Richard Stallman on the undemocratic European Union
this is where it links to -
Soft sell

unforunately all true, software patents need to be stopped dead, or we face a DMCA for europe, and all the bullshit that goes with it.
the european parliament as the only democratically elected body of the eu should BE the highest power, not some sort of second string bunch of yes-men.
noone expected the parliament to speak against the directive either, but i for one am glad they did.

Microsoft is already in trouble over the abuse of its monopoly on the Operating System market to push people to use its other Internet Explorer and Office products, i remember reading an article (a tad sensationalist) that thought Microsoft might be sued and fined so heavily by the EU that they would no longer be able to sell Windows in Europe at all, or would receieve such heavy fines that they would go bankrupt. It sounds unlikely but i remember feeling convinced I'll see if i can find the article...

"The unelected European commission and the national governments that cannot stand up to business pressure should have no role in forming EU directives. Instead, every directive should start in the European parliament. If approved there, it should go for ratification by an "upper house" representing the people of Europe by means of referendums. These might be arranged in many ways; one would be for each directive to require the approval of a majority of the electorate in countries whose combined populations add up to two-thirds of the EU. Referendums would discourage the EU from adopting directives over things that could well be left to individual countries to decide."(from Stallman article mentioned)

i am against software patents, but i am also against people like Stallman, who having a gripe with a government or institution, decides to offer their advice on changing that government or institution to a more agreeable (for them) format. rubbing the people up the wrong way, who you want to support your views, by telling them they should have no role in forming directives, probably isn't the best way to lobby their support. perhaps, instead of griping about the EU, Stallman and his Foundation, should approach individual MEP's and lobby them to raise objections from within to what he sees as fundamentally undemocratic. i am sure this would be a preferable way to gain support and alienate less.

I agree to what smoker says. Questioning the legitimation of the European Commission is surely not a good way to gain their support or the support of members of the European Parliament.
But nevertheless, isn't the idea of a reformed EU worth thinking and talking about? Of course, it sounds much more easy than it would probably be in reality but questioning whether the EU should stick closer to democratic principles isn't that absurd, I think.
On the one hand the EU is an economic union that is supposed to support the economic success of its member states. If the EU only had this one purpose I would agree that a strong Commission is no problem.
But on the other hand the EU actually is much more than an economic union. Besides other tasks the EU is (partly) responsible for quite a couple of political fields (environmental questions, education, culture, traffic, ...). As we can see in the discussion about software patents, the EU politic actually concerns our private lives (although this is a bad example to show the EU's influence on its people ). I wonder whether a legislative which influences our private lives should be organised more democratically (= in a way that gives the peoples more chance to influence the politics), especially if we are talking about a union of 492,8 million people (wikipedia).
I agree that the people's influence has already grown which we can see for example in the French election campaign where the European politic has been a big part of the candidate's programme. But it's far away from deciding an election.

I am pretty much interested in your answers and I hope they help me to form an opinion about this case.

i generally find stallman distasteful, this is one of the first articles ive read by him that seems reasonable, that said, the point he raises about the lack of power MEPS have is one that preexisted the software patents trouble, raising something with your MEP does little as they have so little power, which is the fundamental problem. wed all be up in arms if our monarchy's could still tell all our elected governments what to do, but people seem to forget the same thing is happening with the European commission and parliament

TopasPV, i haven't paid any attention to the EU for a few years now. but, i do think Stallman is right about the EU being undemocratic.

about 5 years ago i spent a few months reading about the history of the EU and finding out what it's about.

there was one book i loved called The Great Deception: Can the European Union survive?

i'd recommend it to everyone. it explains everything, although perhaps from a British perspective.

actually, this is the copy i have - The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union

Thank you for that hint ice60. I read the text from free-europe.com and it was quite interesting. This book might be a very good one although I can't agree to every explanation given there. I don't know if the reason is that the book is written out of a British point of view or if I simply don't know enough about the EU's history. For example, I never saw the EU as an instrument of the USA in the middle of the 20th century. I was quite surprised to hear/read that! The reason for that might be found in my German education where we concentrate(d) on Germany's steps to a democracy after WW2 and perhaps did not mention the US American influence (influence != acceptance/support) in the same extent as other countries, especially the USA and GB, do.
But contradictions between the book and my "knowledge" might be a good basis to enjoy reading it. Although 600 pages are a tough job, I will perhaps read it in the course of the year. I will let you know if I will finally have decided to buy it

the US had lots of reasons to be involved. during the middle of the last century they had alot of influence within Europe - there was the Marshall plan which helped rebuild Europe after the war. they were a leading part of NATO too - without NATO Europe would have fallen to Communism. those two things gave them all the power then needed.

with that power they used it to help themselves, just has any other country would.

I know of the Marshall plan and the NATO, of course.
But I had no idea of the US's influence on the EU. Your explanation sounds logical, thanks for that!

I kinda figured after WW2 the Americans were very involved with European nations but I thought this ended or was curtailed with the formation of the EU. I was excited by the prospect of another major player that would knock American supremacy off its soap box.