Ah okay, so when he says "I would consider proposing some clarifications to ACTA" he's just blowing smoke - talking about making cosmetic statements about ACTA which would encourage parliament to ratify it, but wouldn't actually fix the abuse cases that come from the vague wording?

Whenever I hear a politician talk about "clarifications" alarm bells ring in my head. It basically means changing marketing not the facts.

Yeah, we remember how the constitution, which has been rejected by referendums, became the "simplified treaty": exactly the same text but with articles moved, rephrased, obfuscated. The polite way to describe the EU is as a very-indirect democracy.

And when being voted out of office is the only way that the citizenry has to hold officials accountable... would "very-indirect" be good for the people?