Correction: They voted more to make a point.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| WhoCares Jul 07, 2005 2:31 AM EDT |
Here is Rochard's speech about it (Translated to english by someone on groklaw:
Thank you Mr. President, Mr. president, dear colleagues, in all likelihood this assembly will within the next two or three minutes reject the directive concerning the patentability of computer-assisted inventions. All our large parliamentary groupings, and even the smaller ones, have made this decision for a variety of contradictory reasons. I have neither a mandate nor the ability to comment on these reasons, but the convergence of the outcome reveals a common underlying meaning. Each block prefers to reject the text rather than acquiesce in the opinions of the other. But above all, there is here a common and near-unanimous anger of this Parliament against the inadmissible manner in which it has been treated by the Commision and the Council. Contempt, total and sarcastic contempt for the choices made by this Parliament in the first reading, total absence of consultation on the part of the Commission in the preparation of the text for the second reading, and efforts to squelch even government-to-government debate within the Council itself. This is in itself a scandal. The current European crisis is largely caused by democratic inadequacy. The council bears a crushing responsibility for this inadequacy, which has been particularly in evidence in the case at hand. Let this rejection serve it as an object lesson. Insofar as the substance of this debate is concerned, the state of opinion represented here demonstrates that the issue is not ripe for resolution. A deepening of the debate would have been essential to arrive at a consensus. On this difficult but essential subject, with dozens of billions of dollars at stake, a collective rethinking is evidently underway. In a sense, this rejection should be regarded as a message to the European Patent Office. The European Parliament has refused to ratify the recent administrative extensions of jurisprudence directed at liberalizing the patentability of software. If these extensions should continue, it appears clear that a parliamentary majority will emerge to put a stop to them. Thank you, dear colleagues. |
| Tsela Jul 07, 2005 3:08 AM EDT |
And a good point it is. With a truly democratic Europe, this whole farce wouldn't have happened in the first place. Unfortunately, I doubt the Commission and the Council will change their ways. They're intoxicated with power, and citizens don't mean anything to them. As for the EP, they still consider it as a plastic bone thrown to the dogs to make them stop barking. Only a true grass-roots mobilisation all across Europe can have a chance to change things. Hopefully what we are witnessing now is the birth of such a movement... |
| hkwint Jul 08, 2005 4:03 AM EDT |
For one reason it's a sad thing the European constitution (which isn't a constitution, but anyway) didn't make it, I live in the Netherlands and voted in favour of it. This constitution would have made it impossible for the Council to meet behind closed doors with no cameras (and no democratic control). On the other hand, it's a good thing the constitution is rejected, since this almost was the grass-roots mobilisation Tsela talks about (at least in the country where I live, the Netherlands, and also in France, the government is seriously listening to the citizens about the way they think about Europe). This two things (No to the Councils directive and No to the constitution) are, like WhoCares already said, indeed a clear point to the Council (and also the Commision), I think, they both make clear there are citizens which must not be denied by the politicians. So, indeed, in the Netherlands and France, the movement Tsela talks about, it's already on it's way, and also the remarks Mr. Blair made about the agriculture-subsidies to France, make clear things might change in the feature. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 08, 2005 9:49 AM EDT |
hkwint - did you leave the word "not" out of your first sentence? If not, I find it hard to follow your thought processes. |
| hkwint Jul 11, 2005 1:22 PM EDT |
No, I meant, for some reasons it's sad the constitution didn't make it, but for other reasons, it's a good thing. That's a bit like a paradox, so let me explain: -There were/are good things in the 'constitution', therefore, it's sad it didn't make it. One good thing was, no more meetings behind closed doors of the European Council (The council adopted the software patent directive behind closed doors under suspect circumstances. For example, when the Dutch Minister spoke, the 'microphone didn't work'. This person should have stopped the directive at that moment, but didn't, but it isn't on the tape). The good reasons finally made me vote in favour of it. -There were/are also many bad things in the 'constitution', therefore it's a good thing it didn't make it. I don't trust someone who is 100% against / in favour of it, since it contains so many points, there are always things one experiences as good and other things one experiences as bad. -Politicians, and especially those in Brussels, the Netherlands (and also France, I assume), don't listen to their citizens. Now, they voted against the constitution, and since that time, politicians DO listen (or pretend) to what people say. So, it's sad some of the 'content' of the constitution didn't make it, but it's a good thing politicians started listening to their citizens, after the governments of France and The Netherlands (and also the government of the EU) were 'punished' by the people, not because they didn't agree with the contents of the constitution that much, but because they didn't agree with the way Europe is governed at the moment. So that is the dilemma I'm facing: the good things of the constitution didn't make it, which is sad (the council will continue to meet behind closed doors where nobody sees why microphones 'suddenly don't work'), but on the other hand, the bad things are rejected, and best of all, politicians started to listen to their citizens. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!