EU Parliament: we will not be pushed, Mr DeGucht!
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 20 June 2012
Tomorrow the European Parliament's International Trade committee will vote on ACTA. The choice for committee members is clear. On the table is the rapporteur's report, recommending rejection, and one amendment, calling for postponement. An amendment in favour of consent to ACTA was withdrawn. But mystery surrounds the voting process, as rumours circulate that it will be a 'secret' vote. And at a pre-vote discussion today, the battle lines were forming.
The key decision for the meeting was not in fact, whether to consent to ACTA, but rather whether or not the Parliament should vote now, or post-pone the vote until the European Court of Jusitice has provided its ruling. The timing of this ruling is unknown. ACTA was referred to the ECJ by the European Commission last month.
EU Trade Commissioner made a special appearance at the INTA committee meeting to put his viewpoint one last time. He held out a rather weak olive branch that the Commission would work on clarification of the Digital Chapter but his key message was to ask the Parliament for postponement of the final vote until after the Court of Justice ruling.
Unfortunately for Mr De Gucht, his statement was skilfully drawn to generate anger rather than consensus. Whilst some MEPs obviously sympathise with the Commission's stance, they generally remember that they are the democratically elected body, and they do not like being told what to do by the Commission.
At the INTA meeting, only one of the Party Groups spoke in favour of postponement. That was the ECR. Syed Kamall, speaking for the ECR, said that 'one of the reasons why the Commission made the referral was to address the concerns of citizens".
The EPP spokesman, Christofer Fjellner, withdrew his amendment recommending consent.
Mr Fjellner was really quite cryptic. He has previously established a pro-Internet position, but has been pushed by the EPP to a back down. I suspect he was pushing the boundaries with his withdrawal today, noting his slightly dishevelled appearance which he always seems to have when under pressure.
Mr Fjellner said he did support post-ponement. His amendment had been the one that recommended consent to ACTA, but he withdrew it saying
"There are many concerns around ACTA" he said, anyone who has not realised that must be deaf and blind ... The Commission has not done enough to look at those concerns...I will withdraw my amendment because clarification is not on the table".
All other groups spoke in favour of an immediate vote ( ie not to postpone). The INTA committee therefore votes tomorrow.
The Trade committee vote follows four other European Parliament committees that have all voted to reject ACTA ( technically, they decline consent). See my previous posting Committees give thumbs down to ACTA despite dirty tricks
One final thought ... It does shed a rather strange light on the ECR position and I do wonder if the ECR are doing the bidding of the UK's DCMS, or possibly even of our industry-cuddly regulator, Ofcom.
This is an original article from Iptegrity.com. You may re-publish it under a Creative Commons licence, but you should cite my name and provide a link back to iptegrity.com. Media and Academics - please cite asMonica Horten, EU Parliament Trade committee to press ahead with ACTA vote www.iptegrity.com, 20 June 2012 . Commercial users - please contact me
- Article Views: 22496
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill