French "Three Strikes" Law Gets New Life 193
Kjella writes "A little over a week ago we discussed the EU's forbidding of disconnecting users from the Internet. But even after having passed with an 88% approval in the European Parliament, and passing through the European Commission, it was all undone last week. The European Council, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, removed the amendment before passing the Telecom package. This means that there's now nothing stopping France's controversial 'three strikes' law from going into effect. What hope is there for a 'parliament' where near-unanimous agreement can be completely undone so easily?"
Re:Here in New Zealand too (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:3, Informative)
this would be the state judiciaries? No - the federal judiciary overturned a decision taken by the federal government. However the mechanism actually works, the GP's point, that the federal government actually runs the country that the rest of the world sees, is still valid.
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Informative)
I really think the EU needs to change. They either need to go all the way, become a unified nation fully, or they need to scale back, and basically become a trading bloc. This "We're a European government but not really and you don't get to elect us," is just bad news IMO.
There is strong sentiment within several of the member states of the EU to withdraw from the organization. The European Parliament and Commission is seen, by many, as weak and/or corrupt (depending on who you ask); and the rest don't really know who they are or what they do.
The Governments of England, France and Germany do not wish to give away more of their own sovereignty or power, yet they wish to maintain or increase their influence upon the management and direction of the EU itself. At the same time as they want to remain as much a part from it as possible. If the EU were to become a proper union it would drastically reduce the power of some of the founding states, while increasing the influence of economically weaker nations (such as Poland).
Cultural, economical and political factors ensure that the EU as it stands today will never become a Union and if the governing body of the EU tried to do anything that seemed to pull towards such a scenario the Union would dissolve in a heart beat. It has no military power, and none of the member states wish to give their military, or security, forces over to EU control. Not to mention the fact that some member states are a member of NATO while others are not.
In practical terms as it today the EU drafts various trade laws that it tries to enforce upon weaker nations while the stronger nations decide if they want to implement, ignore, claim to lack the resources to implement, really lack the resources to implement or simply decide that it is not in their best interest to implement.
Then there is the EEA (European Economic Area) which binds the signing Nations to parts of the EU laws. EEA is the members of EU and Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. Oh and Switzerland isn't part of the EEA because they got a special deal with the EU (since their constitution requires them to vote upon ever part of the "Deal" offered by EU membership). These nations gets free trade within the EU (kinda, but not really); but they have to follow parts of EU law (those outside the EU gets no say or influence upon those laws).
If you are confused by any of this, or don't get how this really is supposed to work in practice; then don't worry; most of us Europeans don't get it either. For the most part we refuse or neglect to do any sort of personal research on the subject; much rather we listen to our own national politicians who have a real self interest (as I mentioned earlier) in keeping what power they have within their own Nation.
Re:The French (Score:5, Informative)
Time for another line from yes minister (about a compulsory European ID card): "The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it and the Italians will be too disorganised to implement it; it's only the British who will resent it"
While 'Let the French do what the Fench think is good for France' is a good sentiment, the way it works is that the EU presidency rotates around every 6 months, and during those 6 months, whichever country hold the presidency has a completely free hand to try and force the craziest nonsense from their law books onto the rest of Europe.
The UK forced 2 years retention of electronic communications particulars through, for instance. (Which I suspect that they did because they wouldn't have got enough support for the measure at home)
Re:Sarkozy = French Version of Bush (Score:1, Informative)
Looks like the answer to the question here is actually... today was the last time, so far.
See this page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Informative)
Indirect voting is just another form of democracy, a bit like the electoral vote in the USofA.
The real problem are France and the UK, they form an axis of evil that refuses to grant the European Parliament full rights.
This is especially cynical when you see and hear how the British press is always going on about the so-called non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels, I believe the British scandal press is part of the European problem not getting solved.
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:3, Informative)
There is strong sentiment within several of the member states of the EU to withdraw from the organization.
But none of them is a key member.
The Governments of England, France and Germany do not wish to give away more of their own sovereignty or power, yet they wish to maintain or increase their influence upon the management and direction of the EU itself.
You are wrong about Germany, historically it's only the UK and France that limit the rights of the European Parliament.
At the same time as they want to remain as much a part from it as possible. If the EU were to become a proper union it would drastically reduce the power of some of the founding states, while increasing the influence of economically weaker nations (such as Poland).
EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ? (Score:5, Informative)
Well not exactly.
First of all, this is the Council of the European Union [wikipedia.org], not the European Council [wikipedia.org]. Everybody confuses them (and also with the Council of Europe [wikipedia.org], with is not related with European Union. Someone even mixed up with the European Commission [wikipedia.org] some comments above). Some people argue that people make things hard (like similar names hard to remember), so that it's harder to fight (you can't fight what you don't understand).
Also, the Council wasn't led by Sarkozy, but by Luc Chatel [wikipedia.org], secretary of State for Consumer affairs and Industry. But it's true that nobody in the French government would have the guts to make Sarkozy unhappy on purpose. They are totally devoted to him. So incidentally we can indeed say that Sarkozy led the Council even if he wasn't here.
Laquadrature published something more accurate : Citizen safeguards striked out in EU Council [laquadrature.net]
Woa, kinda alarmist, don't you think ?
The text hasn't been adopted yet. You can fin a nice diagram [laquadrature.net] describing where we are in the current procedure. The step described in this article is the point #4=>#9. The next step will be #11. But first, there will be a tripartite meeting (Council + MEPs + commission) and probably a #10 as commission and council doesn't agree.
So there will be a second reading by the EP. So please stop saying that UE is a dictatorship. There are a lot of things to notice before we can say that :
Again, nobody says that EU is perfect. Of course it isn't. But saying that "The EU is a great idea but the execution is terrible.", or other thing I read in the comments, seems disproportionated to me. It's probably due to the fact that the article was mis
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if the council changes it, the new proposal has to pass through the parliament again (they cannot just change the directive and be done with it (they could in the 80s, but the world have changed since then and the EP have a lot more power)):
Look at: http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm [europa.eu]
I think that they just finished point 9. This means that the EP must take the councils amendments and their common position into account and vote again, the parliament have all the rights to reintroduce the amendment that was dropped by the council.
If they do, they are putting a clear message to them that the amendment is critical and the directive will not pass without it.
This is why you have a bicameral system. You cannot just remove the points by the other camber and be done with it.
Although the EU legislative system has it's flaws, it is often criticized today for how it worked in the 80's at which point it was still an international organisation (and a lot of the critics believe it still works as in the 80s).
There are problems for sure, such as that the council is not appointed as a separate body, but it consists of the member states governments (i.e. it would be better with senators that do not have a foot in the member states' governments since the council would then be accountable to Europe and you could in theory fire the entire council, but any way... I am drifting of my main points now).
I do not like the council, but it is not really as bad as you think. Please write your parliamentarian and ask them what they will do for the second reading.
Not a contradiction, that's what happens (Score:3, Informative)
The European Court of Human Rights (which is not an EU institution, but close enough) acts as a last measure in many cases, much like the SCOTUS but w/o Adolf, err Antonin Scalia. They forced many positive changes in our disturbingly creepy judicial practices.
In other matters the Commission forced the break up of the former telecom monopoly, which resulted in one of the highest broadband penetration in the world. They might next save us from the current oligopoly in the mobile phone network industry, which holds firmly in place because corrupt motherfucker Sarkozy is best buddies with many a stakeholder.
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry I'm wrong. The commission is like that, the council is the way you described it.
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Informative)
The commission is appointed by the council, but subject to the scrutiny and approval / disproval by the parliament.
The commission does not have lawmaking rights in general (they do in two small areas, but have basically only used that power twice in 30 years or so).
From wikipedia:
-------------------
The Commission can adopt laws on its own initiative concerning monopolies and concessions granted to companies by Member States (Article 86(3)) and concerning the right of workers to remain in a Member State after having been employed there (Article 39(3)(d)). Two directives have been adopted using this procedure: one on transparency between Member States and companies[16] and another on competition in the telecommunications sector.
-------------------
So, two cases where the commission unilaterally did something in 30 years or so.
The telecom directive in question here is probably the capping of roaming fees, but that is typically not something that would go under law, but rather regulation of law (which is not necessarily handled by an elected body anyway) in the member states, so I cannot really see that they stepped over the line in that case, but yeah... in theory they have the power.
The important thing from the start of this post, is that the commission needs the approval of the EP, if the loose that approval, they can no longer remain in office.
No one in Europe elects their government directly, typically the prime minister is appointed by the head of state that may or may not be elected, but this is only a rubber stamp and the head of state has to appoint a prime minister that in term will name his ministers and then get the approval of the parliament for his government.
So I really cannot see the difference between how the commission is appointed and how each member states government is appointed. So blaming the commission for being unelected is a bit strange I think if you at the same time does not criticise all the parliamentary systems in Europe for having the same flaw.
The main problem as said is the council, but in many cases, the system of the Union gets a lot more critique than it has earned, and for the commission this is certainly so. Because, people does not really bother about checking the facts about how things work. If you criticise something, then make sure that you know how things actually work and you can make some concrete suggestions for improvements.
Re:Why don't they want people copying music? (Score:2, Informative)
Record companies pay radio stations to play their songs so that people can hear it
I don't know where you live, but over here in the USA, radio stations pay the record companies for the privilege of playing their music, even if they don't play any of their music!
/. reader will know what I'm talking about, both situations have been on the front page previously.
And radio in shops? Yeah, they don't like those either. You can play it just loud enough so that you can hear it, but if it reaches your customers ears you gotta pay. And this is over the air FM radio, which as I pointed out above, was already paid for once by the radio station.
I'd link to sources, but I don't have time right now. But anyone who is a regular