[Fsfe-ie] MEP letter, updated, final comments?

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:49:22AM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
> 
> The procedure is that all the amendments tabled are put into a voting 
> list. Voting in plenary then procedes down the list from top to 
> bottom. Some amendments towards the bottom get skipped if previous 
> amendments were passed that would make that amendment impossible or 
> too similar. This is controlled by the speaker of the house.
> 
> The order is derived by the parliament bureaucracy which is supposed 
> to place the most important amendments first - this being derived 
> from committee recommendations. Unfortunately, as with all things a 
> large party or powerful interests can influence the order.

Okay, so "all amendments by CULT, ITRE, and Greens/EFA" is a
reasonable request?
(since duplicates will be skipped)

Just thinking now, would it be best to say "vote Yes to all C, I, G/E
amendments, and No to the rest".  This would prevent our MEPs
accidentally voting Yes to a bad amendment.  Right idea?

***Any replies asap please since I'll be mailing the final draft to
ILUG and FSFE-UK soon.

I hope "amendments by CULT, ITRE, and Greens/EFA" is a good rule.

Hartmut Pilches' rule was:
  > One simple rule is: if Rocard, Greens and EDD don't all recommend "yes",
  > better vote "no".  If one or more of the Rocard group's amendments are
  > rejected, vote "no".

(so where's a list of "Rocard, Greens and EDD" endorsed amendments?)
(and, do MEPs know what "the Rocard group" is, or is it a local phrase?)
Hartmut went on to say:
  > This isn't to say that the directive with the Rocard group's amendments
  > will be an acceptable one.  Unless about 90% of the recitals and articles
  > are deleted or rewritten along the lines of the FFII counter-proposals, it
  > will still be a bad law that ought to be rejected, if the EP has any
  > self-esteem.