Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French "Three Strikes" Law Gets New Life

Posted by kdawson on from the batter-batter-batter dept.

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?"

10 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. None, not without massive reform by Nursie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:None, not without massive reform by M1rth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?)

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    2. Re:None, not without massive reform by amorsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  2. No standing anyway by l2718 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    \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}

    1. Re:No standing anyway by marnues · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:No standing anyway by eiapoce · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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

  3. Here in New Zealand too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    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.

  4. Sarkozy = French Version of Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  5. The parliament is GREAT by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  6. How to reform the Council from the grass roots by ajb44 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.