Синдром Чурова в Европарламенте


В некоем голосовании некоего комитета Европарламента по вопросу реформы авторских прав было зарегистрировано 26 голоса из 23 возможных, то есть явка 113%. Несмотря на то что эти 3 лишних голоса и определили исход голосования, комитет в повторном голосовании отказал.
Вот что говорит один из участников:
“What can I say? There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to democracy in the European Union”, says Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party and member of the committee in question.

Полный текст на английском
In an unexpected turn of events, one of the key committees in the European Parliament voted recently to weaken a reform of the copyright monopoly for allowing re-publication and access to orphan works, pieces of our cultural heritage where no copyright monopoly holder can be located.
When a work has gone orphan, it means that it is effectively lost until the copyright monopoly expires, 70 years after the creator’s death. You can only hope that somebody has kept a copy illegally and copied it across new forms of storage media as they go in and out of fashion as the decades come and go, or it will be lost forever.
The vote in committee on March 1 was supposed to end that (or, more technically, recommend a course of ending that to the European Parliament as a whole). However, the copyright industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure with 14 votes against reform and 12 in favor of it, according to the just-published protocol. This is according to a fresh report from our Brussels office – I cannot yet find the protocol on the EU’s web pages (which are notoriously disorganized; it may actually be published).
There’s a problem with this. There are 24 seats in the committee, and one group (non-inscrits) was absent, lacking deputies to fill that person’s vote. So, there should have been 23 votes at the most. But we just counted 12 votes for reform and 14 against. That’s 26.
Yes, your reactions are correct here – that means that voter turnout on this copyright reform issue was 113%. Also, if there were 12 reform-friendly people with actual voting rights, then there would necessarily have been 11 against – causing reform to prevail, and the copyright monopoly to be substantially weakened in the European Union in favor of preserving our cultural heritage.
This rather embarrassing issue was pointed out to the committee, the fact that there were three votes too many, and that these three votes determined the outcome. When this was done, along with formally requesting a re-vote, that re-vote on the points in question was denied.
“What can I say? There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to democracy in the European Union”, says Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party and member of the committee in question.
The final kicker here is that the 113-per-cent voter turnout happened in the Legal Affairs committee (JURI which has the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in Europe. MEP Engström’s assistant, Henrik Alexandersson, called the phenomenon “a temporary form of democratic surplus” in a scathing blog post.
(Finally, in the interest of full disclosure and context, it shall be said that there’s no clear picture yet on the overall state of orphan works reform. This was about amendments to that reform in the JURI committee, where these 14-against-12 votes went in the wrong direction: against a good and useful reform. The proposal as a whole is still going to the European Parliament floor for a vote – but in what shape or form remains to be seen.)


“The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention.”
The keyword is “adopted the amended proposal”. The voting numbers I refer to above are the vote counts for those amendments (see the last point). Again, this is based on eyewitness accounts from the actual meeting.
The vote was tallied at 14-12. This makes the sum of votes counted 26.
However, the entire committee as a whole has 23 voters(! one of whom was absent.
I.e. 3 people more voted than should have been able to vote. Or somehow some votes were counted twice. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
Я так понимаю что в комитете 23 места, голосовало 22, один отсутствовал. Это то что в протоколе написано.
Но голосов "за" и "против" в процессе голосования в сумме было 14+12 = 26, в протоколе этого нет, известно со слов участвовавших. Пытались добиться повторного голосования, но отказали. Как то так.


The vote was tallied at 14-12. This makes the sum of votes counted 26.
История совсем без пруфов


то бишь, все дело основывается на заявлении очевидца, который видел что? Что сидели 26 человек вместо 23-х? Что в зале было 22 человека, а насчитали 26 голосов?
На таких заседаниях ведется протокол, где написано число присутствующих, ход и итоги голосования за подписью председателя и секретаря. Такого рода документ в ЕС находится в публичном доступе и может быть получен по запросу. Однако автор его "не смог найти".
Ситуация резко отличается от феномена Чурова, когда в природе существуют валидные протоколы УИК и ТИК с разным цифрами.
Меня расстраивает эта статья. Обычно от европейского журналиста ожидается более высокий уровень профессионализма, а за обвинения в фальсификациях без доказательств можно присесть на пару месяцев и получить штрафа на пару десятков тысяч.


Виноват, смахивает на какой-то фейк действительно. В протоколе четко пишут про 22 "за" и 1 "воздержался". Откуда взялось 14 "за" и 12 "против" непонятно. Похоже что до синдрома далеко, пока видимо только призрак Чурова бродит по Европарламенту.


Все-таки какая-то хрень с голосованием действительно была. В процессе рассмотрения поправок к документу, но не по окончательному голосованию по нему. В общем, может и не фейк, но испорченный телефон точно получился.
Video of the voting [europa.eu] is available on the EP website. The agenda item starts at 10:27, and the voting runs from 10:31 to 10:51. The amendment in question appears to be "Compromise 20", voted on at 10:39, which is indeed rejected by 12 votes to 14. This was an all-party amendment that the centre-right EPP party then withdrew support from, because they were not entirely happy with the wording, according to one of their MEPs at the start of the meeting. (10:29). As the video shows, the EP tends to machine-gun through amendment votes, which are held in one swoop after months of discussion. You really need the papers for the meeting and your preferred faction's voting guide to turn them into an acceptable spectator sport. One of the extra votes could perhaps have been the chairman's casting vote; but it's not clear how there could have been two.
Оставить комментарий
Имя или ник: