6 ms·

Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.

by ta1243 4y ago

00__00 4y ago
Good point.
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  The Counsel vote was from the executive branch, the country vote is from the legislative branch.
nhchris 4y ago
The countries, or their representatives in the EU parliament? Because local elections are separate from the EU ones, so it's entirely possible for their opinions on legislation to diverge.
- nirimda 4y ago
  The directive was approved by the European parliament and the Council of the EU. The Council of the EU is made up of the governments of the member states of the EU. Therefore, when one says "Portugal voted for the directive", one means "the government of Portugal voted for the directive in the Council of the EU". This was the wrong thing for Portugal (or indeed, any government) to do because no government can guarantee their parliament will change the law in a particular way, and the parliament might indeed prefer to eject the government rather than change the law. In this case, it has bitten Portugal and not Germany, but in principle it could bite any of them. It's a very strange process. It seems like provision should be made for a national veto at the implementation stage, or the entire process should be conducted at the EU stage and directly applicable. But the requirement for a translation into national law without the possibility of rejection at that point seems deeply problematic.
  - ta1243 4y ago
    My understanding in the US is that the Executive can sign international treaties, and those are not subject ot veto by the Legislative > In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0] An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed? [0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      [dead]
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    The government of the member states is not the parliament of the member states. Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.
    - toyg 4y ago
      That's the case for any international treaty - which is effectively what these laws are.
      - prmoustache 4y ago
        Not all of them. Regulations and decisions yes, Directives no. This one is a directive. "Regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on their date of application. However, they may require changes in national legislation, and may require implementation by national agencies or regulators." "Directives on the other hand, must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect." source: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying... That doesn't mean they have the right to ignore the directive and not decide on a law but there is definitely more leeway.
nirimda 4y ago
There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.
- oblio 4y ago
  > It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    The US is very economically integrated with China. But it is not socially or politically integrated with China. Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc. The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves. It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
    - oblio 4y ago
      > The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements? That's what deep economic integration looks like.
durnygbur 4y ago
I presume countries like Finland and Denmark somehow oppose these rules, while countries like Bulgaria and Poland don't know what they are doing and slacked on the topics in this particular domain.
- lakomen 4y ago
  When I download from zippyshare I always pick Denmark as the VPN country. Seems like they have good copyright laws.

Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.

by ta1243 4y ago

Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.

00__00 4y ago

Good point.

sam_lowry_ 4y ago
The Counsel vote was from the executive branch, the country vote is from the legislative branch.

nhchris 4y ago

The countries, or their representatives in the EU parliament? Because local elections are separate from the EU ones, so it's entirely possible for their opinions on legislation to diverge.

nirimda 4y ago
The directive was approved by the European parliament and the Council of the EU. The Council of the EU is made up of the governments of the member states of the EU. Therefore, when one says "Portugal voted for the directive", one means "the government of Portugal voted for the directive in the Council of the EU". This was the wrong thing for Portugal (or indeed, any government) to do because no government can guarantee their parliament will change the law in a particular way, and the parliament might indeed prefer to eject the government rather than change the law. In this case, it has bitten Portugal and not Germany, but in principle it could bite any of them. It's a very strange process. It seems like provision should be made for a national veto at the implementation stage, or the entire process should be conducted at the EU stage and directly applicable. But the requirement for a translation into national law without the possibility of rejection at that point seems deeply problematic.
- ta1243 4y ago
  My understanding in the US is that the Executive can sign international treaties, and those are not subject ot veto by the Legislative > In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0] An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed? [0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    [dead]
- prmoustache 4y ago
  The government of the member states is not the parliament of the member states. Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.
  - toyg 4y ago
    That's the case for any international treaty - which is effectively what these laws are.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      Not all of them. Regulations and decisions yes, Directives no. This one is a directive. "Regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on their date of application. However, they may require changes in national legislation, and may require implementation by national agencies or regulators." "Directives on the other hand, must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect." source: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying... That doesn't mean they have the right to ignore the directive and not decide on a law but there is definitely more leeway.

nirimda 4y ago

There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.

oblio 4y ago
> It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  The US is very economically integrated with China. But it is not socially or politically integrated with China. Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc. The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves. It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements? That's what deep economic integration looks like.

durnygbur 4y ago

I presume countries like Finland and Denmark somehow oppose these rules, while countries like Bulgaria and Poland don't know what they are doing and slacked on the topics in this particular domain.

lakomen 4y ago
When I download from zippyshare I always pick Denmark as the VPN country. Seems like they have good copyright laws.