Post B8G48AfS00kk5cVV0y by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
(DIR) More posts by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
(DIR) Post #B8AXSYUDJ3ecFV03Ye by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris isn't it kinda frustrating, that not just Tutanota, but even the "Fight Chat Control" mastodon account push this emotional narrative without explaining the process of how this stuff works?
(DIR) Post #B8AZ9k6I6JmCfxy2ka by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @jmaris all experts write in such a way to understand its final, I think this is first alternative opinion I seen so far. If its not final, its almost certain the Council will approve (because encryption protection is symbolic change, and if they care about this passing, they won't postpone it any longer)
(DIR) Post #B8AcPEvy2pdmViDhce by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mindaugasI don't know if it's accurate.I generally don't like looking at things through the lens of blame. I'd rather ubderstand the mechanisms, causes, and motivations.So, for example "Nothing was happening to the Chat Control 1.0 text since the extension was rejected a few months ago. But now the Council suddenly decided that text is its second reading proposal, which is procedurally unprecedented, and nobody knows how they did that" is valuable info IMO@jmaris
(DIR) Post #B8AcVy86v880Q86mwa by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mindaugasIdeally combined with an explanation of how second reading normally happens. Even better if someone drills down to the procedural loophole that allows the Council to do such a thing.@jmaris
(DIR) Post #B8FwLLfPcErwKpGHR2 by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @jmaris We could say there are flaws in EU law (loopholes), similarly like there are flaws in software code, and #chatcontrol proponents (hackers) used to exploit it (in exploit-chain).Also there are some strange decisions by MEPs themselves. On July 7 many MEPs themselves voted to invoke urgency procedure with majority (voted 331 vs. 304), but they later voted against chat control on July 9, Thursday. How does it make sense? How does it make sense to first vote FOR sneaky urgency procedure, and then vote AGAINST chat control few days later?It could be that some people may have changed their minds (that's good), and others may not understand what they vote for (that's bad) 🤷🏻 For example, its unclear what MEP @bartgroothuis did with such conflicting vote: be AGAINST chat control, but FOR the urgent procedure which enabled its passage? (maybe philosophically for urgent procedures?)There was astounding 83 members who reversed like this (by group: S&D - 24, Renew - 8, EPP - 19, ECR - 4, PFE 28),who were FOR urgent procedure, but AGAINST chat control.(@HowTheyVoteEU thanks for available json files for analysis)Those who reversed within EPP group - thank you 🙏🏻 (who voted against EPP consensus), and members of some other political groups - unclear why they would vote in this strange way?Other groups were consistent: Greens, The left, ESN & 24 non-attached members (surprisingly independents are so united 😀). So it is definitely possible to be consistent between these two votes.And the thing you wondered about, regarding how the Council did this - I found the exact rule in treaties, which allows Council to do so (or to be more exact - @protonprivacy Lumo found it for me 🙂, btw. it does a great job of surfing the web quickly):From "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_294/oj/engParagraph 5: "If the Council does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament."Then Parliament has 3 months to react (as per paragraph 7), but instead - it invoked the urgency procedure last minute, skipped normal procedure of debates to review this important law, and went straight to voting on Council's position.At this stage (after the law has been returned from Council to Parliament for 2nd 'reading'), its normal and typical, that rejection at this stage requires absolute majority (paragraph 7b)But it is rare for Council to do this - it was sudden & unexpected, timed and coordinated by EPP group + EPP's Metsola + EPP's Commission + Council for last minute, but also approved by Parliament itself on July 7, for them to vote again, on July 9 before summer and to require absolute majority to do so 🤷🏻 Why MEPs themselves made this strange inconsistent decision?This is general nice picture how the process works:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/olp/en/ordinary-legislative-procedure/overviewEssentially Council of governments has equal weight to Parliament. They make decisions together (I like it). And they kinda can overrule each other for process to not get stuck and keep going. BUT it was ugly this time in practice.
(DIR) Post #B8G2eczO2I7VHmBH3w by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mindaugas @jmaris @bartgroothuis @HowTheyVoteEU @protonprivacy Hmm and this was the same legislative process for ChatControl 1.0 extension that was talked about in March?So technically the Parliament cannot reject a bill in first reading?Also, formally the Council has always been able to propose any text it likes for Parliament's 2nd reading, and the trilogues in between were just a custom intended to make it more likely that the Council will propse a text that the Parliament will approve?
(DIR) Post #B8G383o9P4W0rPxZQG by jmaris@eupolicy.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @mindaugas @bartgroothuis @HowTheyVoteEU @protonprivacy the parliament can reject at first reading. But for the rest, that is correct.It's also worth noting that the timing can vary enormously: sometimes parliament can have a position months before the council does, sometimes it's the opposite
(DIR) Post #B8G3E8uvJuwKRb1nou by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris @mindaugas @bartgroothuis @HowTheyVoteEU @protonprivacy what is the consequence of rejection at first reading?
(DIR) Post #B8G3ix7NEtmspJXiOu by jmaris@eupolicy.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @mindaugas @bartgroothuis @HowTheyVoteEU @protonprivacy usually either the commission withdraws the proposal or amends it. Theoretically they can maintain the same text but if the parliament chooses to outright reject the proposal rather than amending it then that suggests it will fail to win support of parliament.
(DIR) Post #B8G3sX2H4EeWpVj1v6 by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris @mindaugas but does it prevent the council from doing its first reading and triggering the parliament's second reading?
(DIR) Post #B8G44Coq3g5rbV0WUi by jmaris@eupolicy.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @mindaugas it does prevent it as far as I know, because having a second reading relies on parliament having a position. however rejections are extremely rare so I'm not 100% sure.
(DIR) Post #B8G48AfS00kk5cVV0y by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris @mindaugas so here the parliament rejected the bill in 1st reading but the council adopted its 1st reading text anyway?
(DIR) Post #B8G4TD2EONmzVtC6Yy by jmaris@eupolicy.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @mindaugas if I have understood correctly the parliament didn't reject the bill at first reading. They amended it. EDIT: I was wrong, it was indeed rejected.
(DIR) Post #B8G4o01lwsK7FjtRJ2 by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris @mindaugas wait but that's the 2020 version, not the 2026 extension?
(DIR) Post #B8G5InLz7VmmvF22LY by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl these are good questions.@jmarisI think it was clearly rejected.And rejection was counted as position by the Council 🤷🏻 Why that is the case, its unclear still.
(DIR) Post #B8G5Qh4CNWhxjyTkeW by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mindaugas @jmaris Also, Article 294 of TFEU you linked to doesn't say anything about rejecting.(it also doesn't mention what happens when deadlines are exceeded)Basically it only handles the happy path.
(DIR) Post #B8G5Wy8Zp6LaQCWEz2 by jmaris@eupolicy.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @mindaugas oops
(DIR) Post #B8G734M6L7csvZiQ1g by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris @mindaugas here's the current one:https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025/0429(COD)11/03/2026 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading -> adopted amendments, sent back to committee26/03/2026 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading -> rejected
(DIR) Post #B8G7mKVh7iZm3tmhY8 by jmaris@eupolicy.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @mindaugas I think there is something with the urgent procedure. I'll have to do some research
(DIR) Post #B8G80qzFAmycqAX0Yi by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jmaris @mindaugas I think rejection by EP in first reading is imaginary and doesn't actually have any effect by TFUE. But it's not like I've read the whole treaty (or even whole part 6) to make sure nothing in there mentions it.
(DIR) Post #B8KPlDcBxqzQEiS1Bo by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @jmaris what happened seem to have no conflict with ordinary procedure on the surface, and there is no conflict to what is visualized in the picture of the general procedure below.At first reading parliament 'adopt it as its position or amend it', there is no rejection possibility (as shown in the picture). And if Parliament rejects, then apparently it just misses an opportunity to amend it 🤷🏻 and rejection does not count as you say.Why the rejection happened first 2 times?2026-03-11 Parliament actually adopted a position (but it is understood as rejection of chat control 1.0 because of many amendments watering this bill down, it is also interpreted as shadow negotiation of 2.0), which Council did not like and refused to negotiate.2026-03-26 then Parliament rushed to adopt a different position quickly which Council could agree on, but amendments again were made watering this bill down, and EPP themselves rejected at the final vote this time because of amendments they did not like. And apparently parliament was left without a position at all 😯 (if that is the case, then it seems like a good trick to not adopt a position which Council does not like, enabling Council to adopt its own position)Sources:2026-03-11 vote is retrospectively explained in this video https://peertube.0011.lt/w/j83eBf1Qs8de2PeaHfBVcM (3 minutes total) by Pirate @marketkag and EPP member Lena Düpont, and 2026-03-26 vote is explained by Birgit Sippel in this video https://peertube.0011.lt/w/aXq9L2Rcjh4BQS4S6JWsTj (7 minutes total including speeches, votes and 2 minutes of not working microphones)
(DIR) Post #B8KW5qiat9IN1tfMK8 by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mindaugas@jmaris I haven't looked into the things you linked yet, but what you're saying supports what I suspected: a positive action by the EP is not required at any point to pass EU law. If the EP does nothing, the law will pass.IMO this means EU law has no democratic mandate.
(DIR) Post #B8KXvUYccvvdJNBt0i by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @jmaris It could be interpreted this way as you do, because:1) 1st reading: if Parliament fails to amend* - law moves forward2) 2nd reading: if Parliament again fails to amend - law is adopted*Or if Council does no like Parliament amendments, Parliament re-votes again at the same stage 😀BUT it could also be interpreted other ways:practically chat control 1.0 has the majority right now (looking at full picture, not individual votes). Most MEPs are happy with current result (that chatcontrol 1.0 comes back).