EU Commission: CETA 'Totally Different From ACTA'

itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will remember the hullaballoo that arose yesterday over a leaked version of CETA containing key clauses that were 'nearly identical to ones found in ACTA.' Now the European Commission is saying you shouldn't believe every leak you see and that the 'language being negotiated on CETA regarding Internet is now totally different from ACTA.' Well, maybe with the exception of language that appears in both CETA and ACTA but didn't 'originate' in ACTA and therefore doesn't count."

Comments

So?

[coder111]

European Commission are corporate whores. They don't really care about wants and needs of the people and never ever had. How is this news? They had same kind of "screw everyone, we'll do what we want" attitude when it came to software patents several years ago.

--Coder

Re:So?

[muon-catalyzed]

They are basically unelected drones with over reaching powers. Until EU starts functioning like the USA with some degree of "responsibility to your constituents" we are screwed.

Re:So?

[sFurbo]

Do you mean ACTA? In that case, it was the European Parliament that that rejected that. Apparantly as a part of their continued effort to wrestle power from the Commission.

Re:So?

[lordholm]

The commission did not refuse, they kept asking the other parties to open up. However the US and Japan refused to open up the negotiations. The US claimed that national security was at stake.

Not that the commission handled things that good, and Karel's actions following the MEPs rejection is clearly a reason to sack him.

I would like to ask MEPs: Please subject Karel to a very intense smacking in the EP and if he does not amend his ways, fire him. Yes, I know that de jure you have to fire the entire EC, but you could just tell Barrosso, that he and the others will loose their jobs unless Karel is sacked.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know why this will never happen? Because it is the people who would be subject to this scrutiny that have to vote the law through, and why would they? This is the problem with representative democracy as it stands today: the people who make the rules have learnt how to bend the rules to their own advantage. Anyone who make it in politics is a career politician who has no knowledge of how it is to work for a living in the real world.

Re:Didn't take long..

[Sasayaki]

Normally bills that get rejected due to public outcry become riders on other, more socially acceptable bills.

I though it'd be the "Love Your Nation Act: Money For Bridges, and Orphans, and Puppies, and ACTA, and Rape Crisis Centres" act.

You wouldn't vote against money for bridges, orphans and puppies would you? And what are you, some kind of sick rapist who wants your victims to suffer?

Re:European comisars

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes, but especially this De Gucht guy seems particularly bent on defending the position of certain large American industry organisations. Though that's still a bad one in a sorry lot; he might seem the black sheep but the rest of the flock sure ain't white either.

Wouldn't Be a Problem

[Bob9113]

you shouldn't believe every leak you see

You know, that wouldn't be a problem if you would show the citizens the treaties you are considering subjecting them to.

Re:European comisars

[umghhh]

the good thing about that is that they show to everybody what bunch of fucks they are. The bad thing about this is that this hardly matters. It is as with kids - if t hey ask seemingly innocent question long enough they get an agreement not because we really agree but because we are tired of being asked the same question all t he time. The other problem there is that this is complex matter that does not affect lives directly so there is no majority that would go to EU Parliament with sticks and ropes to hand those assholes. I'd say - hang them all as they do not understand.

Re:Didn't take long..

[JaredOfEuropa]

And that is more or less what this thing has become: a rider. The controversial IP-related clauses from ACTA are getting shoehorned into an otherwise normal trade agreement. They hope that MEPs will not reject the entire deal because of a "bad but small part", to paraphrase one MEP who said she isn't sure whether or not to reject the CETA if the ACTA clauses get tacked on. But that's exactly what MEPs should be crystal clear on: if they reject an agreement, they must also reject anything that has the agreement tacked on as a rider. There's good reason to be clear on that right now; it means that the people negotiating CETA know that they should not add the ACTA stuff if they want to have any hope of the agreement passing parliament. And it is pretty much the only way MEPs can effectively influence the contents of the agreement.

It's interesting to note that some MEPs might actually fall for this; they do not want to reject a good agreement because of one bad rider, no matter how hard they opposed ACTA. "Sure, I am not too happy about this clause regarding our firstborn, but on the whole this deal with the devil looks pretty sweet".

This is why...

[Tom]

...we need actual penalties on politicians who undermine the constitution and such likes.

Right now, they can try, try again until it gets through, because being a politician is one of the few jobs where failures have no consequences whatsoever.

Ah, you'll now say, "but come next election..." - obviously, that's not how it works. Next election, people will vote again based on posters and TV spots, not on a performance evaluation. Everyone knows that, including the politicians.

Secret negociations

[Yvanhoe]

As long as they will insist on negotiating without transparency, it will be fair to criticize the process and to base our opinion on leaks.

Countering it would be easy : be open ! Is it that hard to understand ?