
Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive - pasiaj
https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-brussels/documents/policy-notes/2019/02/20/joint-statement-regarding-the-copyright-directive
======
yeahforsureman
What the hell, where's Sweden and Denmark? Or the much-hyped E-stonia? (Not
that it would've made a difference.)

~~~
Strom
The lack of Estonia seemed curious to me as well, given Estonia's voting
history regarding Article 13. Then I looked up the voting history for all
these countries. [1] The votes against Article 13 have been as follows:

    
    
      Poland      72% (36 vs 14)
      Netherlands 71% (17 vs 7)
      Finland     50% (6 vs 6)
      Italy       38% (25 vs 41)
      Luxembourg  33% (2 vs 4)
        
      Sweden      100% (18 vs 0)
      Estonia     83% (5 vs 1)
      Denmark     17% (2 vs 10)
    

Looking at this frankly raises more questions than it answers. Has there been
a big change of heart in say Italy suddenly? They've been voting in favor of
article 13 thus far.

\--

[1] [https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/](https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/)

~~~
Tuna-Fish
What you are looking at are the views of the MEPs. MEPs represent specific
people living in the country, not the country as whole. This statement was
issued by the _countries_ , meaning the representatives of the governments
currently in power in those countries.

~~~
isostatic
Of the listed countries, 6 of the 8 - Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg,
Sweden, Estonia and Denmark - are all 1 constituency countries, so the MEPs
represent the entire country

MEPs may well decide different things to the government though, just as the
U.S. House could have a different view to the Senate.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Proportional representation.

The MEPs don't represent the entire country, they represent the specific
people who voted for them. The fundamental principle of who people represent
under PR is very different from FPTP.

Under FTPT, the people living in a certain area vote for a "winner", who then
represents the entire area. If 51% of the people vote for candidate A, and 49%
vote for candidate B, then the wishes of 49% of the constituency go unheard in
the parliament.

Under PR, the idea is not to pick a "winner" who takes all and then represents
everyone in the parliament, the idea is to match everyone's vote to some
candidate(s) according to their preferences, as best allowed by sizes of
constituencies, so that as many people as possible have someone they voted for
in the parliament. Then the people in the legislative body only represent the
people who voted for them.

~~~
ameister14
So I vote for a party in the EU as a whole, and if enough people in my country
or other countries do too, some candidate from some country gets elected?

~~~
jbarberu
No. For the EU parliament you vote for a representative (from your country,
that usually belongs to some political party).

~~~
aukust
That is true, but in the EU parliament as in many other systems there is an
incentive for representatives to vote in favor of the (EU) party they are in -
as huge majority of representatives have on this case despite of their own
governments showing displease to this particular ruling.

I will not personally be voting for any of the representatives that voted for
this particular ruling as none of them they gave no satisfactory explanation
why they actually voted this way anything other than that their EU party
wanted it to pass. My country being Finland, and we definitely have been
opposed to this from the start.

------
gpm
What does this mean procedurally? Is this a veto? A statement that is likely
to effect an upcoming vote?

~~~
r3bl
We'd need either 13 countries or any number of countries that represents 35%
of the EU population to oppose this law.

Last time, it was 8 countries representing 27% that opposed it. A handy voting
calculator[0] gives us about 23.88% of the population using the countries
listed here.

This is (was?) a less-likely scenario to stop it. One final attempt will be
when all the MEPs get a chance to vote on it.

[0] [https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-
system/...](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-
system/voting-calculator/)

~~~
folbec
If the vote is before brexit it's 23.88% after brexit it's 27.42%.

~~~
Zenst
You raise a very poignant point, should votes that are borderline, that the UK
MEP's have voted recently be reviewed?

~~~
noir_lord
Only if the vote is 51.89% to 48.11% on an overly broad decision made against
the backdrop of lies, finance illegality and interference from external
actors.

I'm totally not bitter though honestly.

If the worst comes to the worst I'll just marry my partner (she'll still be an
EU national after March) and take my skills (and taxes) abroad.

------
citilife
The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the
"countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to
the two countries with the most power. Namely Germany, followed by France.

Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all
the national identities. Only to be centralized by powers who are only
interested in their own national identity.

This is similar to the struggle the U.S. faced at the start. You cannot have a
centralized government making laws without invasively deciding everything. A
federation of the EU made sense. Shared currency, shared military, etc. But by
trying to manage the economy (which copyright is an extension of), they are
essentially going down the path of ever increasing centralization.

With that, countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity, can
and should leave - if they want to be an independent nation.

~~~
DubiousPusher
The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that,
contemporary. National identities didn't arise naturally. Many of them were
very thoughtfully and intentionally invented. For most of human history, the
idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as
one people would've been ridiculous.

It's really only in the last 200-400 years that people have accepted the
nation as their identifying place. Previously people's place identity came the
much smaller geography of their county, kingdom, principality or hamlet.
Joining these smaller identities into larger national identities was a big win
that came with many benefits. Of course it meant that these places had to give
up some autonomy. Just as there are many benefits of nations giving up some
autonomy to act collectively in a regional power structure.

It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the
political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination
of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.

~~~
aikah
> The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that,
> contemporary.

As opposed to the pedestal people put supra national institutions such as the
EU? Rome? Napoleon's Empire? all failed eventually.

> National identities didn't arise naturally.

Neither did the European Union. All societies are man made constructs, what
your point?

> It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the
> political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the
> subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.

Well, the EU is more power concentrated in the hands of fewer people. By
nature it will always be less democratic than governance at a smaller scale.
And these structures tend to seek even more power as time goes, not less.

What is better? more tyranny,bureaucracy or more democracy?

Ignoring local cultures and socio-economics specificities by trying to impose
arbitrary rules to an entire continent? In that case there will always be
winners and losers.

~~~
Sammi
I think the parent comment is trying to make the point that nation state
identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity.

People like identifying with a group. It seems like an innate craving of
humanity. I think we should learn to be careful not to be exploited for this
craving. Whether it is a nation, the EU, a religion or a soccer team, one
should be very very careful.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent
identity."

I would disagree.

Nation states are formalizations of ethnic groups and they did arise
naturally. They are not arbitrary.

'Sweden' is where the 'Swedes' live, essentially. And they have for a very
long time.

There is not much arbitrary about the nation states of Europe, they mostly
have clear historical orientation.

The Habsbourg Empire - now that is an 'artificial state'. Spain, Netherlands,
Austria, Hungary etc.. It faded ultimately because it was arbitrary.

WW1 - which has it's roots in turmoil within the Austro-Hungarian Empire
(read: the succession of Habsbourg dynasty) - was caused at least in part by
this 'arbitrary' mapping.

'Europe' is surely where 'Europeans live' \- but - the 'EU' is not Europe.
Many citizens (in some cases majorities) voted against the Treaty of Lisbon
which gave the EU it's most powerful legal status, and most citizens didn't
really have a vote.

The EU is a body politic, a rather undemocratic one, it's not quite the same
as 'Europe'.

The legislation in question should be a pan-European concern, and I believe it
belongs at the level of the EU, even if the EU is oddly constructed and has
way too much power.

I don't think it's really a national issue in any sense, there doesn't seem to
be any clear boundaries on this.

There are ideological advocates on all sides, and very specific economic
forces from a few different nations acting as impetus.

~~~
int_19h
You're assuming that ethnic nation-states were the norm in human history. They
were not - most states originate from _rulers_ that unified them, and their
original citizenship was basically people who swore fealty to that ruler and
not the other. Most modern nations didn't exist then, either, except as
numerous separate tribes that had to be forcibly unified, and their distinct
identities erased, to make them into those nations. We see the legacy of this
process even today, e.g. in how many European countries treat their various
regional languages and dialects.

------
thecleaner
I had no idea the copyright lobbying was so strong in Germany. We absolutely
suck.

------
kfwhp
As long as France and Germany like it, that's all there is to it. Arguing will
get you nowhere.

~~~
rasz
Yep, just like Germany building Nord Stream 2 to bypass another EU country at
the bidding of Putin.

------
amelius
That's it? Less than half a page to make their argument?

~~~
ptaipale
The detailed argumentation is made elsewhere, in a longer format. For a
declaration, I think half page is just right. Happy with my government for
doing this (but very unhappy with the union).

~~~
ddebernardy
Save your being unhappy with the union for when the MEPs don't vote this down.
Until then, be outraged at the lobbyists that nudged elected governments to
support this, while keeping in mind that these elected governments' heads of
state are the ones that nominate the head of the EC.

~~~
ptaipale
I am unhappy if the civil servants and the machinery of EU keeps preparing bad
proposals, even if they are torpedoed by MEPs. This seems to be a constant
case of pressure to which organisations then yield at some point.

Yes, both elected and unelected officials should be better at resisting
lobbying.

