ACTA coming up in the European Parliament (INTA)

Today, most of the documents for the 29 February 2012 meeting of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) of the European Parliament have now been posted online.

Among the documents we find (Agenda item No 23):

COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America

(Council document 12195/11)

The agenda and other documents relating to ACTA are still missing, so there is still no official information about what INTA may discuss or decide at the meeting.

However, the Legislative Observatory Oeil anticipates that David Martin MEP – already one of the most widely known with a dossier to prepare – would be formally appointed then. See procedure file 2011/0167(NLE) on ACTA.


ACTA workshop

On 1 March 2012 INTA arranges a workshop about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

If the workshop is open, it would add a nice touch if the programme contained information for prospective attendants and for those who might want to follow the proceedings online.

The bare ACTA text can be found here (Council document 12196/11).



Ralf Grahn
speaker on EU affairs, especially digital policy and law

P.S. 1: For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. More than 900 euroblogs are aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Is your blog already listed among them? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?

P.S. 2: The petition launched by @Avaaz for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject #ACTA has already been signed by 2,354,856 netizens, but more are welcome until the anti-piracy treaty has been officially buried.

Civil society beating back ACTA assault

On and off line beating back ACTA is the greatest pan-European civil society campaign ever.

We note that media interest is widening.

The Economist: Internet freedom and copyright law: ACTA up – Protests across Europe may kill anti-piracy treaty

Financial Times, Stanley Pignal and Jan Cienski: Latest pact on internet piracy set to be derailed


Ratification on hold

By now, the governments of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia and Germany have put ACTA ratification or signing on hold, following the protests.

This may be only temporary relief, but it could also be the first step towards withdrawal.


PES joined the battle

Thanks to @jonworth I noticed that the Party of European Socialists (PES) - @PES_PSE on Twitter - came out against ACTA in a press release and a declaration.

Hannes Swoboda, the leader of the second largest political group in the European Parliament, the Alliance of Socialists & Democrats (S&D) - @TheProgressives on Twitter – made a statement envisioning possible rejection of the treaty.


Citizens mobilise

The Twitter discussion under #ACTA is intense ahead of the biggest action day against the anti-piracy agreement tomorrow, Saturday 11 February 2012, with more than 200 new demonstrations taking place.

The total numbers participating remain to be seen, but the defence of Internet freedom unites Europeans across borders.

The stream of new signatures on the Avaaz petition for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject ACTA is continuing. A few moments ago 2,076,598 had already signed.

***

Signs that the ACTA assault may be petering out raises hopes for the netizens. The EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht is ”not impressed” by the demonstrations, but he may be one of his kind.

Popular opinion gives the remaining supporters in the parliaments cause to ponder the wisdom of further confrontation with voters.



Ralf Grahn
speaker, trainer and advisor

P.S. For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. Is your blog already listed among the more than 900 euroblogs aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?

Forcing ACTA on EU citizens

Was it too much to tweet the following to @davidmartinmep – the new ACTA rapporteur in the European Parliament: 100 demonstrations this week & 1.8 million signatures against #ACTA cause for rejection of current IPR agenda?

On the face of it, yes, as @awbMaven pointed out: By themselves they're not cause 4 rejection, but it IS cause 4 IN DEPTH consideration of the issues raised imv.

Good point, but what about the wider questions of the right aims and objectives, common sense (proportionality), legitimacy and acceptance?

The Group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) had just appointed David Martin MEP the new rapporteur for ACTA in the Committee on International Trade (INTA) in the European Parliament. Martin seemed to dismiss the widespread concerns among citizens as myths, and took a narrow, technical view of the treaty, removing ACTA from the context of the EU Commission's copyright and IPR enforcement agenda.

I was not the only one worried by the first signs from the new rapporteur, after the recent spectacular defection by Kader Arif. La Quadrature du Net asked: Will the New ACTA Rapporteur Stand For Citizens' Freedoms?


Wider issues are real concerns

The Anti-Counterfeiting (and much more) Trade Agreement ACTA has wider implications than its deceptive packaging as merely an intergovernmental trade pact and the misleading headline evoking counterfeit goods would lead us to believe.

Read the article about the wider stakes and common sense by professor Michael Kennedy, For Your Digital Freedom and Ours, mentioned in the previous Grahnlaw post (about the EU IPR enforcement agenda).

David Jolly reports from Paris for the New York Times: A New Question of Internet Freedom. The article was written for American readers, so it offers an excellent introduction to others as well, who are curious about the commotion, but do not yet know the issues.

Alexander Furnas provides a more detailed analysis in The Atlantic: Why an International Trade Agreement Could Be as Bad as SOPA. Even if some people make exaggerated assertions about ACTA, the treaty seen in context is dangerous.


Legitimacy

After the wave of protest in Central Europe, the BBC speaks about a hundred demonstrations planned for this week all over Europe. Saturday, 11 February 2012, is the main day of action according to the map and the facts provided by stoppacta-protest.info.

The Avaaz online petition for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject ACTA has now been signed by 1.84 million citizens, and the number keeps growing every few seconds.

For a treaty which allegedly changes nothing in EU law (but perhaps something in the member states), it looks stupid to purposefully lose the respect of citizens, especially the younger generations.

Aren't the relations of the European Union with civil society bad enough as they are, without a determined effort to poison them further?

I am all for statesmen having to do the right thing, when needed. But leadership and legitimacy are not about persisting in doing the wrong thing, however efficiently.

Paradoxically, the stubborn and callous policies of the EU Commission and its repressive allies have united Europeans more than anything to date. My humble congratulations.

With the arrival of the new EP rapporteur, the need for the petitions and demonstrations has only grown greater.



Ralf Grahn

P.S. For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. Is your blog already listed among the more than 900 euroblogs aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?

Growing ACTA protest online and on the ground

By now, more than 1.526 million netizens have signed the Avaaz.org petition for the European Parliament to reject #ACTA. The call is also directed at the parliaments in the EU member states, where most of the governments are preparing ratification.

Protests are planned on the ground, too. Via @hope_74 a map of protests planned, mostly for 11 February 2012. Matt Brian writes on TNW about the day of protest in Europe against the controversial ACTA treaty.

This may already be the greatest demonstration of discontent with the EU ever, but the Brussels bubble, with few exceptions, refuses to engage with the protestors. See #ACTA on Twitter.

Not much is heard from the national capitals yet, but the online protest boom combined with local demonstrations may induce the to governments to publicly close ranks behind the EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, who works to extol the virtues and to secure the passage of the Anti-Counterfeiting (and much more) Trade Agreement (see earlier Grahnlaw post).

Interestingly, mainstream media in Europe have been slow or reluctant to pick up the escalating anti-ACTA movement. Who watches the watchmen?


To the source

Since we are in linguistically diverse Europe, a reminder that the ACTA proposal and treaty text are available in 22 of the official languages of the European Union. Here to the English version (pdf):

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final


Ralf Grahn

P.S. Between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. Is your blog already listed among the more than 900 euroblogs aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu?

ACTA text in 22 languages - Soon a million protesting online

The Anti-Counterfeiting (and much else) Trade Agreement #ACTA is a hot subject on Twitter and the online public sphere in general. Different campaigns aim at defeating the treaty. A short while ago @Avaaz had reached 963,079 online signatures on a global petition for the European Parliament to reject the treaty negotiated between the European Union and the governments of a number of states. (Thousands were added during the writing of this blog entry.)

In the United States a petition to submit ACTA to the Senate for approval had gathered 4,699 signatures, but a total of citizens 25,000 are needed by 21 February 2012 to qualify for an official response.

Some of the assertions made about ACTA, the final text signed and open for signatures, are pretty wild. On the other hand, governments stubbornly excluded the public and built a vast pool of distrust and resentment. Official information has tended to be one-sided, highlighting only positive effects.

Yesterday I collected links to a number of my blog posts in Finnish, Swedish and English about information society legislation issues, including ACTA and copyright, in one Grahnlaw entry. ACTA raises fundamental questions about the relationships between (democratic) governments and the governed.

If you wade through the #ACTA Twitter stream you can find useful assessments, even real gems, regarding the content and effects among the more hyperbolic assertions.


ACTA text in 22 languages

Getting the facts straight would be a good start for those who are still open to reasoned arguments. Beacause of the international character of the debate, one helpful place to go to is Eur-Lex, the legal portal of the EU, where you find 22 language versions of the ACTA proposal and treaty.

Here is the English version:

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America

As the depository, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan offers a note on the signatories to date, as well as other information about its efforts to protect intellectual property internationally.

Through the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament Oeil you can follow the procedure 2011/0167(NLE) at European level.

The IPEX register with national procedures in EU member states is not very helpful, so here other information sources are needed: media, activists and official.



Ralf Grahn

P.S. Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator of euroblogs, is the hub for the national and thematical blogospheres at the European level, including issues about the information society and online media.

EU citizenship: Right of petition

One of the rights of citizens of the European Union is the right of petition, extended to other residents of the EU.

The subject matter has to come within the Community's fields of activity and it must affect the petitioner directly, which means that general grievances are inadmissible.

We look at the current treaty provisions, the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure before suggesting a few web pages with information about the Committee on Petitions (PETI).


***

Current treaty

According to Article 21(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) every citizen of the Union has the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 194.

Article 194 TEC actually broadens the scope of petitioners beyond EU citizens. The right extends to atural persons residing in a member state (third country nationals) and to legal persons having their residence or registered office in a member state.

Not all grievances are admissible.

The matter has to come within the European Community’s fields of activity.

The matter must affect the petitioner(s) directly (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/133):

Article 194 TEC

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Community's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 182 of the original Treaty of Lisbon amended Article 193 TEC and point 183 amended Article 195 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/102).

This means that there were no specific amendments to Article 194 TEC.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

The Community’s fields of activity became the Union’s according to the customary horizontal amendment and the provision was renumbered in the consolidated Lisbon Treaty, as Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/150):


Article 227 TFEU
(ex Article 194 TEC)

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.


***


Comment

In the Lisbon Treaty the EU citizenship provision corresponding to Article 21 TEC is Article 24 TFEU, which refers to Article 227 TFEU.

Article 44 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union is the third place where the right to petition is enshrined (OJEU 14.12.2007 C 303/11):

Article 44 Charter
Right to petition

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to petition the European Parliament.


***

EP Rules of Procedure

The Title VIII Rules 191 to 193 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure contain more details on petitions (16th edition, October 2008):



TITLE VIII PETITIONS

Rule 191 Right of petition

1. Any citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to Parliament on a matter which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.

2. Petitions to Parliament shall show the name, nationality and permanent address of each petitioner.

3. Petitions must be written in one of the official languages of the European Union.

Petitions written in any other language will be considered only where the petitioner has attached a translation or summary drawn up in an official language of the European Union. The translation or summary shall form the basis of Parliament's work. Parliament's correspondence with the petitioner shall employ the official language in which the translation or summary is drawn up.

4. Petitions shall be entered in a register in the order in which they are received if they comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 2; those that do not shall be filed, and the petitioner shall be informed of the reasons therefor.

5. Petitions entered in the register shall be forwarded by the President to the committee responsible, which shall first ascertain whether the petitions registered fall within the sphere of activities of the European Union.

6. Petitions declared inadmissible by the committee shall be filed; the petitioner shall be informed of the decision and the reasons therefor.

7. In such cases the committee may suggest to the petitioner that he contact the competent authority of the Member State concerned or of the European Union.

8. Unless the petitioner asks for it to be treated in confidence, it shall be entered in a public register.

9. Where the committee deems it appropriate, it may refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

10. Petitions addressed to Parliament by natural or legal persons who are neither citizens of the European Union nor reside in a Member State nor have their registered office in a Member State shall be registered and filed separately. The President shall send a monthly record of such petitions received during the previous month, indicating their subject matter, to the committee responsible for considering petitions, which may request those which it wishes to consider.



Rule 192 Examination of petitions

1. The committee responsible may decide to draw up a report or otherwise express its opinion on petitions it has declared admissible.

The committee may, particularly in the case of petitions which seek changes in existing law, request opinions from other committees pursuant to Rule 46.

2. An electronic register shall be set up in which citizens may lend their support to the petitioner, appending their own electronic signature to petitions which have been declared admissible and entered in the register.

3. When considering petitions or establishing facts, the committee may organise hearings of petitioners or general hearings or dispatch members to establish the facts of the situation in situ.

4. With a view to preparing its opinions, the committee may request the Commission to submit documents, to supply information and to grant it access to its facilities.

5. The committee shall, where necessary, submit motions for resolutions to Parliament on petitions which it has considered.

The committee may also request that its opinions be forwarded by the President to the Commission or the Council.

6. The committee shall inform Parliament every six months of the outcome of its deliberations.

The committee shall, in particular, inform Parliament of the measures taken by the Council or the Commission on petitions referred to them by Parliament.

7. The President shall inform petitioners of the decisions taken and the reasons therefor.



Rule 193 Notice of petitions

1. Notice shall be given in Parliament of the petitions entered in the register referred to in Rule 191(4) and the main decisions on the procedure to be followed in relation to specific petitions. Such announcements shall be entered in the minutes of proceedings.

2. The title and a summary of the texts of petitions entered in the register, together with the texts of the opinions and the most important decisions forwarded in connection with the examination of the petitions, shall be made available to the public in a database, provided the petitioner agrees to this. Confidential petitions shall be preserved in the records of Parliament, where they shall be available for inspection by Members.


***

We note that the current Article 194 TEC speaks of matters coming within the fields of activity of the Community, whereas the EP Rules of Procedure refer to the European Union’s field of activity.

If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, Article 227 TFEU will refer to a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity, but nothing says that the member states (Council) will want to contribute to petitions with regard to the CFSP and CSDP. At least we will have to wait for petition practice to evolve.


***

European Parliament information

The European Parliament offers five web pages with readable information about Petitions:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do;jsessionid=774E682BEF855A02BF18F0B99FE49F68.node2?language=EN&id=49



***

EP Committee on Petitions (PETI)


News and information about the EP’s Committee on Petitions can be found on:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/homeCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI


For the seriously inclined, the web pages on Reports may be of interest:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/reportsCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI


The same can be said for draft reports:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/draftReportsCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI


An overview of the work of the Committee on Petitions is offered by the fresh (9 February 2009) draft Report on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the parliamentary
year 2008 (2008/2301(INI)); rapporteur: Mairead McGuinness:


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-418.130+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN


***

EP and EU citizenship

A related topic: The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) conducted a hearing on European citizenship on 16 February 2009.

The hearing was related to the 5 February 2009 draft Report on Problems and prospects concerning European Citizenship (2008/2234(INI); rapporteur: Urszula Gacek. The draft Report, 2008/2234(INI), is available here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-419.850+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN



Ralf Grahn

EU TFEU: Citizens’ initiative and petitions

The citizens’ initiative is one of the novelties of the Treaty of Lisbon, opening up a channel for participation. Today, we look at the legal base, which allows more exact conditions to be set (secondary legislation).

The directly elected European Parliament continues to receive petitions from citizens in matters which affect them directly.

Complaints concerning maladministration can be addressed to the Ombudsman.

In these and in other matters we have the right to address the institutions of the European Union in the treaty language of our choice, and to receive an answer in the same language.


***

In Part Two Non-discrimination and citizenship, the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) adds a new first paragraph to Article 21 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). See OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/52:

37) In Article 21, the following new first paragraph shall be inserted:

‘The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with
the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the provisions for the procedures and conditions
required for a citizens' initiative within the meaning of Article 8 B of the Treaty on European
Union, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must
come.’.

***

The current Article 21 TEC has the following contents (in the latest consolidated version of the TEU and the TEC in OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/50-51):

Article 21 TEC

Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 194.

Every citizen of the Union may apply to the Ombudsman established in accordance with Article 195.

Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the institutions or bodies referred to in this Article or in Article 7 in one of the languages mentioned in Article 314 and have an answer in the same language.

***

The Lisbon Treaty version of Article 21 looks easy to consolidate, but there are three numbers for each amended Article and every Article it refers to, if we want to know ‘everything’. Through the horizontal amendment 2(f) ‘institutions and bodies’ widens to ‘institutions, bodies, offices or agencies’ in the now fourth paragraph, and horizontal amendment 8 regards the Article references in this paragraph:

Article 21 TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 24 TFEU

The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with
the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the provisions for the procedures and conditions
required for a citizens' initiative within the meaning of Article 8 B [renumbered Article 11 TEU] of the Treaty on European Union, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.

Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 194 [TEC and TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 227 TFEU].

Every citizen of the Union may apply to the Ombudsman established in accordance with Article 195 [TEC and TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 228 TFEU].

Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies referred to in this Article or in Article 9 of the Treaty of European Union [repealed Article 7 TEC, replaced, in substance, by Article 9 TEU, renumbered Article 13 TEU] in one of the languages mentioned in Article 53(1) of the Treaty on European Union [repealed Article 314 TEC, replaced in substance by Article 53(1) TEU, renumbered Article 55(1) TEU] and have an answer in the same language.

***

The substance of an EU citizen’s right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the Ombudsman and to correspond with the EU institutions in one of the treaty languages is preserved.

You can look for relevant treaty provisions and you can check the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union where these rules are usually mirrored (OJ 14.12.2007 C 303/10):

Right to good administration (Article 41)
Right of access to documents (Article 42)
European Ombudsman (Article 43)
Right to petition (Article 44)

***

Since the citizens’ initiative is the novelty, we are going to follow it more closely.

The new paragraph 1 introduces the legal base for regulations on the modalities for a citizens’ initiative. The ordinary legislative procedure is used.

***

We look at the previous stages concerning the citizens’ initiative.

The European Convention proposed the following new Article I-46(4) of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/20):

Article I-46(4) Draft Constitution

4. No less than one million citizens coming from a significant number of Member States may invite the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution. A European law shall determine the provisions for the specific procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative.

***

This innovation was agreed on and modified by the IGC 2004, and it became part of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/35):

Article I-47(4) Constitution

4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution. European laws shall determine the provisions for the procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.

***

The IGC 2004 seems to have made it still clearer that only ‘Community’ legislation qualifies, thereby leaving politically interesting questions pertaining to treaty reform and intergovernmental areas of cooperation outside the scope of admissible citizens’ initiatives.

The minimum number of initiators’ member states was specifically mentioned as one of the conditions needing provisions.

***

The IGC 2007 took over most of the substance of the Constitution text in Article 8b(4) TEU (ToL), renumbered Article 11(4) TEU, but left it to Article 21 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 24 TFEU, to provide the legal base for procedures and conditions.

***


Now for some subjective views:

The citizens’ initiative has been hailed as an achievement in the context of participatory democracy at European Union level. On the other hand, it has been criticized because it only invites the European Commission to submit any proposal as a result.

My preliminary thoughts on the citizens’ initiative is that the Lisbon Treaty introduces a nice sounding ‘democratic’ reform, but that the key question is that the treaty has been drafted to exclude all but the old ‘Community’ areas (first pillar; TFEU).

We can, of course, try to envision areas where sizable lobby groups like trade unions or farmers, perhaps even environmentalists or campaigners against nuclear power might muster the necessary numbers and pan-EU appeal to demand legislation within the Commission’s powers of proposal. It is possible that some questions may give rise to enough passions for ‘ad hoc’ reform coalitions to be formed, if the conditions to be set are lenient.

But the big political questions about the future of the European project seem to have been left by the member states to the member states, not the people.

Treaty reform or dissolution of the EU, as well as foreign, security and defence policy are outside the scope of admissible citizens’ initiatives.

It is therefore possible that this participatory innovation will lead to frustration, when potential campaigners, including the campaigners for the citizens’ initiative itself, are confronted with the restrictions.

Two examples:

If I understand correctly, even politically interesting ‘details’ like the ‘One seat campaign’ would have proven to be inadmissible under the rules to be crafted, since the seats of the institutions along with a myriad of questions have been agreed intergovernmentally, and changing the official seat of the European Parliament would require a unanimous decision at treaty level to change the protocol.

The objective of the ‘Who do I call campaign’ could succeed if the European Council had a unilateral change of heart to enhance democratic legitimacy within the European Union, but a mandatory provision to that effect would require a treaty amendment, again outside the powers of the Commission.

***

A Room of One’s Own is still a distant dream. The citizen of the EU has been given a playpen (an ‘enclosure in which a baby or a young child may play safely’).


Ralf Grahn