04 July 2015

PPI General Assembly Live Stream

16650961990_44ce3f342c_z
The conference in Warsaw over the weekend can be followed remotely by using the following link.

livestreaming | PirateTimes

All times are given in Central European Summer time (CEST) that is UTC + 2

04. July 2015 – Saturday

General Assembly

10:00 Delegates accreditation
11:00 Opening of the General Assembly
11:30 Discussion
12:30 Workshop(s)/ Standing committees
14:30 Discussion about the results
15:30 Admittance of new PPI Members
15:45 Motions and Statutes Amendments
16:30 Reports (Board, Coart of Arbitration, Lay Auditors)

05. July 2015 – Sunday

10:00 Conference reopen
Elections of PPI officers (board, court, lay auditors)
Issues of Statements
Press Conference

17:00 Official Conference End

 Streaming is provided by StreamServices.eu and can also be viewed on pirate-parties.net

 

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Andrew Reitemeyer at 2015-07-04 06:04:27)

03 July 2015

Almedalen dag 6

Sista dagen. Tanken var egentligen att åka på lördagen, för att sedan dra vidare till Warszawa på söndagen, men den sena  färjan vid 03:30 i natt visade sig mycket billigare än en imorgon. Oh well.

Började dagen med att sova alldeles för länge, i en riktig säng i UP-huset för en gångs skull. Drog till tältet och plockade ihop allt, låste in vid färjeterminalen. Satt på ett fik och jobbade. Drog ned till Almedalen, såg Anna Kinberg Batras tal och blev ganska så positivt överraskad (separat analys on its way?). Åt supergod veganmacka (!!!) vid Strandporten och var social ett tag, drog till tältet och plockade ihop det sista. Försvann i väg till UPs hus och fixade med piratgrejor och jobbade.

Hej då, Almedalen! 😀

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Anton Nordenfur at 2015-07-03 21:49:09)

Almedalen dag 5

Så min telefon har dött helt, och manipulerad av Troed och Fabian gick jag och köpte en Sony Xperia Z3 som hittills verkar fungera riktigt bra. Nu är jag på banan igen.

Jag var och kollade på Elin Andersson när hon ägde Per Strömbäck i en upphovsrättsdebatt hos SVT, sen drog jag och gjorde lite PP-jobb på distans. På kvällen följde fest – Fabians och mitt bröllop följt av Ung Pirats grillning, både trevligt och långdraget, oklart hur sent jag ens lade mig. Men kul var det!

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Anton Nordenfur at 2015-07-03 21:40:51)

Lita på oss

Så är det dags för FRA att få en prick i protokollet igen. För umptonde gången. Kontrollorganet Siun har i sin granskning framfört kritik mot hur inhämtning av information går till. Kanske. Regimen har nämligen valt att hemligstämpla hela rapporten.

Så nu har vi alltså en organisation (FRA) som bedriver en verksamhet som av naturliga skäl måste vara hemlig. Det är inget konstigt och det är det eviga dilemmat med underrättelsetjänster – sekretess är liksom poängen med det, vilket medför att insynen är tämligen obefintlig. För att lösa det har man ett kontrollorgan som för medborgarnas räkning får granska verksamheten och meddela att inget fuffens förekommer. Detta kontrollorgan har redan vid ett flertal tillfällen rapporterat att fuffens faktiskt förekommer. Och nu väljer alltså regimen att hemligstämpla även kontrollorganets rapport om det fuffens som underrättelsetjänsten har för sig. För det är så man bygger förtroende.

Ni minns hur de alltid sagt ”lita på oss” när vi har ifrågasatt FRA-lagen, insynen, riskerna för missbruk, etcetera? Den dialogen ser nu ut ungefär så här:

”Hur vet vi att dessa befogenheter inte missbrukas?”
”Lita på oss.”
”Hur kan vi lita på er utan insyn i verksamheten?”
”Det finns ett kontrollorgan.”
”Men rapporterna hemligstämplas ju.”
”Well… Då får ni helt enkelt lita på oss.”

Som lök på laxen vill jag också påminna om att den regering som nu hemligstämplar rapporten om FRA:s förehavanden innefattar Miljöpartiet, som i opposition var mycket tydliga med att de ville riva upp FRA-lagen (och Ipred, och Datalagringsdirektivet). Jag önskar att jag kunde säga att jag är förvånad.


Andra bloggar om: , , , ,

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Joshua_Tree at 2015-07-03 07:39:33)

Privata plattformar, censur och yttrandefrihet

På forumet Sweddit (svenska delen av Reddit) blev det lite diskussioner angående moderatorernas beslut att inte tillåta politiktrådar över sommaren. Många använde sig av ordet censur, och för mig blir det lite konstigt att en privat driven plats på nätet skulle kunna bli anklagade för det. Jag förstår ju vad som menas, att man inte får posta vad man vill längre på den specifika platsen, men som jag förstår ordet handlar censur snarare om att man inte får posta det alls, nånstans över huvud taget.

Jag drog därför igång en tråd där jag frågade om det fanns några ställföreträdande ord för just ordet censur i ett sådant här sammanhang. Där säger flera att det är helt korrekt att använda sig av ordet censur, även om det inte är staten som tillämpar det.

Nu tror jag de flesta är med på att det behövs moderering. Detta inte minst eftersom man kan störa specifik ämnesdiskussion genom att gå in och sprida en massa struntpostningar – i sammanhanget en typ av censur då – som i praktiken dränker diskussionsutrymmet. Spam tas till exempel alltid bort, som jämförelse. Det är helt enkelt skillnad på modererat och censurerat samtal.

Problemet illustreras även nu när ytterligare problem har uppstått på Reddit – då en administratör plötsligt fått sparken. Det handlar om det populära IAMA, där folk kan ställa frågor till kändisar, politiker och så vidare. Det har varit en ovärderlig hjälp, tydligen, som bland annat inneburit att Victoria (som den avskedade heter) haft folk i telefonen och ställt frågor muntligen som folk skrivit, och så har hon skrivit deras svar. Flera forum på Reddit har nu släckt ner i protest mot företagets beslut att avskeda henne.

Här möts problemet i en salig röra. Det handlar om ett privat företag som driver Reddit, vilka jag gissar anses ha sina rättigheter, det handlar om ett offentligt utrymme som behöver modereras – i det här fallet till och med anses vara en förutsättning för att det ens ska kunna existera på ett bra sätt – det handlar även om användarnas möjligheter att kunna få påverka utrymmet de hänger på.

När jag sitter här på bloggen har jag inga som helst skyldigheter att upplåta den som plattform för andra – det tror jag att de flesta är med på. Ingen ifrågasätter säkert mina behov av att styra innehållet som jag vill, eller vilka som får skriva inlägg osv. När en plattform blir så stor att man mer eller mindre tvingas gå med på den för att kunna få ta del av både samhällsinformation och marknadserbjudanden, är det fortfarande lika självklart då?

Vad innebär det exempelvis att “alla finns på Facebook”, men det är inte samhällsregler som gäller där, utan det är Facebooks egna regler. Som vi ju vet landar väldigt tokigt. En gång i tiden försökte vi upplysa alla om vikten av att inte kunna stänga av folk från internet, då så mycket av vardagen är kopplat till en nätet. Idag börjar jag undra om en liknande debatt behöver dras igång när det gäller privata plattformar. I vilka fall ska de få stänga ute något, eller kanske rent av: ska de få stänga ute någon över huvud taget?

Samtidigt så lever vi helt klart i en nätvärld där det behöver modereras. Det är ett faktum som man inte kan rucka på, hur principiellt mycket man än ställer sig bakom “total yttrandefrihet” eller “frihet från censur” osv.

Jag tror att hur ordet censur används och tolkas är en liten ledtråd om nån slags förskjutning i det kollektiva medvetandet, om vad som ska anses vara öppet och tillgängligt för alla. Privata plattformar ses som jämförbara med statliga, ur ett rättighetsperspektiv. Samtidigt som alla vill vara fria att skapa just sin yta med sina värderingar och regler.

Det är en gammal sanning att internet består av en massa mikrodiktaturer, att var och en kontrollerar sin yta och att det i sig skapade en stark demokrati av samexistens. Men nu behöver vi handskas med makrodiktaturer och vi har landat i något nytt som behöver definieras, vad det verkar. Sättet som användare använder ordet “censur” indikerar att en slags utveckling skett som vi kanske inte är helt medvetna om, som jag ser det.

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by emma at 2015-07-03 06:34:25)

02 July 2015

UK: Cameron envisas med att vilja förbjuda kryptering


Nybloggat på HAX.5July.org:


Den brittiske premiärministern fortsätter driva sin kampanj för att förbjuda kryptering som staten inte har en bakdörr till.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2015-07-02 15:47:00)

Sveket Fridolin (MP) inte kommer att tala om i kväll


I dag är det Miljöpartiets dag i Almedalen och i kväll talar språkröret Gustav Fridolin.

Med största säkerhet kommer han inte att tala om massövervakningen, Storebrorsstaten, FRA och datalagringen.

När det gäller övervakningen är nämligen Miljöpartiets svek i regeringsställning totalt. De sätter makten framför principerna, politiken och löftena.

I riksdagen har MP röstat nej till att riva upp FRA-lagen och nej till att utreda vårt lands samarbete med amerikanska NSA. I regeringen har MP lagt sig platt vad gäller lagringen av data om alla svenskars alla telefonsamtal, SMS, e-postmeddelanden, nätuppkopplingar och mobildata. Och i EU står MP bakom regeringens linje om registrering av våra flygresor.

Detta är raka motsatsen mot vad Miljöpartiet gick till val på. De har blivit ett maktparti som alla andra.

Skäms!

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2015-07-02 14:25:00)

Sanningen i mitten

Om matteläraren säger att ett plus ett är två och Kalle säger att det är fyra så betyder det inte att ett plus ett är tre. Det betyder att Kalle är en idiot.

Det här kan de flesta räkna ut eftersom de besitter den kunskap som krävs för att helt bortse från Kalles påstående. När det kommer till mer komplexa frågor blir det emellertid betydligt svårare. De flesta av oss besitter inte de nödvändiga kunskaperna för att avgöra om det ekonomiska nettoresultatet av invandring är en vinst eller förlust, hur mycket planetens medeltemperatur förväntas öka de närmaste trettio åren och hur mycket av det som är naturliga fluktuationer, eller huruvida Åsa Romson är på riktigt eller en konstinstallation. För att ta några exempel.

När vi saknar adekvat kunskap i ett ämne kan vi inte filtrera och värdera information. Då tenderar all information att väga lika tungt och sedan antar vi, i bästa fall, att sanningen ligger någonstans i mitten. Det är ett problem för det innebär att Kalle plötsligt äger legitimitet. Han låter ju tvärsäker (idioter har nämligen privilegiet att aldrig ens överväga möjligheten att de är idioter) medan de där forskarna verkar oense och dessutom pratar en massa gallimattias som ingen vettig människa begriper. De krånglar till det, helt enkelt!

För att ytterligare ställa till det så kan en ohederlig debattör spela på människors naturliga instinkt att kompromissa och därigenom flytta den tänka mitten helt åt fanders. Så medan en intellektuellt hederlig debattör försöker beskriva sanningen så som vederbörande uppfattar den kan den ohederlige dra till med helt absurda påståenden och backa upp den med diagram och räkneexempel som inte har någonting med verkligheten att göra men det ser proffsigt ut så det måste ju vara åtminstone lite sant. Sanningen ligger nog någonstans i mitten.

Den hederlige debattören kan inte vinna. Hen kan försöka bemöta sin motståndares påståenden och därigenom ge dem större uppmärksamhet och legitimitet än de förtjänar (ingen rök utan eld). Hen kan välja att _inte_ bemöta det men då riskerar hen istället att göra sin motståndare till sanningssägare (om Kalle har fel, varför vågar du inte ta debatten?). Eller så kan hen rakt av avfärda sin motståndare som den idiot hen är genom att uttryckligen påtala att hen far med osanning. Men det uppfattas som otrevligt och överlägset och kommer sannolikt också att ge sympatipoäng till motståndaren. Det går inte att vinna ärligt mot någon som fuskar.

Så det enda sättet att opinionsbilda på ett sätt som sätter den stora massans uppfattning om sanningen någonstans i närheten av där sanningen faktiskt är, är att vara lika ohederlig själv. Det är det emellertid få seriösa forskare som är villiga att göra eftersom det liksom ligger i forskarens natur att söka och presentera sanningen och inget annat. Kvar lämnas då arenan åt ohederliga debattörer på alla kanter som tävlar i att försöka dra fårskocken åt sitt håll. De få sansade röster som ger sig in i det hela och faktiskt försöker föra in lite sans blir snart uppätna från bägge håll.

Den goda nyheten med det är att sanningen nog ändå är någonstans i mitten. Den dåliga är att det får vi aldrig veta för alla seriösa forskare har facepalmat ihjäl sig.


Photo credit: WilliamMarlow / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Andra bloggar om: , , ,

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Joshua_Tree at 2015-07-02 11:27:53)

Brazil Pirate Party breaks 100k Facebook Followers

1519894_1119899414704233_1520818291075410927_o

The Pirates of Brazil (PPBR) have laid claim to the title of most influential Pirate Party on social media. They recently surpassed 100,000 likes on Facebook.

This is far greater than PPBRs nearest friendly Pirate rivals:

Pirate Party of Sweden 81,000

Pirate Party of Germany  85,000

and for reference, the international party:

Pirate Parties International  10,000

This shows there are more ways to be influential than having Pirate in a parliament. Brazil’s laws set a large hurdle for new parties to register and participate in elections. However, PPBR is making an impact in the country as they move towards being able to take part in electoral campaigns.

 

Featured image: CC BY-SA PPBR

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Andrew Reitemeyer at 2015-07-02 09:29:37)

ISDS compromise threatens democracy

Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament proposed a compromise amendment on investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). [1]

The amendment calls on the EU commission to replace ISDS with ISDS: “to replace the ISDS-system with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states”.

The president’s proposal discriminates: only foreign investors would have access, local investors, states or citizens won’t. [2]

It is also anti-democratic and a slippery slope. Supranational fora fall outside a democratic context. There are no voters at the supranational level. The Parliament would not be able to adjust the rules to correct expansionist interpretations. [3]

The president’s version is based on an earlier seriously broken amendment by rapporteur Bernd Lange. [4]

The president adds: “where private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives”.

The reassurance is empty as an additional forum to challenge government decisions creates an additional threat to public policy objectives.

Members of Parliament should reject the president’s compromise and vote for amendment 27 which clearly rejects ISDS. [5] The vote may be as early as next week. Contact your member in Parliament now.

Update: TTIP debate on Tuesday morning 7th July, vote on Wednesday at 12.30 8th July.

[1] “to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion while benefitting from no greater rights than domestic investors, and to replace the ISDS-system with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states which is subject to democratic principles and scrutiny where potential cases are treated in a transparent manner by publicly appointed, independent professional judges in public hearings and which includes an appellate mechanism, where consistency of judicial decisions is ensured, the jurisdiction of courts of the EU and of the Member States is respected and where private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives;”

(emphasis: the president’s changes to the earlier amendment)

[2] Prominent US legal experts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/04/30/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/oppose_ISDS_Letter.pdf

[3]
https://blog.ffii.org/international-investment-court-plan-threatens-our-democracy/

[4] https://blog.ffii.org/sd-isds-amendments-are-seriously-broken/

[5] idem

Kommentera! (by Ante Wessels at 2015-07-02 07:22:32)

01 July 2015

Almedalen dag 4

Idag var en seg dag. Det märks att Almedalsveckan tar på krafterna, för att inte tala om att sova i tält. Jag hade en del viktigt jobb kvar och satte mig direkt på ett café vid Österport för att fixa klart det. Drog sedan iväg till Mångfaldsparaden där Piratpartiet lyckades synas en hel del. Gick runt och gjorde lite random saker. Badade i havet, solade med några andra pirater.

Köpte mat,  kollade lite på Jimmie Åkessons tal. Skickade debattartikeln som VLT inte svarat på till Frihetssmedjan, blev fotad för det. Jobbade.

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Anton Nordenfur at 2015-07-01 18:44:21)

30 June 2015

Veckans Falkvinge

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2015-06-30 22:10:00)

[FirstLook] France Targeted by NSA Spies and Parliament Passes Surveillance Law

PARIS — On Wednesday, France woke up to find that the National Security Agency had been snooping on the phones of its last three presidents. [...]

Yet also today, the lower house of France’s legislature, the National Assembly, passed a sweeping surveillance law. The law provides a new framework for the country’s intelligence agencies to expand their surveillance activities. Opponents of the law were quick to mock the government for vigorously protesting being surveilled by one of the country’s closest allies while passing a law that gives its own intelligence services vast powers with what its opponents regard as little oversight. But for those who support the new law, the new revelations of NSA spying showed the urgent need to update the tools available to France’s spies. [...]

Until the law was passed, France’s intelligence services operated almost without any laws to regulate them. Although the new law delivers a much-needed framework, its safeguards are regarded by many critics as insufficient. The powers of the oversight body in charge of the intelligence agencies have been slightly strengthened and it will be possible, if a citizen suspects she is being surveilled, to take her case before the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest court. But other parts of the law have drawn controversy, including the way it defines the purposes the government can invoke to surveil French residents. The categories extend well beyond terrorism. Many opponents of the law think these guidelines are so broad that they could enable political surveillance. But the key point of disagreement is what the government calls “black boxes.” The law allows the use of government equipment inside Internet Service Providers and large web companies to analyze streams of metadata and find “terrorist” patterns and behaviors. [...]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/24/france-protests-nsa-spying...

(by neurone18 at 2015-06-30 15:53:14)

Net Neutrality: Trialogue betrayed European Parliament's vote

Paris, 30 June 2015 – After months of negotiations behind closed doors between the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament (trialogue), the very positive text on Net Neutrality adopted by the European Parliament in April 2014 has become more ambiguous and weaker. Net Neutrality deserves more guarantees and La Quadrature du Net is regretting a third-rate agreement.

Last night at 2 am, the trialogue's negotiators on the Telecom single market Regulation found an agreement. The text adopted by the three institutions, which was supposed to define the guarantees surrounding Net neutrality and provide a framework for so-called "specialised services", is disappointing and brings very little safeguards for users.

Indeed, the definition of Net neutrality has disappeared, even though the text begins by recalling the necessity of an open and non discriminatory Internet and an equal process of all Internet traffic. Likewise, provisions on specialised services are very blurred and equivocal and may be used by operators and large online services to circumvent Net Neutrality and harm consumers' freedom of choice as well as competition and innovation.

An important role is given to national regulatory authorities which may arise doubts on very numerous interpretations regarding each country. Citizens must put pressure on the European and national authorities to ensure that, in their implementation, those blurred principles can be used to dismantle increasing oligopolisation of the Internet, which only benefits large telecom operators and big American platforms.

After months of campaign and citizens' participation on this complex matter, La Quadrature du Net regrets that the trialogue reached such a weak and unclear text, whereas the version coming from the European Parliament in April 2014 was balanced and precise one. The mad lobbying carried on by telecommunication operators has, once again, overcome the public interest in protecting Net neutrality. Policy-makers both within national governments, at the EU Commission and in the EU Parliament jointly share the responsibility for this sad outcome. At a time where the European Union is preparing its digital strategy, this third-rate agreement unfortunately shows they are unable to actually listen to the voice of citizens and resist the corporations that seek to become the Internet's gatekeepers.

(by neurone130 at 2015-06-30 14:09:12)

29 June 2015

Almedalen dag 2

Fabian väckte mig ohemult tidigt. Följde med till ett expresstryckeri så att han kunde få visitkort. Drog på ett seminarium om mångfald i datorspelsbranschen. Letade veganmat, misslyckades.

Drog och kollade på bröllopsringar. Just ja, jag gifter mig på torsdag. Hurra!

Åt pommes. Gick på seminarium om digitalisering i skolan, gick vidare till debatt om cannabislegalisering mellan Centern och ett nykterhetsförbund. Stötte på Jacob Dexe, kollade på ett seminarium om utbildning i ett digitaliserat samhälle.

Blev uppringd av en rysk reporter som ville prata om tvåårsjubiléet av Snowdens avslöjande – jag beskrev min pessimism över att avslöjanden får några reella konsekvenser annat än att NSA blir mer diskreta i sitt spionerande, och lyfte vikten av att dels skydda sin information själv, dels arbeta politiskt för ändrade lagar och för att slänga ut de partier som väljer att spionera på sitt folk och sina allierade.

Gick vidare och hängde med CUFare under Stefan Löfvéns tal.

Och så tatuerade jag mig!

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Anton Nordenfur at 2015-06-29 18:09:51)

EU Parliament must defend Net Neutrality against pressure from Member States

Paris, 29 June 2015 — The Council of the European Union is looking to remove all reference to Net Neutrality in the regulation of telecommunications. While the Council has always refused to take a step towards a compromise, it has been looking for several weeks to put the responsibility for the failure of the negotiations on the European Parliament. Thus, it is with bad faith that the Council is taking on this 4th trialogue today ; with their aim to make the Parliament to give in.

Net Neutrality occupies an important place in the negotiations of the text on the regulation of telecommunications. Indeed, the Council is only trying to insert provisions likely to please big telco companies: authorisation of Deep Packet Inspection, price discrimination, suppression of all reference to Net Neutrality that would assure non-discrimination and equality in everyone's data.

Since the beginning of the trialogue, the Council never stopped deleting any disposition in favour of rights and interests of European citizens. It bases itself on a cowardly disregard, indeed malice, of the European Commission regarding Net Neutrality, but also on the differences of opinion within the Parliament. So, as the negotiators are divided – with Michel Reimon leading those in favour of Net Neutrality against the rapporteur Pilar del Castillo with the telecoms companies – the Council is playing the troublemaker.

This bad faith on the part of the Council is unacceptable. Its attempt one more time to favour powerful companies at the expense of citizens and their insidious efforts to divide the Parliament are completely irresponsible. The French government is no exception: having fought Net Neutrality for a long time it attempts to improve its image without ever providing a clear definition of this principle and by refusing that any definition be included in EU law.

Net Neutrality

While the author of the notion of Net Neutrality, professor Tim Wu, is worried about the European negotiations on this matter, he declared last week that "the Internet in Europe will never recover if those propositions [from the Council] are adopted". Besides, such dispositions could secure the dominance of US platforms in Europe.

La Quadrature du Net calls on Member States to respect EU citizens through legislative tools which would ensure their access to the Internet without discrimination, and to accept the initial proposals of the European Parliament, which proposed a balance between protection of rights and freedoms of users on the one hand and innovation and free competition on the other.

While Europe risks having its fragile democratic institutions collapse, the European Parliament has even increased responsibilities towards all citizens. La Quadrature du Net calls on the European Parliament to remain faithful to their vote from April 2014 and to remain very firm over the provisions favorable to the preservation of a neutral Internet, democratic and innovative.

"The Council can not continue to violate the rights and freedoms of citizens. Their attempts to focus on the European Parliament as being responsible for the failure of negotiations will not allow them to hide their own inability to bring European democratic values and defend the fundamental rights of citizens," said Agnès de Cornulier, coordinator of legal and policy analysis for La Quadrature du Net.

Our analysis on the wiki of La Quadrature du Net

Main issues in the current document:

  • Article 1: In the objectives of the regulation, the Council has been deleting all references to the "preservation of rights of final users" and to the "non discriminatory processing of traffic" when this should appear as one of the main principles of the regulation. The Parliament in its latest suggestion has been trying to maintain this disposition.
  • Article 2: the Council is deleting the definition of Net Neutrality and all the references to it in the following articles. An "open Internet" (art. 1) cannot guarantee transparency and non-discriminatory measures.
  • The Council is also deleting the definition of "specialised services" (that differ from the principle of "best effort" and are based on an optimised quality of service for a given application). This article kept the interdiction of discrimination between the services and the applications functionally equivalent. This is a key measure to avoid discrimination against SMEs and to assure fair competition within the EU even if the telco operators can decide to give an online access via specialised services. The Parliament could accept a new definition less restrictive and thus less protective for users and SMEs.
  • Article 3-2 allows Internet Service Providers to conclude specific agreements with final users. Those agreements could lead to discriminatory practices regarding the fees/prices and thus break Net Neutrality: it is for example the case for zero-rating services that puts in place discrimination based on online content and can favour dominating platforms on competition. The European Parliament is looking to maintain the requirement of non-discrimination.
  • The article 3-3 on the measure of traffic management does not protect users from agreements that break their rights. It could also lead ISP's to act on the content using Deep Packet Inspection, and not on the network. The European Parliament is trying to add a disposition forbidding ISP's to analyse the content of the packets. Beside, the considering 8a authorises compression techniques which de facto harm content.

(by neurone130 at 2015-06-29 14:22:36)

28 June 2015

Almedalen dag 1

Första dagen på Almedalen  närmar sig sitt slut, Annie Lööf drönar på i bakgrunden och jag har nästan helt slutat lyssna. Nu väntar kvällen och vad den nu innebär.

Första halvan av dagen gick åt att flytta tältplatsen  närmare Almedalen, nu är vi runt tjugo minuter ifrån centrala Visby. Sedan drog vi ned till Almedalsdammen, där alla pirater i Visby träffades över en trevlig fika, följt av ett seminarium om rasism där jag stötte på Sebastian Krantz och Per Pettersson, följt av ett gäng olika hoppskuttningar som slutade på Donners Brunn och sedan en snabb visit på Ung Pirats hem. Och nu är jag snart på väg tillbaka till tältet. Livet är rätt okej.

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Anton Nordenfur at 2015-06-28 19:16:59)

27 June 2015

Bitcoin; Technology Beyond Ideology And A Call For Evolution

Activism – Nozomi Hayase:Six years since the invention of the blockchain, more people are beginning to see the powerful political implications that this technology brings. People from diverse backgrounds have been weighing in on its disruptive potential. While libertarians embrace the potential of cryptocurrencies to break up monopolies of the ‘too big to fail’ banking and payment companies, the rise of this technology was met with skepticism by many socialists. Activists who call for economic equality and oppose governments harsh austerity go further to say Bitcoin will become another tool for neoliberalism. So what is the disruptive force inherent in this technology? Is it tied to a specific political ideology?

Critics from the left primarily come from observations of particular events surrounding decentralized digital currency. On the surface, the trend of speculators trading Bitcoin and manipulation of exchange rates can resemble gambling, and some see Bitcoin as recapitulating the existing Wall Street casino-style derivative economy. This investment friendly image is strengthened when economists chime in to depict Bitcoin’s fixed monetary supply (a total of 21M bitcoin is created) as a currency mimicking assets like gold and criticize it as having a deflationary monetary design that would incentivize hoarding and increase wealth inequality.

Contrary to these perceptions, Bitcoin was never meant as a get-rich-quick scheme. While it possesses gold-like characteristics, it is also radically different, as it is highly portable and divisible (Bitcoin can be divided into 8 decimal points and more if consensus is reached). This is a new monetary design that has never existed before.

Competition vs. Cooperation

Bitcoin creates a currency with unprecedented flow. It melts borders and artificial barriers of ideological differences. It resists any stagnation of thought that tries to mold it to carry certain special interests. Careful examination reveals how it is an architecture that embodies innate human nature and is designed to uphold our internal governing structures.

From Socrates’ dictum of know thyself to the modern age of reason, throughout history people have tried to understand the internal laws that constitute man. Naturalist Charles Darwin, upon observation of biological phenomena, identified and defined this internal law as an evolutionary force that guides all species.

In his first work, The Origin of Species, he brought the theory of natural selection and random variation. The notion of survival of the fittest, first coined by English philosopher Herbert Spencer to describe his economic theory and later taken up by Darwin, promoted a view of man as not much more than claws and teeth. This became a prevailing ideology behind the rise of social Darwinism and was used to justify European colonialism and modern predatory capitalism that was spawned in the late 19th century.

Yet, this narrative of fierce competition for life was only half the story. Russian philosopher Peter Kropotkin wrote a response to the predominant Darwinian interpretation of natural hierarchy. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, he argued for the feeling of solidarity, empathy and cooperation as the ground for human evolution.

This alternative view was held also by Darwin himself. Psychologist and system scientist David Loey in Darwin’s Lost Theory of Love debunked the narrow reductionist interpretation of Neo-Darwinians that emphasized the notion of the selfish genes. He argued how most had buried a major contribution Darwin made when he moved beyond pre-human evolution to examine man’s moral sensibilities. Loey pointed to how Darwin, in his second work The Descent of Man, had recognized that nurturing, expressed as sympathy for the weak was a primary evolutionary force that drives humans to develop higher agency with the principle of mutuality.

The seemingly unbridgeable ideological divide between socialism and capitalism can be looked at as an expression of a contradiction that existed between Darwin’s earlier and later works. It is experienced as two forces constantly battling within us. On one hand, we have a drive for individual pursuits and independence and on the other aspirations for altruism and a deeper connection with others.

In current civilization, the tendency toward personal gain and competitive drive has been overriding the principles of cooperation. What has now become apparent is that the greed of a small minority in a ‘race to the top’ has subverted a broader evolutionary force, holding people hostage in a brutal animal-like kingdom of kleptocracy. The survival of the species in modern times has turned into a game of survival of the crudest and most rapacious corporations and bankers. This has now escalated into an arms race to the bottom, creating resource wars, economic apartheid and environmental catastrophe, likely leading to planetary crisis.

Digital Scarcity

The imagination that infused the blockchain technology intervenes in the course of human evolution that has been heading down this destructive path. Decentralized consensus at the core of this innovation gives us a platform to reconcile seemingly opposing forces manifested as this ideological divide and brings a creative solution to global problems outside of electoral politics.

Bitcoin is like one big organism that regulates itself through algorithm. With no company, CEO or individuals in control, it maintains a ledger transparent to all. Its ecosystem evolves to manifest a vision encoded in its DNA, through stimulus and active interaction with its environment.

The core of this technology is algorithmic consensus that enables digital scarcity; a way to make an object in the digital world scarce without central control. This solves the problem of the double-spend. Cryptographer Adam Back, whose invention of Hashcash contributed to the creation of Bitcoin’s digital scarcity, noted how Bitcoin “constructs a computational irrevocability from proof-of-work and consensus”. This makes permissionless transaction and innovation possible, as well as removing monopolistic control of the production and transfer of money. But more fundamentally, this scarcity offers a key to open society to move beyond the current oligarchical rule of the neo-Darwinian dog-eat-dog world that has now turned into the lions eating the lambs.

The market logic that governs the existing extractive system is that of central control. As a hallmark of the industrial era, capitalism bases its foundation on the idea of land ownership. This places production and distribution into private hands. Scarcity was created through monopolistic control of resources and energy (such as the oil spigot), which has mostly been done in secrecy.

What became the ‘owner class’ began setting rules for the rest of the population through their undue influence on governments. This controlled market slowly destroyed healthy price discovery processes by manipulating currency and creating monopolies. Government giveaways in the form of corporate welfare stifles true entrepreneurship and innovation. Forces of privatization have been swallowing the commons. With scarce access to resources and jobs, people are pitted against one another, engaging in a rigged game that just keeps enriching the richest.

Unlike the managed scarcity of centrally controlled markets, Bitcoin’s digital scarcity is created through voluntary agreement of its participants. Its open source protocol grants users power to choose what kind of network they wish to create or be a part of, as codes can be modified by anyone. Combined with game theory that enforces fairness, this scarcity creates a new form of capital, one that is open source and distributed. This brings a radical departure from the current vulture capitalism that promotes cheating and wealth without work by means of usury, rent-seeking and QE (taxation through inflation).

While central banks use fiat currency as a force of coercion, Bitcoin currency is a token of value that provides an incentive to generate productivity and efficiency of the workers (miners). This pays for the labor required to build a whole new global financial system. In a sense, each Bitcoin mining pool is like a worker-owned cooperative that requires members to both work together and also compete within the network to perform the issuing of monetary units and clearing of transactions. Solidarity generated through collective hashing power maintains the ethos of decentralized consensus.

Perceived deflationary characteristics touted as Bitcoin’s flaw is actually a vital incentive structure that bootstraps the whole venture to build a new infrastructure in this time of transition from a massive teetering debt economy. This networked scarcity encourages the funding of start-ups and fueling of innovation on the edges. All around, new projects are emerging, ones that could fulfill the aspirations and needs of various communities, fostering a new network effect of altruism. Crowd-funding platforms like StartJoin and Bitcoin Capital are good examples of this.

Distributed Accountability

Bitcoin’s self-organizing is not easily understood from outside looking in. It is like a caterpillar in the cocoon before turning into a butterfly. Market manipulation and outright theft within exchanges like Mt. Gox appear to confirm the view of man as selfishly driven. Yet, this is occurring in centralized offshoots and simply a reflection of the greed rampant in the existing system.

If we dig a little deeper into this ecosystem, what is happening within the mining process also appears to affirm the theory of natural selection, where those with powerful computer chips and hashing power can increase the chance of winning the game. Indeed, mining equipment is now highly specialized and is becoming more like a kind of survival of the fittest (where ordinary computers can no longer participate in mining). This brings concern about the potential centralization of mining. Yet, just as Darwin’s first work does not complete his full picture of evolution, the mining was also designed to be subservient to the imagination that infused this innovation.

The fierce mining competition fosters efficiency, helping make the relative capacity of the Bitcoin ecosystem significantly less energy intensive than the existing financial system and the most ecological one when fully utilized at a global scale. This also helps create a solid foundation upon which a social contract of a truly democratic society can be built.

The creator of this technology, Satoshi Nakamoto found a way to secure the system from the risks of concentrated greed and destructive seeds within our ‘selfish genes’. This was done through implementing a particular consensus algorithm that enforces people to show the proof of their work. Rewards here function as a mechanism to keep everyone honest and the equilibrium of supply and demand distributes accountability as a form of self-regulation taken up by those who participate in the mining.

All this has become an engine to build a system that is impervious to internal or external attacks. The mining rings that have now achieved global level security perform a kind of safeguard of real democracy, through which spontaneous forces of We the People can be unleashed. With its feature of infinite divisibility, value created through a peer-to-peer exchange of autonomy and reciprocity can become an abundant flow that nurtures all people, especially those who are made weak and vulnerable by current Western exploitation.

This even makes it possible for the other six billion, the unbanked and under-banked, especially in the Global South to participate in the world economy on their own terms. This is already starting to happen as investment and interest in transforming the massive remittance market is increasing, while charity and tipping is the fastest growing usage of Bitcoin in the West.

Paving the Way for Altruism

Many of us wish to evolve; to act more freely and extend kindness and compassion to others, but our actions are restricted and controlled by oppressive governments, religious fundamentalism and de-facto corporate dictatorship. As commercial-led globalization expands, the entire globe is shackled to the tyrannical logic of extreme capitalism and cowboy banksters’ autocratic control over the flow of money. People with good hearts are forced to adapt to the harsh environment of austerity and rule by the rich. They have to make hard decisions; either to be kind to others or suppress that innate nature of altruism just to survive.

The blockchain removes these obstacles, allowing us to align ourselves with internal forces of evolution. The built-in incentive structure of this game-changing innovation offers humanity a path to divest from the military-industrial complex, war economies, sweat shops and debt slavery as well as Stasi-like surveillance. Instead of supporting oligarchs that print money at will to buy missiles and tanks, people can independently invest in mining gear and channel the selfish and aggressive parts of humanity to serve the larger whole.

Artificial scarcity in centrally planned economies fuels destructive competition among people, dividing all through fear into separated nations, religions and ideologies, and justifies wars and hatred. Now the competitive drive that has been cut off and stagnated can be brought back to its origin of creative power and transformed into one that encourages each to strive for their best in service to all.

With decentralized cryptocurrencies, we can move away from the deterministic future imposed by central banks and divisive political ideologues and build a society that represents who we really are. Those who are ready and want it will find a way to chart a new path. Those in power can choose not to evolve, but they can no longer take the rest of us down with them.

Humans it seems are being degraded into killer apes. As the ideals of distributed consensus enshrined in mathematics are fully developed, they become the killer apps that can help humanity redeem itself. In this new world entered through the blockchain, we can now move beyond struggles for existence and ascend as a species capable of love.

Photo credit – Silhouette of a fibreglass spinosaurus at Blackpool zoo in Lancashire, UK and a ‘con’ trail by Simon Harrod.

Kommentera! (by Nozomi Hayase at 2015-06-27 13:18:14)

26 June 2015

Det är inte brottsligheten som är makthavarnas problem - det är folket


Politikerna och polisen påstår att massövervakningen behövs för att bekämpa brott. Men jag undrar...

Under ett par års tid har vi kunnat följa Park Lane-fallet i Göteborg, där ljudutrustning för en kvarts miljon kronor stals.

Tjuven är identifierad. Tjuven finns på film, i akten. Tjuven har erkänt. Men inget händer. [Länk»]

Om polisen inte förmår komma till skott i fall där allt är klappat och klart – vad skall den då med mer information till? Är det inte viktigare att ordningsmakten börjar sköta sitt jobb än att den ges nya verktyg för övervakning?

Men det handlar ju inte så mycket om brottsbekämpning som om kontroll. Den härskande politiska klassen och dess väpnade gren vill veta vad folket håller på med.

Man betraktar medborgarna som ett hot, ett potentiellt problem.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2015-06-26 10:11:00)

Om Migrationsverket är skurkar, är vi skurkar

samiraSamira Motazedi är en författare från Iran, som 2012 dömdes till döden för äktenskapsbrott:

I ett beslut från oktober 2014, som Samira märkligt nog inte delgivits förrän nu, avfärdar Migrationsverket samtliga de asylskäl hon åberopar. De har tagit del av texter hon publicerat i dagspress och på den blogg där hon sedan drygt ett år tillbaka skriver varje vecka, liksom dokumentation från panelsamtal och uppläsningskvällar hon deltagit i. Detta inkluderar information om att Samira i anslutning till ett samtal på Göteborgs stadsbibliotek kontaktats och förhörts av iransk underrättelsetjänst. Inget av detta är för Migrationsverket skäl nog att stoppa en utvisning till Iran.

Här finns en namninsamling för henne.

Jag vet inte vad det är för fel på reglerna i Sverige. De flesta tycks vara överens om att det inte funkar, men vad skiljer sig åt rätt rejält. Jag upplever det som icke-kontroversiellt att åtminstone dra en gräns vid när man skickar människor till döden. Det är dessutom jäkligt konstigt att just den principen inte delas av svensk reglering.

Även när jag läser om Yahya Damlkhi som ska utvisas efter 11 år och Jerome Tanka Tarji, som utvisas efter 9 år i Sverige, pga byråkratiska missar blir jag missmodig. Det är kanske inte lika okontroversiellt som en gränsdragning vid död. Men nog är det väl bisarrt att sånt här händer? Om regleringar är till för att skydda människor, så upplever i alla fall jag det som att något har gått väldigt snett här.

Jerome har fast jobb som hotellstädare. Nu ska han utvisas, efter nio år i Sverige. För att arbetsgivaren inte lade ut tjänsten på Arbetsförmedlingen.

Det finns en namninsamling för Jerome också, och i framför allt Söråker engagerar sig bygden för att hjälpa Yahya, genom bl.a. namnlistor.

Jag vet emellertid inte hur mycket det hjälper med namnlistor. Uppmärksamhet brukar vara ett bra medel, så om det kan hjälpa till, drar jag härmed mitt lilla strå till den stacken. Det kanske rent av behövs en namnlista mot Migrationsverkets galenskaper?

På nåt vis blir nämligen Migrationsverket skurken i detta. Jag gissar att de inte gör sådant här för att jävlas, eller driver en egen agenda. Det är en myndighet som förvaltar de regleringar och lagstiftningar som kommer från politiskt håll. Och tanken är att vi ska rösta fram rätt politik. Om Migrationsverket är skurkar, är vi skurkar.

Vi har tillbringat många år att diskutera olika sätt att inte ge asyl till människor, och det har satt sina spår, tänker jag. Frågan är om det skulle göra skillnad om skulle skulle diskutera utifrån perspektivet “hur ska vi göra för att ge människor asyl”. Jag är hur som helst inte nöjd med den här representationen av mig som svensk medborgare.

Nånstans blir det för övrigt nästan tragikomiskt att vi som land skrivit under på mänskliga rättigheter. Men vi har väl för all del inte reglerat om det är en rättighet att få vara medmänsklig.

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by emma at 2015-06-26 07:23:00)

25 June 2015

På plats i Visby – lite tidigt

Nu är jag i Visby och blickar ut över Almedalen! Och innan ni hinner säga något, ja, jag vet att Almedalsveckan börjar först på söndag. Men jag är lite tidig!

Från idag (torsdag) fram till på söndag kommer jag att tälta med Ung Pirat Friluftsliv, som efter att en efter en fick förhinder eller ändrade planer blev till jag, Fabian och Johannes. Jag och Fabian drog hit i morse och sitter nu på Almedalsbiblioteket och jobbar innan vi drar vidare ut i den groteskt gotländska vildmarken (eller stranden, vad vet jag), Johannes kommer senare ikväll och framåt lördag-söndag börjar allt fler pirater ansluta.

Från och med söndag är det en helvecka av representation som gäller, men representation som mest av allt handlar om att prata med dels andra pirater, dels random makthavare och annat trevligt folk. Dussintals seminarier, mingel, och andra evenemang, och när jag försökt välja har fokuset legat på evengemang om infrastruktur, integritet, kultur, forskning, och större samhällsutveckling. Säga vad man vill om Almedalen, men det finns många människor att träffa och mycket att lära sig.

Under veckan kommer jag både försöka blogga, och försöka spela in lite videoklipp. Men vi får se hur det går. Nu ska jag sitta i ett tält i några dagar. Vi hörs, internet!

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Anton Nordenfur at 2015-06-25 15:21:14)

[TheGuardian] Major internet providers slowing traffic speeds for thousands across US

Study finds significant degradations of networks for five largest ISPs, including AT&T and Time Warner, representing 75% of all wireline households in US [...]

The findings come weeks after the Federal Communications Commission introduced new rules meant to protect “net neutrality” – the principle that all data is equal online – and keep ISPs from holding traffic speeds for ransom. [...]

In Atlanta, for example, Comcast provided hourly median download speeds over a CDN called GTT of 21.4 megabits per second at 7pm throughout the month of May. AT&T provided speeds over the same network of ⅕ of a megabit per second. When a network sends more than twice the traffic it receives, that network is required by AT&T to pay for the privilege. When quizzed about slow speeds on GTT, AT&T told Ars Technica earlier this year that it wouldn’t upgrade capacity to a CDN that saw that much outgoing traffic until it saw some money from that network (as distinct from the money it sees from consumers). [...]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-provide...

(by neurone18 at 2015-06-25 14:27:00)

France proposes empty ISDS reforms

The French government published a proposal for investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reforms: Towards a new way to settle disputes between states and investors, May 2015. (pdf, French: Le Monde)

Summary

The French proposal would grant for-profit arbitrators, working in a system that creates perverse incentives, vast discretionary powers. This creates a serious risk on expansionist interpretations. Foreign investors would be able to use this biased system to challenge governments. As it is practically impossible to withdraw from trade agreements, the EU would be locked in.

The French government proposes to create an international investment court. However, the court’s members would not be tenured judges with a fixed salary but for-profit arbitrators.

The French proposal would not decisively change the existing system. Regarding the most used ISDS forum, the court would only play a non-binding, advisory role.

France furthermore overlooks that this most used ISDS forum gives the United States unfair procedural advantages; it would be a diplomatic blunder to expose the EU and member states to this forum.

The French proposal would grant arbitrators vast discretionary power. It proposes a general safeguard but does not extend it to the most dangerous investment protection clause, rendering the safeguard ineffective. Moreover, France overlooks a loophole which undermines all substantive improvements.

Unsurprisingly, the French proposal would not solve the inherent flaws of the ISDS system: it discriminates against local investors, citizens and states, lacks a democratic context, and lacks instruments essential to correct expansionist interpretations.

The French reforms are mostly empty. ISDS is and would remain antithetical to the rule of law, to the rechtsstaat.

A court or a bunch of arbitrators?

France proposes to create a permanent international investment court. However, the court would not be surrounded by conventional institutional safeguards for independence: tenure, fixed salary, prohibition of outside remuneration, and neutral case assignment. The court’s members would be for-profit arbitrators.

The court would be a

“new permanent court for EU treaties, designed to review arbitral awards and to administer a dedicated roster of arbitrators”.

The text notes:

“It is of course evident that detailed procedural rules should be drawn up to organize the different awarding formations, based on the pre-established list of arbitrators working in the first instance, appeal (i.e. the review described above) or annulment proceedings, respectively.”

One list of arbitrators, formations for first instance, appeal and annulment proceedings. That is: arbitrators for all proceedings.

Arbitrators are paid for their task at least 3000 US dollar a day. This creates perverse incentives: accepting frivolous cases, letting cases drag on, letting the only party that can initiate cases (foreign investors) win to stimulate more cases, pleasing the officials who can appoint arbitrators.

The French proposal would prolong existing perverse incentives.

Advisory role in ICSID cases

The French proposal would not decisively change the existing system. Regarding the most used ISDS forum, the court would only play a non-binding, advisory role.

The Washington Convention established the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID forum is the most used ISDS forum.

Under the French proposal for-profit first instance arbitrators would issue interim awards in ICSID cases. The permanent investment court’s (for-profit) review arbitrators would review them, but only non-bindingly. The for-profit first instance arbitrators would then issue the final award. After that the parties can start an ICSID annulment procedure — a limited procedure in which the president of the World Bank appoints all three the for-profit arbitrators.

The French proposal would prolong perverse incentives.

Note that in all (presently 73) ICSID annulment procedures the president of the World Bank appointed all three the arbitrators. The president of the World Bank has always been the candidate of the US. This is only one example of unfair procedural advantages for the US. The US never lost an ISDS case. Accepting these unfair procedural advantages in EU agreements would be a diplomatic blunder.

In non ICSID cases the permanent court’s (for-profit) arbitrators would handle both the review of the interim award and the annulment procedure.

Investors can choose which system they want to use. They will choose the system which gives them the highest chance on success. The French proposal creates systems which will compete for the favour of investors.

Code of conduct

France wants to add a code of conduct; this may help to avoid conflicts of interest. It is however not an effective instrument against perverse incentives.

Vast discretionary power

The French proposal would give arbitrators vast discretionary power.

The fair and equitable treatment (FET) protection standard is highly problematic; it is open to abuse. It gives arbitrators vast discretionary power, way beyond a marginal test. The French proposal offers more specific language for one aspect of FET, “legitimate expectations”. Note however, that a “specific representation” does not have to be in writing, “reasonably” gives arbitrators discretionary power, and “change of legislation” is preceded by the word “mere”, giving arbitrators discretionary power over changes of legislation.

The French proposal does not take FET out, its “improvement” is limited to one aspect. Even on this one aspect it gives arbitrators discretionary power.

The French proposal also contains language regarding non-discrimination standards:

“For greater certainty, the ‘treatment’ referred to in this provision shall not prevent differences in treatment between investors resulting from rationale regulatory distinctions necessary to achieve legitimate public policy objectives.”

The words “rational[e]” and “legitimate” give arbitrators discretionary power.

Protection against indirect expropriation is problematic as it relates to democratic decisions. The French proposal includes further language on this issue. Note that “benefits which the investor could have expected”, “so severe in light of its purpose”, “manifestly excessive”, “a prejudice which is not suffered by other investors in like circumstances” and “legitimate” give discretionary power to arbitrators.

France proposes a horizontal clause, to be inserted into the agreement’s Preamble. Preambles are not binding, and depending on the formulation and context a horizontal clause may be meaningless itself.

France also notes that the right balance between the States’ right to regulate and foreign investors’ interests should be appropriately fostered through general exception provisions. However France does not want to extend general exceptions to all protection standards, even the highly controversial FET standard would not be included. This approach does not substantially limit the arbitrators’ discretionary power.

For the same reason French proposals to preserve the financial sovereignty of States and compliance to domestic laws and regulations do not substantially limit the arbitrators’ discretionary power.

The MFN loophole

In their ISDS consultation the EU commission mentions an “importation of standards” or “most favoured nation (MFN) loophole” issue (see question 2). Arbitrators do not only apply the rules of the treaty under which claims are brought, but also import rules from other treaties.

The commission closed this issue for procedural rules, but not for substantive rules. In the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) the EU commission didn’t fully close the MFN loophole that makes it possible for investors to invoke protection standards included in older, more open treaties. As a result restrictions in newer treaties may be lost.

The CETA text page 156, article X.7.4 excludes ISDS procedures provided for in other international investment treaties and other trade agreements. However, the exclusion of substantive obligations contains the condition “absent measures adopted by a Party pursuant to such obligations”. This creates a risk that arbitrators would interpret local laws as implementations of treaty obligations, and interpret such laws in the light of old very open investment treaties. This way substantive improvements would be lost.

The French proposal overlooks this issue.

Special rights for foreign investors

ISDS in general, and also the French proposal, would give foreign investors rights no one else has; it discriminates against local investors, citizens and states.

In a letter to Congress prominent US legal experts write:

“Our legal system rests on the conviction that every individual, regardless of wealth or power, has an equal right to bring a case to court. To protect and uphold the rule of law, our ideals of fairness and justice must apply in all situations and equally to everyone. ISDS, in contrast, is a system built on differential access. ISDS provides a separate legal system available only to certain investors who are authorized to exit the American legal system. Only foreign investors may bring claims under ISDS provisions. This option is not offered to nations, domestic investors, or civil society groups alleging violations of treaty obligations. Under ISDS regimes, foreign investors alone are granted legal rights unavailable to others – freed from the rulings and procedures of domestic courts.”

No instruments to correct expansionist interpretation

We saw above that ISDS creates a serious risk on expansionist interpretations. See also Van Harten, Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration.

Regarding expansionist interpretations two more characteristics of the system are important: specialised adjudication and private access to supranational adjudication.

Two instruments essential to correct expansionist interpretations are missing. ISDS lacks a general supreme court and a legislative feedback loop.

Specialised adjudication

Specialised adjudication has a natural tendency to become expansionist. An example is the centralisation of appeals in patent cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; this prompted an expansionist interpretation and application of the US Patent Act. The Supreme Court intervened and opposed a series of judgments of the Federal Circuit.

No general supreme court

Specialised adjudication needs a general supreme court on top to integrate various law systems and to correct expansionist interpretations. The supranational level does not provide a general supreme court.

Private access to supranational adjudication

Allowing private investors to supranational adjudication promotes expansionist interpretation of treaties as private investors do not have the same restraint as states.

No legislative feedback loop

Democracies need a legislative feedback loop. We have to be able to change laws that do not work out well. Lord Steyn explained (regarding the UK):

“in striking the balance the courts may arrive at a result unacceptable to Parliament. In such cases Parliament can act with great speed to reverse the effect of a decision. It has done so in the past. That is in the spirit of our constitution, and is wholly in accord with the democratic ideal.”

The EU legislative can not reverse court decisions, but they can change laws for the future. In contrast, changing an international treaty is much harder than changing national or EU legislation. There is no workable legislative feedback loop at the supranational level. Unless all treaty parties agree there is no way to correct expansionist or otherwise unacceptable interpretation.

ISDS does not have a democratic context. There are no voters at the supranational level.

A broken French proposal

France proposes “Strengthening States’ right to interpret the protection standards of an agreement even after its entry into force”.

Article 31, paragraph 3(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) allows for any kind of subsequent agreement between the parties to a treaty.

The French proposal is more limited:

“Where serious concerns arise as regards matters of interpretation that may affect investment, the Committee on Services and Investment may recommend to the Trade Committee the adoption of interpretations of the Agreement”.

In contrast with the VCLT, interpretations by the parties are only possible if “serious concerns arise”. This is more limited than the VCLT. This gives the other treaty partner(s) the possibility to argue serious concerns did not arise (a political argument against stepping in) and arbitrators the discretionary power to find the concerns were not serious enough. Arbitrators are already not impressed by subsequent agreements on interpretation between the parties to a treaty; the French proposal would strengthen the arbitrators discretionary power.

Note that the “Committee on Services and Investment” and the “Trade Committee” are not part of the legislator.

The French proposal is incomparable with a legislative feedback loop as it would take the consent of all other parties to agreements – who may have contrasting interests. Furthermore, arbitrators do not find the parties’ interpretations binding. The French proposal would place our democracy at the mercy of other states and arbitrators.

Two instruments essential to correct expansionist interpretations are missing. ISDS lacks a general supreme court and a legislative feedback loop.

ISDS is antithetical to the rule of law, to the rechtsstaat.

As it is practically impossible to withdraw from trade agreements, the EU would be locked in.

Further reading

Letter prominent US legal experts to Congress

Over 110 scholars: Statement of Concern about Planned Provisions on Investment Protection and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Gus Van Harten, A Parade of Reforms: The European Commission’s Latest Proposal for ISDS

Gus Van Harten, A Report on the Flawed Proposals for Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in TTIP and CETA

Gus Van Harten, The European Commission’s Push to Consolidate and Expand ISDS: An Assessment of the Proposed Canada-Europe CETA and Europe-Singapore FTA

International investment court plan threatens our democracy

Kommentera! (by Ante Wessels at 2015-06-25 13:02:59)

French Surveillance Bill: LQDN Files an Amicus Brief to the Constitutional Court

Paris, 25 June, 2015 — This morning, La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network and the FDN Federation filed an amicus brief to the French Constitutional Court against the Surveillance Act that was just adopted yesterday by the Parliament. The three organizations, who have opposed the French Surveillance Bill since its adoption by the government on March 19th, will now continue their fight against this dangerous law in court.

Demonstration of 13 April 2015 against the Surveillance bill

After a stormy legislative process which began on March 19th, the government's and the intelligence services have managed to legalize surveillance practices which are intrusive, often indiscriminating, still barely supervised, and which will massively affect the fundamental liberties of virtually all citizens.

As numerous opponents have emphasized during the last three months, this law:

  • widens the range of motives for which extra-judicial surveillance can be practiced, potentially permitting the surveillance of entire segments of society, union activities, militancy, but also economic and scientific life and so forth;
  • give a legislative thumb up to the intelligence services' illegal practices, including through techniques of mass surveillance;
  • A lack of real, independent ex ante and ex post control by the future CNCTR [National Commission for the Control of Intelligence Techniques], and largely illusory recourse by citizens;

On June 23rh and 24th, both chambers of Parliament adopted the final version of the Intelligence bill. Now, citizen groups have filed an amicus curiae to the Constitutional Council, which will review the constitutionality of the Intelligence Act before it comes into force, and in particular its conformity with fundamental rights.

These past weeks, a small team of pro bono lawyers and analysts on behalf of La Quadrature du Net, the French Data Network and the FDN worked to product this legal and technical analysis of the law. Not all its measure are mentioned in the final document, as the brief mainly deals with measures related to the surveillance of Internet communications. But this collective work results in a document of more than 120 pages building on French, European and international human rights law. This brief was filed this morning to the Constitutional Council through the procedure known as porte étroite1.

"We had little time to complete this work, but in the end, it forced us to sharpen our criticism of the law and even to discover new legal arguments demonstrating its incompatibility with the rule of law. Given the near total deference of lawmakers towards the executive, it is now up to judges to reason the reason of State by censoring the legalization of mass surveillance. We hope that the Constitutional Council will take our analysis into account, and display more open-mindedness to citizen participation than Jean-Jacques Urvoas, the rapporteur of the bill, who talked down opponents in civil society by calling them "amateurs" during parliamentary debates. We also hope that our work will be useful to some parliamentarians opposed to the law who are currently preparing the text of their appeal to the Constitutional Council. And if the Council remains deaf to our arguments, we're ready to go all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights ... " said Felix Tréguer, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

PDF version

  • 1. The "narrow gate", because there is no formal procedure to ensure that the Council will take these arguments into account.

(by neurone130 at 2015-06-25 10:42:49)

Sommarpicknick 28 juni

picknick

Kvar i stan? Så här innan sommarsemestrar och annat tar över på allvar så ordnar vi en liten knytkalaspicknick för piratpartister i alla åldrar och organisationer i Stockholmsregionen. Ni som är intresserade av vad piratpartister är för några är också välkomna. Vi samlas på Söndag 28 juni på Skinnarviksberget på Söder med utsikt över staden. Kl 13:00 och några timmar framåt. Man når berget via T-Mariatorget uppgång Torkel Knutssonsgatan, via Gamla Lundagatan, eller om du vill klättra lite, via Zinkensdamm och Yttersta Tvärgränd. Se karta.

Och för övrigt efterlyser vi en lokal i hyfsat läge där vi kan ha möten och gärna förvara lite material – någon lyckligt lottad som vill dela med sej?

Pirathälsningar, Nätverket Piratpartiet Stockholmsregionen

genom Anders Erkéus PP, Johan Andreasson UP

stockholmsregionen@piratpartiet.se

Kommentera! (by aerkeus at 2015-06-25 10:39:32)

Birgitta’s Jónsdóttir: We, the People, are the System

btt

Birgitta Jónsdóttir’s speech, ‘We, the People, are the System’, was delivered at the TEDx Reykjavik event held on 16 May 2015. Birgitta tells us why the small island country of Iceland needs a Pirate led government. She also explains why the whole world needs Iceland to be the social laboratory where Pirate Principles can be put into practice.

The ‘remixed’ text of Birgitta’s speech can be found in her blog or if you keep reading below.
The text of the blog has also been translated to Greek, FrenchBrazilian Portuguese, Russian, Italian and German.
A copy of the video with human edited subtitles in English and Spanish is available on  Vimeo.
More translations will follow.

++++++++
The 21st century will be the century of the common people – the century of you, of US.
We live in remarkable, transformative times. We have the library of Alexandria at our fingertips; all the recorded knowledge of the world is being digitized and made available through the Internet.

Meanwhile, our democratic models are hollow and crumbling at an alarming rate as we move further into a new era of complexity, technology and interconnectivity.

The ideologies of the old school of politics, media, monetary systems, education, corporations, and all known structures are in a state of transformation. They are crumbling. Now is the time for fundamental change on all fronts, we have to seize this moment. Because this is THE moment.

Our states are built around systems that are outdated, created in simpler times and for smaller societies. Today, those systems no longer serve the people but are simply self-serving. The welfare state has been hollowed and is on the verge of collapse, often as a way to privatize it. We are running out of planet and our current systems are unable to do anything about it. Most of our democracies have become like a dictatorship with 100 talking-heads on the neck of a corporate body. Draconian ‘anti-terrorism’ laws and secrecy have somehow become the new norm. Modern democracies have become a freaky mix of Brave New World and: … 1984.

So, do you know what our digital persona is? It is made from content and meta data. Do you know what meta data and data retention is?
I mean do you understand it on a deep level.
Like you understand that you have a constitutional right to vote without anyone knowing who or what you voted for? Like you understand that lawyers and their clients have the right to have conversations in private? Like you understand that what happens between you and your doctor should remain private? Like the communication between a source and a journalist should remain private?

Data retention of your meta data basically means that you are butt naked in the system, your digital persona is for everyone who has enough power or capital to see, mock, poke at, sell, touch, manipulate and consume. Your digital persona has a digital shadow. It follows you everywhere you go and unlike your normal offline shadow it can be captured, changed, shared or sold.

If your walls are windows, would you draw the curtains when you sleep, have sex or go to the bathroom? Yes? Maybe?
In your digital house, you simply don’t have that choice. Encryption and legislation are the key to pull the curtains when you choose.

We have never been as connected as we are today, as enabled to share real-time stories of success and failure. Therefore, our learning curve is steeper than ever before. We are sharing, downloading, remixing and co-creating every day. Our digital person is expanding and our digital shadow ever growing. We are being manipulated every day into believing we are powerless, that there is nothing that can change these systems; but I am telling you; this is a lie.

You have the power to be a catalyst for change in our world. It has always been individuals who change our world, not some external power, but individual power for good or for evil. Do you want others to be the power in your life, or do you want to accept the responsibility of claiming your power and use it by being a part of co-creating your society?

This sense of social responsibility has somehow always been a part of my person, maybe because I was an outcast when I was a kid, the strange ugly duckling in my village that didn’t fit in anywhere. I was lucky, I learned very early on to be my personal alchemist and transform difficulty into strength. I have accepted that I am some sort of a human guinea pig when it comes to system failure. It was human error that led to, for example, suicides of my beloved father and my husband both of whom vanished into the abyss of the Icelandic landscape of water and ice. How the system dealt with it was system error.

I chose to use these crises as a transformative tool and through the death of my father, who vanished, never to be found, on Christmas eve 1987, just after I turned twenty, I learned to value life and not only that, I learned to love myself and get off the path of self-destruction but most importantly I learned the true meaning of compassion. When my late husband vanished a few years later, I learned the hard way how to cope in extreme crisis, uncertainty and the fear of not knowing what will happen next. This has served me well during crisis times, internally or externally.

I later learned that our collective systems express human behavior during times of crisis. It is a fact that our systems are made from human values. We made them, we can undo them. What might seem impossible now, might be quite possible tomorrow because we are experiencing very rapid changes on all fronts. So I encourage you to start to make the blueprint for the future you want to live in. Find that spark that will start a revolution in your heart.

Have you ever thought where the word Revolution comes from? I really like this word, it means change, it means evolving with love. How awesome is that? So why do you fear change, why are we so afraid of it? Everything is changing all the time in nature, yet we do everything in our power to make time still.

Why are you so afraid? Why are we so afraid?

Perhaps because we have made everything so complex and grand. Perhaps it’s time to return to more simple ways, more self sustainable ways. We can do that by learning from each other, by helping each other locally and globally and by remembering that we as individuals can change the world. Now is the time to step forward,take on that challenge and be the change maker. Don’t expect others to do it, your time has arrived, to make a difference!

I took this step a few years ago, when I was temporary unemployed, a single parent with the simple goal of figuring out how I as an individual could help create a sustainable future for the next generations, in times of great uncertainty after the financial crisis. I have admit that I have never dreamed of being a leader, a politician, a parliamentarian, a minister, let alone the role of a Prime minister. My little Pirate party is currently polling as by the far, the biggest party in Iceland. We are all very humbled and frankly quite surprised. And at times of these it is good to remind me about the circle of power, I am a big fan of the circle. I co-created the Pirate party power structure as a circle. The circle of community.

I made the following pledge to myself: while I am in service I have to remember to listen to my heart, to listen to my intuition and to be impeccable with my word. And finally I must not care at all if I loose that place of power because it was never mine in the first place.During the Job interview with the entire nation, when running for office, I made a promise to be the annoying mosquito in the tent, and that my friends, is a promise I have kept. Just ask my fellow parliamentarians :) My main political objectives and vision took shape in a grassroots think-tank I was part of just after the financial meltdown in 2008, and during the work of the creation of the IMMI resolution, these objectives are thankfully at the heart of the Pirate Party core policy.

Firstly: To involve the public in reshaping Iceland’s legal framework, through direct democracy and through co-creation of a new constitution for and by the people of Iceland; I was aware that we needed a new foundation or like I call it, new hardware in order to be able to make a clean system install.

Secondly: To transform Iceland into a safe haven for freedom of information, expression and transparency, with a strong focus on digital privacy as a cornerstone of direct democracy. To create cutting edge 21st century legal framework.

I guess one could say that I am some sort of a party startup person, because I have co-created two parties from nothing in the last six and a half years, with some really amazing diverse people. Both parties got voted into parliament. Once I was elected six years ago, I went inside the system, straight to the heart of it, the legislative assembly, like a legal hacker, analyzing its strengths and weaknesses in order to find ways to improve the system.

I learned early on to follow my intuition as a poetician for it makes a lot more sense to me then the rivalry and manipulations of left or right ideology. The right and wrong ideology of the old world has simply outgrown itself. No longer do we have strong parliaments with a direct link between the general public and decision maker, perhaps we never did. We have so called professional politicians that are far removed from the reality most of us live in.
Most people have realized that left and right politics don’t have any useful role anymore. The ideology of it is outdated. To create political movements based on common agenda of pressing issues of basic human rights and democratic reform is so important right now.

In order for the common people like us to co-create our society we have to have the democratic tools to do so. People need to get into parliaments to change the laws, so we all can have the power that is rightfully ours, to impact our society and apply real pressure on those in power to work for us, not the elite.

One of the aims of both the Civic Movement and the Pirate Party has been to inspire ordinary people to take on political responsibilities by stepping forward and take a leap into the unknown and of course be the mosquito in the tent and open the windows.

Looking at different models for how to humanize and modernize how we run our societies, I have come to the conclusion that there is currently no one model that fits all and there never will be one size fits all. We need to experiment and study what works for each type of society, depending on the cultural backdrop.
There are some amazing direct democracy experiments being implemented with success all over the world. New types of citizen engagement platforms are being created and used to form policy and to facilitate direct democracy, such as the Pirate Party Liquid Feedback, D-Cent, Your Priorities, DemocracyOS and WeGov.

Technology enabling direct access to power is now become simple enough that citizens can start using it to form opinion and enforce political change in a genuine grassroots, bottom-up way. One of the most important task ahead is to help people become aware of that if they want to live in a real democracy they need to be part of it, to engage with it. That living in a democracy is work.

It is also vital that people start a discussion among their friends and families about what sort of future they want. If we, the citizens of Earth – do not have a clear vision of where we are heading, we will get nowhere. The 1% has a clear roadmap of where they are heading, which enables them to stay ahead of the rest of us.

Some of the most amazing innovations and creativity in the history of humankind have emerged in conditions of extreme stress, such as the New Deal. As human beings we have now reached a stage where we have to evolve to the next level, or we will fail to deliver a sustainable world to the next generation. Please talk about how you would like the future to be, make a vision, share your vision with others, start with the person sitting next to you.
If you need an inspiration then I find John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ to be a good road-map.

The poetician in me will end this with a wake up call!

I have seen signs
the end of the world
as we know it
has begun

Don’t panic
it might look terrifying
on the surface

Yet inside every
human being
a choice
to be a catalyst

Earth is calling
Sky is calling
Science is calling
Creation is calling:

Wake up, wake up now

Transform your heart into
a compassion machine

Now is the time
to yield to the call of growth
to the call of action

You are the change makers

Sleepers of all ages

WAKE UP

wake up: NOW

+++++++++++++++++

Translations are being made of the talk and as soon as these are available they will be listed here. Please let us know about any translations you are already aware of.

If you would like to contribute a translation to your own language you can send it to us at contact@piratetimes.net and we will publish it.

This post will be regularly updated as new translations are available.

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Andrew Reitemeyer at 2015-06-25 09:17:29)

24 June 2015

Samtidigt, i Frankrike...


Nybloggat på HAX.5July.org:


Franska politiker är upprörda över att NSA har avlyssnat presidentens telefon. Franska folket, däremot, har något annat att vara upprört över.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2015-06-24 22:59:00)

Is the Council Selling Our Personal Data to Private Companies?

Paris, 24 June 2015 — Ongoing for many months, a new stage of trialogue negotiations1 on the future EU regulation regarding the protection of personal data is starting today. The document published last 8th June shows that the EU Council is trying to eradicate most of the dispositions protecting citizens from the final text. Even if it is still too weak, citizens' representatives must stay firm and keep the position adopted by the European Parliament on 12 March 2014.

In the framework of negotiations regarding the future European regulation of the protection of personal data, the EU Council has proposed a text far too liberal and with very little protection for European citizens' rights vis-à-vis private companies and third countries. Throughout this text, the EU Council wants to allow companies to collect and process data without prior notice of consent of the concerned person or for purposes other than the ones agreed on as long as the company can justify a "legitimate interest" (fr). This term, too vague to allow working, effective protection of personal data, will introduce a large breach in the European system.

The Council also seeks to widen the right to erase personal data. This right must not be widened where that infringes on freedom of speech. It is the role of Member States to reconcile the right to erase data with the right to freedom of speech. But the Council is reducing the right of freedom of speech to journalists and academic, artistic or literary activities.

Finally, no measures were agreed on on the anonymisation of data. Only the pseudonymisation is considered, which is totally insufficient to preserve the anonymity of a person. Pseudonymisation within the processing of personal data is not protection at all and is only another gift for private companies which will allow them to work, with complete impunity, on data whose the origin can be easily found. This gift is re-enforced by the will to authorise profiling person with their explicit agreement. Such an authorisation is necessary but insufficient if there is not a strict framework on the finalities of the profiling. The absence of a regulation of the issue of Safe Harbor in spite of the adoption of the Moraes 2014 report is making the breaches in the protection of personal data every time wider.

"The EU Council is trying once again to override the rights of citizens in favor of large companies that make a lucrative market of personal data. It is not acceptable to let States sell off EU citizens' right to privacy. It is fundamental that the European Parliament and the European Commission remain firm and that they do not allow citizen' liberties to shrink away when they are already threatened if France and other places, mostly regarding the reinforcement of intelligence services" says Philipe Aigrain, confounder of La Quadrature du Net

Synthesis of La Quadrature du Net on the text adopted by the Parliament, on 12 March 2014 (fr).

  • 1. Negotiations behind closed doors carried on by delegates of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union

(by neurone130 at 2015-06-24 16:30:39)

France in the Era of Mass Surveillance! We must resist!

Paris, 24 June 2015 — It's a sad day for freedom! French representatives just adopted the French Surveillance Law. As an ironic echo to the recent WikiLeaks revelations about NSA spying on French political authorities, this vote calls for a new type of resistance for citizens.

French National Assembly1 has just approved with a large majority the Surveillance Bill, at the end of a steamroller process which was made to prevent any democratic debate. By renouncing to all their obligations to defend the Constitution and citizens' freedoms, MP validated, in the name of group strategy, widespread surveillance in France.

This catastrophic final vote echoes the joint revelations by WikiLeaks, Mediapart and Libération on US and Five Eyes spying on of all the State structures. Strategic and economic espionage for the governments, massive surveillance for citizens: this is the principle of mass and generalised surveillance which must be denounced, instead of the genuine headlong rush represented by this unjust law. Beside the pretended indignations to spying or the guilty inertia confronting this questioning of liberties by the political authorities, we must, collectively, refuse this escalation of mistrust, suspicion and all-out tapping.

La Quadrature du Net will stay at the center of a number of initiatives aiming at fighting mass surveillance under all its aspects. We will keep putting those who legalise it face to face with their responsibility of the betrayal of the democratic values and our liberties:

  • legal action before the French Constitutional Cour (see this statement of case (fr) published yesterday), French Council of State and European institutions;
  • sharing knowledge on the techno-political techniques allowing circumventing mass surveillance
  • making leaks on surveillance easier and assisting whistleblowers who make them
  • all type of happy, joyful and disruptive mode of resistance aiming at blocking the mass surveillance machine and making it more expensive by helping to build communication measures

"Mass surveillance is part of an intolerable and oppressive machine, which is by nature the seed of totalitarianism. We, citizens, must oppose it by all means because it undermines the foundations of our societies! It is a challenge for our individual and collective capacities to organize ourselves, to create, to exercise our liberties and to simply exist" said Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net

  • 1. French lower legislative chamber

(by neurone130 at 2015-06-24 14:38:08)

Nu rullar EU ut kommandoekonomin


All historisk erfarenhet ger vid handen att centralstyrning och kommandoekonomi ger negativa – ofta katastrofala – konsekvenser.

Men dessa erfarenheter betyder inte något när EU nu vill konsolidera sin makt över ekonomin.

Hur lite kontakt med verkligheten EU:s ledare har framgår tydligt i rapporten "Färdigställandet av EU:s ekonomiska och monetära union". [Länk»]

Vad sägs till exempel om påståendet att "Euron är en framgångsrik och stabil valuta"?

Nej. Euron lider av grundläggande tankefel, den har kastat in Europa i kostbara och stökiga finansiella kriser, den har störtat samhällen i kaos, den har berövat människor deras besparingar och den är inte speciellt stabil.

Men denna typ av uppenbara lögner behövs – om EU skall kunna motivera mer ekonomisk och politisk överstatlighet.

Det råder tyvärr ingen tvekan om färdriktningen. "Detta innebär ofrånkomligen mindre nationell suveränitet i ett senare skede..."

Nu kommer EU alltså att koncentrera makten ytterligare, bygga upp en ännu större byråkrati och skapa nya single points of failure. Detta är dömt att misslyckas.

Det som en gång gjorde Europa framgångsrikt var mångfald, institutionell konkurrens och fritt företagande. För att återvända dit borde man decentralisera. Men istället gör man alltså tvärt om.

EU kommer att ta död på vår demokrati. Euro-projektet kommer att ta död på vårt välstånd. Och med det kommer även det som är bra med EU – fri rörlighet för människor, varor, tjänster och kapital – att åka ut med badvattnet.

Länkar:
Vision inför toppmöte: Politisk centralisering ska styra upp eurozonen »
EU:s fem ”Presidenter” rekommenderar extrem maktförskjutning till EU-nivå »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2015-06-24 11:00:00)


Piratpartiet