by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
acta, copyright, eu, mexico, switzerland, us

EU, Mexico & Switzerland Will Not Sign ACTA This Weekend, Despite The 'Signing Ceremony'

from the a-brief-reprieve dept

With Japan announcing a signing ceremony this Saturday for those who negotiated ACTA, it seemed reasonable to think that most of those listed as planning to attend would be signing. Of course, we wondered about the US, the EU and Mexico -- as there have been legal questions and challenges raised to ACTA in all three cases, with Mexico's Congress specifically telling the President it will not ratify the treaty. The EU had also been investigating whether or not ACTA was in line with EU law, and that process has not been completed, so we thought it was premature for the EU to sign onto ACTA.

Thankfully, the EU Commission agrees... and has now said that it will not be signing ACTA this weekend, and also saying that Mexico and Switzerland have also said they won't sign... yet:
"The EU has not yet completed its internal procedures authorising the signature, therefore it will not be signing ACTA at this event," the Commission spokesperson said in a statement. "Neither will Mexico and Switzerland, since they did not conclude their domestic proceedings."

"For the EU, the domestic process for signature is that the Council [of Ministers] adopts a decision authorising a EU representative to sign ACTA. Since this required the translation of the treaty in all the EU languages, such decision has not yet been adopted. It may still require a couple of months for the EU to be able to sign ACTA. After the signature, the European Parliament will have to vote its consent of ACTA,"
Of course, this is not a complete rejection of ACTA, but it is a reprieve. It also sounds as though all the other countries listed will be signing, including the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Korea, Morocco and Singapore. That's a pretty bold move by the Obama administration, considering the evidence that signing ACTA in this manner without Senate approval is unconstitutional. I guess actually expecting the president to follow the Constitution is only important when you're not in office. Once you get there, all bets are off...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Chargone (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:01am

    Re: Re:


    ya know, that's only Slightly more power than the monarchy has in NZ. (in that there are limits on just Who can be appointed for the top executive jobs and i'm not sure exactly how much imput they have into the judiciary since our parliament somehow did an end run around the fact that the privy council (basically stand ins for the monarch as final court of appeal much as the GG is as head of the executive) after they had the nerve to rule Against the government. (somehow passed a law, (and how the Fuck the GG at the time thought signing it was in the best interest of Queen OR country, i don't know. should have been immediately replaced for that one, at best. *ponders* that may or may not have been when we somehow had a republican GG. i don't know how the fuck that happens.) that replaced the Privy council with a high court here in NZ... which was under the thumb of parliament... where do i sign up to become a cavalier again?)

    i lost track of my nested parenthesis.... hopefully this is intelligible.

    yes, it's angry rant on the state of the NZ government as compared to it's constitution. again. move along.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.