After accidental vote, EU copyright bill faces three legitimacy issues
fosspatents.com
fosspatents.com
The concept is problematic enough here in the US, where our founding documents assume that rights are granted by a deity who rarely bothers to put in an appearance when said rights are being violated. It's best to find more rational bases than "natural rights" for arguments like copyright reform, if at all possible.
I'd also question whether ownership of one's body is something a society should aim for. It seems to lead to various repugnant conclusions, including but not limited to the potential to sell oneself into slavery and to sell one's organs. Even in libertarianism this is a radical point of view. The default in today's society is that you don't own your body - so a criticism of copyright on the presumption that it is inconsistent with the rest of the law has very little force. You would be better off arguing on property rights, but even then you'll run into trouble (e.g many would say that the prohibition against possessing child pornography is justifiable even on J.S. Mill's harm principle).
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright...
Some votes cast in the plebiscite were incidental rather than being accidental; the upcoming European elections in May, might require some members to contain the backlash or limit any blowback.
It seemed incredible to me how one could "accidentally vote wrong", but seeing the process and speed at which it goes, I totally buy it now.
And yet there are ten EU parliament members on the record saying that they voted in favor of the copyright act "by accident":
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright...
So there's clearly something wrong with the procedures.
You get MPs that vote both yes and no.
People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it - they’ve probably never had anyone contact them about which way they voted in the past.
> You get MPs that vote both yes and no.
Do you? I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago.
> People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it
Or because they actually did make a mistake.
Occasionally, yes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602
>I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago.
We've had some serious issues recently with pairing. MPs cannot vote in absentia for any reason. The informal process of pairing allows an ill or otherwise unavoidably absent MP to be paired with an opposition MP, who will agree not to vote and so cancel out the absent MP. Brexit has led to a number of broken pairing agreements, which could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of a close vote.
https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-th...
A broader issue is simply the slow pace of voting; a division can take at least 15 minutes, so the vast majority of votes are taken orally in the house without a formal count. There are long-standing concerns about the ability of back-bench MPs to vote with their conscience; MPs physically have to walk past their party whips to enter the lobby, which some argue contributes to a culture of bullying and intimidation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-...
Not since Wednesday
https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php
> Or because they actually did make a mistake.
700 MEPs managed to vote correctly.
I mean siriously, put this job in relation to any other job with the same salary (including all benefits) and see if those people should have the capability and skills to read the bill, remember the number, and react correctly when the number is called even if that happens at a fast pace. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be sitting there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w
I will summarise the claims in the videos.
• Many votes on amendments (not bathroom breaks) are done via quick visual inspection of the room, not electronic vote. It's possible to challenge the outcome and request an electronic vote instead: the video shows many examples of instances where this led to the vote result being inverted i.e. the visual inspection was wrong. In one case the chairman challenges the request for an electronic recount after an amendment was rejected by saying "Usually amendments from Mr Schaffhauser don't find the majority" followed by "good thing we checked ... amendment 247 has been accepted".
• A convention has evolved whereby the chairman doing the visual inspection doesn't even look at the room, and only looks at the leaders of the main parties. The EP frequently assumes everyone will vote with their party leader so there's no point in even checking their actual votes at all. The video contains a clip of the chairman who counts the votes explaining to this MEP that he can clearly see the party leaders so what's the problem.
• In some cases the chairman doesn't even look up from their papers before announcing the results, i.e. votes aren't counted at all.
• Because amendment votes aren't actually being counted, they happen so fast translators can't reliably keep up with the process, such that sometimes by the time the translators have said what the vote is about voting has already closed.
• This happens because the EU Parliament has no real power and the amendments are largely useless, so nobody takes the process seriously. Many people don't bother to raise their hands at all. There are nonetheless lots of votes and MEPs because it inflates the stats and makes the EU look more democratic. A clip is shown of an MEP saying "bear in mind we're in the middle of the world cup so shall we not call for a check".
• Sessions are videoed but the cameras don't show the whole room so you can't actually check how many people voted.
• There is a widespread attitude that none of this matters.
I'm not very surprised by all this myself, because the biggest problem is not even mentioned in the video: the votes are shoddily done because they can't by themselves change the law. They can only do what the Commission lets them do. It's not a real parliament, it just calls itself that.
Seems there's another video in native English that shows other (British) MEPs getting angry about the same problems
Then the second video I cite shows more MEPs from different countries and parties complaining about the same problems.
Also, we have the story actually being discussed in this thread, where numerous MEPs claim they accidentally voted wrong. So that's three sources.
I'm not sure the website of the European Parliament should count as a source when discussing the problematic procedures of the European Parliament. That might tell you what the EP wants you to believe but surely direct observation via video is more compelling? After all, a major claim (supported by video clips) is that the EP routinely counts its own votes wrongly, so official reports on voting must be taken with a pinch of salt.
But in this thread we've presented three sources of MEPs saying this is a real problem, that back each other up. The onus is now on you to find rebuttals that undermine that testimony, which again, is convincing because it comes from the people who are actually working in this chamber.
Now I haven't actually dismissed any evidence because you haven't presented any: it's totally unclear what reports you mean, or what they might say that voids the problems shown in the video. Please do cite specific reports that explain how this video evidence is wrong or falsified.
For the avoidance of doubt, NO institution calling itself a Parliament should find itself in the situation where votes are being counted wrong, EVER. This should be obvious but the sole purpose of a Parliament is to vote: votes are their only output. Creating a situation where it's possible to vote wrong by accident, in any way at all, is a gross breach of basic competence and massively undermines their entire institution.
The reports I mean are of course these: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&... - if you ever want to find any actual data about any actual vote, you'll find it here. It seems you are not really searching for data, you just let some populists feed you what they want to project and then share it on. That's another problem in your logic.
Did you ever wonder why none of those 10 MPs who claimed to have voted in mistake due to high speed, or that Polish populist MP, published a video of the actual vote for the Copyright Act? If we can find too high speed there, then I'll accept your point. But they never published anything like that, even though they apparently have very easy access to the whole video archive, since it let's them create very specific short videos about their point.
Well the transcripts just before the vote look like this: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...
let me quote the last speaker just before the vote: "Two hundred thousand people went on the streets and five million signed the petition. Let me recall that the title of the Directive is: ‘Copyright in the Digital Single Market’. It’s our duty to fix issues of great concern at European level and not in the national legislation. For this reason, I ask for your support to open the Directive to the amendments and request a vote on these amendments that so many of us have signed." video here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&...
Do you think anyone in their right mind can misjudge what the following vote will be about? The chairman even repeats the subject of the vote, uses phrases like "I hope it's clear now", "Have you all voted?" before closing the vote, there was applause after the amendment vote failed, "The vote is now open" for the final vote, which then takes 20 seconds. EVERYBODY had time to translate, the last couple of seconds is complete silence, no need to look around and count hands because it was electronic.
Now.. is this enough rebuttal for you? I don't need to see short video sequences of angry politicians from unknown time, about unknown voting, shared by known populists. What I'm after is real data. It takes much more effort to get them, but it's the only right way forward.
I think there is a fundamental assumption gap between you and the people making these videos, hence the disagreement. That is, you don't see it as especially problematic if some votes are important and done properly, and other votes are not important and rushed or mistaken, whereas the "known populists" as you call them (that's not a very effective insult btw) believe that for a House to be trusted and have legitimacy, all votes must be done properly. Most obviously because otherwise whoever runs the voting process can decide that a vote they care about is "not important" and just call the result however they prefer, leaving people to constantly try to chase them and catch up.
It's for this reason they don't bother showing what the votes were about - beyond that we know they were votes on amendments to laws - it's because they don't recognise the distinction between "important" amendments and "not important" amendments. Most obviously because if something isn't important enough to vote on properly why is a government (any government) legislating on it at all?
"The vote is now open" for the final vote, which then takes 20 seconds. EVERYBODY had time to translate, the last couple of seconds is complete silence
This doesn't back up your argument in the way you think it does. What kind of vote only gives 20 seconds for both translation and thinking time?
In the UKIP video it is said that the EP can often vote on more than 1000 things a week, so no wonder they're so rushed. But the problem here is obvious - they shouldn't be voting on 1000 things a week. There can't be any quality legislative scrutiny in such a system, it's a complete farce.
I looked at your report link. It doesn't tell me anything about the quality of the votes or anything relevant to the points the videos are making.
I think it's very clear here that you're determined to make excuses for the EP and take their side because you see the alternative as "populists", which for some reason is a bad thing? The word is defined as "a supporter of the rights and powers of the people" which would appear appropriate here!
> Bill x can be fast-tracked. Does anyone oppose? <half a second break> It has been fast-tracked.
It's done like that because no one is going to oppose.
I see absolutely no reason to excuse those who failed to vote correctly in this setting.
Which by definition means it wasn't the only reason, which proves kozikow's comment to be untrue.
It's a commonly cited gripe. I suspect it often comes from people entirely unfamiliar with EU processes, but who don't like EU membership or the idea of EU membership for other reasons and since it's a commonly cited gripe (and also doesn't mention immigrants, and has a pro-democratic connotation) they use it themselves.
It would be strange that no one in this thread has ever heard a Brexiteer cite bureaucracy and corruption, but I fear it's an urge to insist that the only reason that anybody voted for Brexit was racism to delegitimatize leaver votes or even the possibility of debate between two good people on the subject. I fear that attitude will not convert many previous leavers to new remainers in any future people's vote.
I suggest not bothering with arguments against racism, which racists will have heard before and dismissed, looking at left-wing arguments against EU membership from the 70s, and responding to those.
There are lots of contexts in which we can say we would like to see more data. However, when someone is making a point which is a fairly standard one in the Brexit debates we don't need "references". Nor would referring to an article that said the same thing as OP somehow validate the point. There is a place for asking for references, but on a basic comment like this there is not.
Based on the other comments, it seems people are more upset about the perspective behind this idea rather than its truthfulness. I don't agree with the perspective that leaving the EU is a good thing but it is uncontrovertible that a significant portion of the population in the UK agrees with OP's statement.
So I'm not sure I'd agree the point is "a fairly standard one". Some will say it was about representation, some will say it was about sovereignty, some will say it was about immigration. Some will even say it was simply a protest against the status quo.
Anyone who states "this is what we voted for" has decided that their reason for voting yes was the primary reason for 17m to vote yes, with no evidence at all.
I don't think there was a bus about bureaucracy.
https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-s...
(It also says "Free business from EU red tape - Margot Parker MEP".)
If it's fairly standard I should be able to find at least one survey mentioning it online, right? I tried before sending that comment and couldn't find a single one pointing out corruption and bureaucracy as main reasons. (Or even at all) Ironically I find only articles about corruption in Vote Leave campaign. If it's that standard opinion, please post any source which ranks it against other reasons.
“It is monumentally ironic that the Member State planning to leave the EU because they want to make their own decisions, can't take any decision on leaving the EU.”
Maybe being slow and arguing and thinking more about huge changes is exactly what they want.
The winning “vote leave” campaign said it was a careful process.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/it-is-terri...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-lates...
But it’s not European immigration
https://screenshot.net/2lxzmbn
I’ve been canvassing for the last week, the majority of people want brexit stopped. Of those that don’t the vast majority don’t care what we end up with as long as it stops the immigrants.
This is the current problem that the UK is facing with Brexit.
People have an array of gripes that all landed under the "Brexit" umbrella. The problem is that some of those gripes are in direct opposition to one another, but it didn't matter because "Brexit" was magically going to fix it.
However, now that you have to reduce to implementation, you can't get anybody to agree on the concrete of what "Brexit" should actually encompass.