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?"
None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU is a great idfea but the execution is terrible. The council should be destroyed, stricken from the legislature.
That anyone on the council thought that this was even remotely conscionable tells you just how undemocratic the people on it are. The fact that they could then go and do this tells you how undemocratic the council system is.
Get rid of it. It's sick.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore did not win the election. He had the majority of the popular vote. That's it. The popular vote means nothing in itself.
Can you not see there is something wrong there?
Re: (Score:2)
Pure democracy is, to put it simply, Tyranny of the Masses. A representative republic (which is what the US is) is NOT a pure democracy, it's not even "really close" to a democracy.
A representative republic is a system which attempts (and I think succeeds in) balancing the over-all will of the people with the needs of the minority. In a democracy, the needs of the minority are meaningless. In America, the needs of the minority actually get a significant voice, though if the will of the majority is oppose
Re: (Score:2)
So why the F**K do you keep sanctioning, insulting and invading other countries for being 'undemocratic'?
I ask in a spirit of pure enquiry :-)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit.
All voting machines have a margin of error - accounting for the likelihood of a misread, a data entry error (someone hitting the wrong button), or other malfunctions.
The voting machines used across the USA have an average margin of error of at least 1.5%, sometimes more depending on whose analysis you are using.
Al Gore "won" the popular vote by less than 1% nationwide. That means that all you can say is he had a statistical dead heat in the popular vote. If you wanted to have a national recount, th
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.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL definitely required here, but....
The 3 strikes clause comes under the Telecommunications policy area of the Trans European Network. And, while Transport is covered by co-decision, Energy and Telecoms are not (yet). Now while, the whole proposal comes under co-decision, this element does not and so they can bypass the approval process, if the changes are to element not requiring co-decision.
(I'm totally open to correction on this).
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:None, not without massive reform (Score:4, Interesting)
The commission is completely unelected. Part of their rules of conduct is to NOT act with any favour towards those who picked them. The commission isn't a political body, but it has extensive political powers, including being the only body who can actually propose new laws.
The government isn't elected directly in most European countries, but parliament gets to pick the prime minister, and they can vote them out again. In contrast, the European parliament is a squabbling mess who doesn't accomplish anything. They could in theory dissolve the commission, but it didn't happen even when the commission became so obviously corrupt that it had to step down.
If the commission was abolished, I'd have fewer reservations about the EU. I still don't believe that you can actually have a well-functioning democracy the size of EU, and India and USA don't particularly challenge that belief.
Please spare us the rehash of tired rhetoric (Score:2)
No, the commission is not elected they are appointed, and here's some more bad news, on the same basis neither are the cabinets of the majority of the governments of the European nations elected.
Democracies hold elections, the send representatives to parliaments, they elect a group to govern and then they appoint a cabinet. There's that word again - cabinets are appointed and EU commissioners are appointed both by the governments they represent. You trying to suggest that the commission just walked in off
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you don't think that an apolitical body having a monopoly on introducing new legislation is a problem. I don't see how I can elaborate more on that, it seems self-evident to me.
Anyway, I don't think we're ready for the EU at all, but there isn't much that can be done about that right now. All we can do is trying to keep it as powerless as possible, and hope that the inevitable civil war (every union has one, sooner or later) won't be too bloody.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello,
No, in Europe we had our wars *before* we did our union :-)
That's innovation for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
The council of ministers consists of ministers from each country in the EU. Those ministers represent the democratically elected governments of each of the EU member states. Those governments are answerable to their parliaments and as such are directly answerable to the electorate. How much more democratic do you need?
There is of course a slight imbalance in that smaller states have proportionally greater power than larger states - this is a common problem in the EU which could be rectified if the EU par
Re: (Score:2)
The reason democracy is failing you and most other people is that you don't seem to have the faintest idea how it works.
The European Constitution would have superseded your own constitution, therefore without a referendum you would not have been able to accept it.
Voting against the Constitution did not change the underlying fact that in order to expand the EU required reform - hence the 'Reform Treaty/The Treaty of Lisbon' was born. Lisbon does not supersede your constitution, it is subservient to it and t
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I don't see anything in GP that implies a direct democracy. Why do you think you need a direct democracy to have the government do what the majority wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Having a referendum for every EU treaty is an attempt to manage it though direct democracy.
In a constitutional democracy the constitution provides a mechanism whereby the government doesn't have to have a referendum every time it needs to act. The current EU treaties should be implemented by simple acts of parliament and not by complex referendum processes. If those treaties are in conflict with the constitution then they can be rejected at any time. If the GP has a problem with the constitution then he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French started it with their ethnic cleansing campaign against German people in the late 17th century (google for 'Burn the Palatinate')
Or you could say it started with the 30 years war, which killed about a fifth to a quarter of the German population. Before 1870, France was the big bully superpower that always threatened to beat people up.
Re: (Score:2)
The French started it with their ethnic cleansing campaign against German people in the late 17th century (google for 'Burn the Palatinate')
It's not a good sign when the 5th such link points back to your own post ! (damn Google is fast nowadays). Disgusting excesses of war, certainly. Relevant ? Who knows. Anyway, I didn't know about it.
Or you could say it started with the 30 years war, which killed about a fifth to a quarter of the German population. Before 1870, France was the big bully superpower that always threatened to beat people up.
I agree with you on the last point, but how is France to blame for the first one ? Sure, Richelieu took opportunities during that dark period, but the blame falls first on stupid and greedy religions, and also on the little known facts that 1/3 of the german population at the time were nobles (it was hereditary
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant ? Who knows. Anyway, I didn't know about it.
Your past military escapades have been a major factor in establishing the widespread, deep antipathy towards France felt in most European countries.
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: (Score:2)
Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV?
They used to whine a lot, until they managed to get a lot of countries to put a sort of fee or tax on recordable media.
Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either
Sure they do. A lot. The TV or radio can't play a song without paying for it. Usually lots and lots of money. Normally you also have to pay to hear it, be it a radio/tv license or by listening to commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people pay for television service just to view endless commercials?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. A lot. The TV or radio can't play a song without paying for it. Usually lots and lots of money. Normally you also have to pay to hear it, be it a radio/tv license or by listening to commercials.
The payment often goes the other way [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Don't they want people to hear their music? Isn't that why they pay radio stations to play their songs?
Your whole message is founded on an invalid idea. Record companies don't pay. The collect. Every time a song plays on the radio, or on a television, or on a DVD or VHS video, the record companies earn a few pennies. That may not sound like much but it adds-up to millions of dollars each year.
Their goal is to earn fees off the internet too, either through streaming music fees, or through dir
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there used to be the whole Payola thing, but that isn't exactly legal. He could be getting today confused with the 1950s. It's an easy enough mistake to make, if you aren't paying overly close attention to current events.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. But in addition to that, a radio station has to pay a HUGE initial price on each song they want to play on the air, not including the royalties they pay each time they play it. A friend in the business once told me approximately how much that price is, but I don't recall the exact amount. As best as I can remember, it was into the thousands of dollars per album. So what the big labels do is make a deal with the radio station: play our special mix of "new hits" and we won't charge you the initial co
Re: (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!
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 rig
Re: (Score:2)
The French healthcare system is good, but it's certainly not the greatest system in the world. The US system has the benefit of it's not a system so much as a free market, enabling those with the cash to buy the most advanced healthcare in the world. If only everyone was rich, then the US system would be perfect. But I digress and cease this route because it seems very offtopic.
The French people fought hard and once the war was over pretty much murdered in cold blood anyone who cooperated with the Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't exactly require great courage to settle a few scores after the Anglo-Saxons have chased the boches away.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. In many countries with public healthcare you're only allowed to pay for better quality to a small extent or not at all. In the Netherlands you can't pay to receive treatment earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why many come to the U.S. Also we have socialized government schooling in the U.S., and in theory people can go to private schools to earn a better education, but because of the high School tax, there's no money left for the private option.
There are many middle class parents who would love to send their kids to a private school, but after Uncle Sam has collected his school tax, there's nothing less to pay the private tuition.* The same flaw exists with a government healthcare system.
*(IMHO peop
Re: (Score:2)
There has been a push to create a system of school vouchers. Where the government takes the money allocated for your child's education and gives it to the private school instead of the public school. This is more fair because generally schools are paid through property tax because it is one of the easier taxes for a county to collect. Everyone who lives there gets to pay the tax, based on the value of their property. Rich people pay more, poor people pay less. And under the voucher system, everyone would ge
Re: (Score:2)
You were asking for that, to be honest. Wait a minute...
What is next, insightful for a flippant 1 line response?
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.
The parliament is GREAT (Score:3, Interesting)
They're mostly on the side of angels. Seriously. Maybe the fact that they don't have that much actual power forces them to act more responsibly. I don't know. But they usually side with the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
As was I (and still am now) with a political scientist, thank you :)
No standing anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
This French law is stupid, but to what extent should the badly-run shady organization in Brussels overturn by fiat laws made by the National Assembly?
The European Union executive runs roughshod over the European Parliament; there is much backroom dealing and invisible lobbying. Under such conditions I don't think the laws passed have much legitimacy, even if they achieve good results (they rarely do). Depending on the dictators from Brussels to enforce freedom in France is a contradiction in terms.
\end{rant}
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
However, that constitution was still better than nothing.
As it also lowers the threshold for most council votes I'm not so sure. It could end up actually being worse than nothing.
The parliament should be strengthened, without a doubt, but while I'm generally pro-EU, the suggested constitution is flawed, and the way it's getting rammed down the unions throat anyway is deeply undemocratic.
Barroso's comment about 'the people who matter in the UK' is fairly indicative of the mindset currently in power in the EU
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> However, that constitution was still better than nothing.
I'd rather we give them 5 more years to come up with a proper 'constitution' than accept that piece of crap. I'm Dutch and we Dutchies said 'No' to that treaty. Our 'democratic' government has since decided that, should our country try to ratify the 'constitution' again, there will be no need for a referedum. Assholes.
Re:No standing anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You miss a point: The whole concept of europe is based on the concept that some selfappointed burocrats run everything while the elected MEPs have absolutely no power, the parlament "rubberstamps" decisions taken by others... Nations can't decide anymore what's legal nor how to regulate the invasion from north africa even inside their borders. New laws against "xenofobia" are coming into effect whose aim is to suppress free speech.
The problem, or good part of it, is that Sarko is such a id..t that he makes
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't like the US federal government. The EU is a group of independent nations that have voluntarily chosen to cooperate economically rather than violently competing over scarce resources as in the period up to 1945.
In this sense, the EU has been a great success. War between EU member states is now pretty much unimaginable.
The EU council is not a 'government', the power lies with the various national governments. The primary function of EU regulations is to make the one common market possible without
Re: (Score:2)
Without another Europe, that didn't have an EU and did have a war in the late 20th/early 21st century, that claim is totally unproven.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand GP. He didn't say 'The EU has prevented one or more wars between member states', he said 'War between EU member states is very unlikely, this can at least partially be explained by the existence of the EU'. Which is true. The whole point of the EU was to give European countries common economic interests, so they would work together instead of attack eachother. The fact that a European constitution was even considered should be an indication of how well the member states work together these
Re: (Score:2)
You said the EU is not like the U.S., and then proceeded to describe the U.S. circa 1780. The U.S. was not just born... it was a gradual process from 13 independent states to a confederation of states, to a union of states, and finally a nation under one supreme government.
The EU is slowly but surely marching down the same path. If the Constitution had passed, the EU would be like the U.S. around the year 1900.
Re:No standing anyway (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah that plan you had to deposed him was sublime in its genius. Getting rid of him by letting him serve his full term of office was a masterstroke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I'd translate it as "un changement en ce que nous pouvons croire". But then, I'd be correcting the grammar as well. Not sure if it was an intentional thing or not.
I think "le changement auquel on peut croire" is probably the best translation. It's the translation I've seen used in the papers here in France.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you live in the UK.
<rant target="average_brit">
The locals (yes, I'm living here ATM) are constantly brainwashed by the local politicians and media with bullshit talk of British exceptionalism and that only bad things come from the EU.
Well, I have news for you:
- The Empire is long gone. Nowadays the only thing the British are exceptional at is extra shoddy management (as compared with Northern European nations - I've lived in Holland so i can compare), an unhealthy level of consumption of stories
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for all of Europe but from what I've seen, Belgium, Italy and France aren't all that different.
If you don't like it, then why don't you just fuck off?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: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!!).
Re: (Score:2)
That elderly Lady is the best you have...
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe they don't generally appoint themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
NOTE: Ireland ALSO voted no.
And feels mislead and regrets it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68 [youtube.com] > this is how they are building the uberstate: violating the rules
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: (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).
Re: (Score:2)
But none of them is a key member./quote Which makes it more understandable why they want to withdraw. All members are equal, but some members are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:2)
But you also point out why we need a 'Level Playing field', it is not a Dictatorship of the Majority we want or need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nepotism at work (Score:2)
Why is Sarkozy so keen on draconian copyright laws and punishments for people breaking it? Could it be that his latest wife is a singer, composer and model?
I mean, most politicians are pretty self centered and don't give a rat's ass about their subjects, but I have rarely seen it used with such bluntness.
European Council does not have legislative powers (Score:2)
Re:European Council does not have legislative powe (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Wouldn't such a focus weaken the 88% agreement of the European Parliament ? The amendment was previously written in general terms, which seemed like a good idea in order to make it relevant to the whole European Union. I fear that if it becomes too obvious that some MEP are fighting at the European Parliament level a national battle, the support might van
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
Woa, kinda alarmist, don't you think ?
From what I've understood, the "three strikes" law is a French law that has been / is getting passed into law. The EU directive would prevent it, but if the EU drops the amendment, is lost in some endless deliberations or in fact reaches no final decision at all then there is nothing stopping it. And yes, the last sentence is a bit alarmist but I don't know when almost 90% of the politicans agreed on something that's good for the people...
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the enlightening post.
What is terrifying, at least for me, is the amount of bureaucracy involved: for all these councils to exist, there are hundreds of thousands of people revolving around those councils...people that, in most cases, push papers around, and do nothing essentially productive.
I think that EU needs to be simplified (just like many other things :-)). There should be a EU government, much like the Federal Government in the USA. This government should be electable directly by the p
How to reform the Council from the grass roots (Score:2, Interesting)
Demand that your countries council representative be directly elected. This exactly how the US Senate became democratic early last century: Campaigns in Oregon and Nevada forced those states to elect their Senators, and once they had, the rest had eventually to follow suit.
Once a large EU member or a few small ones do this, the same will happen in the EU.
Another reason why this is the best way to reform the EU is that doing it this way does not threaten further integration: the representative would be a cr
Re: (Score:2)
The council consists of heads of state, so changing the way members are elected would have to change the way heads of states are elected. This varies from country to country, but I believe the most common case is that the prime minister represents the country, and the prime minister is elected by parliament.
I say scrap the council, or at least severely limit its role to purely executive. It should have no legislative powers.
Copyright is a european invention (Score:2)
Coming to think of it, copyright (or more precisely copydeny) was a european idea in the first place. It's just funny that while attributed as having originated in the U.K., it's the French right now who act as its most rabid supporters (at least sarkoficcially).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I never thought I would write this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the same idiots keep getting re-elected.
Who's fault is that?
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)
The EU Presidency (Score:2)
... is largely symbolic. It only gives more exposure, not more power, and no way it gives a "free hand." That's just nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the Americans? We think we are so superior and if you think about, our country hasn't had much to feel very superior about in about 10 years. No major accomplishments lately for the ol' US of A....
Hey we've been pissing the rest of the world off, that should count for something, and don't forget after Nov. 4th all americans have been absolved of their white liberal guilt, let's welcome the age of aquarius!