[pp.int.general] stop about the EU Constitution!

[Andrew Norton]

David Golden wrote:
> 
> Carlos Ayala wrote:
> 
>> We should carefully read Lisboa Treaty
> 
> [it is truly mind-numbing, I for one have little desire to read it from
> cover to cover, fortunately the issue I mentioned occurs in the first
> few pages :-) ]
> 

Then perhaps something we should pursue is 'accessabillity to
government', perhaps by campaigning that all documents, if not initially
produced to clear standards of readability and understandability, be
accompanied by a - although I hate to use the term - plain english
version. Of course, whilst we might lose slight nuances, and it could be
vastly subverted by spin or 'omisson' it should thus be backed by a
guarentee of 'accuracy under perjury'. Basically, if the plain language
version, which is not mind-numbingly  full of jargon and, forgive the
term (especially those of you with legal backgrounds) "b*llshit
legalese" does not accuractly describe the document in question, then
the author is charged with perjury.

To my mind, that is clearly within our aims, by enabling greater
representation and transparency in government.


> BTW, a "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
> Fundamental Feedoms", sometimes called the "European Convention on Human
> Rights" [ECHR] also exists [1].   It's also different to the EUCFR and
> UDHR:  http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
> (The lisbon treaty involves both the ECHR and the EUCFR, why I mention it)
> 
>> beginning with the "intellectual property" endorsement,
> 
> *** Anyway, further reference for that:
> 
> The Lisbon treaty definitely recognises the EUCFR (the document that
> says "Intellectual property shall be protected."):
> 
> See either
> http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.asp?lang=en&id=1296&mode=g&name=
> ("consolidated version" - the Lisbon treaty is a series of amendments
> to earlier treaties, the "consolidated version" merges the changes and
> renders it somewhat easier to follow, and hey, it's "only" 479 pages or so!)
> 
> or, the raw deal:
> http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:FXAC07306:EN:HTML
> - get the PDF, then, early on, page 13 or so, see:
> 
> """
> AMENDMENTS TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND TO THE TREATY
> ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
> ...
> GENERAL PROVISIONS
> ...
> 8) Article 6 shall be replaced by the following:
> 
> Article 6
> 
> The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles
> set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
> Union of 7 December 2000, as adapated at Strasbourg, on 12 December
> 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties".
> 
> """
> 
> 
> So as I see it, the american constitution says the american government
> *may* grant monopolies to "promote the progress of science and useful
> arts", the  Lisbon Treaty would (circuitously) amount to saying the EU
> (perhaps with the exception of the UK and Poland given "Protocol No 30 -
> on the application of the charter of fundamental rights of the european
> union to poland and to the united kingdom") *must* "protect intellectual
> property", whatever that's supposed to mean given the vagueness of the
> idiotic term "intellectual property" (and what it means to "protect" "it").
> 
> In the USA one could argue that if copyright or patent are shown to not
> actually promote the progress of some "science or useful art", that's
> sufficient grounds for the government not to grant them in that field.
> However, with the Lisbon Treaty, "intellectual property" is just to be
> taken as axiomatic?

Alas, the constitution says exactly what you quoted, and makes no
distinction between types of arts and sciences, nor exclusions for
non-progressing. The problem ther eis the wording - the constitution
actually says "it is the job of congress to promote the progress of
science and the usefull arts" and then gives how that progress can
promoted, it doesn't say its ONLY for arts and sciences to be granted it
if this promotes - we've looked at that angle already.

> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general