[beeneto]

Since I know techdirt always reports aggressively in favour of internet freedom I read the direct quotes first and the techdirt commentary afterwards. From just the quotes, Karel De Gucht doesn't seem to be saying anything underhanded, just that if parliament doesn't ratify ACTA it will be modified (presumably toned down?) and resubmitted.

I don't think techdirt's message "The european government is a corrupt puppet!" is supported by the evidence in this article. Personally the fact that every committe which has reviewed ACTA has advised against it gives me hope.

[Nursie]

Not really, my understanding is that the treaty text is now set in stone, so he can't really do more than embellish it, hence all the talk of clarification. If the text is to be altered then it has to go back to international negotiations again, which throws the whole process out by several years. AFAICT.

While it's not evidence that the whole system is corrupt, it is yet another in the list of examples of the appointed commission attempting to push things past the elected house via subterfuge or repeated attempts, and it leaves a bad taste.

[sasvari]

just that if parliament doesn't ratify ACTA it will be modified (presumably toned down?) and resubmitted

ACTA can't be modified anymore, it is signed (yet not ratified in the EU)!

Edit: style

[beeneto]

Ah okay, so when he says "I would consider proposing some clarifications to ACTA" he's just blowing smoke - talking about making cosmetic statements about ACTA which would encourage parliament to ratify it, but wouldn't actually fix the abuse cases that come from the vague wording?

[yread]

Whenever I hear a politician talk about "clarifications" alarm bells ring in my head. It basically means changing marketing not the facts.

[antninja]

Yeah, we remember how the constitution, which has been rejected by referendums, became the "simplified treaty": exactly the same text but with articles moved, rephrased, obfuscated. The polite way to describe the EU is as a very-indirect democracy.

[crusso]

And when being voted out of office is the only way that the citizenry has to hold officials accountable... would "very-indirect" be good for the people?

[vidarh]

Exactly. He's not doing anything that isn't done regularly by any executive branch that actually believes the laws they're trying to pass are necessary.

He's saying:

1) They want to find a way to make ACTA work. Because of that, even if the EU Parliament does not agree with its current form, it makes sense for the Commission to move forward with the ECJ, because if the ECJ says its incompatible with EU law, it will need to be changed regardless if it is to be passed, and it makes no sense for them to negotiate a solution with parliament only to find out after that that the ECJ would strike down the whole thing on fundamental questions afterwards.

2) They'll try to find a solution that addresses whatever reasons MEP's give for voting it down (assuming they do). Trying to reach a compromise is hardly an evil fascist dictator method, but standard operating practice. At least it is in Europe, where we're used to having governments that actually cooperate to pass things.