Comments on: Why ACTA? http://thomasbeagle.net/2010/02/09/why-acta/ Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:48:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mark Harris http://thomasbeagle.net/2010/02/09/why-acta/comment-page-1/#comment-26590 Mark Harris Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:30:35 +0000 http://thomasbeagle.net/?p=469#comment-26590 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, & 14 are facts. 4, 5, 11, 12, & 15 are reasonable suppositions, based on previously known facts and political pronouncements ostensibly unrelated to ACTA. 3, 8, 9, & 10 are opinion, perhaps reasonably held but unable to be proved evidentially. Until we have the text, we should focus on the facts. The other points are worthy of consideration, but focussing on them plays into the hands of those who are promoting ACTA, as they can dismiss us as "hysterical speculators" $0.02 ;-) 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, & 14 are facts.
4, 5, 11, 12, & 15 are reasonable suppositions, based on previously known facts and political pronouncements ostensibly unrelated to ACTA.
3, 8, 9, & 10 are opinion, perhaps reasonably held but unable to be proved evidentially.

Until we have the text, we should focus on the facts. The other points are worthy of consideration, but focussing on them plays into the hands of those who are promoting ACTA, as they can dismiss us as “hysterical speculators”

$0.02 ;-)

]]> By: thomas http://thomasbeagle.net/2010/02/09/why-acta/comment-page-1/#comment-26588 thomas Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:15:15 +0000 http://thomasbeagle.net/?p=469#comment-26588 Yeebok - thanks for the comment. In New Zealand it works by the executive (Cabinet - the ministers of the ruling party) agreeing to the treaty, but any law changes following on from that have to go through Parliament. This normally follows as a matter of course, but not always. There was some embarrassment a year or two ago when NZ and Aust signed a treaty for unified treatment of therapeutic goods (e.g. pills sold in health food stores) but then the NZ Parliament refused to pass the associated law. Yeebok – thanks for the comment.

In New Zealand it works by the executive (Cabinet – the ministers of the ruling party) agreeing to the treaty, but any law changes following on from that have to go through Parliament.

This normally follows as a matter of course, but not always. There was some embarrassment a year or two ago when NZ and Aust signed a treaty for unified treatment of therapeutic goods (e.g. pills sold in health food stores) but then the NZ Parliament refused to pass the associated law.

]]> By: Yeebok Shu'in http://thomasbeagle.net/2010/02/09/why-acta/comment-page-1/#comment-26586 Yeebok Shu'in Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:05:01 +0000 http://thomasbeagle.net/?p=469#comment-26586 That pretty much sums up what little I know about it, and what I fear as a result. In particular, point 12, that being a signatory to it will be a prerequisite for any trade agreement. If I understand it correctly that's how the laws get in - they first become part of a trade agreement then the laws need to be changed to honour the agreement. That pretty much sums up what little I know about it, and what I fear as a result. In particular, point 12, that being a signatory to it will be a prerequisite for any trade agreement.
If I understand it correctly that’s how the laws get in – they first become part of a trade agreement then the laws need to be changed to honour the agreement.

]]>