EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Ignore Any Rejection of ACTA 253
Dupple tips a story at Techdirt about comments from EU commissioner Karel De Gucht, who made some discouraging remarks to the EU International Trade committee about the opposition to ACTA: "If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice. ... If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed." De Gucht also spoke about proposing clarifications to ACTA if Parliament declined to ratify it, which, as Techdirt points out, doesn't make much sense: "Remember that ACTA is now signed, and cannot be altered; so De Gucht is instead trying to fob off European politicians with this vague idea of 'clarifications' — as if more vagueness could somehow rectify the underlying problems of an already dangerously-vague treaty."
You mean he actually bought the European Court?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It will pass in some form (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we miss stories where they fight for people?! (Score:5, Interesting)
I realize this is Slashdot and eye-catching headlines tailored towards inciting the rabbleâ"rousers are the norm (yes, my UID is low) but are we somehow missing the headlines where political leadership (from any country) actually stand up for the rights of their citizenry instead of the business?
I rarely see politicians, on any side of the coin, standing up for the rights of the electorate and instead only see that they support business interests. These people must get elected somehow, and yes I realize there are possibilities that the electorate has no true influence here but it's improbable at least for now, so why the hell do we continue to put up with them doing this?
I've been disgusted for years by their actions but do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Re:It will pass in some form (Score:4, Interesting)
If its passing is inevitable, I want it as hobbled and useless as possible.
The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.
Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.
Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to say it since we're supposedly living in more civilized times, but maybe if more politicians who obviously have no interest in actually representing the people (not corporations) they "represent" were brutally assassinated, the rest would get the message. I may be wrong, but it seemed to work for some in the past...
Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? (Score:4, Interesting)
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
Hmmm.. this would explain why UK's PM backpedaled on bankers' bonuses [theweek.co.uk].
Re:ruling class gonna rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Just read this excellent article on that: http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html [crf-usa.org]
The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Re:You are naive. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why up-close and personal political powers belong in the hands of governments no further away than a few hundred miles. National federated governments are not accountable to their populations and so should not have powers which directly touch on those citizens, except in very broad, general ways.
Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As an American... (Score:4, Interesting)
Only if you're male and deemed fit to serve in the militia. And they're trying to change that now. Of course there's a lot of opposition. People pro army rifle often state that Switzerland enjoys the liberties it has exactly because the population is armed to the teeth.
The people for taking the rifles away say that every misuse or accident is one too many. Personally, I think both sides have it wrong, as usual ;).
Re:A country that is not a country. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the type of thing when you have something resembling a country, but that is not in essence a country, which has non of the protections or checks and balances that a state should actually have.
Democracy at the EU level, kind of a joke.
You say this, and yet democracy seems to be working better in Europe than in what is supposed to be a democratic America. In both cases you have a collection of States that make up a super-state. In the US, the States retain many powers that the Federal government is not allowed to fuck with. The same is true for the EU.
The EU has a multiplicity of political parties in each country, all of which are democratically elected, with the European Parliament being directly elected and with a rotating presidency of the EU itself that shifts to a different country every six months power is never focused too long in one place.
The countries in the EU provide checks and balances to each other, quite without meaning to. Because of the different interests that each country has, it's difficult for any given policy to be pushed through even by the strongest country or even set of countries in the Union.
So how, exactly, is democracy at the EU level a joke?
They do worse in the US all the time (Score:2, Interesting)
Your gun fetishism is pathetic.