Purje 2 2010 actahaastattelu

Tilannekooste: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/31/1915257/Making-Sense-of-ACTA

---

Amelialta ehdotuksia:

"What stops them from simply leaking all the documents they get their hands on? Ah. But she's a MEP so she doesn't actually get any documents :) You should ask her about what she thinks are the risks that ACTA and other international trade agreements affect the interpretation of existing European legislation. Also ask why European governments seem to be so incapable of increasing transparency in these negotiations. There's also been a lot of speculation about the contents of the agreement, while in fact we don't have any official documents to base those assumptions on. Does she believe there is a danger that if the final agreement doesn't contain all the bad stuff we think it contains, there will be a media backlash even if the agreement will introduce measures that are bad and/or risk the bad things happening unexpliticly?"

->>

Kyssäriluonnostelua:

1. Mitä tietoja europarlamentaarikot ovat saaneet ACTAsta ja miltä tahoilta?

2. ACTAa mainostetaan kauppasopimuksena, jonka ei pitäisi vaikuttaa neuvoitteluissa mukana olevien valtioiden lainsäädäntöön. Vaatisiko ACTA, tullessaan voimaan nykyisen muotoisena, EU-lainsäädännön muuttamista? Jos kyllä, niin millä tavoin?

3. Miksi eurooppalaiset hallitukset ovat niin kyvyttömiä lisäämään neuvotteluiden läpinäkyvyyttä?

4. "Does she believe there is a danger that if the final agreement doesn't contain all the bad stuff we think it contains, there will be a media backlash even if the agreement will introduce measures that are bad and/or risk the bad things happening unexpliticly?"