Street Demonstrations In 21 European Countries Held To Protest Against TAFTA/TTIP; Another ACTA Revolt Brewing?

from the unprecedented-alliance dept

Last month, the European Commission refused to accept a request to allow an official EU-wide petition called a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to take place. This was a curiously maladroit move by the Commission: it would have been easy to allow the petition against TAFTA/TTIP and CETA to proceed, thank the organizers once it was completed, file it away somewhere and then ignore it. Instead, by refusing to allow it to take place, the European Commission has highlighted in a dramatic manner the deeply undemocratic way in which so-called trade agreements are conducted.

Moreover, those making the request have simply gone ahead anyway, launching what they call the "Self-organised European Citizens' initiative Against TTIP and CETA". Even though this was only launched last week, it has already collected over 600,000 signatures from European citizens at the time of writing, and there is every indication that it will go well past the nominal one million signatures that the ECI would have required. The European Commission's refusal to allow the official petition was doubly stupid, since it came shortly before a Europe-wide day of action against TAFTA/TTIP that took place last Saturday, and doubtless encouraged people to take to the streets in order to make their views felt:

On October 11, 2014, tens of thousands of people and hundreds of organisations in 21 countries are organising actions to reclaim democracy, and stop the negotiations on three far-reaching trade agreements: the EU-US deal (TTIP), the EU-Canada deal (CETA) and the trade in services deal (TiSA).

This decentralised European Day of Action -- consisting of over 300 actions, marches, meetings and flash mobs -- is being organised by an unprecedented alliance of civil society groups and individuals, social movements, trade unions, rights defenders, farmers and grassroots activist groups.
Reporting on the event, wrote:
Some 400 activist groups marched all over Europe on Saturday (11 October) in protest against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), as the EU-US trade deal crystallises opposition to a wide variety of issues -- from shale gas to corporate finance.
That last point is important. goes on to explain:
The opposition to TTIP has many faces however, and seems to embody a wide variety of concerns. In France, many small demonstrations focused on opposition to shale gas, especially in the South of France, while in Berlin protesters were worried that TTIP would weaken the powers of the German regions, or Länders.
Potentially, that could make the European opposition to TAFTA/TTIP even broader-based than it was to ACTA, where people were largely concerned about a single issue -- digital rights. And just as the ACTA demonstrations started off small scale, but grew to hundreds of thousands of people before ACTA was rejected by the European Parliament, so the anti-TTIP movement in Europe could easily swell larger still. Especially if the European Commission continues to conduct the negotiations in secret and without any input from its citizens.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: acta, ceta, demonstrations, eu, europe, european commission, public participation, tafta, transparency, ttip

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    David E.H.Smith, 18 Oct 2014 @ 6:33pm

    FURTHER to "SHAREHOLDERS of CETA, et al"...Submission to "The SUPREME COURT of CANADA" & The MERKEL (Chanc. Germ.) Letter"

    the harmless non shareholders of Canada, both; Native & non Native, et al.

    C-CITreaty, TPPartnership, CETAgreement, et al; More Taxes & Less Services to pay The SHAREHOLDERS (Tribunals).

    Are YOU Depriving your Highest Court of the INFO to Decide Against the Global Corporate Economy?
    Has Frau Bundaskanzarin Angela Merkel (Germ.) shared the Info with YOU?
    by David E.H. Smith

    (CAN.)...Therefore, as a consequence of the aforementioned abuses that have been listed in the enclosed research articles & the dire peril that these abuses puts the NON shareholding Canadians in, both; Native & non Native, et al, as an elaborate, ”inhumane”, ”unethical”, “immoral” & probably, criminal, enterprise, the writer humbly asks; under what circumstances would The Court consider the following?

    1) Will The Court consider ensuring that any further attempts by off shore enterprises, such as the aforementioned attempts by the global corporate “arrangements”, including
    corporate Canada & its associates within the government of Canada, et al, as a “reciprocity pool” of shared “secret decisions” against the non shareholders of Canada, et al,
    will be dealt with punitively.

    2) And, in the interim, until The Court can make a determination of any wrongful intent, &/or, abuses of the ”arrangements” as a criminal enterprise,
    will the open & public Supreme Court of Canada consider
    preventing the further use of the non shareholders' tax dollars from being used to make any, &/or, any more secret decisions against themselves, ie. the NON shareholders.

    3) Furthermore, can, or, will The Court consider ordering the return of any & all of the tax dollars that have been used by the government, &/or, corporate Canada & their lawyers, et al, that have been used for the development of the aforementioned “arrangements” of a what The Court may determine to be a criminal enterprise (for examples; a) as a means of using/legitimizing off-shore money, et al, b) laundering money from the proceeds of criminal enterprises, &/or, c) going toward the funding of “criminals”, et al, who may be involved in other criminal, or, unethical, or, inhumane, immoral enterprises),
    and thus,
    the tax dollars have not been used for the purposes that the taxpayers had intended, such as; for goods, services (particularly to police organizations & judiciaries for their investigation of, not only the aforementioned secret/privileged relationship between corporate Canada via its lobbyists
    the executives of the relevant political parties,
    but, the alleged wrong doing by others, as well),
    programs, health, education, etc. that are consistent with the NON shareholders' understanding of what “good” government entails
    return the tax dollars with punitive penalties paid to the NON shareholding Canadians, both: Native & non Native, et al.

    Similarly, given the reckless endangering situation that the government, et al, has placed the NON shareholders in, can, or, will the Court ensure that the necessary funds will be spent for their, the NON shareholders', intended purposes in order to “guarantee” these services, et al,
    consider ordering corporate Canada, its shareholders & their lawyers, advisers & service beneficiaries of the present “arrangements” will be paid with their own funds, prior to presenting their future “adventures”, &/or, “arrangements” to:
    A) The Court, &/or, its representatives
    and then,
    B) the NON shareholders for their consideration, discussions, improvements, &/or, rejections, et al,
    in open forums that have eliminated the fear of recriminations, retributions, etc. by corporate Canada, its shareholders, The Tribunals, et al.

    4 A) And, less one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous International treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians who have been deliberately deprived of the due diligence information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord, et al,

    I am compelled to ask The Court:
    will the Court consider whether, or, not The Court's recent “Tsilhqot'in Decision”, makes
    it easier for corporate Canada, its global economic associates, their shareholders, et al, to sue the Tsilhqot'in First Nation & other Native communities in Canada
    and thereby, to seek financial relief from the harmless NON shareholding, non Native Canadians via the Government of Canada? And, will The Court consider preventing
    any unrelated hardship to the NON shareholders as a consequence of the creation of the
    aforementioned Tribunals & corporate Canada & its associates intent to obtain the unencumbered access to the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada & irrespective of Native title to these lands & its resources?

    B) And, similarly, does the plan espoused by the American born Tom Eugene Flanagan which would enable First Nations communities to become municipalities, also make it easier for corporate Canada, its associates, et al, to sue Native communities, or, seek remedies from the Government of Canada (ie. from the NON shareholders) for any encumbrances that the new, Native municipalities, et al, might impose upon the development, &/or, access to the aforementioned natural resources, etc.?

    (And, regarding the settlement of Native land claims that are presently before Canadian courts, & will continue to be before the courts for some time, the following question can help The Court a great deal in these deliberations, and that is; how were Europeans convinced to settle in North America in the first place & in particular, the land that became known as Canada?)

    5) Therefore, can I only hope that given the enclosed information about the abuse, the potential for abuse & the intent of the aforementioned Tribunals which is:
    A) to abuse & to limit The Court's ability to hear...

    To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
    (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord,
    ...For the FULL ARTICLE
    see; The Supreme Court of Canada.
    “The MERKEL Letter”; To Sue, or, Be Sued?
    Re; The European Union – Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
    and The W.A.D. Accord & Its Compensation.

    What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.

    CHANCELLOR Merkel;
    In the matter of the C.E.T.A. and The W.A.D. Accord (THE ACCORD),
    as corporate Germany, and/or, the Government of Germany may be in the process of being:
    1) misled,
    2) misinformed,
    3) deliberately deprived of relevant due diligence information, et al, by corporate Canada,

    and/or, the Government of Canada
    1) the risks,
    2) the liabilities,
    3) the responsibilities
    4) et al,

    that corporate Canada, and/or, the Government of Canada may be attempting to:
    1) avoid paying,
    2) dilute the amount of,
    3) etc.,
    of its/their contribution(s) to The Compensation that is embodied in THE ACCORD (aka; “The Australian Question”) by way of the design, the development and the
    ratification of THE AGREEMENT and its Tribunals(s),


    as the attempts at the aforementioned
    “avoiding”, and/or, the “diluting” may be construed as acts
    of guilt of, but, not limited to:
    1) corporate Canada,
    2) the Government of Canada,
    3) the other signatories to THE AGREEMENT,
    5) et al,

    raises the due diligence questions regarding the charges against:
    1) corporate Canada,
    2)the Government of Canada,

    for deliberately failing to provide (the) due diligence information to its (THE) ASSOCIATES

    page 1 of 3


    2) raises the due diligence questions regarding the MUTUAL charges against all of THE ASSOCIATES to THE AGREEMENT, for deliberately failing to provide (the) due diligence information regarding THE ACCORD and The Compensation to THE SHAREHOLDERS, and/or, THE POTENTIAL SHAREHOLDERS,
    and thereby,

    THE SIGNATORIES to THE AGREEMENT and THE ASSOCIATES are in the process of creating and developing an ENTERPRISE for purposes, but, not limited to:
    A) defrauding,
    B) manipulating the value of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), stocks, and/or, other financial
    instruments that may be a product of THE ENTERPRISE and its subsequent ventures,
    C) insider trading
    D) racketeering
    E) et al,
    as a consequence of the creation and the development of the new, secret and superseding jurisdiction by THE ASSOCIATES, and, thus, the creation of the “de facto”
    jurisdiction, and the creation of THE TRIBUNAL(s) in order to:
    1) PROTECT:
    B) the Government Signatories to THE AGREEMENT,
    C) the proceeds of the alleged criminal ENTERPRISE
    D) et al,

    by preventing:
    A) investigations,
    B) evidence and testimony,
    C) findings, decisions,
    determinations, and/or, conclusions
    D) et al,

    from being:
    A) conducted,
    B) disclosed, and/or, made public,
    and thereby, render any, and all, judgements, and findings by the courts of lesser, and/or,
    “non” jurisdictions against:
    A) THE ASSOCIATES, and/or, their representatives,
    C) the subsequent, and/or, associated ventures, et al,
    D) the Government Signatories to THE AGREEMENT,

    to be; moot, null, void, and/or, without merit,
    and thus,
    render any actions against the aforementioned ASSOCIATES, et al, unenforceable
    provide the basis for “net” counter-suits against THE NON SHAREHOLDERS by way of the Governments of THE NON SHAREHOLDERS, that is to say the Government of Canada, et al,

    page 2 of 3 and

    2) SECRETLY ADJUDICATE, determine and enforce “net” decisions against THE NON SHAREHOLDERS
    and the lesser provincial/state and municipal governments via the agreeable SIGNATORY Governments (that is to say; The
    Government of Canada, et al) by way of:
    A) punitive; fines, penalties,
    and/or, damages,
    B) trade sanctions
    C) et al,
    for depriving THE ASSOCIATES of the profits that could be derived as a consequence of the unimpeded, and/or, unencumbered development of the ventures of THE ASSOCIATES and THE ENTERPRISE,
    and, as a consequence of the
    aforementioned actions, and others,
    I am compelled to inform you of this notification.

    Other charges that have been raised against:
    1) THE ASSOCIATES, and/or, their representatives,
    3) the subsequent, and/or, associated ventures, et al,
    4) the Government Signatories to THE AGREEMENT
    5) et al,
    1) deliberate ignorance,
    2) malicious intent,
    3) depraved indifference,
    4) reckless endangerment
    5) et al.

    In conclusion, as the Government of Germany has publicly acknowledged its concern about the “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” (I.S.D.S.) in THE AGREEMENT, I would ask you, Frau Bundaskanzarin Merkel, if you might be amenable to discussing the merits of enjoining in a suit against:
    1) corporate Canada,
    2) the Government of Canada
    3) et al?


    David E.H. Smith
    - Researcher
    - “Qui tam...”
    page 3 of 3

    For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement,
    TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.