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"
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.
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
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.
Stop buying all entertainment. Don't use it at all and don't download it illegally either. Just do without entirely. Support local musicians playing live if you must get a fix. Get everyone and anyone you know to also boycott big entertainment entirely. After a few years they will either institute a police state to ensure they can suck money from the peasants no matter what (already in progress in most democracies it seems) or they will fail completely.
The resulting media scene will hopefully be a bit smarter and realize they need a willing audience.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
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.
I think what he's actually saying here is more like, "L'Ãtat, c'est moi".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
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...
This is why up-close and personal political powers belong in the hands of governments no further away than a few hundred miles. National federated governments are not accountable to their populations and so should not have powers which directly touch on those citizens, except in very broad, general ways.
I think pointyhat meant the fabled Internet Chuck Norris. The one who has never existed.
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".
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.
Fuck You, Asshole.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
You're basically right, I'll add a few clarifications although I'm no expert ether.
The Council consists of the Heads of State/Government(for the consitutional monarchies since their head of state wields no political power) of every member nation as well as the President of the Council(non voting member), the President of the Cmomission(non voting member), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs(also non voting member I think). The council decides on foreign policy and defines directions and priorities for the EU which the Commission is then empowered to enact.
If you compare EU to the US the council most closely resembles the Presidency. The reason people think the the power lies with the Council is because decides on matters of foreign policy which is one of the most visible parts of the EU and because it gathers the executive power of the member states which dictate policy in their respective nations and typically represent the majority of the parliament members from their nation.
The Council can however be overruled by the Parliament, not the other way around but for obvious reasons this rarely happens.
Yes the EU is typically used as a smoke screen by the politicians of the member states but this is more due to the fact that in most member states. The elections for the EU parliament etc is seen as less significant than the national parliament/executive despite the fact that the EU parliament can force member states to enact law and policies.
So the local politicians takes unpopular matters to the EU parliament and then makes them law and force them on the member states and meanwhile the local politicians can maintain the facade that they are fighting tooth and nail in the best interest of the people but in the end they have to "yield".