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

Well, yeah.

[Johann Lau]

It has an E instead of an A. That's good enough, right?

European comisars

[boorack]

What a bunch of fucks. It seems that we won't get rid of attempts of pushing more or less fascist copyright regulation (with censorship attached) until we get rid of them.

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:European comisars

[Spad]

Don't confuse the EU Parliament with the EU Commission; the former are elected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of their constituents, the latter are unelected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of anyone who pays for lunch.

Re:European comisars

[TheRaven64]

Don't fall into that trap. Who appoints them? I don't know

And there's the reason why it's not worth reading the rest of your post. Why not educate yourself? The European Commission is appointed by the European Council, which is comprised of the heads of state of the various members. The indirection between them and the people you elect is huge. In the UK, for example, you vote for a Member of Parliament (MP). The party with the most MPs selects the Prime Minister (modulo coalitions), who is then the UK representative in the European Council. He, along with the other members, is responsible for appointing the members of the European Commission. So, my influence on the Commission is that I vote for someone who may have a vote for the person that has a vote to appoint the person who is supposed to represent me. In contrast, I have 4 MEPs who are supposed to represent me, of whom one is someone I respect and who I can rely on to act in my interests and the others presumably act in the interests of other members of my constituency.

Re:European comisars

[henni16]

To quote wikipedia:

One of the 27 is the Commission President proposed by the European Council[..] and elected by the European Parliament.
The Council then appoints the other 26 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and then the 27 members as a single body are subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.

So the parliament has an all-of-them-or-nobody right of approval for the whole commission whose members are picked by the heads of the member states' governments .

Re:European comisars

[lordholm]

This had maybe some point of truth to it in the 1970s when the EP was not directly elected. Most of the MEPs these days are pretty serious about what they do and becoming a MEP these days is not something that you get to become because you have been a politician for all your life.

Many MEPs are also fairly young career MEPs such as for example Fjellner, Alvaro and in 't Veld. They choose to become MEPs (or rather to try to be elected as MEPs) because they where seriously interested in the EP politics.

It is not 1970 anymore.

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?

[gruntkowski]

'Mother should I trust the government?'
Pink Floyd was soooo right.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, they rejected the first one.

No, they most certainly did not. That was the European Parliament and not the Commission.

I don't recall the USA rejecting anything the MAFIAA has proposed to them.

That appears to be true, and is unfortunately also more or less true for the European Commission. It's quite sad, really, to put it (very) mildly.

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?

[jez9999]

Are you kidding me? The problem with the EU Commission is that it's *too much* like the US government. You think the US 2-party system has ANY accountability to the voter whatsoever?

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?

[dkleinsc]

You think the US 2-party system has ANY accountability to the voter whatsoever?

I've always thought it would be kinda interesting to follow an idea from ancient Athens: After someone holding political office had his term end, he was immediately put on trial for his actions while in office, and could be personally punished for those actions (e.g. a treasurer who was caught embezzling funds could have his own property confiscated).

They're a sleezy pickup artist

[Sasayaki]

The ACTA/etc folks are just like that sleazy guy in the bar.

They have "negs", designed to make you feel bad and insecure about yourself. Piracy is costing the American economy billions. You're the most beautiful woman/man in this bar. You wouldn't steal a handbag. Of course I have no STIs. You wouldn't steal a car...

They'll buy you drinks and they'll tell you any lie you want to hear. They're an astronaut. They drive a Porche. The wording of CETA is totally different from ACTA.

They'll lie out their arses no matter how many times you say no, because all they need is one yes and they've fucked you.

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist

[Sasayaki]

Oh and take it from me, those ACTA guys say they'll call you in the morning and do breakfast but they never call. :'(

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist

[Hognoxious]

those ACTA guys say they'll call you in the morning and do breakfast but they never call.

That carries a ten-year jail sentence in Sweden.

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be mistaking the EU for a democracy.... the European Commissioners are not elected but appointed and things have to get pretty extreme before they can be held accountable

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:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ

[acidfast7]

I never said it was a democracy. However, when one looks up an EU Commissioner, the first three pieces of information are State, Party, and Name. When you don't vote for the party, the individual has no power. And, when you have 5-7 parties/country, each really wants to keep their percentage of votes, so they'll keep "their" Commissioner in line or face the consequences at the polls. A protest just gets the message across in a more rapid manner.

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".

Re:Didn't take long..

[sFurbo]

The European Parliament have been pretty stubborn about such things before, e.g. refusing to accept the entire commission because of one or two unacceptable elements.

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.