After accidental vote, EU copyright bill faces three legitimacy issues

If your intention is to help someone improve the framing of their point, that's great. The way to do that is (a) not be aggressive, and (b) provide helpful information about the point itself. Then we all can learn something.

The videos show some members outraged at the speed of voting, yet we never see what they are voting about. If they are voting about the agenda, I don't care. If they are voting about Copyright act, I care a lot. The video is misleading because it's trying to portray it as very important voting, but never shows the subject, so we cannot decide for ourselves and are forced to accept their narrative that this was "some kind of important vote", which is a problem.

The reports I mean are of course these: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&... - if you ever want to find any actual data about any actual vote, you'll find it here. It seems you are not really searching for data, you just let some populists feed you what they want to project and then share it on. That's another problem in your logic.

Did you ever wonder why none of those 10 MPs who claimed to have voted in mistake due to high speed, or that Polish populist MP, published a video of the actual vote for the Copyright Act? If we can find too high speed there, then I'll accept your point. But they never published anything like that, even though they apparently have very easy access to the whole video archive, since it let's them create very specific short videos about their point.

Well the transcripts just before the vote look like this: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...

let me quote the last speaker just before the vote: "Two hundred thousand people went on the streets and five million signed the petition. Let me recall that the title of the Directive is: ‘Copyright in the Digital Single Market’. It’s our duty to fix issues of great concern at European level and not in the national legislation. For this reason, I ask for your support to open the Directive to the amendments and request a vote on these amendments that so many of us have signed." video here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&...

Do you think anyone in their right mind can misjudge what the following vote will be about? The chairman even repeats the subject of the vote, uses phrases like "I hope it's clear now", "Have you all voted?" before closing the vote, there was applause after the amendment vote failed, "The vote is now open" for the final vote, which then takes 20 seconds. EVERYBODY had time to translate, the last couple of seconds is complete silence, no need to look around and count hands because it was electronic.

Now.. is this enough rebuttal for you? I don't need to see short video sequences of angry politicians from unknown time, about unknown voting, shared by known populists. What I'm after is real data. It takes much more effort to get them, but it's the only right way forward.

That's not a rebuttal at all!

I think there is a fundamental assumption gap between you and the people making these videos, hence the disagreement. That is, you don't see it as especially problematic if some votes are important and done properly, and other votes are not important and rushed or mistaken, whereas the "known populists" as you call them (that's not a very effective insult btw) believe that for a House to be trusted and have legitimacy, all votes must be done properly. Most obviously because otherwise whoever runs the voting process can decide that a vote they care about is "not important" and just call the result however they prefer, leaving people to constantly try to chase them and catch up.

It's for this reason they don't bother showing what the votes were about - beyond that we know they were votes on amendments to laws - it's because they don't recognise the distinction between "important" amendments and "not important" amendments. Most obviously because if something isn't important enough to vote on properly why is a government (any government) legislating on it at all?

"The vote is now open" for the final vote, which then takes 20 seconds. EVERYBODY had time to translate, the last couple of seconds is complete silence

This doesn't back up your argument in the way you think it does. What kind of vote only gives 20 seconds for both translation and thinking time?

In the UKIP video it is said that the EP can often vote on more than 1000 things a week, so no wonder they're so rushed. But the problem here is obvious - they shouldn't be voting on 1000 things a week. There can't be any quality legislative scrutiny in such a system, it's a complete farce.

I looked at your report link. It doesn't tell me anything about the quality of the votes or anything relevant to the points the videos are making.

I think it's very clear here that you're determined to make excuses for the EP and take their side because you see the alternative as "populists", which for some reason is a bad thing? The word is defined as "a supporter of the rights and powers of the people" which would appear appropriate here!

Thinking time as in, thinking about what the right decision is, not how to push the button.

They've been discussing the copyright directive for months. All the parties, all the members, knew exactly how they are going to vote long before they came to the parliament that day. The talks are just for show, to have something to show the voters back at home, nobody is deciding or changing their votes on the spot.