Citizens.
Yes YOU.
Don’t let them ‘trade away our sovereignty’.
Sez Kate who writes:
For any broadsheet readers who mightn’t have heard about TTIP [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership] – its a trade agreement between EU and US – there are big concerns about its effect on lots of things but in particular, a clause within it that allows corporate entities to sue state governments for loss of earnings.
Example’s of this clause already occurring in America include Monsanto suing the state of Vermont for requiring GM foods to be labelled or to bring it closer to home – the threat by big tobacco to sue Ireland for loss of earnings due to blank packaging.
The doc [link below] does state the EU negotiations give an ‘opportunity’ to address concerns raised by citizens. There have been eight rounds of negotiations to date. The 9th round is scheduled for 20th – 24th April 2015.
I thought maybe your readers would like to know a bit more about it. There are lots of people taking action to try and stop some of the worst parts of this agreement slipping through the net if anyone out there wants to get active.
TTIP Briefing Note (Department of Jobs)
Previously: Trojan Defiance
Surely, the right site for this sort of post is “Done Deal”.
clearly high end tier prize zing
series of potato unrelated words cat zing
I’m sorry Mr B ignore rant
If you’re going to make claims about a fairly unknown and large trade agreement at least make sure any claims aren’t the easily disprovable with quick google search. Case in point:
“Example’s of this clause already occurring in America include Monsanto suing the state of Vermont for requiring GM foods to be labelled”=Nope
Monsanto are part of a group of companies has taken an action against Vermont not based on loss of earning at all but because they think Vermont should be forcing them to label any products containing ingredient derived from GMOs. Here’s the rational the GMA and BIA are using to bring count case:
‘The proscriptions in Act 120 are beyond Vermont’s power to enact. The State is compelling manufacturers to convey messages they do not want to convey, and prohibiting manufacturers from describing their product in terms of their choosing, without anything close to a sufficient justification. The State is forcing the costs of this experiment on out-of-state companies and citizens to which it is not politically accountable, and it is undermining and impeding the federal government’s interest in uniform, nationwide standards for food labeling prescribed by duly authorized expert federal agencies.’
“Here, the plaintiffs claim the law is in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech by forcing a company to say something that it doesn’t want to say as long it is not violating any laws. Additionally, they are stating that labeling is regulated at a federal level, and it doesn’t make legal sense for a state to impose its own labeling requirements at the expense of everyone else.” – http://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-monsanto-suing-vermont-over-gmo-labeling-laws
So no Monsanto aren’t using any loss of earning clause in US law, not knowing this makes me question if there is even any such clause in the TIPP?
its great you are putting so much effort into researching this. No doubt you will not have to wonder for long about any part of the TTIP if you keep up the good work!
Message. I care.
To be honest the only way it would have taken me any real effort is if I’d had every single finger on my hand broken in a freak piano playing accident.
See
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=VERMONT+LABELING+MONSANTO+SUING
Third one down, no effort required
Yes, very good, a long winded pointless non-independent answer.
Your Source is biased:
Who funds that website – GMOAnswers.com? Monsanto does !
Well knock me sideways and give me a kiss!
From that site:
“GMO Answers is funded by the members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Pioneer, Monsanto Company and Syngenta. Our members are dedicated to the responsible development and application of plant biotechnology.
Supporting partners are organizations, companies and others who are committed to the five core principles of GMO Answers and have added their support to this initiative. To date, those partners include the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association and National Cotton Council.”
Thanks Clampers for pointing out GMOAnswers is funded by Monsanto and other companies despite the fact it isnt relevant. No seriously well done. GMOAnswers happened to be the first to come up with solid info on what part of the law Monsanto et al cited in their suit
Now I could also point out that the answer itself is referenced by a link the Genetic Literacy Project, an independent site but theres a simpler answer, its irrelevant. If it bugs you so much heres a direct link to GLP (http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/01/vermont-pro-gmo-labeling-groups-play-monsanto-fear-card-in-deceptive-fund-raising-effort/)
Now how would you like to respond to the fact that the answer actually directly as a quote from the lawsuit and clearly states why and which part of US law they are using? How are Monsanto & associates gonna hide the fact they’re actually suing Vermont under a completely different part when it comes to court?
Now I dont really care if you think Monsanto is a puppy kicking, lemur eating cartoon villain or simply another corporation that couldnt care less about anything but profit. They are suing Vermont over GM labeling. They are using a part of US law. But it is not at all the one stated above
Count me out
I have much better things to be at like looking at grumpy cat