[A2k] Fwd: ACTA to be signed (unconstitutionally)
hammerstein.david3 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 1 02:40:40 PDT 2011
Dear Erik: I really don´t understand the substance of this exchange. It is
more semantic than real. We all agree that we must take advantage of every
procedural step and other opportunities to campaign against ACTA . No one
minimizes the difficulties, the opaqueness of the instittuions nor the
defavorable relationship of forces. Let´s just get down to organizing a
serious, broadbased campaign on many levels. David
2011/10/1 Erik Hjalmar Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com>
> There is no "ratification process" anywhere in the EU with which you can
> interact in any meaningful way except the EP's vote on consent.
> There is no "significant space" in the EU for talking about anything else
> right now than the so far successful coup to replace a plenary vote on a
> resolution to ask the Court for an Opinion with a question to the EP's Legal
> Service drafted in camera by JURI and INTA Chairs.
> There is no "public opinion" of significance anywhere in the EU which can
> produce a light in which MEPs would find it worth while to get educated
> about ACTA.
> Normally I don't agree with Jérémie, but now he is right, the signing of
> ACTA by the US, Canada, etc has to be the starting point of a campaign which
> has to use every single procedural step available to create public opinion
> and MEP awareness before the final vote on consent:
> - the Question(s) to the Legal Service (byline: MANIPULATION)
> - which Committees will write and opinion on the INTA report? Which
> MEPs are involved? (byline: GLOBAL HEALTH HEROES)
> - civil society complaints to the Ombudsman (byline: GOLD STANDARD
> - written questions to Council or Commission, including reporting on
> delays and non-answers (byline: NEXT QUESTION PLEASE)
> - the resolution on asking the Court for an Opinion (byline: IGNORANCE
> OR CERTAINTY)
> there will hopefully be more intermediary steps to hook into as the
> campaign is successfully creating more political space and by that moving
> the date for the consent vote forward.
> Greens/EFA Press Conference on Tuesday:
> Now, who tables a Priority Question on Obama's Signing statement?
> It should be in first thing Monday morning.
> On 10/01/2011 08:01 AM, David Hammerstein wrote:
> Dear Erik: This is not about agreeing with me or not. It is about not
> throwing in the towel yet when the ratification process is not over in most
> EU member states nor in the EP: Of course, I agree that that politically we
> are not in a strong position but being fatalistic about it does not help to
> mobilize to public opinion nor to convince MEPs. We still have significant
> space to speak about the content of the agreement and to try influence the
> ACTA process as we have in the past with some modest success. David
> 2011/9/30 Erik Hjalmar Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com>
>> I am afraid I disagree with most of David's posting and I'm quite sure
>> there is no "gap" in Sweden any more. I suspect the situation is similar in
>> other EU Member States.
>> As far as I understand, all and everything is done and fully prepared,
>> even the necessary changes in Swedish law. The *only* thing left to do is to
>> find a date in the calendar when the Swedish minister of Justice can fly
>> over to a Signing Party somewhere.
>> I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we think there is any
>> significant ACTA resistance in any EU Member State at government level, so
>> regardless of MS-specific procedures for ratification there are no hurdles
>> in practice there.
>> I think there is *only one hoop left*, and that is whether the European
>> Parliament will *give or withhold consent*.
>> That said, we might be able to introduce an intermediary step before the
>> vote on consent - but only through a coordinated and intense effort - and
>> that is if we can get a EP majority to vote in favour of a resolution to ask
>> the Court for an Opinion whether ACTA is compatible with the Treaties. The
>> Greens/EFA has one in the freezer since May here:
>> It was never tabled due to uncertainty of the application of Rule 90.6 at
>> the time, but now we know, and it is now a matter of whether such a
>> resolution has a chance at all to get a majority which is the concern.
>> I am also sorry to say that even if asking the Court for an Opinion on
>> ACTA looks like the self-evident and obvious thing to do a majority of the
>> MEPs probably sees it differently. I am very sad to report that the EP
>> yesterday rejected a resolution of exactly the same type as an ACTA->ECJ
>> resolution would be, namely a resolution "requesting an opinion from the
>> Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Protocol on
>> the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement".
>> For a majority of MEPs in the current Parliament, actively seeking to
>> remain ignorant seem to be the preferred working mode.
>> The question is if their voters will let them get away with it.
>> Best regards.
>> P.S. I have learned that "to table" means to postpone indefinitely in the
>> US. Please note that it means the opposite in the EP, "to table" means to
>> put forward for a vote a proposal/amendments/resolution in Plenary. We have
>> a "Tabling Office" for that purpose :-)
>> On 09/30/2011 07:06 PM, David Hammerstein wrote:
>>> The big gap between a signature and ratification of ACTA
>>> It should also be stressed that there is a great difference between a
>>> signature and ratification, especially in the case of the EU. Each of
>>> EU´s 27 parliaments must ratify the text and the European Parliament must
>>> vote its "assent". We hope as well that the European Court of Justice
>>> be forced to give its opinion on the accordance of ACTA with Community
>>> ACTA must still jump through many hoops and get over many hurdles.
>>> 2011/9/29 Manon Ress<manon.ress at keionline.org>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Sean Flynn"<sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
>>>>> To:<a2k at lists.keionline.org>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:13:40 -0400
>>>>> Subject: ACTA to be signed (unconstitutionally)
>>>>> It has been reported in global press this week that ACTA will be signed
>>>>> October 1 in Japan. But that does not mean that ACTA actually goes
>>>>> effect. Indeed, there seems a decent chance it will not go into effect
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> More at:****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> Sean M Fiil Flynn****
>>>>> Associate Director****
>>>>> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) ****
>>>>> American University Washington College of Law
>>>>> 4801 Massachusetts Ave., NW
>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20016
>>>>> (202) 274-4157 <%28202%29%20274-4157><http://lnkd.in/pXUVQ2>
>>>>> ** **
>>>> Manon Anne Ress
>>>> Knowledge Ecology International
>>>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500
>>>> Washington, DC 20009 USA
>>>> manon.ress at keionline.org
>>>> A2k mailing list
>>>> A2k at lists.keionline.org
>>> A2k mailing list
>>> A2k at lists.keionline.org
>> A2k mailing list
>> A2k at lists.keionline.org
More information about the A2k