Limits on the parliaments power

Posted Jul 7, 2005 0:08 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089)
In reply to: Interesting speech by Ross
Parent article: It's a NO! - 648 - 14 (Groklaw)

Prior to the parliaments second reading, the Commission had already threteaned that if the parliament were to reject the directive, they would "respect their wish" and not make any new proposals wrt software patents. Instead, they would continue to claim the current law is "ambiguous" and the EPO would continue their current practice of giving out software patents (which are probably worthless and unenforceable, but this has not been tested in court yet).

Now Rocard is replying that if the EPO were to keep giving out software patents, a parlimentary majority would emerge to stop them. Which leaves me wondering, if the Commission won't initiate any new software-patents directives, what could the parliament do in practice ? From what I've seen, and this is one of the reasons I voted against the european constitution, the parliament does not have the power to propose a directive which would make software patents explicitly illegal, they can only propose amendments to directives that are submitted to them.

The devils advocate in me would propose that if the parliament does not get any new sw-pat directive proposals to amend they could probably start to amend every proposed directive about agriculture and fisheries instead, until the commission gets their point. But that sounds rather far fetched and it would be sinking as low as the commission and council too.

to post comments

Limits on the parliaments power

Posted Jul 7, 2005 9:41 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

The EU constitution treaty was many things but it most definitly gave the parliament *more* power than it does now. Many of the arguments against seemed more along the lines of "it doesn't go far enough". Maybe true, but I think we should take what we can when it is offered.

The parliament are the good guys here. They exerted their power to reject a commission. They voted massivly against the directive here. If they want power they need to exert it. The role of the Senate and House of Reps in Australia as it is currently is not prescribed in the Constitution but got that way by 100 years of active working. If the parliament started a "tradition" of submitting proposals to the commission, it could eventually reach a point where it would be more binding than any treaty.

The current rules bar the parliment from many areas of policy, which is why I voted for. Give them the toehold they need to take the whole foot (or leg).

Not all rules are written down. The ones that aren't are usually stronger than the ones that are.