European Union versus SOPA and Protect IP Act?

The European Parliament took a stand against the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill debated in the US House of Representatives and its sister, the Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) discussed in the Senate.

Both bills raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the internet as well as for service providers and businesses, not only in the United States, but globally.

How about the other EU institutions?

Here are the results of a quick search for public EU materials through the EEAS web pages.


European External Action Service EEAS

We start from the country page for the United States of America at the European External Action Service EEAS, where we find no specific item dedicated to the issue. However, there is material about the recent summit between the European Union and the United States of America.


EU-US summit

We take a closer look at the recent EU-US summit, 28 November 2011. Did the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the high representative Catherine Ashton or trade commissioner Karel De Gucht raise issues related to the internet in their discussions with president Barack Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton?

In the EU-US Summit Joint statement, Washington, 28 November 2011 (document 17805/11), paragraph 4 mentioned the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), underlining the need to avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards affecting trade, but also highlighting the the efforts to protect intellectual property rights (IPR):

4. We applaud the success of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) on a wide range of issues and welcome the progress achieved in secure trade and supply chain security, electric vehicles and related infrastructure, regulatory practices, small and medium-sized enterprises, and in the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. We encourage the TEC’s continued leadership in helping us avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards that adversely affects trade. We urge the TEC, together with our regulators and standard-setters to step up co-operation in key sectors such as nanotechnology and raw materials to develop compatible approaches to emerging technologies. We also instruct the TEC to pursue its work on strategic economic questions, not least in the field of investment, innovation policy, and the protection of intellectual property rights to level the playing field for our companies in third countries, in particular emerging economies.

The leaders did pay respect to an undivided global internet, before plunging into the security-driven concrete agenda, in paragraph 22:

22. We share a commitment to a single, global Internet, and will resist unilateral efforts to weaken the security, reliability, or independence of its operations — recognizing that respect for fundamental freedoms online, and joint efforts to strengthen security, are mutually reinforcing. We welcome the progress made by the EU-U.S. Working Group on Cyber-security and Cyber-crime, notably the successful Cyber Atlantic 2011 exercise. We endorse its ambitious goals for 2012, including combating online sexual abuse of children; enhancing the security of domain names and Internet Protocol addresses; promotion of international ratification, including by all EU Member States, of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime ideally by year’s end; establishing appropriate information exchange mechanisms to jointly engage with the private sector; and confronting the unfair market access barriers that European and U.S. technology companies face abroad.

The mandate of the new TEC high level working group on jobs and growth includes regulatory issues affecting trade (press release MEMO/11/843). Thus, it could be a forum for the prevention of new barriers.


Transatlantic Economic Council TEC

The Commission's DG Trade provides an overview of the meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council TEC, i.a.:

Information and Communication Technology: The EU and US reviewed the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) trade related principles which were agreed earlier this year and discussed ways of promoting the implementation of these principles within their bilateral economic relationship and in their trade negotiations with third countries. (IP/11/402)

The press release IP/11/402 notes the agreement on a set of ten fundamental principles for trade in information and communication technology (ICT) services, bilaterally and in order to open up markets for EU and US companies worldwide.

Logically, bilateral and globally propagated standards for information and communication technology (ICT) should exclude the creation of unilateral barriers, although the agreed principles come equipped with a caveat, far from clear in scope:

The EU-US Trade Principles for ICT Services have been agreed on a best endeavour basis and do not affect the rights of the EU or the US to maintain their respective policy approaches to the protection of intellectual property, privacy and personal data and the enhancement of cultural diversity.

The two-page document adds that financial services (one of the SOPA concerns) are excluded from the scope:

European Union-United States Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology Services (4 April 2011)

The ten principles are briefly defined. Many of them could be affected by the SOPA and Protect IP bills.


Security and intellectual property or fundamental rights?

TFTP, ACTA, PNR... the list of invasive treaties problematic with regard to fundamental rights in the EU has grown.

The summit declaration and the TEC principles contain a few vague pointers, but what if the legislative powers in the USA decide to go even further than the executive, which works hard enough as it is to export its agendas on internet security and protection of intellectual property?

What have the EU institutions said and done? Where do they stand on freedoms and rights?



Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Transatlantic learning for better lawmaking

Share your Europe, say the editors of Bloggingportal.eu. They have invited bloggers and non-bloggers to offer their visions for the future of Europe on the My Europe Week blog during this week until Europe Day 9 May 2010. A short while ago, there were 48 posts tagged #myeurope on the special Bloggingportal.eu page.

After a number of posts from an internal perspective, the time has come to widen our horizon. My question is:

Are we humble enough to learn?


Altiero Spinelli, Jean Monnet and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing are among those Europeans who have evoked the birth and the establishment of the United States of America as an inspiration for Europe, sometimes at a highly symbolic level.

However, the part vision I am going to offer here is more mundane.

When I read a Finnish Government Bill, there is routinely a discussion about the legislation and recent reforms in other countries. As in Sweden, the proposed changes are presented in detail.

When I turn to a Communication (proposal) from the European Commission, the contents generally feel more formalistic and less illuminating. There are seldom, if ever, arguments about how things are done elsewhere.

Is the European Union really so ‘sui generis’ that we have nothing to learn from the outside world?

Is it somehow politically incorrect to refer to the USA, which has a federal Constitution?

Is it more comfortable to entertain the illusion that we have invented the wheel, instead of openly admitting that we could learn from others and improve on what they have done?

One of the few exceptions I can readily remember were Mario Monti’s speeches about the need for convergence in competition matters, especially cartels (antitrust) where authorities on both shores of the Atlantic grappled with the practices of the same business Behemoths.

Despite the structural differences ─ the USA a federation, the EU a treaty based organisation ─ both are faced with similar challenges.

The USA and the EU are multi-level systems of governance, trying to facilitate life and commerce on a continental scale.

The terms in use are often different, but the underlying problems and challenges are more or less closely related, even if this is an extremely rough guide: Commerce Clause (internal market, external trade), Necessary and Proper (subsidiarity and proportionality), Full Faith and Credit (area of freedom, security and justice) etc.

However, we should routinely go beyond that to practical levels of application.

Do we have the humility to learn? Do we have the candour to admit it? Are we mature enough to move from furtive peeks to open discussion?

Better lawmaking is profiting from the experiences of others.

Is the European Union self-confident enough for a new level of transatlantic (mutual) learning?




Ralf Grahn

Britain and EU: Cameron’s goodwill capital

Outside the United Kingdom, the Lisbon Treaty is seen in a positive light, as testified by the national governments and parliaments.

Before entering the government, the Tories have exasperated their European partners by leaving the mainstream Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament, establishing the anti-integrationist European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, by inciting president Vaclav Klaus to hold out on his Lisbon Treaty signature against the democratic approval by 27 national parliaments, by astounding the EU member states through declaring the possible nomination of Tony Blair as president of the European Council to be a hostile act, by transferring the new Europarty – the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR) and its think tank (foundation) – in the hands of outspoken anti-EU MEPs, and by campaigning for further British “red lines” and opt-outs, with no consideration for contributing responsibly to the common project.

There are three main options to continue towards the outer edges of the European Union, or beyond: an amicable settlement, political extortion or exit.

Amicably: Further repatriation of EU powers to Britain has to find unanimous agreement between 27 member states, but what is the balance of the Tories’ goodwill capital to draw on?

Extortion: If a coming Conservative government opts for confrontation, are the 26 other EU member states really going to capitulate to political blackmail?

Exit: The Lisbon Treaty outlines the modalities.


Let us first look at the UK Conservative (British) situation as seen by outsiders, with the Lisbon Treaty factually ratified by all member states.

***

Transatlantic relations

The signals from the US-EU summit underline the importance of a European Union willing and able to act as one in the world.



AFP: Obama welcomes ‘strengthened’ EU (4 November 2009)



EUbusiness: Obama welcomes ‘strengthened’ EU (3 November 2009)



The Telegraph: Barack Obama praises EU’s Lisbon treaty agreement (3 November 2009)



Alla Dessa Dagar, Carl Bildt: En ny dag i Vita Huset (4 November 2009)


***


EU member states

A few news items convey the message that the member states of the European Union see the Lisbon Treaty as an important step forwards, even if that is abundantly clear from 27 ratifications.



European Voice, Toby Vogel: EU leaders hail treaty’s passage (3 November 2009)



EUbusiness: Swedish PM hails ‘very important’ EU treaty signing (3 November 2009)



EUbusiness: Sarkozy welcomes ‘great news’ for EU treaty (3 November 2009)



EUbusiness: EU under Lisbon treaty will be ‘more democratic’: Merkel (3 November 2009)



Czech Happenings: Most Czech politicians hail Klaus’s decision to sign Lisbon (3 November 2009)



Le Figaro: Les Tchèques signent le traité de Lisbonne (3 November 2009)



Renascença : « Tratado da Lisboa abre um novo ciclo », diz Sócrates (3 November 2009)


***


Euroblogs

The feeling among knowledgeable Eurobloggers seems to be that David Cameron is about to outline a policy, which will satisfy nobody and may lead nowhere.

Some argue that it might be better to arrange a clear In or Out referendum.



Coulisses de Bruxelles, Jean Quatremer: Les conservateurs britanniques vont-ils oser sortir de l’Union ? (3 November 2009)



The European Citizen, Conor Slowey: The Lisbon Treaty ratified: only months of speculation left! (3 November 2009)



Jason O’Mahony: The Big Tory EuroCon (4 November 2009)



Jon Worth: Some questions for David Cameron today (4 November 2009)



Verfassungsblog, Max Steinbeis: Lissabon: This is not over yet… [in German] (4 November 2009)



Erkan’s Field Diary, Erkan Saka: Lisbon era starts in Europe while Merkel makes her historic US address (4 November 2009)




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Educate yourself: Read interesting Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.

EU Lisbon Treaty “threatens the transatlantic relationship”

Ahead of the European elections Sally McNamara’s views on the Lisbon Treaty and the transatlantic relationship are worth reading. From the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)


After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:

“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”

***

Transatlantic relationship

The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.

In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.

The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.

The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.

Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.

Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.

In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.

If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.

McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.

Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.

***

There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?


Ralf Grahn