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

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.

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]

No, they just get richer.

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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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.