Mexican Senate Unanimously Votes To Remove Mexico From ACTA Negotations
from the well,-look-at-that dept
With the news that the EU Parliament is not happy with ACTA and threatening to reject it, now comes the news (via Jamie Love) that the Mexican Senate has voted unanimously to withdraw from ACTA negotiations. You can read the full resolution here (Google translation from the original Spanish). The resolution points out that access to information is a key point in helping to build a modern, information-based nation, and ACTA is about removing access to information and knowledge. They're not against ACTA entirely, but think that the process needs to be a lot more open and involve a lot more stakeholders, and say they won't agree to ACTA unless the process includes a much larger group in the discussions:The Senator proposed to create a mixed analysis group consisting of experts, academics, corporations and members of the public that will analyze the current text of the agreementOf course, it's not clear exactly how much say the Mexican Senate has here. While the resolution claims that it needs to ratify any such agreements, I don't know if that's the case. In the US, for example, the administration will avoid needing Senate approval (which it needs for treaties) by designating it as an "executive agreement" instead of a "treaty." Of course, if you talk to legal scholars, they point out that the only real difference is that an executive agreement doesn't need to be approved by the Senate. I have no idea if Mexico has a similar setup. Also, this is just a "non-binding resolution," so may not mean much in the long run. However, it is nice to see that some actual politicians are equally disturbed over how the ACTA negotiations took place and the fact that some final agreement is just being dumped on politicians at the last minute.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Infringement" is not "theft".
In a similar vein, an "executive agreement" is not a "treaty" (any scholar who may suggest the legal differences are by and large not relevant needs to audit a course in constitutional law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, just because the American government came to the table as an "executive agreement" does not mean the other participating countries were doing the same or similar. Other sovereign nations have different legal and governmental structures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
woo hoo!
The negotiations only just concluded without reaching consensus, although the USTR is trying to spin it as a success.
Good job, Mexican Senate! Perhaps this will help some of the other nations stand up for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd at least expect Al Franken to be freaking out. He's always good for a little of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
a better (and much more realistic) answer would be "follow the money". that will explain much better why so few in the US government have shown any concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then your understanding is wrong.
Also, why the heck would the president spend such a huge portion of his term (time, effort, etc...) to pass a treaty that will be negated as soon as he leaves office. He might not even get elected next term. Seriously, how can you even listen to yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, but they would have to go through the whole international agreement process again. Meaning, subsequent presidents could seek to repeal it or to ratify it but they can't simply do it on their own, they would have to call a vote with the other countries that agreed with it. For them to unilaterally repeal the treaty would be to break the treaty and then the lobbies that control the various governments will argue that we are not meeting our international obligations by breaking our end of these agreements. So, with respect to international law, further presidents can't simply repeal it. They would have to go through the voting process with the other countries that agreed with it. and future presidents aren't likely to repeal it anyways, in case you haven't noticed, pretty much all of our presidents and legislators are bought by industry lobbyists and they won't permit such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no 'half-way' mark here, and these executive agreements are asking for a constitutional beatdown as soon as someone has the balls to challenge them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yawn. More theater. Don't you ever catch on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mexico
The weather is better, my money is worth more, and I like the food...
My only problem is getting there without US customs stopping me at the border and searching my laptop for infringing mp3's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenge is Sweet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revenge is Sweet!
They protested a little against the fence, to make their citizens believe that they care and because the whole concept is kind of insulting to all Mexicans, but otherwise it's good for the government to prevent emigration to the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Revenge is Sweet!
I think the fence in the end is good for both countries altough is rather unpopular right now.
On this Presidential term Mexico has been doing its homework on creating jobs. Well the US recession had a lot to do with that, and altough job offer is nowhere near where it has to be at least the policy is going to the right place.
The last administration was just happy to see all the dollars coming from people working on the US and just dragged their feet on stimulating jobs here..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI : It was just a proposal
As part of the proposal is a request for the president to suspend negotiations, while the senate agrees on their stand on the subject.
Remains to be seen if the other senators agree to the proposal and if the president agrees to the request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mexican Senate Votes To Drop Out of ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is sooo the day the music died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]