Russia’s Sputnik V could be made in European Union after reported deals

European Parliament Strips Ex-Catalan Leader Puigdemont of Immunity

The waiver was adopted by the vote of a majority. For instance, 400 lawmakers voted to strip Puigdemont of immunity, 248 voted against it, and 45 more abstained.

In January 2020, the Supreme Court of Spain requested the European Parliament to waive the MEP immunity from Puigdemont, Comin and Ponsati in order to prosecute them for their participation in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. The lifting of immunity may result in resumption of consideration of extradition requests.

The European Parliament votes to lift immunity from the former leader of Spain’s Catalonia region, Carles Puigdemont

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Parliament votes to lift immunity from …

European Parliament votes to lift immunity of Catalan separatist Puigdemont

The European Parliament has voted to lift the immunity of the former president of Spain’s Catalonia region, Carles Puigdemont, and two of his associates

The move could pave the way for their extradition back to Spain and reopen the scars of separatism in the country.

The Spanish government immediately welcomed the decision by the European Union’s legislature as a victory for the rule of law and against those who sought to break the rich north-eastern region away from the rest of Spain.

The decision is likely to extend the three-and-a-half year legal saga on the fate of the three separatists by months, if not years, since many avenues for appeal remain open before any possible extraditions.

In the decision on Mr Puigdemont, 400 legislators voted for the waiver of immunity, 248 were against and 45 abstained.

The measures to lift the immunity of his associates – former Catalan health minister Toni Comin and former regional education minister Clara Ponsati – were by largely similar margins.

Mr Puigdemont and a number of his separatist colleagues fled to Belgium in October 2017, fearing arrest after holding an independence referendum for Catalonia that the Spanish government said was illegal.

In 2019, Mr Puigdemont and his two associates won seats in the European Parliament and were afforded protection as members of the EU assembly.

Mr Puigdemont’s lawyer in Spain, Gonzalo Boye, announced that the former Catalan president is going to appeal against the assembly’s decision to the EU’s higher courts in Luxembourg.

Spain’s foreign minister Arancha Gonzalez-Laya said the assembly’s decision showed that Mr Puigdemont and his two aides cannot shield behind their legislative seat to avoid appearing before the national justice system.

In a video statement, Ms Gonzalez Laya also said the decision meant that “the problems of Catalonia are solved in Spain, they are not solved in Europe”.

Dolors Montserrat, a European legislator with the centre-right European People’s Party and a former cabinet member of the Spanish administration that ousted Mr Puigdemont, told TVE: “Spain wins, Europe wins, democracy wins.”

She added the decision certified that Mr Puigdemont is “a fugitive who has to answer before Spanish courts”.

Iratxe Garcia Perez, the leader of the S&D socialist group, said “the European Parliament doesn’t judge anybody. We just guarantee that justice does its job. A clear majority, absolute majority of the parliament, supported the fact that Spanish justice should be able to do its job”.

Despite the wide margin to lift the three legislators’ immunity, Mr Boye said the assembly’s backing was not as overwhelming as Spain wanted it to be.

“It’s evident that there are people in the conservative group, in the EPP, and among the Socialists that have voted against,” he told Spanish broadcaster TVE.

The 2017 independence vote in favour of Catalonia breaking away from Spain won by a landslide but the central government in Madrid declared the vote illegal and unconstitutional.

Hundreds of people in Catalonia were injured in a police crackdown on the day of the poll.

Spain has attempted to have Mr Puigdemont returned for trial but failed to convince Belgian justice authorities to extradite him.

The country could well start new efforts now to have him extradited but Mr Puigdemont has vowed to fight on.

Jacinda Ardern and US Vice President Kamala Harris address European Parliament

European Union President David Sassoli, New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, US Vice President Kamala Harris and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen honoured women battling against Covid-19. Photo / European Parliament

European Parliament lifts immunity of Carles Puigdemont

The European Parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of lifting immunity from the former leader of Spain’s Catalonia region, Carles Puigdemont.

The European lawmakers also waived immunity for former Catalan health minister Toni Comin and former regional education minister Clara Ponsati.

The trio fled to Belgium in October 2017 along with other Catalan separatists. They are wanted by Spain after holding an independence referendum that the Spanish government said was illegal.

In 2019, Puigdemont, Comin and Ponsati won seats in the European Parliament. This gave them protection in their positions as members of the EU assembly.

But at the request of the Spanish judiciary, the parliament opened an inquiry into waiving their immunity. The parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee voted last month to recommend this.

MEP’s overwhelmingly supported lifting immunity

In the decision on Puigdemont, 400 legislators voted for the waiver of immunity, 248 were against and 45 abstained.

The motions against Comin and Ponsati were adopted by 404 votes to 247, the parliament said.

Votes shows Catalonia is a national issue

The vote sends “a message that the problems of Catalonia are to be resolved within Spain and not at a European level,” Spanish Foreign Minister Arancha Gonzalez Laya told reporters in a statement.

Separatists plan to appeal

The three MEPs have already announced that they will take the case to the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.

kmm/rt (AP, AFP, dpa)

Carles Puigdemont faces immunity vote in the European Parliament

Carles Puigdemont, the former leader of Catalonia, faces a moment of truth as the European Parliament prepares to vote on whether or not to lift his parliamentary immunity.

If the plenary adopts a waiver to strip the politician of his special protection, the Spanish authorities will move to reactivate a European Arrest Warrant (EAS) to bring him back to the country and put him on trial. The extradition will have to be decided first by the Belgian justice system.

In Spain, Puigdemont stands accused of sedition and misuse of public funds. Similar charges have been filed against another two separatists, Antoni Comín and Clara Ponsatí, who also risk losing their immunity.

Regardless of the outcome, the three will retain their status as Members of the European Parliament for the time being.

The vote, which takes place Monday evening, will centre on the report written by Bulgarian MEP Angel Dzhambazki, who belongs to the eurosceptic group European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Official results are expected Tuesday morning.

The report was approved last month by the parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI). The committee concluded the events involving the three MEPs took place before they entered the European Parliament and the accusations are not related to their activities as European legislators. Therefore, they noted, immunity from prosecution does not apply to their case.

Fifteen MEPs of the committee voted in favour of lifting immunity, with eight opposing and two abstaining.

While that vote was secret, the numbers indicate that a simple majority against Piedmont will be likely replicated in the hemicycle.

The three main parties (EPP, S&D and Renew Europe) of the European Parliament, which together hold more than half the seats, have long opposed the protection afforded to the Catalan politicians.

However, these parties are large and diverse, and differences of opinion are expected to happen. Spanish MEP Izaskun Bilbao, who seats with the liberal Renew Europe, has already said she will vote against the waiver. “Political problems are not resolved through sentences but with dialogue and politics,” she wrote on Twitter.

The aforementioned ECR group, which includes MEPs from the Spanish far-right party Vox, is also poised to vote in favour of lifting the immunity, although the Flemish separatist N-VA, a close ally of Puigdemont, is certain to break the party’s discipline.

The Greens and The Left are widely expected to move against the waiver. The Greens/EFA group accommodates MEPs from Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ECR), another Catalan pro-independence party.

Puigdemont, Comín and Ponsatí are non-attached MEPs, a condition that has worked to their disadvantage during the whole legal process.

With these challenging numbers in mind, the trio has been carrying out a PR campaign to convince their fellow parliamentarians to vote in their favour in order to maintain their immunity or, at least, to make the result as tight as possible.

Brussels has been a favourite stage for the Catalan independence movement, which has used the capital to raise the international profile of their political crusade.

“We’re going to fight this battle until the last minute, whether it’s in the European Parliament or in the [European] Court of Luxembourg if we have to go there,” Puigdemont told Euronews last month, after the JURI committee’s vote.

What happens next?

Monday’s vote will close a chapter in the long battle that the three Catalan politicians have been waging in order to avoid extradition to Spain. But another phase will open.

If MEPs decide to lift their colleagues’ immunity, the trio will become liable to prosecution and trial. The vote will not equate to a guilty verdict since MEPs are not judging the background of the case.

The Spanish authorities have been waiting for the plenary’s vote to know if they can reactivate the European Search Warrant placed over Puigdemont for sedition and misuse of public funds during the 2017 illegal independence referendum in Catalonia and the unilateral declaration of independence. As the then-leader of the region, Puigdemont himself pronounced that declaration.

In Spain, nine Catalan pro-separatist leaders and activists have already been found guilty of sedition and given prison sentences of between 9 and 13 years. Puigdemont, Comín and Ponsatí were supposed to be part of that same trial, but their exile made it impossible.

The legal team of Puigdemont is putting its hopes on the precedent set by the case of Lluís Puig, another Catalan politician wanted in Spain.

In a surprising twist earlier this year, Belgium rejected the extradition of Puig arguing that the Spanish Supreme Court was not competent to judge him and there was a risk of not respecting his presumption of innocence.

Spanish judge Pablo Llarena, of the Supreme Court, disagreed with this decision. To avoid a similar outcome, Llarena has referred the matter to the EU Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling to determine whether the Belgian justice system is applying the warrant in the correct manner.

Llarena wants Luxembourg (the seat of the ECJ) to voice its opinion on Puigdemont before moving further with the arrest warrant.

The legal battle will be complex and take many months to resolve. If the Belgian justice system ends up denying Spain’s request, the three Catalan MEPs will be able to stay inside the country as MEPs – but without their special immunity.

Only a final judgment in Spain could take away their seats in the hemicycle.

Viktor Orban should become the agent of European integration | View

Too little, too late for Mr. Orban

Too little, too late if you ask me.

To tolerate a disruptive behaviour for years and years, ignoring authoritarianism and right-wing excesses under some made-up Christian-conservatism, is the same as looking idly at extremism growing freely inside the very fabric of our leadership structure and in our societies.

And now that we have arrived here do we really think that Viktor Orban and Fidesz are in any way affected by the EPP’s decision to suspend his party? Or that they will suddenly be ashamed and change something in their political approach? Unfortunately, it is too late for that. We all know what’s going to happen from here.

Orban will intensify his rhetoric, and he will posture even more shamelessly as the self-styled last defender of Christianity.

In his own words sent to the EPP group, he is “attacked” in a moment when “hundreds of thousands of Europeans are hospitalised, and our doctors are saving lives” and the EPP decision is “undemocratic, unjust and unacceptable”.

Orban will continue to pump public money, national and European into his propaganda machine. He will continue to shout and put posters on motorways depicting himself as the defender of all Europe from immigrants, from the evil Soros, and from the incompetent politicians in Brussels, who spend their time tirelessly working out plans to harm the innocent people who voted for him.

Of course, he is the kind of leader with little regrets, and he will sacrifice anything and anybody, including his citizens, for his political gain.

Speaking of Soros, let’s ask him if he’s happy with supporting Orban in the early nineties. And more importantly, let’s ask ourselves if Hungary’s people deserve what’s coming to them. An isolated country ruled by an authoritarian leader who twists reality to match his particular interest. Orban is a political leader that will confuse the destiny of his country with his political survival.

The growing swell of anti-European strategists are working hard to find fractures in our political construction, and there is nothing more prominent and more explicit than Orban and Fidesz.

And the fact he was allowed to be part of EPP, throwing at him small and insignificant threats that he ignored repeatedly, was a real help for him to prosper and work on more fractures between us. He was the “bad boy,” the one who said it at it was, and because the costs were postponed continuously, he is now playing a martyr facing a wrongful conviction. Let’s face it! He used us and he used all the European crises to gain political advantage.

But it can be an excellent lesson for the future if we can understand the dangers behind [such] hesitation.

The price of this lesson is the future of democracy, nonetheless. We will continue to meet Orban at the European Council. His party is still in power and part of the European Parliament. He will seek alliances with the extremist forces from inside Europe and also abroad. It will be a nightmare.

But it’s a good reason to understand why we need a united Europe, without two speeds, with west and east, north and south, joining hands and sharing visions.

The too-much-delayed Conference on the Future of Europe is the opportune moment.

Maybe the design of its governance is not ideal. Still, we must go past that and focus on the content, use it to give voice to our citizens and pursue a union that emerges more resilient in the face of crisis, generates economic opportunity and growth, and is more prominent in this new multi-polar world.

The best joke on Orban is to turn him into an undercover agent of European integration.

_Dragoș Tudorache is a Romanian MEP. _

Risks of pandemic women’s rights warning of US, EU, NZ leaders

The coronavirus pandemic and ensuing economic and political turmoil have sharpened the challenges facing women as they demand equal rights, three of the world’s most influential female leaders warned Monday.

US Vice President Kamala Harris, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and EU chief Ursula von der Leyen addressed the European Parliament on International Women’s Day.

“Simply put, our world does not yet work for women as it should,” Harris, the first woman and the first American of African and Asian descent to serve as US vice-president, told MEPs.

“COVID-19 has threatened the health, the economic security, and the physical security of women everywhere,” she warned in a video address recorded in Washington.

Von der Leyen, the first woman to head the EU executive, touted her plans to insist on transparency and in hiring and salaries to incite European companies to close the gender pay gap. The women in Europe are paid 14 percent less than men and only 67 percent are in paid work, compared to 78 percent of men. “This is simply not acceptable,” she said.

“At the same time, women comprise 70 percent of the global health workforce, putting them on the front lines and at risk of contracting the virus,” Harris said.

EU executive “surprised” by Belgium’s travel ban extension

The European Commission was “surprised” that Belgium extended a ban on non-essential travel to other European Union (EU) countries until mid-April, said a spokesperson on Monday.

Belgium announced on Friday the extension of its travel restriction measure, originally to be lifted on April 1, for another 17 days until April 18. The country, along with some other EU members, has forbidden its residents to travel abroad except for “imperative reasons” as a COVID-19 containment measure.

The European Commission deemed the measure contrary to EU law, which guarantees free movement for its residents and citizens within the Schengen area.

The EU executive sent letters to a number of countries implementing travel bans a fortnight ago, asking them to respect the “principle of proportionality” and to replace the travel ban with “more targeted measures,” said European Commission spokesperson for justice, equality and rule of law Christian Wigand.

As of Monday, the commission has received replies from Germany, Finland and Belgium. However, the answer from the Belgian authorities did not mention the new extension.

The commission will analyze the replies received from the relevant member states and will “quickly examine all options on the table,” said Wigand.

“Free movement is a fundamental freedom. We will continue to act to ensure that the recommendations adopted by the EU Council are respected and to avoid travel bans,” tweeted EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders on Monday.

EU’s von der Leyen lays out vision of “continent of equal opportunities”

BRUSSELS, March 8 (Xinhua) — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Monday laid out the vision of turning Europe into a continent of equal opportunities for men and women.

“I know we are not there yet. I know that the playing field is not level yet,” she said at a European Parliament event marking the International Women’s Day. “I know from experience that women have to work twice as hard to get the same salary, the same recognition or the same leadership position as their male colleagues. I know the obstacles and the prejudices.”

She outlined the proposals presented by the European Commission last week to address what she described as “the two greatest injustices that women still face: the gender pay gap and the gender employment gap.”

She explained how women in Europe are paid on average 14 percent less than men, and why the Commission proposed the Directive for Pay Transparency.

The employment rate for women in Europe stands at 67 percent, while that for men is 78 percent. “This is simply not acceptable,” she said.

The second proposal aims to address this problem by targeting that 78 percent of all women must have a job by the end of the decade. She said childcare will be strengthened “because no women or men should have to choose between being a mother or father or having a career.”

Monday’s event also featured a video message from the United States Vice President Kamala Harris, who stressed how building a world that works for women was “not just an act of goodwill”, but a “show of strength.”

“If we build a world that works for women, our nations will all be safer, stronger and more prosperous,” she told members of the European Parliament.

She suggested initiatives such as ensuring women’s safety at home, access to high-quality health care, treating women with dignity at work and having the right mechanisms to enable women to both care for their families and excel in the workforce.

Campaign Against Oxford COVID-19 Jab Breeds Anti-Vax Attitudes in EU and US — Poll

Claims by world leaders that the AstraZeneca (AZ) COVID-19 vaccine is ineffective have damaged public confidence in it — and other jabs against the deadly virus.

That is according to a new survey by UK pollsters YouGov, which found scepticism not only for the Oxford jab but those made by Pfizer and Moderna too. That followed moths of political rows over both the effectiveness of the Anglo-Swedish firm’s vaccine and its pace of deliveries to the European Union (EU).

That feeling was strongest in Germany, where more than a quarter said they would refuse the AZ jab and wait until they were offered another to be immunised.

​That figure was almost as high in Italy, France and Spain, while just over one-in-ten US citizens would refuse the Oxford vaccine.

But that wariness was reflected in attitudes to rival vaccines. Six per cent of Germans said they would refuse the home-Grown Pfizer vaccine, and 12 per cent rejected US newcomer Moderna’s.

By contrast, only two per cent of Britons said they would refuse the AZ jab, rising to four per cent for Pfizer and five per cent for Moderna.  

The contrast was far more striking when respondents were asked their opinion of the safety of the three vaccines.

Brits were far more likely to view immunisation as safe than the other five countries surveyed, with the French most sceptical and Americans also expressing doubts.

Political Battles

French president Emmanuel Macron claimed in January that the Oxford jab was “quasi-ineffective” in over-65s — but earlier this month his government’s health ministry said it would offer the vaccine to people up to 75 years old.

German chancellor Angela Merkel said last week that she would not have the AstraZeneca vaccine, following the national Health Commission’s decision not to recommend it for over-65s. In January, German newspaper Handelsblatt claimed the shot was only eight per cent effective — although that was quickly debunked by officials.

But the EU has also demanded AstraZeneca prioritise it for deliveries in a bid to speed up its snails-pace immunisation programme run centrally from Brussels by the European Commission. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen launched a ‘vaccine war’ against the UK in January, demanding supplies produced there be shipped to the continent. Last week Italy and the Commission blocked a shipment of 250,000 Oxford jabs to Australia as part of draconian new rules.
AstraZeneca supplies its vaccine at a non-profit cost price of around $2 to $5 per dose, a fraction of the price charged by other Western manufacturers. It has also cooperated with Russia’s Gamaleya Institute on combining its Sputnik V vaccine with the Oxford jab in a two-dose regime, and has licensed production to the Serum Institute of India (SII). 
Last month the South African government blocked the deployment of 1 million doses of the Oxford jab bought and paid for from the SII after a study — which had not been peer-reviewed — suggested it was less effective against the 501Y.V2 variant dominant in the country. But Pretoria has since launched a mass clinical trial of the US-developed Johnson & Johnson vaccine, despite similar findings about its efficacy.

And Veteran US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi falsely claimed in October last year that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was about to approve the Oxford jab for use, when in fact only the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) can do so. Pelosi was attempting to deflate boasts by then-president Donald Trump of his impending vaccination programme. The UK regulator eventually approved the AstraZeneca vaccine at the end of December.

Poor countries in line to receive funds from EU carbon border levy

The future carbon border adjustment mechanism is part of the “new own resources” for the EU budget and must be used to “combat global warming” across the world, Green MEP Yannick Jadot said on Wednesday (3 March). EURACTIV France reports.

Jadot, a French Green MEP who is in charge of the European Parliament’s report on the EU’s upcoming carbon border charge, says the levy is “not a protectionist measure” to shield Europe’s industry from competition.

To ensure the upcoming border levy is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules, he insists that part of the revenue is allocated to finance low-carbon technologies in developing countries.

Jadot’s report will be presented to the European Parliament on Monday (8 March) and voted the following day.

Part of the revenue – “between €5 and €14 billion per year” – should go to the world’s most vulnerable countries, according to the Green MEP.

As of 2023, the carbon border adjustment mechanism intends to first cover carbon emissions from “energy-intensive steel, cement and aluminium industries, the power sector and the plastics, chemicals, and fertiliser industries,” Jadot said.

According to estimates, this would correspond to 94% of Europe’s industrial emissions.

How the EU decides to use the revenues generated from the levy will play a big part in its compatibility with international trade rules. In January, WTO deputy director general Alan Wolff suggested it “might be just fine” to redirect the revenues in support of the EU’s green policies – so-called recycling.

“Recycling for general environmental purposes – not for a particular sector, not directly changing the competitive environment internationally – might be just fine,” said Wolff, adding that it was “of course no problem” if those duties “go back into general revenues to support the EU in general”.

The WTO deputy director general did, however, warn that “if they come back and change the competitive equation for a particular industry or companies,” this would probably create “quite a lot of conflict.”

This fear is shared by Pascal Canfin, a French MEP who chairs the European Parliament’s environment committee. Back in December, he said that If the proceeds only go towards the EU recovery plan, “without traceability, with no environmental objectives and without any returns to certain countries, especially the poorest, I think we have to be concerned.”

“WTO compatibility is a total red line,” he added.

A number of developing countries in Africa and elsewhere have expressed concern that they will be liable to pay the levy despite having far lower carbon emissions than the EU.

But while the exact amount has not yet been fixed, Jadot said it was already clear that developing countries will benefit from a share of the revenue, in what he called a “historic position of the European parliament”.

Meanwhile, other parts of the revenue should be used to repay Europe’s public debt and the loans linked to the EU recovery plan, even if “it would be primarily to finance the green part of the recovery plan”, Canfin added.

[Edited by Frédéric Simon and Benjamin Fox]

It is time to deepen political association, economic integration of EU with Eastern Partnership countries – Tochytskyi

European Parliament in Bulgaria marks International Women’s Day with exhibition

            </span>

‘Ceasefire’ reached in EU-US aircraft subsidy war

The move has eased difficulties for the plane makers, which have been suffering significantly from the COVID-19 pandemic, and shows that transatlantic trade tensions have begun to cool down.

The US and the EU have imposed tit-for-tat tariffs in the 16-year-old dispute over their governments’ subsidies for European aircraft maker Airbus and US rival Boeing. Accordingly, the US levied a 15% duty on imported Airbus planes from 2019 after the years-long dispute forced the two sides to submit the case to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After that, the EU retaliated against the US with a similar tax rate on Boeing planes. The “tariff war” between the two sides also spread to wine, whiskey and other goods.

However, President of the European Commission (EC) Ursula von der Leyen recently announced that the EU and the US have agreed to temporarily cease retaliatory tariffs regarding the Airbus-Boeing dispute for four months.

The decision by leaders on the two coasts of the Atlantic Ocean to stop tit-for-tat tariffs on airplanes and other commodities has also helped to alleviate difficulties facing aircraft manufacturers in the context of the pandemic. At the end of February, CEO of European aircraft manufacturer Guillaume Faury called on the two sides to stop imposing retaliatory tariffs, stating that the EU-US “tax war” has exacerbated the losses caused by the COVID-19 crisis on both sides. Airbus statistics showed that the company posted a net loss of US$1.3 billion in 2020, while Boeing also experienced disappointing business results with total damages of up to US$11.9 billion last year.

According to analysts, the EU-US “truce” in the aircraft subsidy war shows that after the US has a new president, tensions in the transatlantic trade relations have begun to cool down. The US-EU trade ties constantly plummeted under former US President Donald Trump’s administration, with Washington imposing tariffs on US$7.5 billion of EU exports.

In reply, the EU levied tariffs on US$4 billion of goods imported from the US. Therefore, European leaders have responded positively to the aforementioned “ceasefire” between the two sides. Over the weekend, the French commerce ministry welcomed the EU-US agreement, hailing it as the first step in the process of de-escalation. EU member states will consider introducing new regulations on public subsidies for the aerospace sector.

In the context of the US facing unprecedented severe challenges and the EU struggling to overcome the economic and pandemic crisis, the cooling down of trade tensions between the two sides is significant to the promotion of regional and global economic recovery. In addition, the suspension of tit-for-tat tariff imposition also paves the way for the US and EU to restore and develop many other global cooperation contents on security and climate change response, which had been stagnated or interrupted during the term of former US President Donald Trump.

Is The Digital Services Act Going To Make A Huge Mess Of Website Liability In The EU?

from the sounds-like-it dept

I’ve been so focused of late on issues related to Section 230 in the US, that I’ve had barely any time to devote to the Digital Services Act in the EU, which is the EU’s ongoing efforts to rewrite intermediary law in the EU. The reports I have followed have been a mix of concerns, with the admission that it at least appeared that EU politicians were trying to get a good grasp on the issues and trade-offs and not rush in with a totally horrible plan. That doesn’t mean the end result is good, but so far it does not appear to be totally disconnected from reality, as with many similar proposals we’ve seen around the globe.

Joan Barata has a good report looking at the the current state of intermediary liability in the latest DSA proposal and notes that it’s… kind of a mess. Basically, as is often the case with intermediary liability laws, very few policymakers have experience with the actual issues, and thus they can’t take into account how various provisions will actually work in practice. Frequently that means that proposals are worded vaguely, and no one will really know what they mean until after a series of lengthy, confusing, and expensive court decisions.

As Barata notes, the DSA appears to retain the basic liability protections that have existed for the last two decades in the EU in the form of the E-commerce Directive (which is weaker than Section 230’s protections in the US, but are roughly equivalent in saying that websites should not be held liable for 3rd party content). The big difference with the E-commerce Directive is that websites do need to remove content “upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness” of “illegal activities.” Of course, what exactly is meant by “obtaining actual knowledge or awareness” becomes a tricky question at times and did involve some lawsuits.

The DSA, though, moves the liability situation further away from Section 230 and more to a DMCA style “safe harbor” situation, by establishing that knowledge can be obtained through “notices”:

Apart from the provisions included in Article 5, Article 14(3) establishes that notice and action mechanisms fulfilling certain criteria give rise to actual knowledge or awareness.

The DSA tries to avoid the classic “moderator’s dilemma” issue by saying that even though knowledge or awareness could make you liable, you don’t necessarily lose your liability protections if you carry out your own investigations:

Article 6 clarifies that intermediaries may not lose their liability protections “solely because they carry out voluntary own initiative investigations or other activities aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling of access to, illegal content, or take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation”.

But what does that mean in practice? You can lose the protections if you know about illegal stuff on your website, but you don’t lose them if you are doing your own investigation. But at what point does finding stuff during your own investigation magically morph into knowledge or awareness? Well, the answer seems… contradictory. Basically, it sounds like the current draft of the DSA hangs an awful lot of weight on the word “solely.” If illegal content is discovered “solely” via an investigation, then a site might retain its protections — but if that same content is discovered in any other way, then the site may have knowledge and face liability. This… is going to be confusing.

And, again, this tends to be the problem with all of these proposals. They want to encourage sites to moderate to clean up bad stuff, but if they mandate liability for having knowledge of bad stuff, you incentivize less searching. But now you are still left in a weird, twisted position, where you say “okay, you can search, but if you find stuff, you’re no longer liable for it… unless you also have separate knowledge of it.” And how do you manage that?

This is actually one of the many reasons why — despite all the criticism it receives — Section 230 gets the balance right. It gives websites a free hand in moderating content, but does so in a way that many, many other forces come into play in pressuring the company to be a good actor in the space. Public pressure, user concerns, media coverage, and advertiser pressure, all serve to push websites to improve their moderation practices. Too many people, however, think that without a law mandating such things, nothing happens. That’s wrong. We’re seeing every website continually work to create better policies not because of the risk of some confusing and potentially very costly law, but because they don’t want their site to be a dumpster fire of awful.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: confusion, digital services act, dsa, e-commerce directive, eu, intermediary liability, knowledge, monitoring, notices, section 230

Western Sahara: EU Parliamentarian Outlines Growing Support for Morocco’s Position

Rabat – EU parliamentarian Tomas Zdechovsky has listed the positive development in the Western Sahara conflict, recalling the US recent decision to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over the region.

In a recent written question to the EU, the member of the European Parliament said the situation in Arica “has changed significantly in recent months.”

Zdechovsky recalled the diplomatic rapprochement between Morocco and Israel, as well as the US’ recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara; he also cited EU countries that support Morocco’s position.

He said some EU member states, including Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland have expressed support for Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara.

<p>“Is the EEAS [European External Action Services] considering moving in a similar direction?” the MP asked.

Several countries from all continents have publicly embraced Morocco’s position, describing its Autonomy Plan as a credible and serious solution to end the Sahara conflict.

On December 10, former US president Donald Trump made a historic decision by recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the region.

Reflecting the growing, unwavering international support for Morocco’sstance is that about 20 countries have in recent months opened their consulates in the country’s southern provinces. 

The latest country to join the pro-Morocco momentum was Jordan, which opened its consulate in the region of Laayoune on Thursday.

Jordan also reiterated support for Morocco’s autonomy initiative, saying it the most realistic route to a lasting solution in Western Sahara.

Morocco submitted its Autonomy Plan to the UN Security Council in 2007. The Moroccan initiative suggests making Western Sahara a semi-autonomous region that remains under Morocco’s sovereignty.

The plan will allow the region’s inhabitants to manage their social, economic, and political affairs while Morocco handles defense and diplomacy. 

The Western Sahara region is witnessing rapid socio-economic and political transformations, with more countries signing investment deals and development projects projected to make the southern provinces a regional economic hub.

With the EU steering clear of committing to a clear position on the Sahara question, Morocco has called on the European body to join the international trend and support the positive dynamics underway in Morocco’s southern provinces.

In February, Morocco’s Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita called on the EU to come out of its comfort zone and support the growing international consensus on the Sahara conflict. 

The official said that more countries are supporting Morocco’s autonomy initiative as the surest way out of the decades-long political impasse in Western Sahara.

“This is not an isolated position, but a trend at the level of the international community.”

He recalled that  the process has gone “round and round for years,” recalling that the conflict has an impact on the situation of the Sahel region — where terror organizations are active in the region.

“Today, the train will leave. Is Europe going to remain passive or contribute to this dynamic? Bourita asked.

Several EU officials have since called on the European body to support Morocco’s position.

Louis Michel, Belgium’s former Foreign Minister and Jacques Brotchi, the  Honorary president of the Belgian Senate, released a joint statement in February to support Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the most viable way to end the Sahara dispute.

“Now we can see that the world is moving slowly but surely towards the recognition of the sovereignty of Morocco over Western Sahara, a positive move for geographic, political and geo-strategic reasons,” the joint statement reads.

Britain will iron out technical issues with EU, says PM Johnson

  <div class="paywall" readability="13.634033613445">  <p>Asked about an article in which his Brexit adviser David Frost says the <a href="https://www.livemint.com/news/world/eu-seeks-access-to-us-produced-astrazeneca-vaccines-report-11615026539151.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EU</a> should "shake off any remaining ill will towards us for leaving".</p>       <p>"I think this is one of those issues we were always bound to have in the early stages of our new relationship with our friends in the EU and the various technical issues that we are going to iron out," he told reporters.</p>       <p>"I am full of optimism about the future and the partnership that we are building." </p>     <input type="hidden" id="iframecount" value="0"/>  <p><em>This story has been published from a wire agency feed without modifications to the text.</em></p>   <div class="newslettersub_outsidesso_11615120854713" readability="6">  <div class="outsideSso clearfix" id="outsideSso_11615120854713" readability="8"> <p>Subscribe to <strong>Mint Newsletters</strong></p> <div class="inputSecArea clearfix" id="inputSec_11615120854713" readability="7">  <p><span>*</span> Enter a valid email</p> <p><span>*</span> Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.</p>  </div> </div> </div>      </div>