Slashdot Mirror
ACTA Rejected By European Parliament
Grumbleduke writes "Today the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Despite attempts by the EPP Group to delay the vote until after the Courts have ruled on its legality, the Parliament voted against the Treaty by 478 to 39; apparently the biggest ever defeat the Commission has suffered. However, despite this apparent victory for the Internet, transparency and democracy, the Commission indicated that it will press ahead with the court reference, and if the Court doesn't reject ACTA as well, will consider bringing it back before the Parliament."
But we're only safe until the next bit of daft legislation.
Its nice to see some political critters with a shred of common sense still. Of course the MPAA/RIAA's of the world over there are thinking what the hell happened and if they didn't donate enough.
ACTA is like a sleezy guy trying to pick you up in a bar.
You can tell him no six hundred times and he'll keep coming back, because all it takes is one yes and he's fucked you.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Won't work. If there's one thing that the EU Parliament have shown is that when people try and bypass their authority they're willing to turn up in huge numbers to vote it down on principle.
Higgs' Boson discovered by LHC before Tevatron, and ACTA (already implemented in the USA) finally rejected by the European Parliament. Europe wins both in science and democracy. Very sad july 4th for the USA.
Dear hollywood cocaineaholics/drunk singers/corrupt american politicians/etc..., f*uck you!
The European Parliament has to give its consent. The vote was that it denied its consent.
The EC also invoked the European Court of Justice. The ECJ will simply say, we cannot rule on ACTA anymore because the process is terminated.
FFII for analysis.
The Court does have a limited say because it is supposed to investigate if ACTA is compatible with the framework treaties of the European Union, if they are Parliament can vote on it and either pass or reject ACTA which has already happened. However if the court finds that ACTA is incompatible with said framework treaties then it cannot be passed regardless of Parliament vote unless said framework treaties are changed as well. If the court finds that ACTA is ok then the Commission can remove whatever parts they think led to the rejection in Parliament and ask the Parliament to vote on the amended ACTA
No, it cannot be bypassed. What he can do is have it subject to judicial review and try to resubmit the ratification proposal. However, I would assume that parliament will not take kindly to this. Maybe they should move for a no confidence vote on Karel.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
... but they began to hate it too : image
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
This is true, except that the Commission cannot easily change ACTA as is as the treaty is signed. They could ask to have a protocol added which would require the approvals of all the original signing parties which include the US, Canada, the EU, the individual EU member states et.c. This in turn would mean that most governments need to acquire new negotiating mandates from their respective parliaments and so on. This is not a trivial operation.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
They'll just extradite everyone who violates it to the U.S. for prosecution.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The US Constitution requires any treaty to be ratified by the US Senate. As of now no Senate vote on ACTA has occurred so it's not law even in the USA. But the Justice Department is also insisting they will enforce it.
The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable)
Come on, quit that old bullshit.
The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.
Ah, indirectly. Most - if not all - EU countries use a parliamentary system, which means our governments are not directly elected, but elected by the parliaments which are directly elected. So you have voters > local parliament > local government > EC. So yeah, that's quite far from the voters. Compare to the EP: voters > EP. One step.
A lot of special interests are bound to be happening through those steps. However, the EC has far less power with the passing of Lisbon, so I wouldn't worry too much.
Clicked pie.
Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.
That's our line, you damned socialist hippies.
Signed,
'Merika, Fuck Yeah!
In most countries, this "mandate" requirements was never issued. The pact was signed secretly, behind the curtain, and without the knowledge of the public, and in some cases (i know of a few countries) even without the consent of the parliament.
Nevertheless, the real issue is the unconvinient publicity of the ACTA, which could make all these "hidden" deals very hard to strike. Which is actually a real democracy at work.
The difference in this case is that ACTA isn't a piece of legislation written up by the EU that can be changed willy-nilly in order to secure the votes for passage.
ACTA is an international treaty that has been signed (but not ratified) by (most?) of the signatories' legislative bodies.
To change ACTA (to re-package, whatever) requires all the signatory nations to get back together & start re-negotiating the points of it. SImply put, the EU cannot alter ACTA for ratification independently.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's rare to see the EU parliament - composing of over half a dozen groups, each of which is umbrella organization for dozens of parties from many countries - to be as united as they were now. They voted not only against the internet restricting laws but also against the kind of shady activity that occurred during ACTA preparations. Whatever the commission says now, I doubt they've got the balls to bring ACTA - or nearly identical equivalents with different name - back anytime soon... it would be such an act of disrespect towards the parliament that things could escalate far more than anyone is willing to risk "just for copyright".
I think we're safe at least until June of 2014 (next parliamentary elections in EU)... that is, of course, unless same provisions are brought back in a bill that also mention child pornography. EU legislators are pretty weak against the "think of the children" argument.