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?"
Usually I'm rather pro-European (Score:3, Insightful)
The European parliament in Strassbourg (France): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4292.jpg [wikimedia.org]
I see my country's flag. Yet my voice can not be heard.
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about thinking you are in a democracy, not actually being in one. Happy people are easier to control.
Lordy, I think all this
Re:No standing anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem, the dictators in Brussels.
The parliament also needs reform, greater visibilty and greater accountability. The reason they can ride roughshod over national laws is because member states lead by France gave them that power. It's perfectly legitimate, or at least it would be without the damned comission.
Well that's what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is something of the worst parts of a government and a diplomatic organization. It wants to pretend to be the unified European government, but it really isn't. It also isn't democratically elected or directly accountable to it's constituents.
The basic problem is that the European nations wanted to create a union that was along the lines of the United States (which as the name implies is a union of independent states). However they half-assed it. The reason the United States is so powerful is because of the united nature. While the states are independent, the laws of one do not affect the laws of another, they are all a lesser part of the whole. The states have to do as the federal government says and there is no leaving the union (that was what the civil war was actually about, can you leave the union). Though separate, they act as a whole.
Now this means two important things on a governmental level:
1) The federal government has real power. It can make laws, treaties and so on that the several states are required to abide by (within the bounds allowed in the Constitution). There isn't any weaseling out of it or leaving. Thus the government can speak for the US as a whole.
2) The government is directly accountable to the people. The federal government is elected by the citizens of the states, and thus is accountable to them. If they behave in a way the citizens don't like, they can be ousted as happened in this most recent election. Though it is a republic, not a democracy, it is still a democratic process where the people in the states say who will lead, not the leaders of the states.
Well unless the EU is willing to do this sort of thing, then crap like this ruling will happen. It isn't a real government. It has some trappings of a government, and some authority like it, but it isn't really a government.
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.
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
We elect the european parliament.
Just not the commission. This must change, starting with the scrapping of the commission.
Re:No standing anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
It is relatively new. And it is a force of good. But it has much to improve. We shouldn't call for destruction of the EU but rather better mechanisms.
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, and Florida.
And a Nobel prize.
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:4, Insightful)
And an Oscar. I'm pretty sure he won a few Senate elections too.
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sarkozy = French Version of Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sarkozy = French Version of Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Executive order * fill it in, come on, any number or word combination will be good!
Why don't they want people copying music? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all about the music industry trying to disconnect people from the internet who copy music. What is their problem? Turn on the radio, there's some of their precious music playing. Turn on the TV, you can hear their music. Go into a shop, it's playing there too. They even have special shows on TV, just about commercial music. Even special TV channels about commercial music.
Record companies pay radio stations to play their songs so that people can hear it. They put a lot of effort into making video clips so that the song can get on TV so that people can hear it. Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV? Nope. Do they want you to hear their music? They say they do, and they act like they do.
But if you copy a song on the internet because you want to hear it, suddenly they are all screaming "Cut them off from the internet! We're going to sue those illegal downloaders who tried to hear our music! We'll sue them for thousands of dollars per song!" Why? Don't they want people to hear their music? Isn't that why they pay radio stations to play their songs? Isn't that why they make expensive video clips?
Why do they want to cut people off from the internet? Why aren't they saying "This is a great way to get people to listen to our music! And we don't even have to pay, unlike the radio and TV stations"? Why are they trying to kick people off the internet, sue them, bankrupt them, wreck their lives? But if you listen to a song on the radio, they're really happy about it. Listen to it on the internet, you're dead meat.
Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either. It costs them money. What's the real problem?
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU is going to remain a mess until support for a federal model gets strong enough. However, the populations in most member states are for the time being more likely to support the status quo which gives them less say, than to support a federal model with a stronger EU parliament.
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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,
It always makes me laugh when I read this kind of stuff in the press: coming from a country with a non-elected 2nd house, and a non-elected *head of state* (who can dissolve parliament, declare war etc!!).