EU Commissioner Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By EU Parliament(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
EU Commissioner Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By EU Parliament
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.shtml
121 comments
The commission needs to be neutered before the EU can be considered truly democratic. The fact that this guy can come straight out and say he's going to ignore court rulings and the democratic will of the elected MEPs with no fear of reprisals, because he's not elected, yet he can hold so much power ... it's sick.
Sadly the parliament is essentially a powerless organ by design. The problem is that the european commission accumulates both executive power and most of the legislative power, where the later should lie with parliament.
The end result is that the parliament is basically a farcical attempt to give the appearance of democratic legitimacy to the EU legislative process, but the farce is transparent enough that it just ends up tainting the public perception of the EU institutions.
There are political reasons for this arrangement of course, but I don't want to turn this into (more of) a rant. [EDIT: I end up going into that in this other post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4161285]
The end result is that the parliament is basically a farcical attempt to give the appearance of democratic legitimacy to the EU legislative process, but the farce is transparent enough that it just ends up tainting the public perception of the EU institutions.
There are political reasons for this arrangement of course, but I don't want to turn this into (more of) a rant. [EDIT: I end up going into that in this other post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4161285]
The Parliament is not so impotent since the new codecision rules under the Lisbon Treaty and has been happy to flex its new-found muscles. Moreover, if the responses to my letter to my MEPs on this subject are at all indicative, most or all of the major political groups in Brussels are outright hostile to ACTA at this point.
I suspect De Gucht may have overestimated his influence here. He has also perhaps forgotten that his term of office is not so long and that the European Parliament could even hold up the appointment of the next Commission if it wanted to make a point about abuse of authority. (It did hold up the first Barroso commission in 2004, forcing a reshuffle of which commissioner was given which portfolio, so this is certainly not an idle threat for the Parliament to make, either.)
I suspect De Gucht may have overestimated his influence here. He has also perhaps forgotten that his term of office is not so long and that the European Parliament could even hold up the appointment of the next Commission if it wanted to make a point about abuse of authority. (It did hold up the first Barroso commission in 2004, forcing a reshuffle of which commissioner was given which portfolio, so this is certainly not an idle threat for the Parliament to make, either.)
Seriously, how flawed is the design of the EU's political institutions?
- No constitution right from the beginning.
- Executive can overrule legislative (and even judicative?)
- Legislative can hold up executive meetings (??)
- No constitution right from the beginning.
- Executive can overrule legislative (and even judicative?)
- Legislative can hold up executive meetings (??)
- The EU is a international treaty whose signatories
are sovereign nations. They can't really have a constitution
in the same role as a nation state.
- No, commission can't overrule the EP. The parliament can reject commission-proposed legislation, and it can fire the commission.
edit: see the parliament doing its thing against ACTA here: http://www.rt.com/news/acta-committee-final-vote-365/
- No, commission can't overrule the EP. The parliament can reject commission-proposed legislation, and it can fire the commission.
edit: see the parliament doing its thing against ACTA here: http://www.rt.com/news/acta-committee-final-vote-365/
The EP can impeach the Commission - unfortunately only the whole Commission rather than an individual Commissioner.
Sounds like it's time for them to do just that - if this sort of open contempt for the democratic process and the rule of law doesn't qualify as adequate grounds, nothing does.
What's the best channel by which to call for that action?
What's the best channel by which to call for that action?
This is just sophistry now. The commissioner is playing the role he's supposed to play in the EU institutions, and I have seen no indication that he's done anything illegal or held the parliament in contempt.
> I have seen no indication that he's done anything illegal or held the parliament in contempt
He's said he will ignore the decisons arrived at by the democratically elected representatives of the people. That seems a pretty clear indication to me.
He's said he will ignore the decisons arrived at by the democratically elected representatives of the people. That seems a pretty clear indication to me.
No, he's said he will continue to seek the legal advice of the ECJ regardless of whether or not parliament agrees with the current solution, so that depending on the decisions by the ECJ and the decision by parliament, they can look at how to address issues to make it possible for parliament to agree to a revised proposal.
Nothing in what he said indicates he wants to try to overrule the parliament, only that the EU executive branch believes ACTA is important, and so if the current solution is not approved by parliament they want all the information they can on how to make it acceptable.
We might not like that he's likely to try to go back for a second try with what will likely be relatively unsubstantial changes, but it is not unusual for proposals to be revised and revisited.
Nothing in what he said indicates he wants to try to overrule the parliament, only that the EU executive branch believes ACTA is important, and so if the current solution is not approved by parliament they want all the information they can on how to make it acceptable.
We might not like that he's likely to try to go back for a second try with what will likely be relatively unsubstantial changes, but it is not unusual for proposals to be revised and revisited.
What the parent commenter is saying is that he is technically acting within the legal bounds of his office. That is, impeachment will be impossible unless an actual violation of law is found.
> That is, impeachment will be impossible unless an actual violation of law is found.
The European parliament can't impreach the commission. What it can do is sack them (but all of them, not just one). No evidence of illegality is needed.
The European parliament can't impreach the commission. What it can do is sack them (but all of them, not just one). No evidence of illegality is needed.
He said he'll ignore what citizens of EU, and their elected representatives want, because according to law he technically can.
I have no problem with abusing the law to get rid of him ASAP.
I have no problem with abusing the law to get rid of him ASAP.
That's unfortunate but, put them all on the street. Maybe the next group will make sure no single member does something this idiotic and gets them all fired for it.
The European Parliament has been getting more power with every treaty change.
So the EP is the one that's accumulating power (which is right, but hasn't gone far enough yet)
So the EP is the one that's accumulating power (which is right, but hasn't gone far enough yet)
The issue here is that the EU currently is a de facto confederation.
The EU parliament can not be, and is not, the supreme legislative body for the simple reason that the member states are still sovereign, with the ability to withdraw (though there are some legal questions in some member countries about how that would be possible).
It is the same issue facing the US under the Articles of Confederation, where Congress was effectively powerless to do anything without full agreement of the states.
However the EU "worked around" this in part with the Council and Commission functioning as a sort of an "office of the president" (consisting of heads of the member states and the head of the Commission and a separate Council president) and cabinet respectively, with power delegated from the respective governments of the member states rather than from the parliament.
It is a "workaround" for the fact that a federal EU is currently entirely unpalatable to the electorate in most European countries to make the EU governable - ironically because people are worried about giving the EU more power, while the current arrangement is worse in that regard.
The EU parliament can not be, and is not, the supreme legislative body for the simple reason that the member states are still sovereign, with the ability to withdraw (though there are some legal questions in some member countries about how that would be possible).
It is the same issue facing the US under the Articles of Confederation, where Congress was effectively powerless to do anything without full agreement of the states.
However the EU "worked around" this in part with the Council and Commission functioning as a sort of an "office of the president" (consisting of heads of the member states and the head of the Commission and a separate Council president) and cabinet respectively, with power delegated from the respective governments of the member states rather than from the parliament.
It is a "workaround" for the fact that a federal EU is currently entirely unpalatable to the electorate in most European countries to make the EU governable - ironically because people are worried about giving the EU more power, while the current arrangement is worse in that regard.
> It is a "workaround" for the fact that a federal EU is currently entirely unpalatable to the electorate in most European countries
I'm sure in every EU country, most voters would prefer it if the unelected commission couldn't overrule the elected parliament.
I'm sure in every EU country, most voters would prefer it if the unelected commission couldn't overrule the elected parliament.
Probably. But the point is you can't do that in a binding way without having the national governments cede sovereignty through constitutional amendments, which instantly causes public uproar.
E.g. under the UK constitution (yes, the UK has a constitution, it is just not codified in a single act) the UK Parliament is sovereign, to the extent that it can not even bind future parliaments.
So without tricky constitutional changes (particularly tricky because parliament has pretty much "bootstrapped" its own constitutional powers in the UK into a position were giving them away again will need to be very carefully structured to stand up in court) it is pretty much impossible to grant the EU parliament any real power.
This is part of why the current structure of the EU uses a web of treaties to bind the executives of the member states in various to seek the passage of local laws to implement EU directives, with convoluted measures to cajole the national legislatives to follow through. It's still not ironclad - plenty of directives languish in national parliaments for years before being implemented (or get implemented with inconsistent differences in different member countries) exactly because the EU has very few means to push it through - but it's a far stronger method than trying to tie the national parliaments with no constitutional support.
E.g. under the UK constitution (yes, the UK has a constitution, it is just not codified in a single act) the UK Parliament is sovereign, to the extent that it can not even bind future parliaments.
So without tricky constitutional changes (particularly tricky because parliament has pretty much "bootstrapped" its own constitutional powers in the UK into a position were giving them away again will need to be very carefully structured to stand up in court) it is pretty much impossible to grant the EU parliament any real power.
This is part of why the current structure of the EU uses a web of treaties to bind the executives of the member states in various to seek the passage of local laws to implement EU directives, with convoluted measures to cajole the national legislatives to follow through. It's still not ironclad - plenty of directives languish in national parliaments for years before being implemented (or get implemented with inconsistent differences in different member countries) exactly because the EU has very few means to push it through - but it's a far stronger method than trying to tie the national parliaments with no constitutional support.
Unfortunately what most voters would prefer is largely irrelevant due to the current structure.
My country, and I'm sure most of the EU, isn't sovereign anymore when it comes to transposing EU laws^W directives (assuming they regard a domain where the EU is allowed to legislate, I suppose). The constitutional amendment was done a little before the constitutional treaty tried for ratification.
Don't you mean a ->federation<- ?
Switzerland is a confederation. Its 26 states have a lot of power, through the senate, state majority on national votes as well as sovereign areas like state taxes, education, state traffic. However, within boundaries, the Swiss national parliament can overrule state parliaments any day (and national people votes can overrule pretty much anything anyway).
Switzerland is a confederation. Its 26 states have a lot of power, through the senate, state majority on national votes as well as sovereign areas like state taxes, education, state traffic. However, within boundaries, the Swiss national parliament can overrule state parliaments any day (and national people votes can overrule pretty much anything anyway).
No, I mean confederation.
Switzerland is a confederation in name and by tradition only, but has had all the features of a federation since 1848.
After civil war in 1847, the new constitution was drawn up expressly to create a federal central government to replace the weak old con-federate governments, and to have the cantons cede some of their sovereignty to it, in the same was the US Constitution had the states cede sovereignty in certain areas - the Swiss constitution of 1848 was to a large extent influenced by the US Constitution.
The current constitutions official name even translates to the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
Switzerland is a confederation in name and by tradition only, but has had all the features of a federation since 1848.
After civil war in 1847, the new constitution was drawn up expressly to create a federal central government to replace the weak old con-federate governments, and to have the cantons cede some of their sovereignty to it, in the same was the US Constitution had the states cede sovereignty in certain areas - the Swiss constitution of 1848 was to a large extent influenced by the US Constitution.
The current constitutions official name even translates to the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
My bad, I always thought the definition of Confederation to be a more closer coupled federation, but it's the other way round. I think we were being taught the wrong way.
Don't forget about the European Council, the third power base in Europe, by far the strongest, and by far the least public. Could use some serious neutering too.
Of the three power bases, only the parliament is democratic, and it has almost no powers. I agree. The way we do politics in Europe, birthplace of democracy, is just sick.
Of the three power bases, only the parliament is democratic, and it has almost no powers. I agree. The way we do politics in Europe, birthplace of democracy, is just sick.
The EU is not democratic. It goes to great lengths to avoid referendums by its subjects on whether they wish to be part of the EU or not.
If they do have a referendum and the result is not what the EU wants, another is held.
If they do have a referendum and the result is not what the EU wants, another is held.
Depends on the member country. Here in The Netherlands after an unfavorable referendum we just renamed the issue, put a new cover on it and pushed it through without a referendum two years later.
He didn't say he'd ignore court rulings. He told the trade committee (which isn't a court AFAIK) that advising against ACTA wouldn't stop the European court of justice from investigating its legality.
He mentioned that he would try to weasel his way around it -
"If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed."
"If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed."
The alternative reading is that in the case either of the parliament or the ECJ rejects the current agreement, he will try to find a compromise that can get the approval of both.
While it is possible that he wants to try to weasel a procedural end-run around rejections, what he's actually said does not provide any basis for jumping to that conclusion.
While it is possible that he wants to try to weasel a procedural end-run around rejections, what he's actually said does not provide any basis for jumping to that conclusion.
In fact this guy clarified the rules he must follow.<br>
Sadly, the parliament decision has no influence on his work.
EU is not supposed to be democratic.
Thats why the EU (in its current form) should never have existed.
Someone this determined to do something so wrong cannot be assumed to be neutral. This guy must be corrupt and on someone's pay-list.
It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation of Karel De Gucht to determine if this person is bribed and if these proceedings is a result of corruption. The EU would be wise to do so for its own business sake and before it's perception as a democratic body is tarnished in favour of a US-led corrupt legislative-body.
If the EU loses its perception as democratic, chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so. If it's one thing the EU cannot afford right now, that is one of them.
It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation of Karel De Gucht to determine if this person is bribed and if these proceedings is a result of corruption. The EU would be wise to do so for its own business sake and before it's perception as a democratic body is tarnished in favour of a US-led corrupt legislative-body.
If the EU loses its perception as democratic, chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so. If it's one thing the EU cannot afford right now, that is one of them.
> It would be in the EU's interest to start an investigation
Unfortunately the EU's track record isn't very good in this regard[1].
> If the EU loses its perception as democratic
I can't speak for everyone but the EU is not a democratic institution (in terms of direct or participatory democracy) and some people understand this.
> chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so.
No, they're forced to fund it whether they want to or not. The entire Euro currency crisis persists because there is no organised or planned way for a country to leave the Euro. In any other situation the PIGGS would've left by now and could've inflated their way out. Instead the Eurozone countries in the north are stuck with the countries in the olive belt for better or worse and it's hurting all sides. Likewise, there is no documented and planned way for a country to leave the EU.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen#Concerns_over_E...
Unfortunately the EU's track record isn't very good in this regard[1].
> If the EU loses its perception as democratic
I can't speak for everyone but the EU is not a democratic institution (in terms of direct or participatory democracy) and some people understand this.
> chances are that the rich and populous democracies which funds it will be forced to stop doing so.
No, they're forced to fund it whether they want to or not. The entire Euro currency crisis persists because there is no organised or planned way for a country to leave the Euro. In any other situation the PIGGS would've left by now and could've inflated their way out. Instead the Eurozone countries in the north are stuck with the countries in the olive belt for better or worse and it's hurting all sides. Likewise, there is no documented and planned way for a country to leave the EU.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen#Concerns_over_E...
You are confusing the European Union with the Eurozone (the EU countries that use the Euro).
Withdrawal from the EU is a right of member states. However, withdrawal from the Eurozone wasn't envisioned or planned for and therefore there is no organized way to leave the Euro monetary zone (Eurozone).
EDIT: Not all EU countries use the Euro and therefore part of the Eurozone.
Withdrawal from the EU is a right of member states. However, withdrawal from the Eurozone wasn't envisioned or planned for and therefore there is no organized way to leave the Euro monetary zone (Eurozone).
EDIT: Not all EU countries use the Euro and therefore part of the Eurozone.
He's currently under investigation by the belgian authorities for tax evasion. But i doubt he's actually been bribed in this case. He's the sort of guy who genuinely believes ACTA is not only desirable but absolutely essential.
> Someone this determined to do something so wrong cannot be assumed to be neutral.
yes.
> This guy must be corrupt and on someone's pay-list.
No. True believers are far more fanatical/determined/etc than mercenaries. Money is far from the most effective motivator. (Proof sketch - mercenaries will switch sides for money. True believers won't.)
At least that's how humans work.
yes.
> This guy must be corrupt and on someone's pay-list.
No. True believers are far more fanatical/determined/etc than mercenaries. Money is far from the most effective motivator. (Proof sketch - mercenaries will switch sides for money. True believers won't.)
At least that's how humans work.
Which is why mercenaries are generally much more pleasant to deal with than true believers.
He doesn't have to be corrupt; he simply has to believe that ACTA is good for Europe. If he's trying to circumvent various obstacles in his way, it's because he thinks they're wrong.
European commissioners have two undesirable attributes:
* Far too much power
* Low public visibility
If they perceive their job as "governing this part of the world without paying much attention to what lesser people are saying", then that is partly because we have defined their job in that way. (And, of course, that will attract the wrong kind of people).
Reform is needed.
If they perceive their job as "governing this part of the world without paying much attention to what lesser people are saying", then that is partly because we have defined their job in that way. (And, of course, that will attract the wrong kind of people).
Reform is needed.
That doesn't necessarily make it any better.
Since I know techdirt always reports aggressively in favour of internet freedom I read the direct quotes first and the techdirt commentary afterwards. From just the quotes, Karel De Gucht doesn't seem to be saying anything underhanded, just that if parliament doesn't ratify ACTA it will be modified (presumably toned down?) and resubmitted.
I don't think techdirt's message "The european government is a corrupt puppet!" is supported by the evidence in this article. Personally the fact that every committe which has reviewed ACTA has advised against it gives me hope.
I don't think techdirt's message "The european government is a corrupt puppet!" is supported by the evidence in this article. Personally the fact that every committe which has reviewed ACTA has advised against it gives me hope.
Not really, my understanding is that the treaty text is now set in stone, so he can't really do more than embellish it, hence all the talk of clarification. If the text is to be altered then it has to go back to international negotiations again, which throws the whole process out by several years. AFAICT.
While it's not evidence that the whole system is corrupt, it is yet another in the list of examples of the appointed commission attempting to push things past the elected house via subterfuge or repeated attempts, and it leaves a bad taste.
While it's not evidence that the whole system is corrupt, it is yet another in the list of examples of the appointed commission attempting to push things past the elected house via subterfuge or repeated attempts, and it leaves a bad taste.
just that if parliament doesn't ratify ACTA it will be modified (presumably toned down?) and resubmitted
ACTA can't be modified anymore, it is signed (yet not ratified in the EU)!
Edit: style
ACTA can't be modified anymore, it is signed (yet not ratified in the EU)!
Edit: style
Ah okay, so when he says "I would consider proposing some clarifications to ACTA" he's just blowing smoke - talking about making cosmetic statements about ACTA which would encourage parliament to ratify it, but wouldn't actually fix the abuse cases that come from the vague wording?
Whenever I hear a politician talk about "clarifications" alarm bells ring in my head. It basically means changing marketing not the facts.
Yeah, we remember how the constitution, which has been rejected by referendums, became the "simplified treaty": exactly the same text but with articles moved, rephrased, obfuscated. The polite way to describe the EU is as a very-indirect democracy.
And when being voted out of office is the only way that the citizenry has to hold officials accountable... would "very-indirect" be good for the people?
Exactly. He's not doing anything that isn't done regularly by any executive branch that actually believes the laws they're trying to pass are necessary.
He's saying:
1) They want to find a way to make ACTA work. Because of that, even if the EU Parliament does not agree with its current form, it makes sense for the Commission to move forward with the ECJ, because if the ECJ says its incompatible with EU law, it will need to be changed regardless if it is to be passed, and it makes no sense for them to negotiate a solution with parliament only to find out after that that the ECJ would strike down the whole thing on fundamental questions afterwards.
2) They'll try to find a solution that addresses whatever reasons MEP's give for voting it down (assuming they do). Trying to reach a compromise is hardly an evil fascist dictator method, but standard operating practice. At least it is in Europe, where we're used to having governments that actually cooperate to pass things.
He's saying:
1) They want to find a way to make ACTA work. Because of that, even if the EU Parliament does not agree with its current form, it makes sense for the Commission to move forward with the ECJ, because if the ECJ says its incompatible with EU law, it will need to be changed regardless if it is to be passed, and it makes no sense for them to negotiate a solution with parliament only to find out after that that the ECJ would strike down the whole thing on fundamental questions afterwards.
2) They'll try to find a solution that addresses whatever reasons MEP's give for voting it down (assuming they do). Trying to reach a compromise is hardly an evil fascist dictator method, but standard operating practice. At least it is in Europe, where we're used to having governments that actually cooperate to pass things.
We clearly need to rebuild European Institutions from the ground up.
I'm fully in favor of the European Union as a federal state but to achieve this it is mandatory for the European institutions to stop relying on country representatives or people who were just nominated and rely instead on elected people (and their representatives i.e. a prime minister for the European parliament for example), like in any proper democracy.
It is also a clear sign that despite all the efforts put out in the last few years, associations and companies that are willing to protect Internet freedom are not spending enough money and energy on actually doing it. Not nearly as much as the dying copyrighted and closed content industry anyway.
I'm fully in favor of the European Union as a federal state but to achieve this it is mandatory for the European institutions to stop relying on country representatives or people who were just nominated and rely instead on elected people (and their representatives i.e. a prime minister for the European parliament for example), like in any proper democracy.
It is also a clear sign that despite all the efforts put out in the last few years, associations and companies that are willing to protect Internet freedom are not spending enough money and energy on actually doing it. Not nearly as much as the dying copyrighted and closed content industry anyway.
The problem here is, that while it would increase the democracy of EU, it would also decrease perceived sovereignty of individual countries.
A lot of progress in EU seems to be hampered by OMG NATIONAL IDENTITY, actually, and democratization is just one of those.
A lot of progress in EU seems to be hampered by OMG NATIONAL IDENTITY, actually, and democratization is just one of those.
I don't understand, why having Commision that isn't elected makes EU members more suvereign? What would change for worse, if Commision was elected like Parliament?
The commission basically represents the governments of the individual member countries. Because it has the most power by far of all the european institutions, this means that the governments in turn can exercise power at the EU level in a fairly unimpeded fashion.
If the legislative power were transferred away from the commission to the parliament (where it should be, if EU governance were to follow the standard approach for separation of powers), the individual member states would lose a lot of control. Control they aren't at all interested in relinquishing, as you may imagine.
And that's before even considering making the executive branch (the commission) directly elected.
If the legislative power were transferred away from the commission to the parliament (where it should be, if EU governance were to follow the standard approach for separation of powers), the individual member states would lose a lot of control. Control they aren't at all interested in relinquishing, as you may imagine.
And that's before even considering making the executive branch (the commission) directly elected.
In principle yes, but in practice that's not always the case. Once chosen, a member state can't remove a commissioner, even if they're willing to. Simply there's no way. Now they have to wait until 2014. Imagine that some political party has (actually) appointed a commissioner because they won the national elections, not much democratic but it's something. Next election they lose, and the new government can't change the commissioner, where's democracy now? If only the commissioners would be elected at the European Elections, the whole Commission idea would make some sense.
> Next election they lose, and the new government can't change the commissioner, where's democracy now?
This is standard practice in all civil service jobs, as well as the judicial branch.
You can't just remove a judge, or a bureaucrat because his party is out of office. Doing so, ensures that there is continuity and stability between governments.
This is standard practice in all civil service jobs, as well as the judicial branch.
You can't just remove a judge, or a bureaucrat because his party is out of office. Doing so, ensures that there is continuity and stability between governments.
You're absolutely right and things should work that way. But these are in fact political appointments yet their point is to give the member states a sense of entitlement. Once the voters have lost their confidence in the political party to which the commissioners belong, there's no reason for them to be there, as they really haven't been elected by the people. Moreover, they are unlikely to play second fiddle any longer, the temptation to stick to their own narrow agendas is just too strong. Keep in mind that these people are professional politicians, not technicians.
It's actually about perception — the Commission is selected by the governments in a diplomatic process. Of course the reality is way more complicated, but in this particular case the perception matters a lot. This is quite unfortunate, and changing this perceptions is, in my opinion, one of the foremost challenges to euroenthusiasts like me.
I would love to see things move in this direction. Unfortunately we are in the minority (even among those who self-describe as pro-european).
Agreed. But the EP has been getting more and more stronger with each treaty change. Which is good. We'll just continue this progress.
> It is also a clear sign that despite all the efforts put out in the last few years, associations and companies that are willing to protect Internet freedom are not spending enough money and energy on actually doing it.
That's because doing this would have the opposite effect. They would be inviting governments to take control of the Internet.
That's because doing this would have the opposite effect. They would be inviting governments to take control of the Internet.
We discussed this a little on Reddit[1] a while back, some of us fired off emails to our local MEPs on the topic, there was a small demonstration, but frankly we didn't make a loud enough noise to be heard.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/osobb/after_w...
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/osobb/after_w...
and (european) politicians wonder about people's disillusionment with politics and lack of identification with the european union.
Come back Nigel Farage http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
All is forgiven!
Watch some of his videos laying into the commissioner(s) at the EU parliament. Quite amusing but it seems to be just what they need and deserve.
Watch some of his videos laying into the commissioner(s) at the EU parliament. Quite amusing but it seems to be just what they need and deserve.
Do you realise that UKIP were about the only party that voted against the EU parliament's call to have the details of the ACTA negotiations made public?
I'm not European but my understanding was that they literally vote no against everything as some sort of protest?
Their statement if this is the correct vote you are referring to:
"Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty."
http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_11_ExpVote.html
Their statement if this is the correct vote you are referring to:
"Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty."
http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_11_ExpVote.html
His site seems to be down, here's a Youtube channel with recordings https://www.youtube.com/user/europarl
That guy was a shame when he was a minister of foreign affairs back in Belgium, creating multiple diplomatic incidents and controversies (with the Netherlands - calling the prime minister a mix of harry potter and a rigid bourgeois, the Congo, the jewish community, etc), it's no wonders he's a shame in the EU...
The problem here is that the voters in the Netherlands and in France have rejected the EU Constitutial Treaty in 2004 that would have given the EU Parliament much more power. The "replacement" Treaty of Lisboa did not go that far.
But anyway, this is just negotiation what the dude is doing (although not very smart negotiation, imho). The ACTA is dead, it was rejected by a number of country governments, and the EU parliament will probably reject it too.
Btw, the commission is elected, but not directly. It is elected by the governments of the member countries, each representing the people of each country. However, it would be nice to be able to vote for those guys directly. But, because of language problems (english anybody? France? Germany?) that is not (yet) practical.
But anyway, this is just negotiation what the dude is doing (although not very smart negotiation, imho). The ACTA is dead, it was rejected by a number of country governments, and the EU parliament will probably reject it too.
Btw, the commission is elected, but not directly. It is elected by the governments of the member countries, each representing the people of each country. However, it would be nice to be able to vote for those guys directly. But, because of language problems (english anybody? France? Germany?) that is not (yet) practical.
Good news. Strengthens the case significantly for the EU to be abandoned.
And where would that leave us ?
Massive recession in Germany, Bankrupcy for the southern nations, a few hurt nations (France, Italy, others) closing their borders to try to survive on their own, and the UK surviving as a dependency of the US. With fascist parties triumphing everywhere around (they are already doing 20%+ in a lot of countries, there are even nazis in the Greek parliament now).
And, of course, global economy hurting like never before, since a majority of it still happens in good ol Europe.
Yup. Let's kill the EU.
Massive recession in Germany, Bankrupcy for the southern nations, a few hurt nations (France, Italy, others) closing their borders to try to survive on their own, and the UK surviving as a dependency of the US. With fascist parties triumphing everywhere around (they are already doing 20%+ in a lot of countries, there are even nazis in the Greek parliament now).
And, of course, global economy hurting like never before, since a majority of it still happens in good ol Europe.
Yup. Let's kill the EU.
These "facists" and "nazis" are there as a reaction to the EU. They're the only ones people can vote for to express a negative opinion on the EU. If the EU disappears, they'll have survive on their actual ideology instead, and then they'll disappear again.
And regarding the financials, the EEA and Schengen are perfectly fine. Norway, Switzerland etc don't have significantly higher barriers to trade.
Personally I'm pro-european state. But it's dangerous having one as anti-democratic as the current EU, and I don't believe it's possible to change the current one, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
And regarding the financials, the EEA and Schengen are perfectly fine. Norway, Switzerland etc don't have significantly higher barriers to trade.
Personally I'm pro-european state. But it's dangerous having one as anti-democratic as the current EU, and I don't believe it's possible to change the current one, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
> They're the only ones people can vote for to express a negative opinion on the EU.
Demonstrably false. There are many decent parties whose position is "we want to stay in the EU, but a completely reformed and much better EU". People unsatisfied with current EU politics could vote them.
Most of the votes for neo-fascist parties are votes that come from fear (of other cultures or of losing money/job) or ignorance (as in "poor education"). Checkout the journal article "The Support Base of Radical Right Parties in the Enlarged European Union" [1] that analyses the demographics of the voters of neo-fascist parties in current EU.
[1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036330903145930
Demonstrably false. There are many decent parties whose position is "we want to stay in the EU, but a completely reformed and much better EU". People unsatisfied with current EU politics could vote them.
Most of the votes for neo-fascist parties are votes that come from fear (of other cultures or of losing money/job) or ignorance (as in "poor education"). Checkout the journal article "The Support Base of Radical Right Parties in the Enlarged European Union" [1] that analyses the demographics of the voters of neo-fascist parties in current EU.
[1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036330903145930
These "facists" and "nazis" are there as a reaction to the EU. They're the only ones people can vote for to express a negative opinion on the EU. If the EU disappears, they'll have survive on their actual ideology instead, and then they'll disappear again.
Errr..... History proves you wrong. Fascism was at the zenith of it's power when there was no EU. The danger is if the EU disappears, the fascists will come up with some other boggyman and get more powerful… Like last time…
Errr..... History proves you wrong. Fascism was at the zenith of it's power when there was no EU. The danger is if the EU disappears, the fascists will come up with some other boggyman and get more powerful… Like last time…
Fascism is caused by the economic depression.
The EU has proven itself to be completely economically inept.
Therefore today's Fascism was caused by the EU.
I would also point out there was no Fascism during the relatively peaceful age from the defeat of Napoleon until WWI, as well as no EU.
I would also point out there was no Fascism during the relatively peaceful age from the defeat of Napoleon until WWI, as well as no EU.
The EU has proven itself to be completely economically inept
Err, what? The EU (& Common Market before it) has done wonders for trade and business. That's why many countries want to get into it.
Several member states have had soverign debt crises (but then, the USA almost defaulted), but that has nothing to do with the EU. (More EU intergration might have stopped that)
Err, what? The EU (& Common Market before it) has done wonders for trade and business. That's why many countries want to get into it.
Several member states have had soverign debt crises (but then, the USA almost defaulted), but that has nothing to do with the EU. (More EU intergration might have stopped that)
I don't think any mainstream perspective claims that the crises in the various member states are caused by anything other than their being in the Eurozone, if that is what you are claiming.
Since the problems with having currency union without political integration were widely discussed at the time the union was being set up, I think that the failure to address them qualifies as 'completely economically inept'. Maybe 'completely' is a bit hyperbolic, when compared with the USSR or Zimbabwe, but still.
The great strength of Europe is that is consists of lots of competing small countries, which are capable of cooperating when faced with major threats such as the French or the Turks.
I can see why politicians would want to create a single State to oversee the whole area, but it boggles the mind that the rest of the populace would want to go along with that.
Since the problems with having currency union without political integration were widely discussed at the time the union was being set up, I think that the failure to address them qualifies as 'completely economically inept'. Maybe 'completely' is a bit hyperbolic, when compared with the USSR or Zimbabwe, but still.
The great strength of Europe is that is consists of lots of competing small countries, which are capable of cooperating when faced with major threats such as the French or the Turks.
I can see why politicians would want to create a single State to oversee the whole area, but it boggles the mind that the rest of the populace would want to go along with that.
I don't think any mainstream perspective claims that the crises in the various member states are caused by anything other than their being in the Eurozone
Crisis in Ireland was caused by a property bubble, and ridiculus lending from banks causing them to be essentially insolvent. Unconditional guarantee of all Irish bank debts by the Irish Government in Sept 2008 led to the Irish Government being unable to borrow money on the international bond market at a non-crazy rate.
If only there was more EU wide banking regulation.
Crisis in Ireland was caused by a property bubble, and ridiculus lending from banks causing them to be essentially insolvent. Unconditional guarantee of all Irish bank debts by the Irish Government in Sept 2008 led to the Irish Government being unable to borrow money on the international bond market at a non-crazy rate.
If only there was more EU wide banking regulation.
If the Irish government still had their own currency, they would be able to devalue; their debts would become cheaper, and they wouldn't still be suffering in 2012 for a crisis that happened in 2008.
In addition, the original cause of the ridiculous lending from banks - both in the US and EU - was ridiculously loose monetary policy, as a result of over-large governments trying to stimulate their economies out of the recession of the early 2000's. If banks have more money available to them, they're going to loan it out: that's their business.
If only we had more small and independent countries with their own currencies.
In addition, the original cause of the ridiculous lending from banks - both in the US and EU - was ridiculously loose monetary policy, as a result of over-large governments trying to stimulate their economies out of the recession of the early 2000's. If banks have more money available to them, they're going to loan it out: that's their business.
If only we had more small and independent countries with their own currencies.
The 'OMG Scary Nazis, lets put everything under the control of a single unified state' idea doesn't appear to make any sense.
Surely if you're worried about Nazis taking over, you should be encouraging the existence of small independent nations, so that when they take over in one place, the damage is limited in scope.
Creating a federal European state is like giving the Nazis all the apparatus they need when they become strong enough.
Remember that in real life both Hitler and Mussolini came to power in countries that had been formed some 60 - 70 years ago from unifying smaller states into one.
Surely if you're worried about Nazis taking over, you should be encouraging the existence of small independent nations, so that when they take over in one place, the damage is limited in scope.
Creating a federal European state is like giving the Nazis all the apparatus they need when they become strong enough.
Remember that in real life both Hitler and Mussolini came to power in countries that had been formed some 60 - 70 years ago from unifying smaller states into one.
That's an argument of tyrants.
There are fascists in the Greek parliament precisely because of the actions (or inaction) the EU takes. If anything the facts you outline point towards getting rid of the EU rather than giving it more power.
There are fascists in the Greek parliament precisely because of the actions (or inaction) the EU takes. If anything the facts you outline point towards getting rid of the EU rather than giving it more power.
Or we can keep it as is, undemocratic and non-functioning with fiscal union on the horizon all controlled from and dominated by Germany. I'm amazed no-one thought of that before!
You seem to have invoked Godwin's law. Perhaps try rephrasing your argument?
Which are these fascist parties in Europe? Seriously, I live in Europe
and never seen any. In most EU countries propagating nazi ideology is criminal offense.
Search for "party" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-nazism , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neo-Nazi_organizations and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism . Every European country has a nation-wide neo-fascist party and almost all the parliaments of south-Europe have MPs who publicly stated their fascist ideology.
The latest to win seats in parliament is the Greek Golden Dawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(Greece)
The latest to win seats in parliament is the Greek Golden Dawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(Greece)
I live in Austria. There is one nationalist, populist party with a number of neo-nazis in there called FPÖ. It doesn't have too much power yet, but it's there. However, since most people have a deep hate of Nazis and everything that looks like it could this party knows it can't grow, if it remains that far to the right. That's why they currently throw out most of these members. Also, there have been two huge split-offs (LIF (liberals) and BZÖ (no idea what they are)). They have been the result of being too nationalistic.
Then there is Germany, which has an even more right wing movement called NPD. They clearly position themselves as far-right. They are mostly a party for skinheads/neo-nazi and don't really attract others. This party is considered too radical by most Germans and by all other parties.
Still nothing compared with what's going on Hungary. The problem there is that their nationalist party actually has power and in the recent years they killed off a lot of democratic elements, like the free press.
I know that there also is a nationalist, populist party in Switzerland, but I know nothing about it.
Also there are a few nationalist movements going on in a number of northern Europe countries, like Belgium and in countries where it has reason in more recent history, like Serbia.
It however seems to be a global problem. The US have always been very nationalist and a bit fascist, as you can see by flags everywhere and how important military is there. But it's way harder to distinguish them there, because there is these huge republican party which has the very extreme people, but also very, very liberal ones. Hard to tell whether that's good or bad. Well, you now have stuff like the tea party movement, which can be to compared not with the real nazi-like parties, but at least with the conservative, nationalist populist parties, often using religious symbols. From what I get I think they are really similar to the Austrian FPÖ.
But also Russia and virtually every country has such movements. On one side they have to be there in a democratic society and it's better if they create parties than doing other stuff, but on the other hand it's really bad when they become so big.
Then there is Germany, which has an even more right wing movement called NPD. They clearly position themselves as far-right. They are mostly a party for skinheads/neo-nazi and don't really attract others. This party is considered too radical by most Germans and by all other parties.
Still nothing compared with what's going on Hungary. The problem there is that their nationalist party actually has power and in the recent years they killed off a lot of democratic elements, like the free press.
I know that there also is a nationalist, populist party in Switzerland, but I know nothing about it.
Also there are a few nationalist movements going on in a number of northern Europe countries, like Belgium and in countries where it has reason in more recent history, like Serbia.
It however seems to be a global problem. The US have always been very nationalist and a bit fascist, as you can see by flags everywhere and how important military is there. But it's way harder to distinguish them there, because there is these huge republican party which has the very extreme people, but also very, very liberal ones. Hard to tell whether that's good or bad. Well, you now have stuff like the tea party movement, which can be to compared not with the real nazi-like parties, but at least with the conservative, nationalist populist parties, often using religious symbols. From what I get I think they are really similar to the Austrian FPÖ.
But also Russia and virtually every country has such movements. On one side they have to be there in a democratic society and it's better if they create parties than doing other stuff, but on the other hand it's really bad when they become so big.
Do you have any links about what is going on in Hungary? I am in europe and haven't heard much about it.
These articles may interest you: http://www.dissidentblog.org/en/articles/hungarian-democracy... , http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/12/22/fascis...
Anything described as ultra-rightwing are fascist in sheep's clothing.
I know of openly fascist Golden Dawn party from Greece. And I think there are Tricolour Flame, New Force and National Social Front in Italy.
There are also plenty of horrible evil parties with a similar agenda (but not identifying as right-wing or fascist) growing like mushrooms all over rest of the Europian continent.
I know of openly fascist Golden Dawn party from Greece. And I think there are Tricolour Flame, New Force and National Social Front in Italy.
There are also plenty of horrible evil parties with a similar agenda (but not identifying as right-wing or fascist) growing like mushrooms all over rest of the Europian continent.
To be specific "fascist" stuff is outlawed in italy, though this is barely enforced. This basically means you have fascist symbology and slogans on posters, fliers and speech, but you don't write "fascista" in the party name.
There are a few of them, but far right parties have very little consensus (e.g. maybe 2-3% total), protest voting seem to go in different directions.
By comparison, the hungarian far right is the third party in the parliament, and got a whopping 16%+ in the last elections.
There are a few of them, but far right parties have very little consensus (e.g. maybe 2-3% total), protest voting seem to go in different directions.
By comparison, the hungarian far right is the third party in the parliament, and got a whopping 16%+ in the last elections.
In Poland it's illegal to propagate totalitarian ideology, applies to both nazism and communism (fascism too, probably, nobody tested this).
Before EURO 2012 championships everybody interpreted it like nazism and communism symbols are forbidden, but Russian supporters wanted to marsh before their match with communism symbols, and some Polish minister said symbols are OK, only propagating is illegal (probably to appease Russian politicians). And nobody was persecuted for walking with red star/other communism symbols during that march, AFAIK. So now it's open question what's actually allowed.
Funny thing, that some asshole Polish nationalists/hools beaten up a few Russian supporters during that march and their excuse was that Russians had illegal totalitarian symbols, and they were just defending law (police and judges don't support their excuse, I imagine :) ).
Before EURO 2012 championships everybody interpreted it like nazism and communism symbols are forbidden, but Russian supporters wanted to marsh before their match with communism symbols, and some Polish minister said symbols are OK, only propagating is illegal (probably to appease Russian politicians). And nobody was persecuted for walking with red star/other communism symbols during that march, AFAIK. So now it's open question what's actually allowed.
Funny thing, that some asshole Polish nationalists/hools beaten up a few Russian supporters during that march and their excuse was that Russians had illegal totalitarian symbols, and they were just defending law (police and judges don't support their excuse, I imagine :) ).
"We're not fascist, we're just really, really, really right-wing and believe that fascists have a bunch of great ideas! But we're not fascist."
> Anything described as ultra-rightwing are fascist in sheep's clothing.
I wouldn't agree. For example ultra-right libertarian party doesn't seem like fascist to me. They are all about personal freedom, and nazism/fascism is all about uniting society with one goal againist common enemy.
I wouldn't agree. For example ultra-right libertarian party doesn't seem like fascist to me. They are all about personal freedom, and nazism/fascism is all about uniting society with one goal againist common enemy.
> Seriously, I live in Europe and never seen any.
Then you couldn't have looked too hard. The NPD is present in 2 German Landtage, and most European countries come with their own flavour of right-wing nuts.
Then you couldn't have looked too hard. The NPD is present in 2 German Landtage, and most European countries come with their own flavour of right-wing nuts.
He is taking an easy shortcut (nationalist == nazi) but his message stands: however you call it the ideological family to which once belonged the Nazis and their friends is making progress everywhere in Europe. The FN here, in France being the first example that comes to my mind but similar things happen in the Nederlands, in Spain, in Italy, in Greece, in Austria… We are far from the Germany-1933 situation, but we don't want it to come back do we?
No. It strengthens the case for changing the EU, it doesn't strengthen any particular argument for the future state.
Abandoning the EU today would be an economic and social catastrophe, since it requires the re-erection of barriers at borders over which massive free flows of trade and labour currently exist. Germany's exports would be annihilated, the central European labour pool would be stranded, and several reintroduced currencies would collapse overnight.
It equally well strengthens the case for increased federalism, towards a United States of Europe with a federal parliament that actually can curb the actions of the Commission, and a single central bank (rather than today's messy compromise) to correct the failed madness of nation states that can issue bonds but cannot issue money.
Abandoning the EU today would be an economic and social catastrophe, since it requires the re-erection of barriers at borders over which massive free flows of trade and labour currently exist. Germany's exports would be annihilated, the central European labour pool would be stranded, and several reintroduced currencies would collapse overnight.
It equally well strengthens the case for increased federalism, towards a United States of Europe with a federal parliament that actually can curb the actions of the Commission, and a single central bank (rather than today's messy compromise) to correct the failed madness of nation states that can issue bonds but cannot issue money.
Why would eliminating the EU require re-erecting trade and migration barriers? That doesn't make sense to me. Why not keep the good and throw out the bad?
Exactly the EU should be a free trade zone and the should unify in a way that makes it easier for goods, services and people to be sold everywhere.
The is almost no need for a waterhead burocracy in brussel.
The is almost no need for a waterhead burocracy in brussel.
Because to eliminate the EU means, technically, throwing out the Treaty of Maastricht (1992), the Treaty of Rome (1958) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which together define most of the framework, institutions, conventions and law enabling European freedom of movement and trade.
There are several other treaties but these are the three most significant.
In other words, they are simultaneously the EU's constitution and they are the instruments keeping those trade & migration barriers down. So one cannot have one without the other. Instead a whole new set of treaties & governing organisations would have to be negotiated from scratch.
This is unlikely in the current, fragmented European political puzzle.
And even if they could be, well, the funny thing is, because of the nature of human specialisation, their details would be negotiated by the same diplocrats running the current system. I leave it to your imagination what the result of that will be.
There are several other treaties but these are the three most significant.
In other words, they are simultaneously the EU's constitution and they are the instruments keeping those trade & migration barriers down. So one cannot have one without the other. Instead a whole new set of treaties & governing organisations would have to be negotiated from scratch.
This is unlikely in the current, fragmented European political puzzle.
And even if they could be, well, the funny thing is, because of the nature of human specialisation, their details would be negotiated by the same diplocrats running the current system. I leave it to your imagination what the result of that will be.
> cause to eliminate the EU means, technically, throwing out the Treaty of Maastricht (1992), the Treaty of Rome (1958) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which together define most of the framework, institutions, conventions and law enabling European freedom of movement and trade.
So your telling me that they cannot possibly abandon the EU without abandoning these treaties? That and what stops them from simply re-writing and re-signing them?
So your telling me that they cannot possibly abandon the EU without abandoning these treaties? That and what stops them from simply re-writing and re-signing them?
Yes, I am telling you that.
What stops them?
How about :-
Honestly, it would be easier to progress to full federalism or just ditch the whole thing, than try to edit the EU and achieve any kind of systemic consistency at the end of it.
What stops them?
How about :-
The multilateral complexity of negotiating the removal those pieces that aren't desirable anymore from those that are
The massive number of directives that have been issued under the auspices of said treaties that have to be reconsidered
The lack of political will
The need to recreate the political sentiments active in Europe in the '50s
The necessity for every European state to ratify said rewritten treaties in their parliaments
Honestly, it would be easier to progress to full federalism or just ditch the whole thing, than try to edit the EU and achieve any kind of systemic consistency at the end of it.
This is why the EU is not in fact a democracy, but a benign totalitarian fascist state. Member states, do not, in fact, control the governing policies being enforced on them by their masters.
And where do you think the people in the commission come from? National governments; what happens there is simply that stuff that couldn't be made to pass nationally gets readministered via the EU.
Besides, the EU is not a 'state'.
Besides, the EU is not a 'state'.
Who voted for the EU President? (Nobody: He was installed by Heads of Industry from the member states..)
>Besides, the EU is not a 'state'.
Yup, and therein lies the problem.
>Besides, the EU is not a 'state'.
Yup, and therein lies the problem.
Brussels is starting to look like Moscow. Check out this old Russian Guy that lived through the rise of the Sovjets talk about the striking similarities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m...
I wonder if we could make some big demonstration in Poland just before the EURO 2012 semi-final matches. Or smuggle big banners to the stadium.
But they are just going to ignore it, right. No accounatability whatsoever.
But they are just going to ignore it, right. No accounatability whatsoever.
Truly the best democracy that money can buy...
When voting doesn't work, perhaps we should try a kickstarter? Groupon?
When voting doesn't work, perhaps we should try a kickstarter? Groupon?
If the GFC doesn't destroy the EU, then ACTA will. How unfortunate.
Description of EU:
Parliament: Good Commission: Bad
Parliament: Good Commission: Bad
There have been protests or at least a discussion about it in Europe; Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe. The US has already signed it without much problem. Surely the majority of Americans would not have wanted their President to sign it, but now that it has been signed it would take a lot more effort to kill it.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/318690 Op-Ed: Obama signed ACTA in violation of Constitution, say critics
http://digitaljournal.com/article/318690 Op-Ed: Obama signed ACTA in violation of Constitution, say critics
With my wonk hat on sounds like an MEP needs to put up a motion of "no confidence" in this particular Commissioner.
the MEP's aprove comissioners and therefore must have the ability to censue or remove them.
as "The Parliament may also block certain Commission decisions where there has been a delegation of powers to the Commission and may repeal such delegation of powers."
If a Commissioner directly states that they will ignore the will of parliment they deserve every thing they get
the MEP's aprove comissioners and therefore must have the ability to censue or remove them.
as "The Parliament may also block certain Commission decisions where there has been a delegation of powers to the Commission and may repeal such delegation of powers."
If a Commissioner directly states that they will ignore the will of parliment they deserve every thing they get
Well, the EU is already experienced with lobby work. It shouldn't be a big surprise for the most.
Fuck the man!!
That's slang for "This guy is off his god damn rocker." People like this who have such blatant disregard for proper procedure should be castigated into humiliation.
That's slang for "This guy is off his god damn rocker." People like this who have such blatant disregard for proper procedure should be castigated into humiliation.