| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitutionFFII: The patent directive and the European constitutionPosted Mar 9, 2005 11:35 UTC (Wed) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)In reply to: FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution by oever Parent article: FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution
My country, the United Kingdom, has an extremely "Euro-Skeptic" populace, who will in the fairly near future be asked in a referendum to support the EU constitution. Like Jonas, I'm one of what in the UK is probably a minority, who are not actually anti-Europe in principle. However, this debacle has changed my mind about the constitution. This matter now goes far beyond patent law, and is a fundamental issue of who governs Europe - a democratically elected parliament, or a largely self-appointed dictatorship.
So get the word out about how Europe is working in practice. If the UK, and hopefully some other countries, vote NO to the constitution, it may concentrate minds wonderfully. (Any single state voting NO blocks acceptance of the constitution). And if the issue of patents (and procedural abuse) can be attached to the likelyhood of the constitution being adopted, it may result in some frantic back-pedalling on the smaller issue of patents!
(Log in to post comments)
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 9, 2005 13:39 UTC (Wed) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768) [Link] Maybe to avoid the problem of states dealying a procedural issue such as accepting a change to the constitution, it will be accepted anyways. :)
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 9, 2005 15:32 UTC (Wed) by ecureuil (subscriber, #3507) [Link] I think it is the wrong attitude. Voting 'No' to the EuropeanConstitution will not open a new negociation for 'more' democracy in the European Constitution but lead to a bastard statu quo where we will keep the current mixture of treaties. Who will gain power : bureaucratic institutions like the European Patent Agency who will keep their autonomy. The open letter of the FFII is very bad and contra-productive. Shouting wolf and calling European institutions a farce just reinforce the populist anti-European movement. People then vote for populist parties and we have useless anti-European deputies in European Parliament. The vote of the Council is a step back for FLOSS but is in no way anti-democratic. We are trying to play the rules of the complex European decision process. Our opponents also play the rules. Rules are complex not because we, European, love complexity but because it is a union of countries with different political traditions so there must be a double-tier level of federal democracy and consensus of national governments. The FFII should control better its communication and have a sober, pragmatic and professional message. I would have hoped that somebody like Jonas Maebe living in Ghent would have understood that this kind of emotional outburst just bring more vote to the Vlaams Blok. I don't remember that Vlaams Blok European Parliament Members being very interested in helping the anti-patent movement. Cheers, Charles
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 9, 2005 16:29 UTC (Wed) by dash2 (guest, #11869) [Link] The reason the FFII's letter plays into the hands of those crazy anti-European populists, is that the actual situation, and the actions of the European Council, play into the hands of those crazy anti-European populists. The populists claim that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic, and the Council has given them a powerful piece of supporting evidence.
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 9, 2005 21:37 UTC (Wed) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] But that's a completely useless argument. The only effect voting no on the constitution is that we keep the rules we have now. It would be helpful to know if the rules in the constitution are better or worse.
If the constitution is voted down by any one country, the whole thing has to go for renegotiation. It'll be years before an alternative comes up. At the end there is no guarentee you're going to get anything better.
Actually, the constitution seems to me to be an optitimation and is not necessary for the EU to exist. If it doesn't succeed, I wonder if the option will ever come again.
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 10, 2005 10:51 UTC (Thu) by ecureuil (subscriber, #3507) [Link] The new Constitution is an evolution not a revolution. The EuropeanParliament is getting more power and especially the power to elect the President of the Commission. But the European Union is not transforming itself in a parliamentary regime. I doubt that a Parliamentary regime has any chance to work when you see the differences of opinions between EMP from different countries but in the same political group. Labour Arlene McCarthy pushed a pro-computer-patent law and her main opponent is French Socialist Michel Rocard. They are both member of the same political group and normally should vote the same way. If the new European Constitution is voted, the amount of power of the European Parliament will be clearly related to the quality of its members (id est the more Vlaams Blok members the less power to the Parliament) and their capacity of creating stable, powerful, political groups. Since the first vote by the Parliament, a new election occurrend. The second reading of the patent law will be voted by a Parliament that look on the paper more favorable for us especially because the right is now divided with a new center right group. If we can push the Socialist group and the Center Right group to vote against the renewed patent proposition and that we get some support from the Extreme Left and Anti-Europeans, we will win the vote. The weak links are, as usual, the Brits : Labour and Lib Dem (I think) are pro-computer-patent. Changing the position of the Lib Dem should be a priority goal. For the time being Patent Law is in a grey zone. The European Patent Office is not officially dependant of the European Commission. Nevertheless the Commission has started this legislative process. The new Constitution enshrines this new situation by adding Intellectual Property to the category of co-decision topics : fields where a law must be approved by the federal institutions (Commission + European Parliament) and by the States through the Council. I think that the current debate shows that patent law is a political problem and not a pure technical matter that should be left to a specialised autonomous authority. The new constitution clearly acknowledges that fact. After that, Parliaments, Governments, Commissions can pass bad laws, but they are still democratic laws.
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 10, 2005 21:40 UTC (Thu) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] The only effect voting yes is accepting the current undemocratic rules. Do you know the difference in the codecision procedure between the constitution and the current treaties? It's almost nothing. Only a few small changes, but the basics is the same. The European Parliament still has a lot less power than either the council or the commission. This is unacceptable for me, that's why I vote NO.
By the way, if we accept this constitution, it will even be more years before we ever get a new one. And until that time, the EU stays undemocratic.
FFII: The patent directive and the European constitution Posted Mar 9, 2005 23:25 UTC (Wed) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] My conslusion on this is the complete opposite: The national governments take every opportunity to please the big multinationals, and the federalistic powers of the Union must be given more power to cancel it out. The Council consists of officials not primarily elected for their Europan Union positions, while the democratic Parliament is. Over and over again the Council pulls out the patent directive of its hat, and so far the Parliament keeps shooting it down.
|
|
||||||||||||