Fiffel med röstlistor - telekompaketet

Dear Diana Wallis,
cc: President Poettering

I heard you will be chairing the vote on the telecom package. I write to you since I saw that the voting list has changed. The current version puts AM 10 to the vote before 2=5=6=9 while the original voting list put these am first. 2, 5, 6 and 9 are the famous am 138 regarding graduated response. If 10 would be adopted the others would fall. That would mean they would never be put to the vote. I would ask you to put those first for three reasons.

1) Normally the most far reaching AM should be voted first. To demand a prior decision by the court to deny someone access to internet is more far reaching protection of civil liberties than just a reference to an impartial tribunal.

2) Many members (not me) may accept an agreement with the compromise text in AM 10 but would still like to have the chance to vote for a more clear text and force the council to make a final concession. Since the council has in substance agreed to "due procedure" an adoption of (2,5,6,9) would merely clarify it beyond doubt. It would be highly unlikely that the council would make the whole package fall on that ground, UNLESS they interpret AM 10 completely differently. If that is the case it is even more important we have a chance to vote for the other amendments rather than having the judges from the ECJ decide for us, no citizen can vote them out of office for what they decide.

3) Thousands of citizens will be following the vote, for most it will be the first time they follow EP voting. They have just before the elections been interested to follow our work, many wanting to follow the vote on AM2-9. They would be very disappointing to know that they will not be able to check how their elected representatives voted if these are never put to the vote. This would certainly reduce the will of many young Europeans to vote in the election.

Yours sincerely,

Carl Schlyter MEP (Greens/EFA)