When representatives of 22 EU member states – Malta among them – signed a treaty last January, they had little, if any, doubt that the treaty would eventually be ratified. But public outrage – and a responsive European Parliament – effectively nullified those signatures yesterday.

MEPs overwhelmingly voted against the treaty yesterday, a vote which showed that the European Parliament – and the EU citizens they represent – may be more powerful than previously thought.

As a treaty which was controversial as well as – due to its provisions concerning internet use – likely to spur public activism, ACTA was an ideal backdrop for an unprecedented EU-wide campaign, which saw people across the EU lobby their MEPs, in efforts which appear to have been successful.

Once national governments had signed ACTA and people realised that the European Parliament could reject the treaty regardless, MEPs were flooded with emails urging them to do so.

True, many concerns raised proved to have been exaggerated and even unfounded. But ultimately, MEPs could not dismiss the validity of the remainder. They were faced with choosing a treaty which could help defend intellectual property but which could have a negative impact on civil liberties, and ultimately chose the latter.

Controversial provisions included forcing internet service providers to identify subscribers whose account was allegedly used for infringement, leading to charges that ACTA would help censor the internet.

The Commission, which had been involved in negotiations, consistently defended the treaty, and insisted that the treaty’s rejection would send a negative signal to trading partners.

But it did itself no favours in its dealings with the European Parliament over ACTA. MEPs were kept in the dark while negotiations were ongoing, a practice which was banned by the Lisbon Treaty, but only for negotiations which began after its implementation.

The Commission had argued that the treaty would not change EU law, and Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht insisted, on the eve of the vote, that he had no problem backing it as a lifelong defender of human rights.

But as MEPs noted, the treaty is somewhat vague in its provisions, which could lead to problems if rights holders defend their rights aggressively, as they might be expected to do.

With no definition of commercial scale infringement, the treaty could intentionally criminalise individual infringement. And adding insult to injury, the criminal and civil sanctions foreseen for infringements are somewhat steep: MEPs have spoken out against estimating the loss caused by a copyright infringement to be equivalent to the retail cost of an item.

The worst-case scenario could see individuals monitored by ISPs and taken to court for file-sharing, and face steep fines as a result. While many – but not all – MEPs are opposed to file-sharing, such a prospect ultimately must have seemed draconian.

Now that the vote is over and done with, what remains to be seen is whether EU citizens will continue activism at a European level. After all, ACTA is but one of the countless decisions which can have a direct impact on people’s lives and which are made by the EU’s institutions.

Such activism would serve as a counterpoint to lobbying by other entities, such as businesses, whose interests may not match those of the public at large. This was the case with ACTA, where strong lobbying by pro-ACTA groups continued taking place even when it was clear that the vote would go the other way.

The cynical among us would imagine that a public campaign on a similar scale will be a rare occurrence in the future. But now that ACTA showed just how much power the public holds, one may hope that it will be more enthusiastic about wielding it once again.