Extension of CC 1.0 was voted on 11th of March and 26th of March and there are multiple public statements on what happened during the process in the EP. I’d like to confirm couple of points:
- On 11th the amendment 5 passed because parliamentary groups had not yet consolidated their positions and MEPs voted by their personal convictions.
- On 26th EPP and friends truly wanted CC 1.0 to be extended in its current form.
- They had an agreement that if any of the crucial amendments 34, 35 or 36 passes, they will vote against the final version.
- The rationale for voting against the final version was to clear the way for possible results from the trilogues about CSAR/CC 2.0 to be voted before summer.
- Although EPP and friends explained that they want to extend current CC 1.0 in a responsible way to avoid the supposed legal vacuum, they ended up by doing the opposite.
- They were overconfident that they are able to stop crucial amendments and did not really expect ending up being irresponsible. Or did it happen by some other accident?
- There are public statements on how many times the parliament has voted against CC, some counting three times. What do these counts refer to and what would be a correct statement?
- What are the next steps to expect in trilogues or related parliamentary processes?
With this post I want to confirm if I understand the processes in EP mostly correctly as they are not self evident for the outsider and insider statements are not always meant to explain what actually happened, why it happened and to provide all the references needed to make fully sense of the exhaustive documentation of the agendas, amendments, votes and their objectives at the EP web site.