X-Sympa-To: patents@aful.org
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
X-Original-To: patents@aful.org
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
X-Greylist: delayed 3448 seconds by postgrey-1.21 at perennite; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:32:01 CET
Received: from corpus.illuminet.se (unknown [83.168.204.100])
	by perennite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D83AF324
	for <patents@aful.org>; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:32:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.33] (79.25-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.240.25.79])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by corpus.illuminet.se (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id kAABYOxu004967
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO);
	Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:34:33 +0100
Message-ID: <455463A6.3040106@cleosan.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:33:58 +0100
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060918)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
Cc: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] Put Parliaments in Charge of Lawmaking
References: <20061110092026.5162B2C387@pesaJ6.oas.a2e.de>
In-Reply-To: <20061110092026.5162B2C387@pesaJ6.oas.a2e.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> At
> 
> 	http://a2e.de/ffii/epla/cpedu/parl/
> 
> I have developped some reasoning to support a request in a draft Call To
> Action.

You suggest:

    - The European Parliament would serve as the upper chamber of the
      EPLA parliament. It would not be the European Parliament as such,
      just the European Parliament acting in the function of the
      legislative organ of the EPLA treaty.

and

    - In this way, the member states would retain all the sovereignty
      that they retain in the current European Union.

and

    - Rather than consolidate these treatise into one and thereby create
      an new state-like moloch with a life of its own, the member states
      should, by means of accumulation of further treaties on special
      areas such as patent law, try to improve the current structure.


Could you elaborate on why "accumulation of further treaties on special 
areas" would be less moloch-like than a new constitution? And also, who 
would be promoting such treaties? National MPs? Prime ministers? MEPs?

And what other areas do you have in mind?

//Erik
