Well done to the European parliament

Amhran Nua

I'd just like to extend my gratitude to the members of the European parliament who defied the EU executive yesterday (10 March), casting a vote against ACTA, an agreement between the EU, the US and other major powers on combating online piracy, and threatening to take legal action at the European Court of Justice. ACTA was rejected in a 663 To 13 vote, with only members from the far right Dutch party and UKIP voting against.

A strong majority of MEPs (663 against and 13 in favour) today voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), arguing that it flouts agreed EU laws on counterfeiting and piracy online.

In addition, the Parliament's decision today states that MEPs will go to the Court of Justice if the EU does not reject ACTA rules, including cutting off users from the Internet "gradually" if caught stealing content.

Though MEPs cannot participate in the ACTA talks, without the consent of the European Parliament, EU negotiators will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a compromise.

Four MEPs from across national and party lines - Alexander Alvaro, Stavros Lambrinidis, Zuzana Roithova and Françoise Castex, dubbed the four ACTA musketeers - have launched a petition against the agreement, which has collected 31 signatures so far.

NGOs, academics and trade bodies that have studied leaks from the trade talks say the agreement would pave the way for network providers to introduce "US-style draconian" ways to penalise piracy.

The full list of "no" voters, with voting history, contact details, etc.
Netherlands
Louis Bontes [votewatch.eu], Partij voor de Vrijheid
Laurence J.A.J. Stassen [votewatch.eu], Partij voor de Vrijheid
Daniel van der Stoep [votewatch.eu], Partij voor de Vrijheid
UK
John Stewart Agnew [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Marta Andreasen [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Gerard Batten [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
John Bufton [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Trevor Coleman [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
William, Earl of Dartmouth [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Nigel Farage [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Mike Nattrass [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Paul Nuttall [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
Nicole Sinclaire [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party


All of the "no" voters are either independent of any EU parliament groups, or belong to the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group. Although the EFD group is officially pro-ACTA, of the 31 EFD members

• 6 were not present
• 8 abstained
• 9 voted against ACTA
• 8 voted in favour.

Apparently the EU parliament has this power since the Lisbon treaty last year. They also recently cancelled the Swift banking agreement with the USA that allowed all those three letter organisations to gather information about Swift users in the name of terrorism.

The specific text of the disagreement stipulates that the primary objection is to the secrecy under which ACTA is being negotiated, but there are several attached items that underline the limits o what would be acceptable, effectively removing ACTA from the legislative sphere.

Here is a leaked draft of the secret ACTA proposal.

Scofflaw

Now we see the true outlines of the fascistic post-Lisbon EU, against which our only bulwark is Farage and friends...

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Yep

I was about to make a thread on this myself

the representatives that are democratically elected into the EU Parliament are actually now doing their jobs with their new powers gained under Lisbon

wow now that the names of who voted for what have come out, its amusing to see UKIP supporting ACTA

TheReverend

i am confused sorry, did the EU vote for ACTA or against, as it says 600ish voted against and 13 voted for but it seems to be saying only 8 voted for

Dinner

TheReverend wrote: »

i am confused sorry, did the EU vote for ACTA or against, as it says 600ish voted against and 13 voted for but it seems to be saying only 8 voted for

It was rejected by 663 to 13.

8 (of the 31) members of the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group voted in favour of it.

TheReverend

Dinner wrote: »

It was rejected by 663 to 13.

8 (of the 31) members of the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group voted in favour of it.

Thank you very much, too much time without sleep

ei.sdraob

TheReverend wrote: »

Thank you very much, too much time without sleep

basically a group called "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" (dominated by UKIP)

voted to support ACTA which would take away our freedoms

clear

actually the vote wasnt for/against ACTA itself but a "criticism"

An overwhelming majority of MEPs (663 in favour and 13 against) today voted a resolution criticising the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), arguing that it flouts agreed EU laws on piracy online.

little difference

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually the vote wasnt for/against ACTA itself but a "criticism"

In political language thats a gauntlet however, one doesn't need to go to the European court of Justice over criticism. Its interesting to note the main proponents of ACTA are the most outspoken against the EU - are we to safely assume they have pocketed lobbyist funding in one form or another? Other than that I'd rate them as beneath consideration to be honest, a circus side show at that level.

cyberhog

UKIP response

Dear supporters,
Yesterday UKIP MEPs voted to reject the resolution on the ACTA Treaty. We were the only British Party to do so. We did because we felt that the Treaty itself should not exist in any form whatsoever as it is a total violation of private property of individuals.

There has been some interest in UKIPs voting position and this resolution has no legislative force whatsoever and our position is that this resolution was nothing more than talk which will never materialise.

UKIP policy remains that we will continue to oppose such secretive legislation. If this resolution evolves into a plenary report with legal force we will take necessary steps to protect your private property.

http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_11_ExpVote.html an official explanation of vote shall appear here shortly

http://weavervaleukipremfry.blogspot.com/2010/02/eu-lies-on-acta.html

Scofflaw

cyberhog wrote: »

UKIP response



http://weavervaleukipremfry.blogspot.com/2010/02/eu-lies-on-acta.html

So they voted against censuring and opposing the legislation because...they oppose the legislation?

Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty.

Perhaps if UKIP refuses to recognise the Treaty it will just go away, eh? Perhaps they could sing "la la la", too.

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

So they voted against censuring and opposing the legislation because...they oppose the legislation?

my thoughts exactly so many negatives in there

BetterLisbon

All predicated on the assumption that the proposal would have survived in the council of ministers under unanimity. The dutch could well have vetoed it under the old intergovernmental method.

Amhran Nua

BetterLisbon wrote: »

All predicated on the assumption that the proposal would have survived in the council of ministers under unanimity. The dutch could well have vetoed it under the old intergovernmental method.

Coulda shoulda woulda. Once the details of ACTA emerge, and they will, it will fall apart within the EU since the three strikes law has already been knocked back.

expectationlost

catching up on this after reading about smilie 29 http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/written-declaration-29-for-data-retention-of-internet-searches/
using the scaremongering of child pornography to get meps to sign written declaration in support of long retention of internet searches, ( by only references a code rather then saying whats the declaration supports)
is this the follow up declaration rejecting excessive control of internet use
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/wd12-on-acta-150-signatures-to-go-time-to-call irish signatories http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Written_Declaration_12/2010_signatories_list

BluePlanet

I admit I was wrong about Lisbon and humbly accept good governance from our European Overlords.

I still don't like the way our government approached the referenda tho, and despise the -keep-voting-until-they-say-yes- thing.

rumour

Oh everybody is patting each other on the back, not much of a discussion. Consider for every action there is a reaction. The bill was rejected, but it is now firmly on the agenda, not only in the USA but in Europe. Its only a matter of time before this freedom we obtained from the internet is legislated and eroded. With freedom comes responsibility and it is only with discipline that we achieve freedom.

To my mind Lisbon has bugger all to do with it. However I will acknowledge that if Lisbon is the mechanism that protects freedom it is to be welcomed in this instance. Irish people have proved themselves incapable of the necessary discipline to preserve freedom so it is good that our superior neighbours in Europe can decide these matters for us.

I await to see how our overlords will rate our budget. Presumably the parliament can vote on that as well.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

Oh everybody is patting each other on the back, not much of a discussion. Consider for every action there is a reaction. The bill was rejected, but it is now firmly on the agenda, not only in the USA but in Europe. Its only a matter of time before this freedom we obtained from the internet is legislated and eroded. With freedom comes responsibility and it is only with discipline that we achieve freedom.

To my mind Lisbon has bugger all to do with it. However I will acknowledge that if Lisbon is the mechanism that protects freedom it is to be welcomed in this instance. Irish people have proved themselves incapable of the necessary discipline to preserve freedom so it is good that our superior neighbours in Europe can decide these matters for us.

Lisbon is the mechanism, because Lisbon gave the Parliament a say on this. Prior to Lisbon, this would simply have been a case of the governments agreeing to do something like this, and it happening.

Perhaps this point has passed you by, but the EU is a multilateral framework for European governments to implement their agreed ideas. That means that if all the European governments are OK with the idea of regulating the Internet, then they'll ask the Commission to put together a European-level way of regulating the Internet. If they like what the Commission proposes, they adopt it - if they don't, they amend it and then adopt it. The job of the Commission there is to make sure that the legislation doesn't favour any particular country and is consonant with the Treaties.

Without the involvement of the Parliament through Lisbon, the only things that stop European countries agreeing multilateral Internet regulation are the Commission finding that it's not possible to do it without favouring one country, the ECJ finding that it conflicts with the Treaties, or the governments not being able to agree.

Without the EU, the only thing stopping multilateral Internet regulation is the governments not being able to agree.

rumour wrote: »

I await to see how our overlords will rate our budget. Presumably the parliament can vote on that as well.

Nobody is voting on the Irish budget through the EU, because all that is being done is non-binding assessment and commenting.

It's instructive that in neither of the cases you've chosen to comment on here do you actually understand what's happening.

regards,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's instructive that in neither of the cases you've chosen to comment on here do you actually understand what's happening.

regards,
Scofflaw

I thought that's what your for.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon is the mechanism, because Lisbon gave the Parliament a say on this. Prior to Lisbon, this would simply have been a case of the governments agreeing to do something like this, and it happening.

Perhaps this point has passed you by, but the EU is a multilateral framework for European governments to implement their agreed ideas. That means that if all the European governments are OK with the idea of regulating the Internet, then they'll ask the Commission to put together a European-level way of regulating the Internet. If they like what the Commission proposes, they adopt it - if they don't, they amend it and then adopt it. The job of the Commission there is to make sure that the legislation doesn't favour any particular country and is consonant with the Treaties.

Without the involvement of the Parliament through Lisbon, the only things that stop European countries agreeing multilateral Internet regulation are the Commission finding that it's not possible to do it without favouring one country, the ECJ finding that it conflicts with the Treaties, or the governments not being able to agree.

Without the EU, the only thing stopping multilateral Internet regulation is the governments not being able to agree.



Nobody is voting on the Irish budget through the EU, because all that is being done is non-binding assessment and commenting.

It's instructive that in neither of the cases you've chosen to comment on here do you actually understand what's happening.

regards,
Scofflaw

What is being forgotten here is that Lisbon ended the requirement for unanimity in the council. The dutch for example may well have vetoed it. In fact i would like to see council transcripts. Plus before the Lisbon constitutional amendment legislation enacting this directive could be challenged
Under bunreacht as the old amendment only protected european community acts.

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

What is being forgotten here is that Lisbon ended the requirement for unanimity in the council. The dutch for example may well have vetoed it. In fact i would like to see council transcripts. Plus before the Lisbon constitutional amendment legislation enacting this directive could be challenged
Under bunreacht as the old amendment only protected european community acts.

Read the first line of the post you quoted again there BL...