European Parliament Orders MEP To Take Down A Video About His Attempt To Visit The 'Reading Room' For Trade Documents
from the really-now? dept
We've written many times about the insane levels of secrecy around various trade agreements, including the TTIP agreement that is being worked on between the EU and the US. Basically, everything gets negotiated behind closed doors -- though certain lobbyists get full access -- and then it will be presented as a final document when it's too late for the public to actually weigh in. It's the ultimate in corrupt processes. In the past, the USTR has admitted that it demands such secrecy because if it had to reveal its positions publicly, the public wouldn't support the agreement. In the US, this has led to ridiculous situations such as when Senator Ron Wyden, who at the time was the chair of the Senate's subcommittee on international trade, was not allowed to bring a staffer of his, who is an expert in international trade, with him to read the latest text of a trade negotiation. Because that went against the rules.And it's been standard practice in the US that if a politician does want to see the documents, they can't bring anything with them (not just no staff, but no electronics, no way to write anything down). They can just "read and retain." The EU has been following the US's lead on this, with special "reading rooms" for elected officials where someone watches over their every move. Again, they're not allowed any electronics. They are allowed a pen and are given paper to write on, which is a modest improvement on the USTR's system, but still ridiculous.
A Member of the European Parliament, Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, decided that he was going to go have a look for himself, and had someone film his attempt:
This is, of course, already pretty ridiculous. And then it got more ridiculous because the European Parliament demanded that Flanagan take down the video, something he is refusing to do:
Just been contacted by staff from within the Euro Parliament and told I must remove this video. I won't be. #TTIPhttps://t.co/JkVLDyxMdQ
— Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (@lukeming) May 4, 2016
“The reason given (for removing the video) is that no permission for filming was received from the parliament,” Flanagan told TheJournal.ie.It seems pretty clear that the EU Parliament isn't pleased with the contents of the video. Of course, in demanding it be taken down, it's only served to drive that much more attention to the video. I doubt I would have heard about it otherwise. Funny how that works.
An assistant of MEP Bernd Lange appears in the video, and Lange wants her name removed, the MEP claimed.
“It’s important to note that all assistants are already openly identified on the EP website,” Flanagan added.
Either way, it continues to raise questions about what kind of democratic process there is when these kinds of regulations are written in secret, with the help of lobbyists, and even the legislators themselves are basically barred from seeing or understanding what's in them. And then when those legislators highlight how ridiculous this is, the powers that be try to silence them.
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
Filed Under: censorship, eu, eu commision, eu parliament, luke ming flanagan, secrecy, transparency, ttip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secrets
Hope I'm not breaking some secret law by talking about all these secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Secrets
So then it comes down to: "Are you a person of interest?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrets
Are we the baddies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Follow Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy Streisand effect Batman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy Streisand effect Batman.
"certain lobbyists get full access"
Don't people always say private companies are better at everything? Well, that's what you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy Streisand effect Batman.
People say "free markets are the best way to allocate resources and reward enterprise", but that's nothing at all like what we are seeing in this instance or in the United States in general.
Thought I'd point that out in case you actually gave a shit about, you know, the truth and all. Which I strongly suspect you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy Streisand effect Batman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy Streisand effect Batman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy Streisand effect Batman.
> The growing use of provisional application clauses in treaties is a consequence of the need felt to give effect to treaty obligations prior to a state’s formal ratification of / accession to a treaty.
...your country can be bound by these treaties before your representatives get a chance to vote on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy Streisand effect Batman.
That is to say, we stop misappropriating blame on ourselves for policy the implementation of which we had no hand in, and we need to start addressing those who do have that control as if the power and responsibility is entirely theirs.
Oh, and we should stop teaching our children that they live in such fantasies as a representative democracy or adornment of a guarantee of liberties and rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big step forward
It is an improvement at least if it was the same for the EU parliament as it was in Germany.
In Berlin the documents were only available in the US embassy, in a special room. Because the US didn't trust the German gov to keep them secret and wanted full control over who reads them and probably to make a list of those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no need to know what's written there, we already know it's bullshit. The question now is who to shame and where to agglomerate to protest and make this become toxic enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Otherwise, more drastic action needs to be taken to ensure that the person actually acts in a responsible manner. This usually requires loss of privilege, loss of freedom (though that one has lost it effectiveness) or loss of something more permanent.
One must remember that honest politicians are the ones who stay bought, the dishonest ones get shafted by those who have previously bought them.
As a friend of mine said many, many years ago, it was the height of insult (as in fighting words) if one called another a politician in ancient times. In modern times, the title is treated as an accolade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neoliberalism itself is predicated on the belief that there's such a thing as the free market right here, right now; all their policies are based on that whether there are trust structures in place or not.
So basically liars and fantasists hiding behind a BS ideology are driving this. Naming and shaming won't work, you need to point out the flaws in their statements when they post propaganda on social media. That won't make them change their minds but you will influence their audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democratic process?
Can we please stop pretending we have any sort of "Democratic process" left? We are starting to sound like a bunch of "back in my day" old guys. Face the facts, America as anyone over 40 knew it to be is long gone and will never return. It will keep getting worse because... "Terrorism." And the lack of the populace to actually give a crap. America is over... it was fun while it lasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they somehow force Flanagan to take down the video, he could always replace it with this picture.
(http://i.imgur.com/LB63wcl.jpg)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Okay, here's the final documents. You have [absurdly short amount of time] to go over them and then you have to vote on them."
"There is no possible way we can meaningfully analyze what's in the documents in that amount of time."
"Well that's not my problem now is it? Now be good little tools and do as your bosses tell you."
'Trade' agreements like this aren't small deals between private companies, they're agreements that are going to have significant impact on the public of the countries bound by them. To say that the representatives of the public aren't allowed to see them in full, whenever they want with whoever they want, while representatives of the private companies involved have that sort of access is beyond unacceptable, and should result in refusal to vote on the agreements until they've been gone over at leisure by the public's representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why they should be public, if democracy is to have any meaning. The way they are being written ensues that corporate interest will will out over any public benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sign there. No you don't need to read it, you're only here to sign it."
"If we can't see it, discuss it or study it then we won't vote on it. If that ruins years of 'discussion' between you and private lobbyists then that's not our problem."
If those involved feel safe treating the politicians this way however I imagine it's because the politicians have demonstrated that they don't give a damn about anything other than personal power, and refusing to vote might upset that, hence like good little tools they'll do what they are told to at the proper time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Sign there. No you don't need to read it, you're only here to sign it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Sign there. No you don't need to read it, you're only here to sign it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Sign there. No you don't need to read it, you're only here to sign it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entertaining
What in a basic trade agreement is SUPPOSED to be Secret?
More secret then any FOIA request and Lots of Black lines on every page you get??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entertaining
That, my friend, is the $64 billion question.
The answer whatever it is is making someone $64 billion.
Why, is because thing that make $64 billion are often not very good for the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When, in a democracy, someone tries to circumvent public input or representation...
Much like when you tell your sex partner don't do that and he does it anyway, that violates consent and is assault.
So what is curious to me is why this is not being regarded as a coup by, like, everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When, in a democracy, someone tries to circumvent public input or representation...
It's a clever ploy that works all too well on idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiocy
People might be idiots, but these days the behaviors of our representatives and officials smack more of malice and hostility than stupidity. More specifically, it's more lucrative to them to sell out the public, or regard the people as the enemy than they'd be seduced by catchy names.
So yeah, I don't think it's so easy as saying they're behind free trade, especially given how familiar we are with big company protectionism.
Or maybe in Europe everyone has cheap fiber, free music access and not much advertising at their kids by big booze and tobacco. Is that just a Pacific Rim thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backup copies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]