Translations:Mobilisation voter les amendements des droit des citoyens en 2eme lecture 6 mai/38/en
From La Quadrature du NetJump to navigationJump to search
- There is no problem of "net discrimination", as the compromise amendments force the operators to provide clear information to the consumers on any limitation to access to content, services, and applications over their Internet services.
- Using one's freedom of expression, of information and of education is not a matter of consumer or competition law. Malcolm Harbour cannot pretend that competition law by itself will solve the bad behaviour of telecom operators, when the EU took 10 years to sanction Microsoft with no result, and when nothing was done against mobile operators (in most member states they are structured in cartels and agree on banning voice-over-IP, peer-to-peer and streaming software from their so-called "mobile" Internet!)
- Going back to amendment 138 (46) or pushing the CRA amendments would cause a direct conflict with the Council, thus bringing a "conciliation procedure" (sort of a third reading, where the text is negotiated between the Parliament and the Council), that would take some more months, and where we may lose what we gained already.
- The first role of the European Parliament must be to protect EU citizens: "primum non nocere". Protecting citizens' rights and freedoms must be more important for the Parliament than merely keeping to a schedule. MEPs don't want to show that the European Parliament always yields to the Council. This would show that the Parliament is useless and that the Council always gets what it dictates.
- If we go to a conciliation procedure, everything will have to be renegotiated, and we will lose many good and important things that are in the package already.
- On the matter of protecting citizens' rights, there are not many good things in the package right now. Moreover, reaffirming for a second time its commitment to protecting citizen's right would mean for the Parliament to be in a position of force in the negotiations with the Council. Also, we don't know how strong the Swedish democracy may weigh on the Swedish Presidency... (+ previous answer)
- Amendment 138/46 is not legal under the law of some Member States. Some Member States such as France, UK, and Sweden won't accept it through the Council.
- The Commission accepted the amendment (“The Commission considers this amendment to be an important restatement of key legal principles of the Community legal order, especially of citizens' fundamental rights.”), which is an indication that it is likely to be legal under EU law. Moreover, this amendment just restates EU law, as stated by Catherine Trautmann herself after first reading: "if 'graduated response' goes against the fundamental principle that we have only recalled, we must question the viability of the whole scheme". (“S'il s’avère que la riposte graduée va à l’encontre du principe fondamental que nous n’avons fait que rappeler, il faut s’interroger sur la viabilité même du système.“)