The ECJ is allowed to think for itself. The EP can ask questions as guidance, but the ECJ isn't limited answering those questions that have been asked of it...
The UK example wasn't an analogy, but an actual example of a European Parliamentary party delegation defying its national party leader, just to show that it can and does happen. I do know that the analogy with the US state governor/Congress is imperfect [e.g. the state governor is not the state party leader; national parties in EU states are separate orgnisations that affiliate to European parties, as opposed to being federal orgnisations in the US]. And yes, some national parties in the European Parliament may have a stronger tendency than others to defer to the party leadership (the UK Labour Party tends to do this, often causing ructures with its European party group).
Note that the prime minister cannot (officially) "instruct" MEPs from his party to vote a particular way: it is a separate institution from the government, with whipping determined by the transnational party groups. It's a similar relationship to that between a state governor and the US House of Representatives. He can state how he would like his party's MEPs to vote, and can certainly put strong pressure on them, but he cannot tell them how to vote. Last year UK Conservative MEPs defied their party leader (and Prime Minister) in a vote on EU climate change policy, so it isn't a certainty that MEPs vote the way their national party leadership would like them to.
The European Commission is not elected, and so is immune to public outrage. Also it was the European Commission that negotiated ACTA for the EU, so one would expect the Commission to continue to support it. However, the European Parliament is directly elected, and will have to take account of public anger.
In Betamax the Supreme Court did not say that Fair Use was a constitutional right. It said that recording from the TV constituted Fair Use under existing US law.
It's not that surprising. The Greens in the EU have for quite some time been in the vanguard of IP-sanity; certainly in 2003 when they led the opposition to software patents. And the Pirate Party MEPs belong to the Green bloc. But it is a good statement of position, and hopefully will help move others towards this position.
The traditional left-wing (which in Europe means really left-wing, not vaguely social-democratic which is as far left as it's possible for a mainstream politician to be in the US) bloc in the European Parliament also generally supports balanced IP laws. The (centrist) liberal and mainstream centre-left groups are split, while the right-of-centre groups tend to support maximalism.
Obama is no socialist. If you want to see real socialism, look at the main left-wing parties in most of Europe. Obama, like most so-called "left-wing" Democrats in the US, would be a centrist conservative in the EU, and would feel right at home in, say, the centre-right CDU party of Germany.
the European Court of Justice was not involved in copyright term extension, which was an initiative of the European Commission, supported by the European Council and European Parliament. The ECJ is a judicial authority, as its name suggests, not the executive or legislature. They are separate bodies.
I'm pretty sure that the extradition treaty between the UK and US, for all its faults, does at least respect the "dual criminality" principle (extradition is only allowed for something that is a crime under UK law). Therefore, Mr O'Dwyer should walk. If what he's accused of is not a crime under UK law, then extradition cannot happen. End of story. Since the matter of his extradition has not yet been considered in a UK court, it's a bit premature to say that the UK is "merrily going along with" the US request. Even under the lax requirements for extradition from the UK to the US, this is likely to be laughed out of court. That said, it is deeply troubling that the US is even trying to extradite him.
Re: Re: They're not giving up on it yet
The ECJ is allowed to think for itself. The EP can ask questions as guidance, but the ECJ isn't limited answering those questions that have been asked of it...
Re:
The UK is not involved in this. It is the Trans *Pacific* Partnership. The UK is nowhere near the Pacific.
Re: Re: Separation of powers
The UK example wasn't an analogy, but an actual example of a European Parliamentary party delegation defying its national party leader, just to show that it can and does happen. I do know that the analogy with the US state governor/Congress is imperfect [e.g. the state governor is not the state party leader; national parties in EU states are separate orgnisations that affiliate to European parties, as opposed to being federal orgnisations in the US]. And yes, some national parties in the European Parliament may have a stronger tendency than others to defer to the party leadership (the UK Labour Party tends to do this, often causing ructures with its European party group).
Re: Muahahaha >:D
Dutch Liberal MEP Marietje Schaake (sp?) has spoken out strongly against ACTA.
Separation of powers
Note that the prime minister cannot (officially) "instruct" MEPs from his party to vote a particular way: it is a separate institution from the government, with whipping determined by the transnational party groups. It's a similar relationship to that between a state governor and the US House of Representatives. He can state how he would like his party's MEPs to vote, and can certainly put strong pressure on them, but he cannot tell them how to vote. Last year UK Conservative MEPs defied their party leader (and Prime Minister) in a vote on EU climate change policy, so it isn't a certainty that MEPs vote the way their national party leadership would like them to.
Re: Re:
The European Commission is not elected, and so is immune to public outrage. Also it was the European Commission that negotiated ACTA for the EU, so one would expect the Commission to continue to support it. However, the European Parliament is directly elected, and will have to take account of public anger.
Re: First Amendment
In Betamax the Supreme Court did not say that Fair Use was a constitutional right. It said that recording from the TV constituted Fair Use under existing US law.
(untitled comment)
It's not that surprising. The Greens in the EU have for quite some time been in the vanguard of IP-sanity; certainly in 2003 when they led the opposition to software patents. And the Pirate Party MEPs belong to the Green bloc. But it is a good statement of position, and hopefully will help move others towards this position.
The traditional left-wing (which in Europe means really left-wing, not vaguely social-democratic which is as far left as it's possible for a mainstream politician to be in the US) bloc in the European Parliament also generally supports balanced IP laws. The (centrist) liberal and mainstream centre-left groups are split, while the right-of-centre groups tend to support maximalism.
Obama a socialist?
Obama is no socialist. If you want to see real socialism, look at the main left-wing parties in most of Europe. Obama, like most so-called "left-wing" Democrats in the US, would be a centrist conservative in the EU, and would feel right at home in, say, the centre-right CDU party of Germany.
Re:
the European Court of Justice was not involved in copyright term extension, which was an initiative of the European Commission, supported by the European Council and European Parliament. The ECJ is a judicial authority, as its name suggests, not the executive or legislature. They are separate bodies.
Dual Criminality still applies
I'm pretty sure that the extradition treaty between the UK and US, for all its faults, does at least respect the "dual criminality" principle (extradition is only allowed for something that is a crime under UK law). Therefore, Mr O'Dwyer should walk. If what he's accused of is not a crime under UK law, then extradition cannot happen. End of story. Since the matter of his extradition has not yet been considered in a UK court, it's a bit premature to say that the UK is "merrily going along with" the US request. Even under the lax requirements for extradition from the UK to the US, this is likely to be laughed out of court. That said, it is deeply troubling that the US is even trying to extradite him.