The “clusterfuck” was due to the EU becoming hostile and super forced in the media.
At the expense of everyone else.
> stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content
Doubtful.
the time has come for them to remember what power is (without authority)
I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.
Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty).
That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration.
The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
But it is not socially or politically integrated with China.
Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc.
The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves.
It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
That's not really the case. Many countries have economic ties with other coutries but no political or social ties. For example, the US imports most of the Uranium that it uses, but that doesn't mean political and social integration between the US and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia or Namibia. [1]
[1] 47 million lbs imported in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure that it is a standard EU compromise. The governments wrote the rules in the context of what must surely be constant disagreements between the parliaments and the governments (at least if the politics of my own non-EU country is anything to go by). I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments.
The same process is how every other EU wide regulation goes into effect. EU passes it, the member states get their input during the EU process, and the member states are then obligated to abide by the rules.
An analogous process, which is not a perfect analog but is similar, is how US federal rules get passed down to the states. The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law.
I'd also add that giving every country a veto on any legislation would basically guarantee nothing gets done.
Another big difference is that the state governments themselves have no representation in the federal government since the passage of the 17th amendment.
States have zero input on federal legislation (except constitutional amendments, which are rare, and not really "legislation").
Until the 17th Amendment, states had input via the Senate, but now that senators are elected directly by voters, states have no formal representation at the federal level.
You're now a criminal if you offer your webspace for free and someon3 uploads anything unlawful in the broadest sense.
Thanks EU corruption.
* The EU Commission (headed by commissioners appointed by the government of the members, 1 per member)
* The EU council (makde up of the heads of government of the members, 1 vote per member) - so sort of in line with US senate as originally enacted (where the state government chooses the senators)
* The EU parliament (voted directly by the population, broadly in line with the population, although smaller members get more MEPs per person) - so broadly in line with US congress
in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system.
Murder would still be illegal under common law, but let’s take your hypothetical and say that it wasn’t, and say that a state didn’t have a statute against murder: the Federal Government could prosecute under Federal law in the Federal court system.
The States have no obligation to charge under that same Federal statute though, and in fact can’t because it’s not their law.
Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.
Now the constitution grants federal government, the right to regulate interstate commerce. Which has been abused horribly to regulate things that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.
In case of such a veto of a single member, the whole legislative process would in the general case be set back to were it started, because the other members had agreed under the condition that everyone implements the agreement and other countries might want to renegotiate.
The EU's ability to force a country to a certain legislation goes even further: In the early years of the EU every country had to consent to an EU legislation; today, under the Lisbon Treaty[1], EU countries must implement an EU regulation in certain areas even if they voted against it. This is based on the belief that a union of 27 states would otherwise hardly be able to act.
There had been cases were single members had been granted specific exceptions (most notably the UK, during its membership, and Denmark when it joined) or must meet certain conditions before they need to implement something (for example, in principle every EU country except Denmark must introduce the Euro when it meets certain criteria; but the EU tolerates that Sweden deliberately fails one criterium, since it has voted in a referendum to stay out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism II). But these exceptions had been agreed on beforehand and some date from a time when the sovereignty of the individual states was valued more highly. Today, the EU tends to avoid such special rules for general cases as far as possible, because legal fragmentation is seen as problematic.
> There are justifications for using a directive rather than a regulation: (i) it complies with the EU's desire for "subsidiarity"; (ii) it acknowledges that different member States have different legal systems, legal traditions and legal processes; and (iii) each Member State has leeway to choose its own statutory wording, rather than accepting the Brussels' official "Eurospeak" terminology.
> For example, while EU Directive 2009/20/EC (which simply requires all vessels visiting EU ports to have P&I cover) could have been a regulation (without requiring member states to implement the directive), the desire for subsidiarity was paramount, so a directive was the chosen vehicle.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Unio...
> In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0]
An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed?
[0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.
They are trying to take away "personal copying exemption"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncomm...
http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobist... https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolon...
>Art. 23. Permitted personal use 1. Without the consent of the author, it is allowed to use the already disseminated work free of charge for personal use. This provision does not authorize building based on someone else's architectural and architectural and urban work, and to use electronic databases that meet the characteristics of a work, unless it concerns one's own scientific use not related to a commercial purpose.
>2. The scope of own personal use includes the use of single copies of works by a group of people who are in a personal relationship, in particular kinship, affinity or social relationship.
Instead it most times because they just failed to write down and pass a law, e.g. because they forgot, had to handle a pandemic, infighting not specific to the law dragging law making speed down and many similar issues.
One example I vaguely remember was when law makers wrote the country laws for some regulation they wanted to push _beyond_ what the regulation required in a bad way which lead to the law being prevented in one way or another again, and again, and again until the time period to put the regulation into local law was over...
So assumptions about countries being against a regulation, or "that they then shouldn't have voted for it" or similar can not be done without looking into the specifics of the country and regulation in question.
The EU legislation means that platforms are liable beforehand.
"These two Directives aim to modernise copyright rules for consumers and creators to make the most of the digital world. They protect rightholders from different sectors, stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content. 2/3 #copyrightdirective #article15"
Under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), if the Member State concerned does not comply with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Additionally, under Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission can call on the Court of Justice of the EU to impose financial sanctions on the Member States that failed to fulfil their obligation to notify measures transposing a legislative directive
And it's usually not an issue of "we don't want to" (I don't remember if any country overwhelmingly voted against it) but more of legislative delays (kicking the can) and such.
> The Commission decided to refer Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice of the EU following their failure to notify complete transposition measures on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Directive (EU) 2019/790).
> Secondly, with regard to a more specific EU Directive on copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions (EU Directive 2019/789), the Commission is referring Bulgaria, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice for not notifying complete transposition of EU rules to the Commission
That didn't need to be a tweet of a screenshot of some text really, did it?
Also I count six countries there, you can't double-count a country just because there are two charges.
See here the 'infringement cases ' statistics. 874 such cases opened in 2021.
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying...
