6 ms·

Not really, it still needs to be ratified by the member states of the EU (and even after that citizens in some of the states can start a referendum about it) an

Not really, it still needs to be ratified by the member states of the EU (and even after that citizens in some of the states can start a referendum about it) and after that it can still be shot down by the European Court. The pact is so vague about the protection of European citizens that there's a good chance that the European Court of Justice won't accept it, as they haven't fixed all of the problems that were in the previous "safe haven" pact.

kuschku 11y ago
Yeah, the ECJ already shot down Safe Harbor, they’ll shoot down this again. With the current situation, it’s impossible to create a treaty complying with EU privacy law. (This is a personal opinion, not legal advice).
- gpvos 11y ago
  Of course it is possible, just copy EU privacy law word for word. Or do you mean that that law is internally inconsistent? Otherwise, you could equally argue that is is not possible for the EU to create a treaty that complies with American law.
  - M2Ys4U 11y ago
    The US will have to change its laws. There's just no way to comply with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights while allowing mass surveillance to be conducted by the NSA and other US government bodies.
    - anonymousab 11y ago
      >There's just no way to comply with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights It seems that the more likely route would involve pressuring the EU's judicial systems to interpret that charter more favorably.
    - Scoundreller 11y ago
      I think I figured out why Britain's politicians want to leave the EU so badly...
      - ionised 11y ago
        And why I'll be leaving the UK if that ever happens.
      - smcl 11y ago
        That's painting with a fairly broad brush. A tiny minority party - UKIP - have made it their main objective. Only small factions within party in power - the Conservatives - have been vocally in favour of leaving the EU. There's pockets of the people who seem to want to leave the EU, but I suspect that's more driven by xenophobia/racism than privacy legislation.
        toyg 11y ago
        > that's more driven by xenophobia/racism than privacy legislation. You're looking at it backwards: established interests that hate scrutiny (mostly on "socialist" work regulations, product quality regulations etc) are driving xenophobic sentiment to engineer an EU exit that would ensure they're firmly back in the driving seat at the national level. It's similar to the US "southern strategy" that recruited religious folks to the cause of Big Business, separating them from their working-class interests. "Divide and rule" is still one of the best strategies you can employ.
    - gscott 11y ago
      Officially mass surveillance isn't admitted by the NSA and other government bodies. They suggest they only do legal surveillance that has to be approved by the fisa court. Of course everything that I just said is pure bs.
M2Ys4U 11y ago
>Not really, it still needs to be ratified by the member states of the EU (and even after that citizens in some of the states can start a referendum about it) That's not true. Under the Data Protection Directive the Commission, acting alone, can do this. Article 25(6): "The Commission may find, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31 (2), that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, by reason of its domestic law or of the international commitments it has entered into, particularly upon conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 5, for the protection of the private lives and basic freedoms and rights of individuals. Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with the Commission's decision." >The pact is so vague about the protection of European citizens that there's a good chance that the European Court of Justice won't accept it I'd go as far as saying it's almost certain.
- reirob 11y ago
  AFAIU the commission can indeed do it and sadly until now it can be considered the most powerful institution in EU. At the same time the commission is not a very democratic institution, because the members and the director of the commission are not elected by the European population and the acts of the commission are not underlying to much control from other institutions. If I understood it, the situation got a bit better last years as the parliament has a bit more power now - but I don't know the mechanics. Disclaimer: This is only my uninformed understanding as an EU citizen.
  - germanier 11y ago
    The Commission needs to be voted in by the European Parliament. They can't propose a Commission on their own (only the Council can do so which consists of the head of states or governments). However, the parliament can vote against the proposal and forced candidates out in the past. It's actually not too different from how governments are elected in many countries.
- killerpopiller 11y ago
  I am not convinced that the sole word of the Commission will suffice.. that was after all the core of the safe harbour-decision
maus42 11y ago
>there's a good chance that the European Court of Justice won't accept it As an EU citizen, I have suddenly become quite fond of the court institution. It seems to be the only thing in the union that seems occasionally to work as it should. Commission feels outright autocratic when it comes to down issues like this.
- legulere 11y ago
  The council and the commission because of the council are just an extension to the national governments. They love to use the EU to push through disliked stuff like the data retention directive, so that they can blame the EU afterwards. The parliament most of the time also acts quite sensible.
  - toyg 11y ago
    Council and Commission are textbook cases of what happens when power cannot be held accountable. They are a cesspool of murky establishment interests and rarely, if ever, act in the interests of EU citizens. Their structure is inherently tribal and ethnic-based, which should be seen as an abomination in 2016. They are a relic of the pre-Parliament structure, when stuff got done with treaties and agreements, and should simply be dropped in favour of simple Parliamentary rule. The problem is that turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so national-government apparatchiks will never willingly renounce their power. It's one of the many states of empasse the current EU structure finds itself stuck into, and it won't be solved by this or that state leaving.

kuschku 11y ago

Yeah, the ECJ already shot down Safe Harbor, they’ll shoot down this again. With the current situation, it’s impossible to create a treaty complying with EU privacy law. (This is a personal opinion, not legal advice).

gpvos 11y ago
Of course it is possible, just copy EU privacy law word for word. Or do you mean that that law is internally inconsistent? Otherwise, you could equally argue that is is not possible for the EU to create a treaty that complies with American law.
- M2Ys4U 11y ago
  The US will have to change its laws. There's just no way to comply with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights while allowing mass surveillance to be conducted by the NSA and other US government bodies.
  - anonymousab 11y ago
    >There's just no way to comply with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights It seems that the more likely route would involve pressuring the EU's judicial systems to interpret that charter more favorably.
  - Scoundreller 11y ago
    I think I figured out why Britain's politicians want to leave the EU so badly...
    - ionised 11y ago
      And why I'll be leaving the UK if that ever happens.
    - smcl 11y ago
      That's painting with a fairly broad brush. A tiny minority party - UKIP - have made it their main objective. Only small factions within party in power - the Conservatives - have been vocally in favour of leaving the EU. There's pockets of the people who seem to want to leave the EU, but I suspect that's more driven by xenophobia/racism than privacy legislation.
      - toyg 11y ago
        > that's more driven by xenophobia/racism than privacy legislation. You're looking at it backwards: established interests that hate scrutiny (mostly on "socialist" work regulations, product quality regulations etc) are driving xenophobic sentiment to engineer an EU exit that would ensure they're firmly back in the driving seat at the national level. It's similar to the US "southern strategy" that recruited religious folks to the cause of Big Business, separating them from their working-class interests. "Divide and rule" is still one of the best strategies you can employ.
  - gscott 11y ago
    Officially mass surveillance isn't admitted by the NSA and other government bodies. They suggest they only do legal surveillance that has to be approved by the fisa court. Of course everything that I just said is pure bs.

M2Ys4U 11y ago

>Not really, it still needs to be ratified by the member states of the EU (and even after that citizens in some of the states can start a referendum about it) That's not true. Under the Data Protection Directive the Commission, acting alone, can do this. Article 25(6): "The Commission may find, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31 (2), that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, by reason of its domestic law or of the international commitments it has entered into, particularly upon conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 5, for the protection of the private lives and basic freedoms and rights of individuals. Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with the Commission's decision." >The pact is so vague about the protection of European citizens that there's a good chance that the European Court of Justice won't accept it I'd go as far as saying it's almost certain.

reirob 11y ago
AFAIU the commission can indeed do it and sadly until now it can be considered the most powerful institution in EU. At the same time the commission is not a very democratic institution, because the members and the director of the commission are not elected by the European population and the acts of the commission are not underlying to much control from other institutions. If I understood it, the situation got a bit better last years as the parliament has a bit more power now - but I don't know the mechanics. Disclaimer: This is only my uninformed understanding as an EU citizen.
- germanier 11y ago
  The Commission needs to be voted in by the European Parliament. They can't propose a Commission on their own (only the Council can do so which consists of the head of states or governments). However, the parliament can vote against the proposal and forced candidates out in the past. It's actually not too different from how governments are elected in many countries.
killerpopiller 11y ago
I am not convinced that the sole word of the Commission will suffice.. that was after all the core of the safe harbour-decision

maus42 11y ago

>there's a good chance that the European Court of Justice won't accept it As an EU citizen, I have suddenly become quite fond of the court institution. It seems to be the only thing in the union that seems occasionally to work as it should. Commission feels outright autocratic when it comes to down issues like this.

legulere 11y ago
The council and the commission because of the council are just an extension to the national governments. They love to use the EU to push through disliked stuff like the data retention directive, so that they can blame the EU afterwards. The parliament most of the time also acts quite sensible.
- toyg 11y ago
  Council and Commission are textbook cases of what happens when power cannot be held accountable. They are a cesspool of murky establishment interests and rarely, if ever, act in the interests of EU citizens. Their structure is inherently tribal and ethnic-based, which should be seen as an abomination in 2016. They are a relic of the pre-Parliament structure, when stuff got done with treaties and agreements, and should simply be dropped in favour of simple Parliamentary rule. The problem is that turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so national-government apparatchiks will never willingly renounce their power. It's one of the many states of empasse the current EU structure finds itself stuck into, and it won't be solved by this or that state leaving.