Someone this determined to do something so wrong cannot be assumed to be neutral. This guy must be corrupt and on someone's pay-list.
It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation of Karel De Gucht to determine if this person is bribed and if these proceedings is a result of corruption. The EU would be wise to do so for its own business sake and before it's perception as a democratic body is tarnished in favour of a US-led corrupt legislative-body.
If the EU loses its perception as democratic, chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so. If it's one thing the EU cannot afford right now, that is one of them.
> It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation
Unfortunately the EU's track record isn't very good in this regard[1].
> If the EU loses its perception as democratic
I can't speak for everyone but the EU is not a democratic institution (in terms of direct or participatory democracy) and some people understand this.
> chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so.
No, they're forced to fund it whether they want to or not. The entire Euro currency crisis persists because there is no organised or planned way for a country to leave the Euro. In any other situation the PIGGS would've left by now and could've inflated their way out. Instead the Eurozone countries in the north are stuck with the countries in the olive belt for better or worse and it's hurting all sides. Likewise, there is no documented and planned way for a country to leave the EU.
You are confusing the European Union with the Eurozone (the EU countries that use the Euro).
Withdrawal from the EU is a right of member states. However, withdrawal from the Eurozone wasn't envisioned or planned for and therefore there is no organized way to leave the Euro monetary zone (Eurozone).
EDIT: Not all EU countries use the Euro and therefore part of the Eurozone.
He's currently under investigation by the belgian authorities for tax evasion. But i doubt he's actually been bribed in this case. He's the sort of guy who genuinely believes ACTA is not only desirable but absolutely essential.
> Someone this determined to do something so wrong cannot be assumed to be neutral.
yes.
> This guy must be corrupt and on someone's pay-list.
No. True believers are far more fanatical/determined/etc than mercenaries. Money is far from the most effective motivator. (Proof sketch - mercenaries will switch sides for money. True believers won't.)
He doesn't have to be corrupt; he simply has to believe that ACTA is good for Europe. If he's trying to circumvent various obstacles in his way, it's because he thinks they're wrong.
European commissioners have two undesirable attributes:
* Far too much power
* Low public visibility
If they perceive their job as "governing this part of the world without paying much attention to what lesser people are saying", then that is partly because we have defined their job in that way. (And, of course, that will attract the wrong kind of people).
It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation of Karel De Gucht to determine if this person is bribed and if these proceedings is a result of corruption. The EU would be wise to do so for its own business sake and before it's perception as a democratic body is tarnished in favour of a US-led corrupt legislative-body.
If the EU loses its perception as democratic, chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so. If it's one thing the EU cannot afford right now, that is one of them.