Swedish Pirate Party Member To Be EU's Youngest MP

First time accepted submitter genjix writes "In a few weeks Amelia Andersdotter will be the second Pirate Party member to take a seat at the European Parliament in Brussels. The 24-year-old Swede was voted in more than two years ago, but due to bureaucratic quibbles her official appointment was delayed. TorrentFreak catches up with the soon-to-be youngest MEP to hear about her plans and expectations."

Comments

Wow - nice pirot

[Chrisq]

I wouldn't mind raising the jolly rodger up her!

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice... is there any way to post an image of a woman without it getting the sexual treatment?

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[TheReaperD]

Not on the internet...

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Chrisq]

Not on the internet...

and certainly not on slashdot

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[inasity_rules]

Not on slashdot apparently. We could look at what she's saying and why, and be objective, but that would involve RTFA... Which is actually an interesting read.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Chrisq]

forgive my spelling of pirate - its hard to type with just your left hand while your mind's on something else

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. But we're not talking about Angela Merkel here...

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Applicable xkcd - 322.

Effectively, guys on the internet are arses.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

google image her, you might change your mind after you see a few more pics of her hair.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[MichaelSmith]

You need to quit while you are ahead Julien.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

hell yeah, from google images she looks like a junkie - not hot at all

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent funny? Maybe. But definitely insightful or informative.

I wouldn't want to get attention that is about my sex/gender. Especially not while being seen as a minority in the particular setting/context/culture and especially with the attention being of a sexual nature (whether it would be about me being fine or ugly).

I think the site geek feminism might probably have lots of great resources about being a woman on the internet and/or in geek culture. Too lazy to find a specific article about that, but from the 101, one can probably get an idea of what they're about...

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Feminism_101

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Hazel Bergeron]

Male geekiness is a sexual characteristic.

Male aggression is a sexual characteristic. /. exists because the male mind[tm] has certain characteristics which can be appealed to.

Another male sexual characteristic is to notice the physical features of women.

It's easy to take selective offence, especially when political correctness is so good at it. But while repressing antisocial acts may be good for society, repressing thoughts which make you uncomfortable will get you nowhere.

After all, it would be a liar who didn't notice the appearance of a politician, and a lying politician who said he did not consider his own appearance.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[migla]

Aye!

Then, in case one needs to know about male geeks being rude (maybe without wanting to, actually), read this:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/22786_To_My_Someday_Daughter.html

That's a pretty long read, though. Maybe just watch "How to not be a Dick", by Matthew Garreth at Lugradio live 2008:

http://blip.tv/flamekebab/lrluk-2008-the-gong-a-thong-lightbulb-talk-extravaganza-matthew-garrett-1109597

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[inasity_rules]

In this case it looks very deliberate.

While the photo appears quite flattering for the her, it is possible to be appreciative of a woman's looks without being a dick. It is possible to be assertive and male and geeky without being a dick too. But OP seems quite genuine in his dickishness.

More important here, is what she is saying, and what that may in time mean for policy in Europe. It is a small start, but a start never-the-less. And it certainly needs refining, but that will come.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Applicable xkcd - 322.

Effectively, some guys on the internet are arses.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Applicable xkcd - 322.

Effectively, guys on the internet are arses.

I think that it's safe to say that most people on /. are guys. So far one of them have been an arse. Then isn't that a little neglecting to say, really?

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed. Her Wikipedia photo isn't good either. You'd need some serious beer googles to hit that.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[GameboyRMH]

I'm fine with any of those haircuts except the cyberpunk butch cut and the mullet.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently so, because frankly she's not even that good looking.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[CmdrPony]

Yeah, wtf. Short hair is a total killer and looks like she can't smile. Oh well, maybe that's why I like Asian girls. They're always smiling and happy, not like these western emo girls.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[CmdrPony]

To elaborate, just see these images from google

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TXAliqLA3jY/Sv1XHwjdQlI/AAAAAAAAJ-A/GMZgMmrEWcs/s400/1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QqrrwHaKw_s/Sv6vy9SeDsI/AAAAAAAAAQA/jj4Hq8_nXOs/s320/amelia+andersdotter.bmp

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt she'd be into an awful bigot such as yourself.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Choose a woman who isn't hot.

Re:Wow - nice pirot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always amusing to see a repressed homosexual trying too hard.

Only 24?

[smi.james.th]

24 years old is very young to be in any parliament... That's how old I am!

I wish her luck. Hopefully the concept can spread around the world, the current copyright situation is quite crazy as it stands.

Re:Only 24?

[TheReaperD]

That's how old I am!

Get off my lawn, you damn kids!

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of European countries have very young MPs in national parliaments. The Minister of Taxes in Denmark is 26. The youngest MP in Denmark is 20.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has younger (19!); thanks to Quebec's recent purge of the Liberals/PQ, several "no hope of being voted in at all" candidates from the NDP got in.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of European countries have very young MPs in national parliaments. The Minister of Taxes in Denmark is 26. The youngest MP in Denmark is 20.

Of course they have to be that young. The Minister of taxes is a socialist, and socialist are naturally very young, because most people smarten up when they get older*

* Though to admit, the youngest MP in Denmark is high-school girl from the far right.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they just get richer.

Re:Only 24?

[arglebargle_xiv]

Lots of European countries have very young MPs in national parliaments. The Minister of Taxes in Denmark is 26. The youngest MP in Denmark is 20.

Pitt the Even Younger has those guys beat by more than a decade. Mind you he didn't actually win the Dunny-on-the-Wold byelection, so technically he never ended up as an MP...

Re:Only 24?

[inasity_rules]

Yes, but that is because the voter accidentally brutally cut his own head off while coming his hair... Or was that election official? I forget.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pitt the Glint in the Milkman's Eye?

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

Yeah, people who never had a real job or a had to pay real taxes. That's why Europe is all screwed up - you can't have kids running the show either, they'll just vote for more toys and less work every time, they don't care where the stuff comes from.

Daddy, would you buy me that thing?
No, I don't have enough money.
Daddy, why don't you buy more money and buy me that toy?

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has younger (19!); thanks to Quebec's recent purge of the Liberals/PQ, several "no hope of being voted in at all" candidates from the NDP got in.

Was that due to the Catholic church's control of the elderly vote, or some other non-political group exercising political will?

Re:Only 24?

[am 2k]

Yeah, people who never had a real job or a had to pay real taxes.

I'd guess that this is true for the rich people running the US political system as well.

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

In too many instances it's true. What's worse is that many of the professional politicians go into politics and are not necessarily rich, but they become rich while in the government.

Gingrich, Pelosi, Boehner, etc., too many of them become rich basically by setting up some special deals for people/companies who then make them rich. Making millions while working for the government, and not because they are paid anything like that, but because they are paid off like that.

Re:Only 24?

[Xest]

So in other words your previous pop at the young actually has nothing to do with age and older people can be just as greedy if not more so than younger people?

Really, the world financial state is in such a mess because of the baby boom generation, they wanted everything but didn't think money should ever be an obstacle. I think claiming the young would spend what isn't there is a bit rich in this context, particularly as they're the ones who really will now have to spend the rest of their lives paying for the older baby boomers spending spree.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, people who never had a real job or a had to pay real taxes. That's why Europe is all screwed up - you can't have kids running the show either, they'll just vote for more toys and less work every time, they don't care where the stuff comes from.

Half right, half wrong. europe may have a handful of 'kids' in the governments, but most of people running the show has grey hair. Those kids are a minority.

But you are right about people who never had a real job or paid real taxes. Often enough, government official don't pay taxes. That obviously makes it easier for them to increase taxes or complicate them further. And there are plenty of 'career politicans' who never had a real job. They were involved in 'student politics' when they went to university, and went straight into their party after graduating. Never worked, and has a lot of strange ideas about life and work that never gets corrected. there was this woman who visited a factory, and found it 'interesting'. She was used to thinking of private companies as 'the enemy'. But the workers apparently wanted the company to succeed - not only the owners . . .

Europe is screwed due to mismanagement. Banks (and governments) in one country giving loans to other governemnts. Never a good idea, especially not when the loans are big and they don't check properly how money is spent. Cultures is very different among countries, and the lenders have assumed that the loaners would use the money in roughly the same responsible ways as they would do themselves. A bad assumption. Over many years, money was spent on projects that buy votes, but don't make the economy grow. Such as low pension ages. Without growth, paying back becomes difficult. Because they still have the problems that they lent money to 'postpone', but now they have debt on top of that. And then an interesting fact: a bank cannot really force a foreign government to pay.

Re:Only 24?

[Vintermann]

If anything, young people should be privileged by the system. They have to live with the consequences of its collective decisions for longer, after all. Giving all power to a couple of old rich farts who will soon be dead anyway is a recipe for disaster - that's why the US is all screwed up and screwing up the world.

Re:Only 24?

[GameboyRMH]

Some 70+ year old politicians act like immature teenagers so age doesn't worry me in the least.

Re:Only 24?

[arglebargle_xiv]

Yes, but that is because the voter accidentally brutally cut his own head off while coming his hair... Or was that election official? I forget.

You're thinking of Alan Beresford B'Stard, the Minister of Administrative Affairs.

Re:Only 24?

[inasity_rules]

No, it was the voter. Look around 4:30 or so...

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

No, it was a jab at the young. Of-course it was. Young people don't have understanding of issues.

Older people also may not have understanding of issues, but the older people had the opportunity to learn, to gain some wisdom, to have experience, to learn from history and from their own lives.

Of-course professionals politicians are mostly useless, young or old. A big difference may be that the young may act upon their naivete and ignorance while the old may act upon pure self interest.

I don't trust the young or the old much, but I know that the young are pretty much ignorant and with the old it's a toss up.

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

No, young shouldn't be privileged by the system (and they can't be, because it's the old who run it, and they won't give privileges to somebody who is not themselves, that's just a fact.)

But you are correct on something - the entire idea of 'social contract' is completely screwed up. There is no such thing. The past generations voted in some assholes who put the country into a perpetual debt position by signing up for various pyramid schemes, so called 'social contracts'. Well, the young didn't sign any contracts. They shouldn't be forced to pay for those failing schemes.

Re:Only 24?

[Xest]

That's just complete tosh.

There are plenty more astute, smarter, young people in just about every country than there are stupid older people in that country's government so the idea that young people would make inherently worse politicians is absolute crap.

Worse, it is a lack of age spread in most countries governments that have led to the fact that many nations are enacting laws surrounding the internet that simply make no sense, because the politicians in question have no grasp of it, whilst many younger people would understand and could hence legislate on the issue in a far superior manner.

Sure the young may not have such a grasp of issues like pensions but that's why you need a mix of old and young.

If you genuinely believe the young can never have anything to offer as elected political representatives then I think that's more a sad reflection of your own ignorance and lack of worthfulness to the world of politics than an illustration of the real world.

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

That's just complete tosh.

- oh? Because the young are so much more knowledgeable and have so much more experience than somebody who is say twice their age.

If you genuinely believe the young can never have anything to offer as elected political representatives then I think that's more a sad reflection of your own ignorance and lack of worthfulness to the world of politics than an illustration of the real world.

- oh? I didn't say they have nothing to offer, but I would rather people in government who started/created their own businesses in the first place and don't go to government jobs to work there forever before working in private sector.

I think that's the worst part and it's obviously going to be a bigger problem with the younger people.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

- oh? I didn't say they have nothing to offer, but I would rather people in government who started/created their own businesses in the first place and don't go to government jobs to work there forever before working in private sector.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

People who first started their own businesses would be the ones who have an interest in selling government power (to themselves and their business friends)

I'd rather people who start businesses stay in their area of expertise (business). Why would you want to take a productive person away from producing?

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

I'd rather people who start businesses stay in their area of expertise (business). Why would you want to take a productive person away from producing?

- well, people who produce are the ones disproportionately hurt by the decisions made in politics, so obviously they should be seeking ways to minimize the damage.

You want people who never worked in private sector to be in government, I think people who never worked in private sectors shouldn't even be allowed to vote, never mind working in government.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

- well, people who produce are the ones disproportionately hurt by the decisions made in politics, so obviously they should be seeking ways to minimize the damage.

And those people going into government would only increase the damage, not minimize it.

You want people who never worked in private sector to be in government,

No, I want people who have experience serving people to be in government. The private sector isn't it, since the private sector is about serving its owners/shareholders.

I think people who never worked in private sectors shouldn't even be allowed to vote, never mind working in government.

So... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Marx would be proud

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

And those people going into government would only increase the damage, not minimize it.

- sure, if the government is allowed to give out favors then damage is going to happen, but giving out favors maximizes damage regardless of who gets the favors.

So the favors that were given out to the majority of the masses (employees), created huge imbalance in the system, where the government was able to grow beyond its authorized function.

The problem is of-course that the rule of law was no longer followed (adherence to the Constitution.)

The damage is further increased by any business interest that enters the government and is able to increase its own profit by using government privileges.

The real solution of-course is to return to the rule of law and stop allowing the government to do what it is not authorized to do in the first place.

This would get rid of all this militarism, various government contracts, but also SS, Medicare/aid, all federal departments, the Fed, etc.

No, I want people who have experience serving people to be in government. The private sector isn't it, since the private sector is about serving its owners/shareholders.

- the private sector is all about serving people. The private sector without the government privilege of-course is all about serving the people.

The conglomerate of private/public interest creates ability for some large monopolies that government creates just to exist to extract money, not to serve anybody. The problem is already described earlier.

So... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Marx would be proud

- ? Interesting nonsense.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

- sure, if the government is allowed to give out favors then damage is going to happen, but giving out favors maximizes damage regardless of who gets the favors.

Since damage happens regardless of who gets favors, then that's more reason to keep the private sector people away from government. At least this means business people remain in conducting productive business instead of destructive government behavior.

Even if government is perfectly incorruptible and won't give out any favors, it is still better to keep private sector out of government, since every private sector person getting into government is one less person who would otherwise be creating new productive business.

The real solution of-course is to return to the rule of law and stop allowing the government to do what it is not authorized to do in the first place.

And putting private sector people into government only gets you further away from that solution. Private sector people who get into government have nothing to gain by returning to the rule of law (since they won't be able to to give themselves/their friends favors anymore). So most of them won't be in favor of fixing it.

- the private sector is all about serving people. The private sector without the government privilege of-course is all about serving the people

No, private sector is all about serving its owners/shareholders, regardless of government. Private sector is referring to for profit organizations, not charities. For whom is the "for profit" for? It ain't the people.

- ? Interesting nonsense.

You said you think people who did not work in private sector should not even be allowed to vote. In other words, you are deeming that voting is not something those people need. Thus, "to each according to their need" in the line.

Re:Only 24?

[roman_mir]

At least this means business people remain in conducting productive business instead of destructive government behavior.

- AFAIC the government in its current form is involved in destructive behavior, anybody trying to get a piece of it for themselves, well, two wrongs don't make a right, but I understand the sentiment.

And putting private sector people into government only gets you further away from that solution. Private sector people who get into government have nothing to gain by returning to the rule of law

- so I don't understand, are you proposing that people who are good at what they do outside of government shouldn't be allowed to try and get into government?

That's pretty unconstitutional. Anybody, who is within the limits of the constitution in terms of age / citizenship / residency requirements, and who can get on a ballot list can run for whatever office. Are you proposing some form of discrimination, so that people who are good at building businesses will be denied seeking public office?

That's interesting. Why don't you also propose that only people on welfare are allowed to be in government, would do wonders for the liberties and economy, etc.... wait, no it won't. Won't do anything good for liberties, won't do anything good for the economy.

No, private sector is all about serving its owners/shareholders, regardless of government.

- no, government is very important in what private businesses end up doing.

While you are correct, that the primary function of a business is to make money, you are wrong. Government meddling distorts the means, by which the money is made.

In normal markets that are non-distorted by government regulations and meddling, the money is made by serving people.

You said you think people who did not work in private sector should not even be allowed to vote. In other words, you are deeming that voting is not something those people need.

- weird and wrong logic. I don't see any connection, but clearly you do.

People who never worked in private sector shouldn't be allowed to vote, yes, that's because voting affects business and economy and people's liberties to property, pursuit of happiness, etc.

People who are on one side of the government policies (the receiving end), shouldn't be in a position to use government force to increase the burden upon those, who actually create the economy in the first place.

Re:Only 24?

[tehcyder]

That's why Europe is all screwed up

What is screwing Europe up is the abandonment of even moderately socialist principles, and the growing power of right wing American wannabes.

Re:Only 24?

[tehcyder]

I think people who never worked in private sectors shouldn't even be allowed to vote,

Fuck it, why not just say "no one who doesn't have a net worth of at least ten million and annual income of a million should be allowed to vote". Probably best if they're white, male and own slaves too.

Re:Only 24?

[tehcyder]

the entire idea of 'social contract' is completely screwed up. There is no such thing.

Yes there is, or you don't have civilization.

Re:Only 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

- AFAIC the government in its current form is involved in destructive behavior, anybody trying to get a piece of it for themselves, well, two wrongs don't make a right, but I understand the sentiment.

And AFAIC the government got to its current form because too much influence from the private sector seeped into government.

- so I don't understand, are you proposing that people who are good at what they do outside of government shouldn't be allowed to try and get into government?

That is not my proposal at all. I'm saying (I think) they should stay in the private sector. I never said they shouldn't be "allowed" to run for office.

Saying I think they are better off elsewhere does not equate to me saying I want to revoke their constitutional right (not "allowed") to run for office.

- weird and wrong logic. I don't see any connection, but clearly you do.

No, it's right and sensible logic. You said they "shouldn't even be allowed" to vote.

I'll throw your own words back at you: anybody, who is within the limits of the constitution in terms of age / citizenship / residency requirements, and who can get on a ballot list can run for whatever office. "Having worked in private sector" is not one of the requirements. You are the one being unconstitutional here.

- no, government is very important in what private businesses end up doing. ...
In normal markets that are non-distorted by government regulations and meddling, the money is made by serving people.

What private businesses "end up doing" is not the same as what businesses are "all about".

AFAIC, what a business is "all about" is what never changes, regardless of government distortion. A business is always trying to make money. Whether they do it by serving people or not are just means to an end.

People who never worked in private sector shouldn't be allowed to vote, yes, that's because voting affects business and economy and people's liberties to property, pursuit of happiness, etc.

Again, you're the one being unconstitutional here. "Having worked in private sector" is not required to be eligible to vote or enter politics.

People who are on one side of the government policies (the receiving end), shouldn't be in a position to use government force to increase the burden upon those, who actually create the economy in the first place.

That applies to everyone, not just people who never worked in the private sector. People who came from private sector should not be making policies where they themselves and their friends benefit (so say, insane patent/copyright laws that only benefit the publishers)

Re:Only 24?

[drsquare]

Yeah, people who never had a real job or a had to pay real taxes. That's why Europe is all screwed up - you can't have kids running the show either, they'll just vote for more toys and less work every time, they don't care where the stuff comes from.

Yeah this is obviously why Sweden is riddled with crime, poverty, inequality, ignorance, debt and decay. No wait that's America, run by senile old millionaires.

Naysayers say nay

[Rogerborg]

Quick precis for those who don't know: MEPs are essentially non-entities. All EU legislation is created by the Commission, made up of unelected political appointees from Member States. Since they don't know anything about the issues that they actually legislate, they farm out the task of actually writing laws to expert consultants - read, lobbyists.

After six or seven rounds of rubberstamping, the new Directive is put before the actual "Parliament", where MEPs can vote yea or nea, or just not show up in the hope that it will pass and they can plead ignorant neutrality. If they vote nea, it goes through the committee system a few more times so that some of the more deliberately egregious clauses can be elided. Honour satisfied, the Directive is duly passed in the form that the lobbyist really wanted, and Member States can begin the process of (mis)implementing it, or in the case of anyone South or East of Belgium, shrugging their shoulders and simply ignoring it.

And that's how democracy works.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[ShakaUVM]

After six or seven rounds of rubberstamping, the new Directive is put before the actual "Parliament", where MEPs can vote yea or nea, or just not show up in the hope that it will pass and they can plead ignorant neutrality. If they vote nea, it goes through the committee system a few more times so that some of the more deliberately egregious clauses can be elided. Honour satisfied, the Directive is duly passed in the form that the lobbyist really wanted, and Member States can begin the process of (mis)implementing it, or in the case of anyone South or East of Belgium, shrugging their shoulders and simply ignoring it.

And that's how democracy works.

Sounds like someone needs to make a new round of Schoolhouse Rocks videos.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Teun]

You are an uneducated idiot or troll, may be both.

Why would the commission need be made up out of elected members when you can get better people that are not necessarily political connected? See the present Italian government.
In many European countries the democratic process means the parliament gets elected and they appoint and control the government.
In case of the EU commission it is appointed by the democratically controlled governments of the member states and since fairly recent the EU parliament can approve or even veto policies as proposed by the commission.

Of course it would be better when the EU parliament had full democratic rights like introducing their own proposals or amendments but the UK and France have always and are still opposing to such an idea.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Hentes]

This is how in was in the past, but in the last few years the EP has managed to grab most of the power. Now the Commission is elected by them, making them the most powerful.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the commission need be made up out of elected members when you can get better people that are not necessarily political connected? See the present Italian government.

You mean the one in which the European Commission just turfed out the democratically elected Prime Minister and replaced him with a Goldman Sachs stooge? That Italian government? Following quick on the heals of rolling the leader of the Greek government (for the high crime of proposing to put the people's future to a vote by, you know, the people) and replacing him with another European central banker?

You're quite right, it's much easier this way. I don't know why we bother with democracy at all.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Hazel Bergeron]

Why would the commission need be made up out of elected members when

Mainland Europe has never really understood democracy, has it?

And once again Germany manages to create an undemocratic European super-state (well, "democratic" in the Soviet sense).

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

Mainland Europe has never really understood democracy, has it?

I know you're trolling, but you do know that the very word democracy originated in mainland Europe, right?

And once again Germany manages to create an undemocratic European super-state

How does Germany fit in with the current topic? Are you hoping that even mentioning Germany will get the same rise out of Europeans that the term socialist gets out of USians?

Re:Naysayers say nay

[silanea]

Why would the commission need be made up out of elected members when you can get better people that are not necessarily political connected?

I challenge you to name one single person in the commission who is not "politically connected". Just one. And that does not even touch the question of whether they are "better".

To those who modded Teun insightful: Please spend a few minutes on a search engine of your choice and see for yourself just how good the commission is.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Kjella]

It's not a secret that the commission has been ripe for lobbyists, particularly before the parliament got their veto right with the Lisbon treaty in 2009. But it really comes down to the EU being in a half-state between a trade alliance and a federation. Is it an alliance of nations or does it want a European parliament like Congress and a federal government, with federal law, federal taxes, and federal economic policy? Let me tell you there's a vast opposition to that, not just in the UK and France. Even though the EU is expanding to cover more and more areas, for the most part it has to work through the national governments. If there's a top level meeting on education, it's the 27 ministers of education not an EU Department of Education. Despite the talk of an EU military force, there are 27 national militaries. There are 27 ministers on foreign policy who each keep their own ties to other nations and so on. And that is also why the EU passes directives, while the 27 national assemblies passes laws.

I mean, yes they could do away with that and pretty much become the United States of Europe. One parliament that makes law directly from Brussels on their own. It'd be democratic, as the EU parliament is democratically chosen. Some say all the important things are already decided there, but there's a difference between keeping the appearance of national governance and openly admitting that the EU is running the whole show. That is why most directives have optional components, so the national governments can pretend to have a say even though all the essential parts are required. And I say this coming from Norway, a non-EU member that's passed every EU directive since 1994 and is now maybe considering veto'ing our first. And of all the crappy directives they could have picked they chose a poor one, but at this point I just want to know what happens if we don't just bend over and take it.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Asic Eng]

Hmmm. The parliament selecting the government is not a system which was developed in mainland Europe, I think. As far as I know it's derived from the British "crown in parliament" system. The electorate votes for the parliament, and all other functions of the state are derived from parliament.

In a presidential system like in the US or France you don't get to vote for the setup of all positions of government, either. Then the president gets to choose who is in charge of which department (though there can be parliamentary controls).

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

Tosh!
The Commission drafts the legislation, then depending the legal domain, it will follow a predefined route as specified in the (Lisbon) Treaty. Most legal domains use the Co-Decision process by which the Council (comprising all EU Members and chaired by the member holding the rotating presidency) will first address technical details (civil servant technical experts from the members), as the legislation matures it moves through the Council's committees until the Council and Parliament can negotiation directly. The Parliament has its own committee structure and most drafts of the legislation are publicly available from both the Council's secretariat and the Parliament. The rules of the process and the rights of the negotiation parties are all specified in the treaty. With the Lisbon treaty the MEPs have much more authority giving its members, directly elected by the European public, considerable poser. You can also view MEP voting histories and contributions to discussions on the Parliament's website. The Commission's main role is oversight thereafter.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[jonbryce]

It originated in the city state of Athens, which is now part of Greece.

Presumably you are not familiar with the recent developments in EU politics, but Germany is effectively controlling things by virtue of the fact that they are the only country with any money. The German Bundestag has to approve any addition money paid to the EU, so they can set the terms by which they are prepared to give it to them. There are for example rumours that the Irish government's draft budget was found in offices in the Bundestag before it was presented to their own TDs for consideration.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Nom the EU commission still has alot more clout then the EP parlament. The EU parlament is basically toothless with little power.

In the end the EU parlament, over 99% of the time, affirm the EU commissions directives. The EU parlament can get some minor changes in - but thats all.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[mmcuh]

"Considerable poser" - now that's Freudian...

Yes, formally the parliament can change and even reject directives, but we all know what happens in the end. Remember SWIFT?

Re:Naysayers say nay

[antientropic]

You mean the one in which the European Commission just turfed out the democratically elected Prime Minister and replaced him with a Goldman Sachs stooge? That Italian government? Following quick on the heals of rolling the leader of the Greek government (for the high crime of proposing to put the people's future to a vote by, you know, the people) and replacing him with another European central banker?

You're seriously misinformed or just trolling. The European Commission did no such thing - in fact, they have been relatively absent in the entire debt crisis. You could argue that Merkozy got rid of Papandreou and Berlusconi, but that's rather dubious as well: Papandreou did himself in by calling for a referendum (a stupid unilateral move that was rightly met with condemnation from the other EU states; should you organise a referendum when your house is on fire?) and then reversing course a few days later, while Berlusconi (finally!) lost his majority in parliament. Governments fall all the time - I don't see what's undemocratic here.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Teun]

Mainland Europe understands the democratic process quite well, contrary to the UK it was influenced by the French revolution.

In 1748 he French philosopher Charles Montesquieu published a book called De l'esprit des lois, in it he proposes the Trias Politica or checks and balances.
Ideally his form of democratic government consists of three independent factors, the legislature (parliament), the executive (the government or administration) and the justice system.
Many western European governments follow this system and these three powers all have their own functions, ultimately controlled by the elected parliament.

This separation of power is considered a very important aspect of proper democratic government.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[GauteL]

"There are for example rumours that the Irish government's draft budget was found in offices in the Bundestag before it was presented to their own TDs for consideration."

This may well be true, but if you are arguing based on rumour, you have already lost IMHO.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Pope]

The US Government was described as a "three ring circus," I think the EU would take more than 2 minutes to describe!

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you yourself don't know shit about the whole thing, but in a knee-jerk reaction of projection, you insult him as an uneducated idiot or troll?

Just because it seems unlikely to you or you don't understand why it would be that way? What, did you expect it to make sense??

He was perfectly correct! How he described it, is EXACTLY how it works.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[olau]

You're right about the trade alliance. In fact, it's my impression that EU is mostly about trade laws, consumer protection and giving money to support local development and cross-European research, although the euro necessarily has some requirements on the economies of the member states. With Greece it's obvious now why those requirements are necessary. And of course there's some foreign policy involved too since it makes sense to gang up when you're trying to strong-arm other countries.

But the EU doesn't really decide how much you pay in tax, what the vast majority of that bucketload of money goes to, etc.

I think the current system works quite well. Trade laws really do benefit from being international. It makes for a more efficient society. It's too bad that some of the more strict laws here in the Nordic countries (e.g. regarding food additives) get overturned by EU directives, and that still a so large part of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies. But give and take some. I think giving up national parliaments for the sake of a cleaner model is a nonsensical goal. When I look at the city council meetings in the local county, people just happen to be much more practical and realistic when they're talking about their back yard.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

Italy is about the worst example you could use for your argument, since it's basically been a media-controlled dictatorship for the last 17 years, during which Berlusconi personally appointed his mafia buddies, personal pimps and high society prostitutes in every possible government position. If anything it's incredible that we managed to get rid of him in a 100% democratical ways, because a LOT of people here were beginning to think it would take a guillotine. Getting rid of him without bloodshed is probably the biggest victory of Italian democracy ever. Who came next is an entirely different matter, but really the new government could not do as much harm as Berlusconi did no matter how hard they try.

If democracy ever failed in Italy it was back when it allowed Berlusconi to even run for elections while he owned had all of the country's TV channels that mattered and was already involved with criminals.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

as being an italian very far from being sad of the Berlusconi's resignation, I can tell your're not completely wrong but OTOH you're more wrong than right.

the ECB (Trichet, now Draghi) and the EU (the so-defined "Merkozy") actually sent a letter to Italy's MP Berlusconi last August and once again in October (sorry, this is the best matck reference I can find in english).

And it's very clear that Italy's republic president, Napolitano, appointed Monti (the current PM, Bildenberga andd Goldman Sacks among others) after intense talks with EU to keep ECB buy our debt to keep interest rates from making us bankrupt.

but yeah, after all no on e explicitly kicked Berlusconi out.. the MPs in his party left him in droves.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[gmhowell]

The US Government was described as a "three ring circus," I think the EU would take more than 2 minutes to describe!

But why does each ring have a bunch of clowns?

Re:Naysayers say nay

[tehcyder]

Papandreou did himself in by calling for a referendum (a stupid unilateral move that was rightly met with condemnation from the other EU states; should you organise a referendum when your house is on fire?)

Curiously, Greece is still there, their house hasn't burned down.

Re:Naysayers say nay

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they don't know anything about the issues that they actually legislate, they farm out the task of actually writing laws to expert consultants - read, lobbyists.

That should be a good thing, if it only was done right. It is a lot better to have parties that know something about something, even if they are biased, being involved in writing laws, then to have parties that don't know anything about the matter, and won't be able to learn in the time slot provided, write the laws.

Sweden have done this since the mid 18th century. The key to success is transparency and debate. When some legal proposal is sent out on "remissrunda" (the Swedish word "remiss" don't mean the same thing as the English word "remiss" and neither mean what the Latin word means (especially not the English word), the closest English translation I can make to "remiss-runda" is "referral-tour", or "referral-round", but it is a very inexact translation), everything is published, documents as well as verbal opinions, and highly formalised, it is made in three rounds, after each a public political debate is hold in the parliament commenting on the "remissvar" (the opinions and facts produced by the "remissinstanser" ("referral-parties" (another bad translation)). Any citizen can key in before each of these debates with a written opinion (which, of course, is publicised by the parliament). The final wording of the legislation is usually proposed by one of the organisations with an interest, but since they have to take in consideration opposite opinions from other organisations to make it stick, it is always quite neutral (at least so far) (and they don't want to write anything that make them so unpopular with the Swedish public that their activities is limited by it (like i.e. "Svenska antipiratbyrån" is finding it very hard to function any longer), since every Swede can read what they propose). Also, Sweden rewrite laws more often then most countries outside Scandinavia, the Swedish law making process is more similar to the process in agile software development, then to the law-making-process in most other countries. The laws are written as good as they can be with the time and information constrains that exist, but nobody expect them to be perfect, that's why it must be easy to refactor them.

The Swedish model doesn't work that well any longer, since usually these matters have also to be sent to the EU bureaucracy as part of the process. EU is a black box, where most things happens behind closed doors (sometimes even the written answers back from different EU instances is classified, which of course make them impossible to debate publically). The dark places of the EU organisation is systematically used by different shady organisations and individuals to avoid the traditional transparent process.

dirty slut

[Anonymous Coward]

i know pretty much all you people here are fucking FAGS (exceptions to the trolls and spammers) who prove how homo you are by running linux and using macs but id like to RAM MY FUCKING MASSIVE COCK down this dirty whore's throat.

this site is full of nigger loving faggots. why not join GNAA?

Yours truly,
TRoLL.

Savviness

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the first time I've read an article on copyright/patent/trademark law, consisting mostly of the words of a particular politician, and thought to myself: Hey, this person knows more than I do about the subject. Like, a lot more.

Re:Savviness

[Lennie]

I thought this was also really interresting to see from a European commissioner:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/copyright-isnt-working-says-european-commission-10024835/
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/20/0511214/copyright-isnt-working-says-eu-technology-chief-neelie-kroes

Re:Savviness

[brit74]

Really? Because I read the article and she hardly said anything at all about copyright/patent/trademark law. Most of her comments were about nationalism versus the EU.

The only two paragraphs about copyright/patent/trademark law are:
“I’m also very interested in industrial rights, like, patent rights or design rights, trademarks. There’s an abundance of kind of side-initiatives, data exclusivity in the pharmaceutical industry being a good example, that also reinforce the ‘non-material’ economic position of companies in a way that is not always good for society,” she says.
and
“When national parliaments have been saying that they can’t do anything about ACTA, activists and media just kind of happily accept. What national parliaments could do, and should do, is obviously tell their national governments not to sign the agreements. That is and would be within their power,” she adds.

To be honest, it sounds more like you want to heap-on praise for a PP member, because I really don't see how you reached that conclusion at all from this article. How you got voted up, I'll never know - unless, of course, the Slashdot moderators are just really interested in praising Pirate Party members as being brilliant (which wouldn't surprise me considering a lot of Slashdot member's opinions on piracy).

Re:Savviness

[kiwimate]

She does seem to have a fair amount of knowledge there, as you'd expect. I read up on the Pirate Party (WIkipedia, their site, etc.) and I can tell what they stand for in terms of copyright, piracy, etc.

So, next question for me is:

How's she going to handle the current economic crisis in Europe? Because that's a much bigger impact and far more urgent.

What about the terrorism crises going on that threaten various countries in the EU? What's her/the Pirate Party's position?

Energy platform? What do they think about the nuclear industry? What about wind/solar, and how that impacts the reliability of the grid?

Carbon emissions?

Corruption?

Actually, anything other than piracy, really. Because, you know, I'd hate to think that she, and the Pirate Party, and everyone who elected her, think that copyright reform is the only thing that matters and everything else in the entire EU (and their relationship with other political entities) is in the category of "yeah, I guess someone should do something about that. Someone else..."

Re:Savviness

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I didn't put too much thought into an offhand anonymous comment. (Didn't expect it to be modded up to +5: wow.) I still stand by it, though. In particular, from the paragraphs you quoted, I didn't previously know that data rights were handled in a special way in the pharmaceutical industry (and, just assuming here, if she can drop that as an example, she probably knows of other examples that I don't). Nor had I thought about the relationship between EU-level and national-level legislation on copyright law. Again, that's the sort of thing which I can learn in ten minutes on Wikipedia, but she's already learned about it, because she's doing her job. I haven't previously seen an article from a politician which made me think: "They've gone to more effort to learn about this issue than I have.".

Re:Savviness

[Andy_R]

On your first 6 questions, it's likely that she'll sit with the existing green block, and leverage voting with them on these issues to gain backing on key Pirate issues. On corruption, the Pirate Party movement was founded on 4 key issues, one of which is Government openness, so you can expect a her to expose a lot of what goes on behind closed doors at the EU.

I understand why you think we're all about copyright, as that's the issue where we get the vast majority of our press coverage, but we also have a lot to say on other core issues: patents; open government and monopoly abuse. It's a real struggle to get the media to pay attention to anything other than our copyright policy though.

There are more important issues right now

[Viol8]

And I'm sorry, while I may agree with some of what the pirate party stand for , the access or not of content on the internet is irrelevant compared to the ecomonic crisis affecting most of europe. This isn't the time or the place for grandstanding an insignificant issue such as this and while she may be very bright there is no way a 24 year old has enough life experience to deal with the issues that need resolving before europe collapses into an economic black hole.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[cbope]

Whether the "piracy" issue is irrelevant or not, just sitting by and letting your rights be taken away while you are distracted by a larger issue is NOT going to help us in the future. It's precisely at times like this that you need to be vigilant of things that are going on and not just the big issues.

While you were distracted, what is to stop a far-right corporate drone from passing some legislation that further restricts your rights as a citizen and gives more rights to corporations?

You might as well pretend to be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand...

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, two things:

One: When will be a good time? There's ALWAYS something "more important". If the euro crisis is resolved, then the issue will be immigration, if that's resolved it will be something else, etc. So IMO they should go ahead.

Two: From TFA, the Pirate Party has about 7% of the vote, which is hardly "grandstanding" the issue. Whether the issue is significant or not is another debate. I think it is. Perhaps not as urgent as the euro crisis, but important none the less.

The fact that she's young perhaps indicates that she shouldn't take charge, but if everything is done by the old people then once they retire / die / whatever, there'll be a big leadership gap, so it's essential that the younger generation is involved to maintain any sort of stability and continuity in the resolution of these issues.

My 2c.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, most of the available people with the relevant life experience accrued that experience during the long process of driving the Euro zone(among other locations, today's clusterfucks are so very cosmopolitan...) into said black hole...

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sorry, while I may agree with some of what the pirate party stand for , the access or not of content on the internet is irrelevant compared to the ecomonic crisis affecting most of europe. This isn't the time or the place for grandstanding an insignificant issue such as this and while she may be very bright there is no way a 24 year old has enough life experience to deal with the issues that need resolving before europe collapses into an economic black hole.

Yeah... And see what "life experience" brought us now...

Governments in general need the new blood. Even though I agree that the piracy and copyright laws are secondary, the MEP may bring worries and topics to debate that may remain unnatended in a 40+ years-old toad-infested parlament. All for new views of the world, doesn't matter how "immature" they might be.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[silanea]

If that "content on the internet" included, say, detailled information regarding said economic crisis from governmental regulatory bodies and from ministries and other administrative institutions responsible for the governance of, say, the financial industry, would you still agree it is insignificant? Here in Germany we had several state banks nearly or actually go bancrupt because of mismanagement, ridiculously risky business practices and outright malpractice. Had all their operational information been freely available to the public this would very likely have been caught early enough to prevent the losses that now have been passed on to the tax payer. And that is just one example.

In a world where politics (and economics) are largely a matter of back-room deals brokered between good ol' boys public scrutiny may well be one of the best ways to fight this crisis. Remember: We are in this situation not because of a sudden Ferengi invation but because a whole - I generally hate the term, but here it fits quite well - class of people had been left to play real-life Monopoly for decades without any real oversight or regulation. This crisis is not some natural disaster. It was brought over us by people.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Viol8]

I see Conspiracy Corner is open for business.

"You might as well pretend to be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand."

I'd sooner be an ostrich than some squawking hen who makes a big noise when the fox is outside the coop but is fast asleep when she's strung up on a conveyer belt to have her neck cut and be diced into nuggets.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Viol8]

"40+ years-old"

Wow , 40+, thats so old! If you're a teenager. For most people the 30s and 40s are when you finally mature into someone who can make sensible decisions and less bound over by knee jerk group think.

"All for new views of the world, doesn't matter how "immature" they might be."

Fine, using that logic lets vote pre-schoolers into parliament.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[BenevolentP]

Though the name implies it, a large part of the pirate parties program is citizen rights, including non-censorship and anti-surveillance. What they think of other topics is mostly irreleveant - in germany the stance on surveillance of the politicians of the big parties already changed siginficantly when they noticed that there is indeed a large percentage of people who care about it. The fact that they just behave that way because they are afraid to lose votes isn't really relevant.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[mmcuh]

Yes, let's all just deal with the same problem at one time. That way, all of them will be solved that much quicker.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[EdgeCreeper]

Wow , 40+, thats so old! If you're a teenager. For most people the 30s and 40s are when you finally mature into someone who can make sensible decisions and less bound over by knee jerk group think.

With an attitude like that, no wonder. Especially as you yourself are advocating this "group think" you are talking about.

It is fairly accepted that diversity in a group tends to increase the quality of decision making. I do not see the reason in keeping intelligent people away from parliament just because they are not old or "mature" enough.

Fine, using that logic lets vote pre-schoolers into parliament.

That argument is akin to saying "Fine, using that logic lets only drink water and not eat anything" to somebody who said water is good for you. I hope you can see that argument is fallacious, and well, quite silly.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... attacking the body of the text without touching the underlying rationale of it... Internet, why you fail to surprise me so...

Your "30s and 40s are when you finally mature" is an argument that reeks of conservationism thought, so I'll keep that in mind.

A Parliament (from the French parlement: discussion) is supposed to represent ALL strata of society. Starting from the moment that you gain the totality of your civil personality (usually 18 years old in Western countries) to the end of your civil personality (death or declared incapacity of exertion of your civil rights by extraordinary causes such as extreme dementia, comatose status or any other similar, highly debilitating issue). therefore, your irony of underage parliament is ridiculous simpy because said "toddlers" would be represented by their legal guardian. And said legal guardians are, supposedly, represented. Think before you type.

That said, the young adult strata of the society is NOT represented in a parliament that estabilishes a minimum age starting of the second half of the thirties or even 40 years old (and that is the reason for me to say 40+). The truth is that the average of age for representatives is way higher, usually in the 50s. Your so cherished "life experience" is not, in any way, an objective requirement and is, usually, used as an excuse for the perpetuation of the status quo, delaying the insertion of fresh thought in governing bodies. Maturity is subjective, using a subjective criteria to support an objective criteria (maturity=age) does not make the objective criteria more valid.

My opinion is: if you are old enough to answer fully for your actions, you are old enough to ask for the trust of society and let you represent them in a governmental body. If said society supports you, great! Of course, that is a problem to lobbyists and corporations. Younger people didnt have the time to be properly introduced to the practices of the "backdoor politics" at least not in the sense that an older person would. Like you said, younger people are more prone to impulse. Thing is, I don't think impulse is a bad thing per se. There is no reason, thus far, that can truly justify a restriction against young adults to be a member of a parliament.

If you still think that maturity dictated by age is still a restriction to be enforced, well, enjoy your "no change" status for a while (no change n no moment was supposed to be a reference to Obama slogans. Saying that already before anyone sas anything about it.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Vintermann]

The crisis isn't so unrelated to what the pirate party stands for after all. At the root of the crisis, and the recent Occupy protests, is the fact that political power has been going on auction to corporations. This is also a source of a lot of the pirates' peculiar woes.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[GauteL]

"I'd sooner be an ostrich than some squawking hen who makes a big noise when the fox is outside the coop but is fast asleep when she's strung up on a conveyer belt to have her neck cut and be diced into nuggets."

A very nice metaphor, but sadly also a straw man. The parent has only suggested that you keep your eyes open during both good and bad times, albeit with some hyperbole thrown in. It is considerably easier to get rights-restricting laws passed during mean times, as seen in the current effort to reduce labour laws in the UK.

If you're in favour of this, fine, but if you're not, you need to keep your eyes open.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[GauteL]

"With an attitude like that, no wonder."

I'm a firm believer that if you are good enough, you are old enough. However, it is a fact that people in their 20s have no idea what it is like being 40, while the reverse is only partially true. I can only speak for myself, but I know that I believed myself quite mature when I was 24, and now I know for a fact that I wasn't.

Having said that, there is no particular reason why some exceptional 24-year-olds can't be mature enough. After all, it isn't like all 40-year-olds MPs are good enough.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[iamwahoo2]

And I'm sorry, while I may agree with some of what the pirate party stand for , the access or not of content on the internet is irrelevant compared to the ecomonic crisis affecting most of europe. This isn't the time or the place for grandstanding an insignificant issue such as this and while she may be very bright there is no way a 24 year old has enough life experience to deal with the issues that need resolving before europe collapses into an economic black hole.

Very few politicians acquire their positions based on their intelligence and ability to understand complex issues such as economic problems. The problem is that most voters cannot distinguish between an honest expert on economic issues and a politician who is a hand puppet for special interests that has learned how to recite a handful of easily digestable talking points on camera. And life experience does not do anything for you when it comes to understanding economics. It requires intelligence and education. I am not saying that she is well equipped to handle this issue, just that she may be no worse equipped in comparison to the most senior member of the most popular party.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[GameboyRMH]

Conspiracy Corner? There is a long history of bad legislation on relatively small issues slipping through while The Big Issue has everyone's attention. I thought the ostrich analogy was a bit much, but you're changing my opinion on that...

Re:There are more important issues right now

[migla]

The knee-jerking will probably generally decrease in adult age, not so sure about the groupthink though.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Viol8]

"Your "30s and 40s are when you finally mature" is an argument that reeks of conservationism thought, so I'll keep that in mind."

You do that, and when you grow up you'll realise that in general I was right.

"Your so cherished "life experience" is not, in any way, an objective requirement "

I gather from that statement that you don't actually have much and therefor think its irrelevant. I really hope you don't vote.

"There is no reason, thus far, that can truly justify a restriction against young adults to be a member of a parliament."

There is no restriction, other than the fact that most people don't vote for them for the reasons I stated.

"supposed to be a reference to Obama slogans"

Was it? I have no idea nor do I care, I'm not american.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Viol8]

"to somebody who said water is good for you. I hope you can see that argument is fallacious, and well, quite silly."

The only thing fallacious is your piss poor analogy. He said it doesn't matter how immature someone is therefor I took his argument to its logical conclusion. It would be like saying it doesn't matter how little nourishment is in some food , it should be considered equal with all other foods.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

err, since when was there a right to piracy?

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Anonymous Coward]

You are really throwing the "when you are older you'll see i was right" card on me?

Ok grandpa, moving out of your lawn right now.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Toonol]

Is it that outlandish to think that somebody who has lived twice as long, experienced twice as much, met twice the people, seen twice the history, would have slightly more understanding of the world? It certainly isn't always the case, but it would seem to make sense.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[cheekyjohnson]

All of your arguments are completely incorrect. You'll understand when you're older.

And you'll also understand why the Earth is flat. But only when you're older.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[cheekyjohnson]

Except that the "you'll understand when you're older" argument completely fails to answer any of your opponents' arguments and makes a number of assumptions that might not even be true (that they don't understand now but simply disagree and that they will agree in the future). I see no point in making such an argument.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[vadim_t]

Yes. Age is not a cure for stupidity. Some people absorb information like a sponge and are well informed and well read at 20. Some people manage to plug their ears and know nothing at 60.

The only good way of finding out what a person knows is testing their knowledge. Age is irrelevant.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[tehcyder]

It is considerably easier to get rights-restricting laws passed during mean times, as seen in the current effort to reduce labour laws in the UK.

But most people on slashdot would see these as being evil socialist restrictions of freedom of trade anyway. At some point you have to take sides, if you want a libertarian free-for-all don't be surprised if people see you as being on the side of big business and capitalism.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[tehcyder]

However, it is a fact that people in their 20s have no idea what it is like being 40, while the reverse is only partially true.

I think I had at least some idea of what it would be like to be 40 when I was younger, I looked at my mother, father, aunts and uncles and their friends, and read books or watched TV and films about forty year olds.

You might as well say that no forty year old knows what it is like to be sixty.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[tehcyder]

Is it that outlandish to think that somebody who has lived twice as long, experienced twice as much, met twice the people, seen twice the history, would have slightly more understanding of the world? It certainly isn't always the case, but it would seem to make sense.

Some older people have learned from their experiences and acquired wisdom, most have just made more mistakes than someone younger, and carry on running in the same groove until they die.

The low proportion of wise to stupid people is the same for eighteen and eighty year olds.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[GauteL]

"But most people on slashdot would see these as being evil socialist restrictions of freedom of trade anyway. At some point you have to take sides, if you want a libertarian free-for-all don't be surprised if people see you as being on the side of big business and capitalism."

Absolutely. But then, I'm not personally a libertarian.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[GauteL]

"I think I had at least some idea of what it would be like to be 40 when I was younger, I looked at my mother, father, aunts and uncles and their friends, and read books or watched TV and films about forty year olds. "

None of which gives you first hand knowledge. Your mother, father, aunts and uncles will never be fully honest about it and the books/movies will have an angle to make them interesting, which invalidates them as evidence.

"You might as well say that no forty year old knows what it is like to be sixty."

That is exactly what I am saying.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it that outlandish to think that somebody who has lived twice as long, experienced twice as much, met twice the people, seen twice the history, would have slightly more understanding of the world? It certainly isn't always the case, but it would seem to make sense.

Society in general is changing and advancing very quickly. Someone may well have experienced twice as much as someone younger, but how useful is that experience if a lot of it is now redundant or irrelevant in the context of the modern day society? They may have a better understanding of the world of when they were younger, but that may well be a very different world to the one now.

You are right that in some cases age could be a somewhat useful measure as a rule of thumb, but should not be the most important measure of someones understanding of the world.

Re:There are more important issues right now

[EdgeCreeper]

Yeah, it was piss poor. I shouldn't have included it.

What do you mean not politically connected?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why would the commission need be made up out of elected members when you can get better people that are not necessarily political connected? See the present Italian government."

Monti is a member of the Trilateral Comission and the Bilderberg group, as well as a Goldman Sachs "advisor". You dont get any better politically connected than that.
 

be positive!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is much more important, that if she starts with 24 and is good and clever enough could be someone - if she grows up - who has a great impact on the european politic, just like the other young politicians, MEPs, MPs, PP members and so on - which I would really welcome

Re:be positive!

[Krneki]

I think it is much more important, that if she starts with 24 and is good and clever enough could be someone - if she grows up - who has a great impact on the european politic, just like the other young politicians, MEPs, MPs, PP members and so on - which I would really welcome

Politicians are like diapers, you need to change them often and for the same reason.

Re:be positive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are like diapers, you need to change them often and for the same reason.

An quite a few european countries and to at least some extent the EP, this is actually not the case. In some places the politicians actually represent the people and their opinions. Granted, it's never perfect. But it's actually really good in some countries.

I was hoping she would be hotter

[Anonymous Coward]

Bummer

Re:I was hoping she would be hotter

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go.

Re:I was hoping she would be hotter

[GameboyRMH]

She's pretty hot, you're far too picky!

Re:I was hoping she would be hotter

[GameboyRMH]

Offtopic? Come on, this is a tasteful comment about a (geek) woman's appearance on a site full of mostly straight (geek) dudes. It is very much on-topic.

Male sexuality is not wrong, being a gross douchebag is wrong. They're not the same thing. Everytime you go PC-overkill a racist conservative smiles and chuckles, happy that you're proving him right and hastening the arrival of the day that he can openly express his racism once more!

Commission staff better by bounds and leaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Officials working in the Commission have all passed hard selection tests, in which the average number of candidates per post are in the 100s to 1. They are thoroughly checked on professional knowledge, languages spoken, work experience and ethics. Trust me, the lucky few who eventually get a job are very, very bright people worth their salt.

Can you say that much about your average MP? Where I come from, the Parliament is composed of:

a) medical-grade morons (25 - 35 %)
b) thieves and con men (the bulk)
c) knowledgeable people (5 %?)

If you watched Idiocracy, you probably get the idea. Why not put some tests in place for all would-be MPs then? If you need a license for the God-given right to drive a car, I don't see why we don't require the same for people who want to hold a public position of such consequence?

Re:Commission staff better by bounds and leaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I come from, the Parliament is composed of:

a) medical-grade morons (25 - 35 %)
b) thieves and con men (the bulk)
c) knowledgeable people (5 %?)

I'd correct b in

b) thieves, con men and convicted criminals (the bulk)

to represent the italian parliament. :(
We can't even choose our MPs directly because of a stupid electoral law that no one wants to change.

Re:Commission staff better by bounds and leaps

[jonbryce]

The civil servants may be good, but I'm not so sure about the actual commissioners who make the decisions. Previous British commissioners include Neil Kinnock, who was Vice President, and Peter Mandelslime. Both of them were failed politicians at Westminster.

Re:Commission staff better by bounds and leaps

[silanea]

So this incredibly effective screening process must be why a whole College of Commissioners was forced to resign over charges of fraud and corruption which led to the founding of the European Anti-Fraud Office. Right. The best of the best of the best, SIR!

But, for fairness' sake, let us take a look at the current College:

José Manuel Barroso, President Professional politician, holding national offices since at least 1985. Catherine Ashton, Vice President Professional politician, holding national offices since 2001, one of the drivers of the Lisbon Treaty in the UK's House of Lords. Viviane Reding, Vice President Professional politician, became Luxembourgian MP in 1979, since then in various national governmental bodies and later leader of EPP delegation. Joaquín Almunia, Vice President Professional politician, holding national offices since at least 1982, PSOE party leader from 1997 to 2000. Siim Kallas, Vice President Professional politician, former Estonian PM, former member of Supreme Council of the Soviet Union. Neelie Kroes, Vice President Professional politician, became Dutch MP in 1971, since then State Secretary and minister in several cabinets. Antonio Tajani, Vice President Professional politician, spokesman for Berlusconi since 1994, became Italian MP in 2004. Maros Sefcovic, Vice President Ex-ambassador, now professional politician. Olli Rehn, Vice President Professional politician, became Finnish MP in 1991, special adviser to the PM from 1992 to '93.

Do you want me to continue? I briefly glanced over the political biographies of the other members, they all look similar. Former PM's and cabinet members, party leaders, and so far none who does not come with at least one decade of professional political involvement on at least national level.

Or maybe your definition of "not necessarily political [sic!] connected" differs significantly from mine?

Stop pretending

[Anonymous Coward]

People here are pretending to have a serious discussion on this topic, the real this everyone is thinking right now it:

Tits or gtfo.

Invite her up to install Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

She's also pretty hot, in that "geek chick" sort of way that I enjoyed in college.

"half-state between alliance and a federation"

[dermond]

the real problem is that this "half-state" gives you the worst of both sides...so we should go forward and have more integration and a simpler system with one central parliament... mond

Bureaucratic quibbles

[Anonymous Coward]

To translate back into the original european, the "bureaucratic quibbles" in the summary are actually the ratification of the Lisbon treaty .

Black and white ideals...

[Oswald McWeany]

I hate how some issues are so polarising.

"Piracy" shouldn't be a platform. Nor should allowing theft of intellectual rights.

That said- current laws are ludicrous and publishers have more rights than they should.

The current system of copyright, patents, etc is completely broken and needs losening up a lot. We should resist swinging the complete opposite direction though.

Like many issues- the best course is somewhere between what we have now and what the extremists on the other side want.

Yes, if I buy something, I should be able to make copies on any device I own- and maybe *loan* to a friend.

No, I shouldn't be able to rip it and sell it (or give it away) to whomever I choose.

Yes, copyright timeframes are too long. No, we shouldn't eliminate them entirely.

Why must every policy have to have an extreme answer?

As for age of the candidate. Whereas most 24 year olds probably are not mature enough to take office- even though at that age you think you know the ropes; some 24 year olds are.

There have been fantastic world leaders much younger than 24. It all depends on the individual.

Re:Black and white ideals...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not extreme at all:

There's simply no concept of "intellectual rights". It is something that was made up and the carved into your head.

Since they don't exist, by definition they can't be 'stolen'.

Disclainmer: 20 yo and active member of the Brazilian Pirate Party.

Re:Black and white ideals...

[Oswald McWeany]

I can only see one line of the above response and cannot open it to reply due to Slashdots ongoing UI bugs.

However- I would like to point out that saying:
"there is no intellectual property" IS an extreme position. That IS the extreme.

You may believe that to be true and that may be your stance-- but that is an extreme position- doesn't mean it is wrong- but it is extreme. You can't go any more unregulated than that in terms of IP.

Personally- I think taking a non-extreme approach is best to foster creativity and consumer happiness. Yes, people should be rewarded for their creativity and have it somewhat protected.

I shouldn't be allowed to profit off someone elses hardwork. However- I do recognise that the current laws need relaxing considerably.

As for intellectual property being an "artificial" law.

Yes, exactly- just as all laws and rules are. Just as child abuse is "artificially" illegal- or laws of consent, doesn't mean it should be made legal. Most people would argue they shouldn't- and I agree.

Physical property is equally "artificial" too. Caveman one crafts an arrowhead. Caveman two comes along- clubs caveman one on the head and steals arrowhead.

Without government artificially coming along and saying theft is wrong- it isn't. Our entire legal system is "artificial". Most people would not want to live in anarchy though. I want it to be wrong to club someone over the head to steal their property- I wouldn't want to live in a world where theft of physical property were legal.

I also wouldn't want to live in a world where anyone could profit from my intellectual hardwork and I not get paid anything.

There needs to be a balance. Currently it is too far in favour of the creator than the consumer- but we shouldn't abolish IP outright.

Re:Black and white ideals...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should read the pirate platform instead of guessing based on your preconceived notions of a single word?

Re:Black and white ideals...

[tehcyder]

The current system of copyright, patents, etc is completely broken and needs losening up a lot.

Well done, I think that's thei first time I've seen the loose/lose confusion go the other way.

Re:Black and white ideals...

[tehcyder]

There's simply no concept of "intellectual rights". It is something that was made up and the carved into your head.

All "rights" are made up and agreed by people.

Re:Black and white ideals...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Piracy" shouldn't be a platform. Nor should allowing theft of intellectual rights.

They are not for theft of intellectual rights, most pirate party politician want stronger protection of some intellectual rights, while they see some of the current "rights" as unnatural. E.g. the 9 centuries old debate about the natural rights of creators and originators versus the rights implied by ownership of IP (a.k.a. Copyright and before that the Patent-system (no, not the current patent system; the exclusive right, granted haphazardly by the monarch or some aristocrat, for someone to do something (making a product, using an invention, printing a book et c.) and forbidding any competition, including the ones that came up with the original idea or invention, or wrote the book et c.)).

They were already called pirates by their opponents. It would have been impossible for them not to be called pirates in every debate. They did the same thing as the Wigs and Tories of UK, they took the insult and made it part of their identity. (Like if USA had a parties named The Niggers Party, or The Gay Party.)

Piracy (piratkopiering) is not an old word for IP-theft in Sweden, to use it in this context is a recent sin started by Swedish anti-piracy organisations. The word "pirat" has only been used in this context since the Compact Cassette (non-)debate (more like a one sided massive advertising campaign) in the 1960's and it was kind of ridiculous to start using it.

yuo Fa1l It

[Anonymous Coward]

rseciprocating bad corpse turned over out of businees Duty to be a big

What is MP and MEP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive my ignorance, but what do the abbreviations MP and MEP stand for? The only MP that I know of is military police. Obviously I am not from the European Union.

Re:What is MP and MEP?

[Oswald McWeany]

Yeah- and growing up I always wondered why in American films "Members of Parliament" wore military uniforms with an "MP" on their sleave.

MEP is Member of European Parliament.

Re:What is MP and MEP?

[petermgreen]

MP is member of parliment (reffering to a national parliment). MEP is member of european parliment.

He who pays the piper calls the tune

[SleepyJohn]

Your formal analysis shows the major difficulty anyone has in figuring out exactly who has the real power in the EU. All its legal literature is written in such a verbose, convoluted, impenetrable and obfuscated manner that it is quite impossible for a normal human to understand, yet at the same time very easy for the EU itself to interpret any way it likes, particularly as it has a Supreme Court specifically charged by treaty with 'returning verdicts that further European integration'. There can be little doubt that the intention of the EU is to become a centrally governed federation or unitary state, and the current economic crisis (caused by itself) is giving it all the excuse it needs to abandon any pretence otherwise. And who will run this? Well, in Scotland they say that "He who pays the piper calls the tune" and the fact that the Irish government seems obliged to present its budget proposals to German authorities before showing them to its own elected Parliament should contain a clue as to who really pulls the strings in the EU.

And what can one say about the unceremonious removal of two elected Prime Ministers and their replacement with appointed card-carrying EU lackeys. Who exactly ordered this? Were they elected by the people? I do not think any rational person could place 'democratic' and 'EU' in the same sentence. Even EU sycophants admit to what they euphemistically call a 'democratic deficit'. Everything I have discovered points to the European Parliament having no real power at all, as none of its decisions seem to be binding on the Commission, which concocts all the laws of the EU in secret, then orders the national governments to implement them. This 'parliament' is a cynical, tax-money-slurping front for what is a 'de facto' dictatorship; it has the legitimacy of a Mafia boss's cafe and the power of its waitresses.

I think we can safely say, without having to read any of the gazillions of pages of Euro-bullshit, that whoever really controls the EU it is not the European Parliament. There is absolutely no direct connection whatsoever between the people who live in the EU and those who make their laws, and manipulate their 'governments'. It is a totalitarian state, that subjugates the people with bureaucracy and bullshit instead of bombs and bullets.