Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement 149
metacell writes "Slovenia's ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovek Zorko, writes: 'I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.'"
Re:We need an amendment.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
Handy theory because you only have to influence one person.
This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.
Re:We need an amendment.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?
Re:Hanlon was right (Score:4, Interesting)
... ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.
Correct. But the people agreeing to it are stupid.
Re:Read Before You Sign (Score:5, Interesting)
I think all legislation should be read aloud by the leading party member of whoever introduced it, and all legislators must be present the entire time before voting on it.
I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... (Score:5, Interesting)
...so I speak as a citizen of a country that has been part of the EU for 7-8 years, and as a citizen of a country who has just joined the EU (signed the agreement, joining in 2013).
This is not malice, or stupidity. Slovenia is a new member-state of the EU. And, because of that status, I believe the government is compelled to follow EU instructions without much objection.
The EU has become a political union, controlled by an EU Commission (which no one elects) and the EU President, who is elected by the Commission. Oh yeah, and the members of the Commission are picked and appointed by the EU President.
EU uses political and economical (since they control how much each country is allowed to borrow, and in this recession it is important that countries get as much as they can) pressure to have countries to whatever the EU wants. For example, many countries were denied a referendum to see whether the people want to join or not. They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums. In other countries, like Croatia, there was a referendum, but there was so much disinformation and propaganda going on that it was clear that it would pass. Around 40% of Croatians came out to the referendum. According to our original constitution from 1991/2, to have a referendum count you have to have 70%+ people come out. This, of course, was changed so that referendums like these can pass.
It is clear that the EU wants this to pass and it did. The only country that hasn't signed it is Poland. But, unfortunately, there will be consequences for Poland because of that. The EU has made it clear (you can read on their website) that they will require every country to have "compatible" laws to the EU's laws, and that if a country doesn't, they will use political and economical means to force them to.
The Slovenian ambassador takes her orders from the Slovenian government, the Slovenian government takes their orders from the EU Commission. The EU parliament rubber-stamps any decisions of the Commission with little opposition. The Parliament is made up of 754 delegates. Out of those, Nigel Farage (and his cohort) and the Pirate Party will be against ACTA, everyone else will give their support under the watchful eye of the President. 378 people WILL NOT be against ACTA in the Parliament, you can be certain of that. And if the EU signs it, so must every EU country (Poland, too).
Thank you for reading.
captcha: faulted
Re:I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... (Score:2, Interesting)
They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums.
The Dutch referendum was about the first iteration of the Lisbon treaty (aka "EU Constitution", and our no was honoured -- in effect, the Dutch "no" meant the treaty was changed favourably for the Dutch. But you're right in the sense that the final treaty was not put forward in a new Dutch referendum.
From my point of view, the EU cannot afford itself an oppressive treaty like ACTA. Nationalism is on the rise in most countries, and antics like the ACTA treaty are only going to fuel the anti-EU sentiment. According to recent polls, about 55% of the Dutch would vote for a party on either the far left or the far right -- parties which are both outspoken anti-EU. On the other side, we have seen the rise of pirate parties in Sweden, Germany and Spain that advocate government transparency and copyright reform (even abolishment), and we can be sure that they will make ACTA a hot topic for the next election rounds (sadly, still far away).
American corporatism does not yet have a stranglehold on the European populace as it does in North America. That the European Commission had been bought should come as no surprise to anyone. The coming EP vote in June will determine how much of the European government is still working in the interest of the EU. Any missteps there and the EU just might fail completely.