fact that they don't have that much actual power forces them to act more responsibly. I don't know. But they usually side with the good guys.

Not a contradiction, that's what happens

[Nicolas MONNET]

The European Court of Human Rights (which is not an EU institution, but close enough) acts as a last measure in many cases, much like the SCOTUS but w/o Adolf, err Antonin Scalia. They forced many positive changes in our disturbingly creepy judicial practices.
In other matters the Commission forced the break up of the former telecom monopoly, which resulted in one of the highest broadband penetration in the world. They might next save us from the current oligopoly in the mobile phone network industry, which holds firmly in place because corrupt motherfucker Sarkozy is best buddies with many a stakeholder.

The EU Presidency

[Nicolas MONNET]

... is largely symbolic. It only gives more exposure, not more power, and no way it gives a "free hand." That's just nonsense.

We already had that reform

[orzetto]

The parliament also needs reform, greater visibilty and greater accountability.

A few years back we seemed to be headed towards a European constitution. The text was horribly formatted, there was no declaration of values as in most constitutions, it was so long no one could reasonably expected to read all that, and there was endless bitching from the Catholic church and their lackeys about inserting a paragraph about the continent's Christian roots, conveniently forgetting that modern democracy in Europe is mostly due to anti-clericals and that the Church has opposed pretty much any progress in civil rights (yesterday's news: they support killing gays in Iran and other religious cesspits).

However, that constitution was still better than nothing. Among other things, it finally gave power to the EU parliament, but who shot down the constitution? The French, in a national referendum. So, if anything, they are getting what they asked for—continued unaccountability of Brussels bureaucrats.

Re:We already had that reform

[Znork]

However, that constitution was still better than nothing.

As it also lowers the threshold for most council votes I'm not so sure. It could end up actually being worse than nothing.

The parliament should be strengthened, without a doubt, but while I'm generally pro-EU, the suggested constitution is flawed, and the way it's getting rammed down the unions throat anyway is deeply undemocratic.

Barroso's comment about 'the people who matter in the UK' is fairly indicative of the mindset currently in power in the EU. I wonder if anything but an outright refusal by the parliament to pass anything at all will have a chance to reinstate a democratic mindset in the EU core.

Re:We already had that reform

[Hognoxious]

Due to the huge profit they make out of the CAP, France will never do anything to upset the status quo.

Re:We already had that reform

[Thiez]

> However, that constitution was still better than nothing.

I'd rather we give them 5 more years to come up with a proper 'constitution' than accept that piece of crap. I'm Dutch and we Dutchies said 'No' to that treaty. Our 'democratic' government has since decided that, should our country try to ratify the 'constitution' again, there will be no need for a referedum. Assholes.

I never thought I would write this

[Kupfernigk]

But here it is: the parent post is unfair to President Bush. To misquote Obelix apropros the last French presidential election, "ils sont fous ces francais".

Fun ahead

[migloo]

Good news actually.
The french love to break the law.
I am french.
I have a dozen weakly WEP-protected WiFi equipped neighbours within range (wepcrackable within 10 minutes average).
It will be a lot of fun to download plenty of stuff through their connections and have *them* punished.

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[rve]

The French started it with their ethnic cleansing campaign against German people in the late 17th century (google for 'Burn the Palatinate')

Or you could say it started with the 30 years war, which killed about a fifth to a quarter of the German population. Before 1870, France was the big bully superpower that always threatened to beat people up.

The refusal of EU Parliament

[Anonymous Coward]

That was because the rights and powers that were to be given to the European Union parliament AND the commission AND the Council were draconian and unwarranted for its purpose.

I had no problem with the EU Parliament but the demands being made were atrocious.

So I would have voted no.

NOTE: Ireland ALSO voted no.

Re:The refusal of EU Parliament

[Teun]

NOTE: Ireland ALSO voted no.

And feels mislead and regrets it.

Back to the middle ages

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America... Oh, wait... dam

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[Hognoxious]

and once the war was over pretty much murdered in cold blood anyone who cooperated with the Germany.

It doesn't exactly require great courage to settle a few scores after the Anglo-Saxons have chased the boches away.

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[dargaud]

The French started it with their ethnic cleansing campaign against German people in the late 17th century (google for 'Burn the Palatinate')

It's not a good sign when the 5th such link points back to your own post ! (damn Google is fast nowadays). Disgusting excesses of war, certainly. Relevant ? Who knows. Anyway, I didn't know about it.

Or you could say it started with the 30 years war, which killed about a fifth to a quarter of the German population. Before 1870, France was the big bully superpower that always threatened to beat people up.

I agree with you on the last point, but how is France to blame for the first one ? Sure, Richelieu took opportunities during that dark period, but the blame falls first on stupid and greedy religions, and also on the little known facts that 1/3 of the german population at the time were nobles (it was hereditary to _all_ offsprings) and that nobility didn't pay taxes... If you think that Bush's tax cuts for the rich was back, take a look at Germany during the 30 years war.

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[icebraining]

In a country with "public health care" people with money can also have the finest medical assistance. There are private medics and no one stops you from going to a private hospital/clinic instead of the public service. Those countries only ask you (well, makes you :P) contribute maintaining a public system to those who can't afford such clinics.

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[Da Fokka]

That's not entirely true. In many countries with public healthcare you're only allowed to pay for better quality to a small extent or not at all. In the Netherlands you can't pay to receive treatment earlier.

How to reform the Council from the grass roots

[ajb44]

Demand that your countries council representative be directly elected. This exactly how the US Senate became democratic early last century: Campaigns in Oregon and Nevada forced those states to elect their Senators, and once they had, the rest had eventually to follow suit.

Once a large EU member or a few small ones do this, the same will happen in the EU.

Another reason why this is the best way to reform the EU is that doing it this way does not threaten further integration: the representative would be a creature of national law, not EU law. A 'Top down' reform like the proposed constitution is always difficult because raises the spectre of further integration, but this would not require a change to the treaties.

Re:How to reform the Council from the grass roots

[SwedishPenguin]

The council consists of heads of state, so changing the way members are elected would have to change the way heads of states are elected. This varies from country to country, but I believe the most common case is that the prime minister represents the country, and the prime minister is elected by parliament.
I say scrap the council, or at least severely limit its role to purely executive. It should have no legislative powers.

Re:How to reform the Council from the grass roots

[ajb44]

No, this is a common mistake.

There are two councils, one ('the European Council' consisting of the heads of state, which meets rarely. The other, the 'Council of the EU' consisting of representatives of the national governments 'with ministerial authority', is in session for long periods and is part of the EU legislature. This is who we are discussing; they modified this legislation. I believe they should be directly elected. This does not require changing anything to do with how the heads of state are elected.

Please spare us the rehash of tired rhetoric

[PinkyDead]

No, the commission is not elected they are appointed, and here's some more bad news, on the same basis neither are the cabinets of the majority of the governments of the European nations elected.

Democracies hold elections, the send representatives to parliaments, they elect a group to govern and then they appoint a cabinet. There's that word again - cabinets are appointed and EU commissioners are appointed both by the governments they represent. You trying to suggest that the commission just walked in off the street and were given the job because the security guard like the cut of their jib is typically disingenuous in the grand traditions of euroskepticism.

And then you complain that the commission must act apolitically. Exactly the way ministers of state are supposed to act - in best interest of the country, not their constituencies. What would happen if Gordon Brown decided not to act on the current financial crisis because some landlord in Scotland wanted people to lose their houses? Madness!

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[theaveng]

Which is why many come to the U.S. Also we have socialized government schooling in the U.S., and in theory people can go to private schools to earn a better education, but because of the high School tax, there's no money left for the private option.

There are many middle class parents who would love to send their kids to a private school, but after Uncle Sam has collected his school tax, there's nothing less to pay the private tuition.* The same flaw exists with a government healthcare system.

*(IMHO people who go to private school should be exempted from paying the school tax for that year.)

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[OrangeTide]

There has been a push to create a system of school vouchers. Where the government takes the money allocated for your child's education and gives it to the private school instead of the public school. This is more fair because generally schools are paid through property tax because it is one of the easier taxes for a county to collect. Everyone who lives there gets to pay the tax, based on the value of their property. Rich people pay more, poor people pay less. And under the voucher system, everyone would get the same amount out of the system no matter what they put into it. It might sound like an unfair socialized system, but I think there is value to the wealthy to have the poor educated. People without children have to pay for the schools, I just think of it as the price I have to pay to live in a place where people get at least a basic education.

Personally I think children who are above average and below average would fair far better at a private school. And sending them to a private school would improve the the quality of education at public schools because (hopefully) they could begin to teach groups of kids who are operating at the same level instead of thrashing about like they do now. There are so many things that public schools try to do at once, that they now seem to be mediocre at everything.

Copyright is a european invention

[cpghost]

Coming to think of it, copyright (or more precisely copydeny) was a european idea in the first place. It's just funny that while attributed as having originated in the U.K., it's the French right now who act as its most rabid supporters (at least sarkoficcially).

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[rve]

Relevant ? Who knows. Anyway, I didn't know about it.

Your past military escapades have been a major factor in establishing the widespread, deep antipathy towards France felt in most European countries.

baseball

[C0R1D4N]

Wasn't aware that baseball was so influential in France that they write laws based on its rules. I thought that was something we only did here.

rules but no rules

[Anonymous Coward]

when was the last time france and germany had their books signed off by the commission?

Re:After the Germans invade a third time

[DiamondMX]

In your humble opinion, those people with money to spare should be taxed less.
Yeah, fuck that.
Those with money to spare should be contributing more to society to bring those with less into line with 'a reasonable standard of living' which all human beings deserve.