Slashdot Mirror
EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Ignore Any Rejection of ACTA
Dupple tips a story at Techdirt about comments from EU commissioner Karel De Gucht, who made some discouraging remarks to the EU International Trade committee about the opposition to ACTA: "If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice. ... If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed." De Gucht also spoke about proposing clarifications to ACTA if Parliament declined to ratify it, which, as Techdirt points out, doesn't make much sense: "Remember that ACTA is now signed, and cannot be altered; so De Gucht is instead trying to fob off European politicians with this vague idea of 'clarifications' — as if more vagueness could somehow rectify the underlying problems of an already dangerously-vague treaty."
As an American: at least he's honest about it. My politicians just issue bald-faced lies.
EU nations to citizens: "We voted against it, what more coupld we do?"
EU nations to RIAA: "Ok, it's passed, pay up."
ACTA will be ratified in some form because it will be resubmitted again and again till the lobbyiest succeed. This happened before with the EU constitution, it will happen with ACTA and it will happen in the future for many more treaties/laws.
is anyone surprised?
the amount of power held by those that ACTA favors outweighs the amount of power held by those against.
rulers gonna rule. who'd have thunk it?
(I'm not in favor of ACTA, not even close; but I don't really hold up much hope when this much greed is involved, mixed with this much 'can-do' power to pull it off.)
this is a people problem. a scalability one. do our governments 'work' for us anymore? in the modern times, with mass communication now possible, are any of our systems really working? it does not seem so!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is the type of thing when you have something resembling a country, but that is not in essence a country, which has non of the protections or checks and balances that a state should actually have.
Democracy at the EU level, kind of a joke.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Is this guy actually saying that the lobby has bought into the European Court system? And democracy doesn't count anymore?
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
I realize this is Slashdot and eye-catching headlines tailored towards inciting the rabbleâ"rousers are the norm (yes, my UID is low) but are we somehow missing the headlines where political leadership (from any country) actually stand up for the rights of their citizenry instead of the business?
I rarely see politicians, on any side of the coin, standing up for the rights of the electorate and instead only see that they support business interests. These people must get elected somehow, and yes I realize there are possibilities that the electorate has no true influence here but it's improbable at least for now, so why the hell do we continue to put up with them doing this?
I've been disgusted for years by their actions but do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
That appears to be how the European Union operates. The Constitution was rejected, so they turned it into the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish rejected the treaty so they held a second vote 6 months later, so they could get the "yes" vote desired. In Denmark they canceled the election and just acceded to the treaty automagically.
NOW it appears they'll use the same approach with ACTA: It matters not how the EU Parliament votes, we'll just rewrite it and submit it a second time or third time until we get a "yes". Of course the U.S. ain't much better: TARP failed the first time so they rewrote it and tried a second time. When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
At what point did bribery become so out in the open? I guess the EU really is doomed to failure.
Well, shit, there goes the economy for the next decade.
Economic collapse isn't pretty but maybe we'll get back to normal after some good old fashioned head chopping reduces the 1% to the .1 %
Typical Europe. Bar Nigel Farage, who is the Chuck Norris of politics, it's like watching monkeys at typewriters. A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!
So if it doesn't matter what the outcome of the vote will be, then why bother to have one?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Democracy has never counted in the EU because the majority of the people of Europe have never wanted a bloated, centralised state where bureaucrats in Brussels tell them what to do.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
...is that only the Commission may propose law to the Council.
The Council must vote - usually by qualified majority - for almost(*) all laws to pass. And the ordinary legislative process means that, since Lisbon, Parliament gets to veto most proposals.
But once the law has been adopted, there is no way for Parliament to even propose, let alone pass, further legislation to amend or repeal the law. By contrast, the UK has one overriding law - the Westminster Parliament cannot bind itself. But the European Parliament /always/ binds itself.
The only potential salvation is that the Court of Justice may declare a law to be invalid - for example, because the EU exceeds its jurisdiction under the Treaties. But not simply because the people don't like the law. Even then, getting rid of CJEU judges is nigh on impossible, so a corrupt gaggle stay around until one by one it's time for them to be replaced (by agreement of the governments of member states).
(*) Creation of competition law is delegated to the Commission.
It's become crystal clear over the years that it is everyone's moral imperative to ignore copyright law.
That is the only way we, as a society, are going to conquer the science-and-arts-crippling concept known as "intellectual property" and move forward as a civilization.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
what else is there? act like drones? I suppose it's easy to say and hard to do, but I dont plan on changing my behaviour, but I do plan on making it harder for people to see my innocent or not-so-innocent online behaviour.
right now, I dont encrypt much, I dont hide much, I don't care much, nobody is really interested in me, I'm a nobody.
but if they push me, perhaps I'll try to encrypt, hide, protect and find ways that can't be broken, then their lives will become harder as they try harder and harder to pry into my private life. the free ride will be gone, now they'll have to work for it.
one day, somebody will arrive with a system which is practically impenetrable and they need to knock down your door to get the keys, then they'll be more screwed than I will, because they won't be able to freely monitor traffic and find terrorists, or find hackers or crackers, they'll have to work 10x as much to get 10% of what they previously had access to.
all because they pushed my buttons and got me onboard the encryption bandwagon, to which date I am not (yet) a member.
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
i'm from belgium (was now living in colombia)
but Karel has a long dirty history of accepting bribes, dirty cash and laundering money
Belgium is this moment even more corrupt then sweden, those ministers have sold every possible governement building to 3th parties
they dont own the kings palace for example anymore but they rent it instead !!!!
there is an anti piracy organization called "sabam" there are big rumors and the chance is very big that they paid or going to pay Karel De Gucht for getting ACTA up
this means they will be able to suck more blood and money out of their victims legaly but in a more dark sinister way
sabam already pushed it that far you cant tell for example storytales from books to your children without paying the copyright fee to them and ofcourse they pay nothing to the original authors
I realize this is Slashdot and eye-catching headlines tailored towards inciting the rabbleâ"rousers are the norm (yes, my UID is low) but are we somehow missing the headlines where political leadership (from any country) actually stand up for the rights of their citizenry instead of the business?
I rarely see politicians, on any side of the coin, standing up for the rights of the electorate and instead only see that they support business interests. These people must get elected somehow, and yes I realize there are possibilities that the electorate has no true influence here but it's improbable at least for now, so why the hell do we continue to put up with them doing this?
I've been disgusted for years by their actions but do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Short answer is no.
Its been said that governments should fear their people, and not the other way around. What do our governments have to fear from us nowadays? Some people might put up a fight, but the overwhelming majority just sit back and go along for the ride.
I hate to say it since we're supposedly living in more civilized times, but maybe if more politicians who obviously have no interest in actually representing the people (not corporations) they "represent" were brutally assassinated, the rest would get the message. I may be wrong, but it seemed to work for some in the past...
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
How do they keep getting elected? What other choice do we have? When all sides of the issue are bought and paid for by the same people, what, seriously, what choices do we have? It's not that they don't represent us, it's that they represent where the money is coming from.
Think about it - to a politician, $1 = 1 voice. So, I have around 10,000 in savings. If I give all of that, my voice becomes stronger than my neighbor's, regardless of where I stand. I can influence media, I can influence protests, I can send letters. My neighbor can't do any of that, because he's just trying to make it to supper tonight.
From their point of view, the politicians are representing The People. It's just that the money involved is so freaking skewed that The People are no longer represented fairly in these initial steps. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if (in the US at least) our representatives are truly at a loss as to why their approval rating is so low. I hope I did a good job of explaining my views on that. It's hard to get into words sometimes.
I know that none of that may transfer into this instance in the EU, but I believe that the same rules apply there. Money = power, power = money. The commissioner probably sees the interests groups with the most money, and probably believes that they represent the general public's views.
Or he's just a dick. One or the other.
Bar Nigel Farage, who is the Chuck Norris of politics, it's like watching monkeys at typewriters.
You're saying Nigel Farage is a slightly paranoid, homophobic bigot, like Chuck?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Well if the parliament rejects it, it's irrelevant if ACTA is compatible with EU laws.
There have been several /. stories about the EU acting against a corporation and in favor of the customer. Like the browser choice screen in Opera v. Microsoft.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
Hmmm.. this would explain why UK's PM backpedaled on bankers' bonuses.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Fuck the people and what they want, its MY way... period....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Please mod parent up. For this is so true...
"vote wrong" - that such an expression exists....
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
It does happen. We had one here in Sweden a few months ago, who said no, no and no to ACTA among other things.
A number of smear jobs and other kinds of campaigns against him went online almost as soon as he was elected leader for the social democrat party, and continued until he was gone.
About 24h after he resigned, Sweden ratified ACTA, with the support of his successor. Go figure.
Spinning this as a repudiation of democratic principles is just a ploy to feed a popular narrative.
I think what he's actually saying here is more like, "L'Ãtat, c'est moi".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There is no room for the will of the people in the Court of Justice.
Please, let him know that what he is doing is wrong and that the european people do not want this. Here is his contact information: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/
Karel De Gucht
Member of the European Commission
BE-1049 Brussels
Belgium
By mail: Karel.DE-GUCHT@ec.europa.eu
By fax: (+32-02) 29 80899
This politician is suspected of fraud and is being investigated by the belgian tax inspection.
http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/fiscus-karel-de-gucht-fraudeerde-met-1-2-miljoen-euro/article-4000115128765.htm (Article in Dutch)
He has some property in Italy that he shouldn't be able to afford.
http://www.humo.be/humo-archief/71654/karel-de-gucht-het-gevecht-met-de-fiscus (Article in Dutch)
There are rumors that he's corrupt, but it's never been proven though.
You did very well, IMO.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Use a VPN that doesn't keep logs.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer
If we're even allowed to vote.
Voting on a national scale is, and *always has been* a farce. Voting is not meaningful when the numbers are this big, the opinions this varied, the voters this ill-informed, and the consequences this impactful.
The real world contains many real people with real wealth and power and real selfish agendas. They don't give a rat's ass about the greater good or any noble ideas of self-governing people. Some of them are enlightened enough to see that people are too stupid to govern themselves anyway, while others just don't care, but the end result is the same. A small group of powerful men impose their self-serving agendas upon the populace, and keep doing so until there is a sufficiently overwhelming reaction to stop them.
You will never get that overwhelming reaction through encouraging your neighbors to become politically active. Humans just don't work that way. You get that reaction when the lives of enough people suck badly enough that it is worth getting up and shouting. Until that moment, anything goes, and any lip-service paid to concepts of justice is so much hot air intended only to placate the public into silent acceptance.
Humans basically suck.
There is no democracy in the EU. It's what a group of select "leaders" tell you what you can have, it's just a soft dictatorship controlling regional territories.
Om, nomnomnom...
Not a democracy anymore. Get out while the getting is good.
Captcha: broken.
He is saying a legal way has to be found to leave the treaty. Currently he doesn't see one.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
Greece knows well.
Around 2005 there was a struggle against software patents in the EU. The only democratically elected EU institution, the European Parliament, said "no, we don't want it" and the Commission (a group of 27 or so people) says "yes, you have to want it". And unfortunately this is a very common pattern.
The ACTA case is particularly striking now with one person who is quite incapable of grasping the nature of copying intangible goods has this much power.
Gucht: "But for me there is no moral difference between taking something that is not yours in the physical world and doing so in the virtual world."
For me there is a huge difference! And if the most powerful person in the EU dealing with this matter doesn't see that it's time for him to move on. We live in a world where theoretically anyone could have access to all music, movies and books ever created. I feel we're morally obliged to make this happen. If that breaks a couple of business models, so be it, time for new business models. And time for new politicians. #votepirate.
The European Commission is distinct from the European Parliament. European Commissioners have established a pretty good reputation for themselves as being for sale and not accountable to their constituencies. European Parliament nominally holds the real power, but democracy in Europe often turns into an uphill battle against corrupt commissioners.
The European Commision is also the main promoter of legalizing software patents in Europe, against the express wishes of the European Parliament.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Dear Karl:
We the people (whether in the US or not) quite simply don't give a flying fuck about what you EU assholes decide to do or not do.
We may not have a corporate death penalty, but we will continue to "steal" your content until you and your entire generation die the death of a thousand cuts, one... pirated... disc... at... a... time.
In any case, five years from now the EU will have collapsed and all your expenditure of political capital on behalf of your corporate masters will have gone for nothing - "Nothing", like the worth of your sad, hollow life.
Cheers!
I follow the decisions of the highest German Courts, and to a lesser extend the European Courts, with passing interest. I have to say that I cannot recall a single instance that I found one of their decisions even a little bit unacceptable. Literally every time that I thought politicians totally went off the rails, along comes the highest Courts with a "oh no you don't".
How do they keep getting elected?
European commissioners are appointed, not elected.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
If you read his speech what he really say is: Acta good!!, If you do not ask the court of justice, I'll do it and they will say it's good too!!
Then I'll still have to ask you again, drats.....
there are a lot of irritating things in his speech, but in a nutshell he still acknowledge that he has to ask the parliament.
And of course if the ECJ tells him no, he will just be able to say ... ohhh bad judges, judges shouldn't make law, sulk, sulk,... (notice the US kind of pattern, about "low making judges are bad..... (when they do not judge as we want them too...)
And by leaders you mean Germany.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
Or they just ignore it. In 1994 we in Norway had a referendum and the people rejected EU membership despite an overwhelming majority in favor in parliament. What did the politicians do? Sign an EEC agreement which means 5000+ EU directives have been passed into Norwegian law. And then the politicians complain about the lack of influence and access because we're not real members, acting like it's our fault. Yeah because since we had the audacity to say no the politicians had to buttrape us. Totally our fault.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is not so much that the EU International Trade committe has taken it upon themselves to have a vote, they act as an advisory to the EU Parliament and are supposed to recommend either passing or rejecting the proposition, every committee(they are made up of members from EU parliament) of the EU that oversees an area affected by ACTA is supposed to leave a recommendation based on how ACTA will affect their area of responsibility, it is a normal part of the process.
And the fact that he backstabbed his way into power and that once he got there he turned out to be nothing nothing more than a bumbling incompetent buffoon with absolutely no media awareness had nothing to do with him getting ousted?
His predecessor got elected pretty much because there were no competition, when she failed they were desperate to find a new, hopefully strong leader that could stop the free fall the party currently was in and so they elected the current chair of the party executive council.
In fact this is the first time I've heard anything about Juholt even having a stance on ACTA much less being against it so some sources would be nice.
The Social Democratic Party has been VERY friendly with industry representatives for the past 30 years at the very least, for example in 2006 they changed the law to make copyright infringement for personal use illegal, despite massive complaints and a clear public opinion in favor of keeping the (then) current regulation.
The only political parties that I've heard speak out against ACTA so far is from the Green Party, the Pirate Party and the Leftist fringe/former communist party.
Legal by who's laws?
European Commission = the bureaucracy - think federal government, but a lot smaller in terms of the number of people. Yes - it can propose law. It's lead by Commissioners, who are appointed, and usually come with a political background. Historically Commisioners have usually been very high-profile ex-politicians.
Euro Parliament = directly elected body. Elected by proportional representation across the regions of countries.
Committees = much like the House committees, but arguably more sane, drawn from the Parliament.
The Council = representatives of the governments from the EU countries.
The Council is where the power really lies. Countries routinely use the EU as a scapegoat whereas in fact the decision was originates or was ratified in the Council; the Council has final say over all accepted laws. They can also propose legislation, and it's then then Commission's job to try to make that into something acceptable to Parliament. Parliament is not quite a rubber stamp, and in recent years has been much more activist, but imo it was intended as a smokescreen for the Council. The rules are Byzantine, but I think that if the Council doesn't like the results of a Parliamentary procedure, they can ignore Parliament.
And I think I'll post anonymously because my knowledge is rusty, and gained in passing in opposing various stupid laws. I wouldn't call myself an expert.
Fuck You, Asshole.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The way things are currently set up, people with power and influence can keep bringing up legislation that they want to get passed until eventually people get tired of fighting it or they manage to slip it in attached to some other critical legislation.
As an individual voter, this seems inherently unfair. Why should I need to keep fighting the same battles over and over and over? Once the people have spoken the legislators shouldn't be able to propose similar legislation for some amount of time.
I don't think you are paying attention closely enough. After all, SOPA didn't pass.
if the answer comes back, "non merci" and they go and do it anyway... well, that's grounds for impeachment. Can you say "TREASON"?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Four dead in Ohio
Read both releases carefully. Then go back in time how ACTA is about counterfeiting, fake medications, etc. Bzzzzt. Here's the truth. And De Gucht knew that truth back then.
ACTA needs to die, not because it may not be compatible with the 'EU constitution', but because the European public doesn't want it. And the longer it takes, the more of the typewriter-generation dies off to be replaced by first-time voting Internet generation youngsters. And we know what they think about what they should be able to do with content they like.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Do you actually believe that? I mean, really?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Norway's options were: 1. Don't sign it and stay outside of the single market, effectively killing most trade that is not oil or fish (as all the other stuff is easier to get elsewhere). 2. Enter the single market and abide by the rules. 3. Become full members of the EU.
The referenda was about 1/2 vs 3. Staying outside of the single market was not really an option, so there you go...
They are appointed by the states and elected by parliament.
In most states in the EU, the prime minsters are also appointed by the queen/king/president/speaker of parliament and then elected by the parliament.
The key difference is that in most state elections, there is de facto (not de jure) contest between various prime ministerial candidates (note that de jure, this is not necessary, the prime minister can in principle be picked up from the street after the elections); in the EU parliamentary elections the commission presidency is de facto not an issue as many of the parties essentially think that the electorate is too stupid to comprehend european politics (in the last EU-parliamentary elections in the NL, the EU debate that was done was essentially pro-EU vs against-EU, no real issues where discussed).
The fix for this is of-course very easy, either take the commission president from parliament, or make him directly elected and preferably give him the right to select his own commissioners (there would naturally be some requirement that he picks from different states) that he then submits for approvals by the states and the parliament.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
Supporting references or examples please? I've been living in the EU for the past 15 years and I haven't seen any evidence at all of what you're saying.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Richard Stallman, is that you?
I agree with you 100%, but just wanted to point out that RMS was spot-on with his essay on exactly this newspeak redefinition.
Your gun fetishism is pathetic.
Contrary to the Murdoch toilet paper you're swallowing, the EU administration is not that bloated. Its budget is tiny considering the area it covers.
England should be thrown out of the EU. Yes I said England.
I'm quite confused. As I understand every nation of EU should ratify it, otherwise it won't fly. And there is already annoucements from nations that they WON'T ratify, and therefore treaty won't go.
What's happening in Europarlament is Euro Commision is another thing, but it still doesn't matter - ACTA is dead as we speak today.
About Europarlament - it works as democracy, simply there is power struggle because old EU countries know that by sheer numbers they will be overpowered by new members in Europarlament - therefore they have created several miniclubs which have bigger legislation power than EP - which is very wrong. Therefore for last 20 years they have tried to minimise posibility for parlament for not letting their way. It was such way with software patents, and clashes countinue to this day.
It's not black and white. It needs improvement, huge people lobby and people should start to get more interested in EU politics, because they *matter*. Ignoring and hoping that EU will go away is stupid and shortsighted.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I wasn't talking about the Greeks.
There have been many questionable referendums at EU level which forced EU countries to implement something.
Some EU countries let their people vote on that, others didn't.
Presumably you are only talking about local parties in Sweden, these are parts of larger European parties. In the EP, the greens (incl. the mijöpartiet and piratpartiet), the lefts (EUL/NGL incl. Vänsterpartiet), the social democrats (S&D, including Socialdemokraterna) and the liberals (ALDE/ELDR incl. Centern and Folkpartiet) have whole heartily rejected ACTA. And so have a ton of different EP committees. The conservatives (EPP incl. Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna) seem to be more or less divided about the issue though, in the EPP part, especially Cristoffer Fjellner have been a strong supporter of ACTA.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
GPL is copyright.
You can copy and use it, as long you allow other to do the same ... its a special case of copyright, that instead of removing right give then back. This special case is usually named copyleft
Higuita
Ireland: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/europe/03ireland.html Holland: http://euobserver.com/18/26278 Oddly enough, they never gave the British a vote. I wonder why.
Every four yours or so you elect your representatives into a parliament where they can control the government till the next elections come about.
I see no reason to suddenly have a referendum on a single issue, at the level of national and international politics nothing stands on it's own and you need to trust your representatives to make the choice considering all facts, not just the issues of the day.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Interesting if true.
"Those Europeans never did fit in." -Lester, "Private Lessons"
Norway's options were: 1. Don't sign it and stay outside of the single market, effectively killing most trade that is not oil or fish (as all the other stuff is easier to get elsewhere).
Any idea how big a bargaining chip that is? We could have had a free trade agreement like for example Switzerland does, without all the EU hooks. But sure, you pick from the options they offered us so we'd vote the way they wanted.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes I meant the local parties here in Sweden because the AC was talking about Sweden ratifying ACTA.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
and how is it different from USSR voting?
Ireland voted no first, and it was no. Then they voted yes...and what? That's the democratic process and the 'bureaucrats in Brussels' didn't and couldn't actually force them to vote yes.
Holland's MPs voted against the people they represent and should have been soundly thrashed by their population. This again is not the bureaucrats in Brussels but rather a problem locally in Holland that should be dealt with by the Dutch people by them voting out the MPs that didn't well represent them.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
That wasn't the question. Next.
Apologies, understand that you were answering the rhetorical part of my previous answer. And yes, I agree. Referenda are expensive and unnecessary for most issues. Transfer of sovereignty/power questions may be the best use for them though.
Just to provide some context, I present to you the waste of cowpat that is mr Gucht:
He is under investigation for insider trading in connection with the breaking up of ING bank. He has not been officially accused (nor acquitted) so far, so it looks like he will walk because of statute of limitations. It says a lot about the EU that such a person can remain Commissioner of Trade.
He is suspected of tax evasion. Transparency laws for Belgian banks have become stricter since 2011, but he and his wife are fighting the new laws in court. He refuses to give the IRS financial information, because "the new laws are sloppy" and "they should respect my privacy".
He has been slammed for anti-semitic comments such as "Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill. That is the best organised lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics – no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats." and "Don't underestimate the opinion of the average Jew outside Israel. There is indeed a belief – it's difficult to describe it otherwise – among most Jews that they are right. And a belief is something that's difficult to counter with rational arguments.".
Are these the same soldiers who refused to torture civilians? Hold suspects without trial in de-humanizing conditions? Shoot at unarmed civilians from a gunship? Protect nazi war criminals from facing justice for killing their fellow soldiers? From mass rape and child murder in countless wars? From shooting at American citizens protesting segregation? From using forbidden chemical weapons on civilians? From refusing point blank to accept any plan to invite an allied nation should they be brought before a tribunal on war crimes?
These soldiers?
Good luck.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.