Water Cannons Used Against Peaceful Anti-TTIP Protestors: the Next ACTA Revolt? 142
Glyn Moody (946055) writes "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), potentially the world's biggest trade agreement, has been negotiated behind closed doors for nearly a year now. Apart from what we learn from a few official releases — and an increasing number of leaks — we still don't really know what is being agreed in the name of 800 million people in the U.S. and EU. When a peaceful anti-TTIP protest was held outside yet another closed-doors meeting in Belgium, the local police sent in the water cannons and arrested nearly 300 people in what seems an extreme over-reaction. Will TTIP turn into the next ACTA revolt?"
Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
SPIRIT OF 1848 (Score:3)
We need a few more of 1789, too...
They feed you bullshit about "reign of terror"...
What of the terror that lasted under these estates, from late Roman times, through the so called "Enlightenment"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
be-headed towards...
Re: (Score:2)
Why the over-reaction? Ooh, we have a treaty that has been negotiated in secret for a year. Of course, it tends to ignore that 1.) ALL treaties are negotiated in secret, and 2.) treaties do not take force in the United States unless voted on and ratified by the US Senate, which will certainly take every opportunity to publicly expose and fight over every last detail. Never mind, that's enough reason to have a revolution!
Read up sometime on the spirit of 1789 and how it resulted in the deaths of tens of thou
Re: (Score:2)
What's that? They weren't actually violent? LOL. You should have paid people to walk into the crowd with masks on who would then start throwing rocks at windows. No professional journalist is going to question use of force against (shudder) ROCK THROWERS!
Wait, back up, I'm sorry. Nevermind about the agent provokateurs. Just say they were violent. No professional journalist is going to question...
Re: (Score:1)
When the negotiations are done, each country can either accept it or reject it through a democratic process.
Seems kinda funny. Heh.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I don't know what country he is talking about, but here in the good ol' US o' A, we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
If we can keep it.
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:4, Informative)
we have a Republic, not a Democracy. If we can keep it.
A republic [wikipedia.org] is a country that is not a monarchy. Whether a country is a republic or not is orthogonal to whether it is a democracy.
Examples of countries that are republics:
The United States of America
North Korea
China
France
Germany
Cuba
Examples of countries that are NOT republics:
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Japan
Britain
Norway
I think the term you are looking for is "representative democracy", which may be either a republic or a monarchy.
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the term you are looking for is "representative democracy", which may be either a republic or a monarchy.
yeah...a "representative democracy" the way choosing Coke or Pepsi counts as selecting your favorite beverage.
with the two-party stranglehold its neither a democracy nor representative.
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law, rather than inherited or appointed
Kim Jong Un replaced his father. Castro is expected to be succeeded by a family member without vote as well. Yet you listed both of those as "republics". I think "not monarchy" is too narrow. The power comes from the people (democracy), not divine (monarchies) or guns (dictatorships). Your definition would have violent dictatorships listed as "power by the people", which doesn't sound quite right. And Canada is tuled by elected leaders and run according to law. So again, your take disagrees with the statements within your cite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing a type of Government with what someone chooses to call themselves. I'd suggest starting at reading the US Constitution followed by the definition of a Republican type of Government. Long ago we were a Republic, which if you really want to learn something go read Plato's book by the same name. We were very much formed in the image Socrates gives in that book for a perfect form of Government. Corruption happens, and by definition we are now either an Oligarchy or Despotism (depending on
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the media and schools have taught people and kids that America is 'Democracy" is bad enough. Look at the push to make the President a popular vote.
They forget that in a true Democracy, Socrates was voted to death.
"When you listen to fools, the mob rules."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Athens had just come through a difficult period, where a Spartan-supported group, called the Thirty Tyrants had overturned the city's participatory democracy and sought to impose oligarchic rule. The fact that Critias, the leader of the Tyrants, was one of Socrates's pupils was not seen as a coincidence."
So it had been a participatory democracy, not supported by Socrates, and then to an oligarchy, then back to a democracy at the time of trial.
"Athenian juries were drawn by lottery from a group of male citi
Re: (Score:2)
In Athens the only "citizens" were men of "means". Women had no rights, non-property owners had no rights, and slaves had no rights. This is why it is not a true "democracy". Socrates was very critical of the Athenian Government because it was so restrictive when it came to representation in the Democracy. In "The Republic" Socrates states his beliefs very clearly. Women should count just as much as men and perform any job a man can do, slavery should not exist because it weakens the Republic. "Childr
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why it matters who can vote, if the laws are passed by popular vote, it is a direct democracy.
The "women and children can't vote" argument makes no sense at all, it is immaterial to the discussion. Yes,. that voting block might be an oligarchy, it is irrelevant if they rule by majority rule voting.
Socrates did not want Athens to be a democracy, that is clear, but it WAS a democracy at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you should look at the definition of Oligarchy before claiming it does not matter. If it is a select group of people and not a majority of the people, then it's called an "Oligarchy" and not a "Democracy".
The "women and children can't vote" argument makes no sense at all, it is immaterial to the discussion.
You are nitpicking a fragement out of a statement to make your argument. Read the first sentence given In Athens the only "citizens" were men of "means". There were more than women and children given as an example of people that could not vote, primarily non-property owners which were the majori
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Noes! Not an anonymous sock puppet claiming that the book is going to dumb people down. The Oligarchy works so well because people don't study history and have no idea what we knew nearly 3,000 years ago in the way of rhetoric, justice, knowledge of government, etc...
At best a few college students learn "The Allegory of the Cave" from the work, which is a critical concept for people to consider when dealing with media and Governments. Most people don't ever hear of this even, because the Oligarchy doe
Re: (Score:2)
So the United States of America is not a republic? It was founded on common law principles and things like contract law still exist mainly as case law. You're thinking of the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
Re: (Score:2)
The term is a "Republic of Republics"
Well, we had the Madison "aristocracy" right from the start, so it is not that unusual, historically.
The real risk is the current trend of putting power in the executive branch because the legislative appears to be deadlocked.
We are on the road to Caesars.
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You and I have a vastly different idea of the democratic process.. I mean if we dont know whats in it, and cannot vote on it, then there is no democratic process involved.
The fact is that in the U.S., the process is supposed to be kind of democratic, but in practice since Bush and Obama have been in office, it has taken a pretty big hit.
There are three things at issue here. The first is that while it has not been definitively decided by courts, it is generally asknowledged that treaties do not trump the Constitution in regard to internal matters. The second is that treaties have to be ratified by the Senate before they are legal. (Of course, when the Constitution was writ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to start with Reagan:
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/debunking-the-debunkers-of-october-surprise/ And of course we have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair -- Not really debatable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have read many of the theories, but they lack factual evidence. Since the early 1900s we have some facts, but even those don't survive well. Main stories do, like Jeckle Island, but much of the side evidence either does not exist or has been lost/destroyed.
As to right after the founding, again probably correct. The founding fathers were against central banks for example, and it took very little time for central bank bills to start being introduced. Claiming it was intentional to undermine the USA as o
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, the leaks indicate that the US has let loose the corporate dogs, particularly in big Pharma and Agriculture, to snarl and threaten the peaceful existence of the smaller countries involved.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if we dont know whats in it, and cannot vote on it, then there is no democratic process involved.
Nonsense. You don't know what's in "it" because there is no "it" yet. Once the treaty is negotiated, anyone can read it, and it is up to each country to accept or reject it with whatever process they wish. There is long history of these treaties, and the ONLY way to reach an agreement is through fast track negotiations. An open process allows vested special interests to nitpick, stall, and pressure. Without a fast track process, most countries won't even bother to participate, because the chance of suc
Re: (Score:1)
The thing you are missing is that, for the most part, these types of negotiations are done by appointees who are not answerable to the public. They take the guidance of the "experts" in the subject matter who just happen to be corporate flunkies. For example, is it really in the best interest of the population of the united states that copyright be strengthened? Probably not - yet the US Chamber of Commerce, which has a strong influence in these sorts of negotiations, has historically been the guiding hand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, both US parties are in the pockets of the same financial sponsors, so good luck getting any kind of democratic representation without serious refo
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of these trade agreements is to gain broad economic advantages instead of narrow special interests, protectionism, and subsidies. Opening up the negotiating process would allow all those vested interests and rent seekers to apply pressure to preserve their privileges, and end up sabotaging the process.
You are hopelessly naive.
In practice, these "trade agreements" (like SOPA, for a good example) have been notoriously wide open to special interests, but closed to the public. In fact, public interest groups (like EFF and others) ended up finding out about any of them because of leaks by industry, not the government.
Whatever "the point" is, it most definitely has not been done that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, these "trade agreements" (like SOPA, for a good example) ...
SOPA was not a trade agreement. In fact, it was not even an international agreement, or even a proposed international agreement, of any kind. You might want to look for a better "good example".
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that is in fact a pretty accurate statement. The TTIP, TPP, SOPA et al pretty much where all not trade agreements but all pretty much conspiratorial corporate takeovers of the democratic process, basically, touching treason as they hard government representatives acting against the interests of the citizens in favour of multi-national corporations, 'er' persons (corporate bullshit thing) who are citizens of no country and owe allegiance to no nation.
The fear the internet and what it is doing to re-democratise nations and are looking to lock in corporate autocracy. This prior to us putting justice back into the system and hanging those mother fuckers high, well, actually confiscation of illegally gained assets from gross tax and extreme evasion and applying appropriate imprisonment for many and varied corporate crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
They are accountable. When the negotiations are done, each country can either accept it or reject it through a democratic process.
Votes by elected representatives = Republic
An actual democratic process would involve a national referendum.
Of course, the idea of the public voting terrifies the type of people who write these treaties,
because it's so easy for the public to latch onto any one aspect and torpedo the entire thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Votes by elected representatives = Republic
Huh? I live in a monarchy, it is still voted on by elected representatives who are the government. The head of state then rubber stamps it. There are republics that are dictatorships as well, no elected representatives or sham ones.
Re: (Score:1)
They are accountable. When the negotiations are done, each country can either accept it or reject it through a democratic process.
Sounds a lot like the choices are rigged, and you can chose from candidate/policy a) or b) that were both preselected for you. Democratic process my ass.
The whole point of these trade agreements is to gain broad economic advantages instead of narrow special interests, protectionism, and subsidies.
Which is why the discussions should be open. Private meetings IS narrow special interests and protectionism.
Opening up the negotiating process would allow all those vested interests and rent seekers to apply pressure to preserve their privileges, and end up sabotaging the process.
No, having private meetings sabotages the democratic process, and all you are left with is vested interests and rent seekers applying pressure to preserve their privileges. You are either thoroughly misled, or handsomely paid for spreading lies.
These protesters portray themselves to be representing the interests of the "common people" when the truth is the exact opposite.
Where
Re:Silly Peasants (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure is a nice economy you have there. It would be a shame is suddenly everyone were to stop allowing your goods into our country. Why don't we have a nice talk over here about some changes you're going to love.
Re: (Score:3)
each country can either accept it or reject it through a democratic process.
no, sorry. firstly, countries don't accept or reject things, PEOPLE IN POWER in those countries do.
secondly, well, fuck it, we all know that we lose when it comes to private deals, big money and big spying.
we lost. we will always lose. david won't win against goliath; only in story books does that happen.
yes, we're fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so you mean to tell me that everything will be disclosed? If it's all going to be disclosed then the negotiations should be available for public scrutiny. Waiting for something like this to be voted on before review is shear idiocy (just like the Patriot Act where all the politicians yell "Surprise! Now bend over!"). I do hope the peasants get their pitchforks out and start hanging politicians for this kind of thing. I mean, it's not like the politicians livelihoods are getting shafted, they contin
Re: (Score:3)
The whole purpose of these treaties are to carve out new opportunities for special interests and rent seekers to harvest wealth from the small folk like you and me. Whatever you think of the benefits of free trade, these treaties are created to prevent it, and for no other reason.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with secret negotiations is political realities: once a compromise has been reached, it is pretty much set in stone: no one will want to go back to the table to propose further amendments (effectively restarting the negotiation), and no government who was involved in the proceedings will agree to the deal and t
Protests were Illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
The law in Belgium states that it is illegal to hold public protests without authorisation from the municipality.
The video on this site, shows the round-up, and it seems, VERY VERY controlled and peaceful on both sides.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-... [ibtimes.co.uk]
Nice people, the Belgish...
Re: (Score:3)
I like what's printed on the back of their jackets "Police Politie". I take that to mean polite policeman :^)
But yea, forming a human chain in front of the building got the protesters arrested.
Re: (Score:3)
I see the smiley, but in case someone else misses it -- it's just their bilingual logo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is Dutch and means Police [google.com]. Belgium is half french-speaking half dutch-speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And Nedderdüütsch.
Re: (Score:3)
The Flemish, who make up 60% of the population (not 50% as grandparent claims), speak Dutch. The existence of local variants in the language are no basis for a claim that there a multiple languages. Otherwise you'd have very few English speakers in the world.
Belgium is a trilingual country; there is a small population of German speakers.
Brussels is a bilingual region. It is geographically located in the Dutch-speaking Flanders, historically Flemish and Dutch speaking
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you guys could have googled that.
The Flemish, who make up 60% of the population (not 50% as grandparent claims), speak Dutch. The existence of local variants in the language are no basis for a claim that there a multiple languages. Otherwise you'd have very few English speakers in the world.
Belgium is a trilingual country; there is a small population of German speakers.
Brussels is a bilingual region. It is geographically located in the Dutch-speaking Flanders, historically Flemish and Dutch speaking, but currently more an international city.
tell that to the Vlaams and see how long your balls last...LOL
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the "Vlamingen"?
To be fair, though, I like the Flemish dialect more than standard Dutch. More refined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I am a native Dutch speaker, and while (West) Flemish has its own ISO language code, they're really Dutch dialects and they are much more intelligible to me (and most Dutch) than West Frisian. West Frisian, now that is a language in its own right, even though it's spoken in Friesland, a Dutch province.
Re: (Score:2)
tell that to the Vlaams and see how long your balls last...LOL
By "the Vlaams" I assume you mean "the Flemish" or "Vlamingen." I am one, so; fail.
Also, we are not a violent people.
Re: (Score:2)
They were very groovy people and outspoken in many Flemish issues
As for not being violent... i do think you DELIBERATELY miss the point of what i was saying and thus
dicks like you are why UKIP are on the rise.. yeah.. YOU LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Belgium, the state, is mono-lingual - I've yet to get ANYTHING (even on request) from the state, national rail, phone-companies, hospitals or much of anyone else in anything but French.
Heck, even the local hospital here in Brussels have everything in French, with a few (random?) signs also duplicated in Dutch and in smaller letters.
I even tried to sign up for things specifically in Flanderen - when stuff then gets sent to me in Brussels, it is in French.
Re: (Score:2)
The Brussels region, and its Flemish suburbs, hosts a lot of belligerently anti-Flemish French speakers. You have to go through a lot of hassle, and can be submitted to a lot of abuse, if you want to be addressed in anything else than French. This is, though, a flagrant violation of language laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprouts or Phlegms.
Re:Protests were Illegal (and last Thursday) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, if you look at the first video on http://www.ttip2014.eu/blog-de... [ttip2014.eu] around 0:20 you will see in the background a protestor holding out his hand to get it tight. Looks to me extremely civilized from both side. I don't see any overreaction. And if - possibly - the protest was unauthorized, participants might be offered a trip to the next police station for IDing. Civil disobidience has its price.
And now before the US side claims that there is no freedom in Europe if protests need to be authorized: If authorization is denied, you can sue against it on a quick track. That's the reason why even the extreme right, which most people would like to deny protesting rights, can do it again and again.
So TTIP might be bad and all but exagerating things just to prolong the attention (Protest was already last Thursday) is not the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the US protests have some constraints. Not on private property, no disruption of over people, etc.
The right to protest is in our constitution, but it is a right whether a government supports it or not. It's simply that some governments punish protestors more vigorously than others. We all remember pepper spray cop, even here where protesting is "allowed".
Re: (Score:2)
And you can't murder anyone.
Oh wait, that's already illegal. As is mucking about on other people's property and a bunch of other actions that are generally dickish in nature.
It's like we don't need special rules about what is and is not a "protest" because it shouldn't fucking matter and the "free speech zone" includes all of the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Even in the US protests have some constraints. Not on private property, no disruption of over people, etc.
Only in "free speech" zones, and all that. There's nothing "illegal" about having a protest on private property. The difference is that on private property, the owner can request you leave. But nothing that prevents you from holding a protest on your own private property or someone else's with permission (or even without permission, in some cases). But the government is working on banning protests, especially in areas where it's inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no disruption of over people
Was that an intended typo or a Freudian slip?
Re: (Score:2)
The law in Belgium states that it is illegal to hold public protests without authorisation from the municipality.
I guess introducing a law that requires citizens to jump off the bridges would sort that all out.
After all, laws should not be questioned or disobeyed. Ever. Because they are there to protect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. You can complain only if protests are forbidden routinely regardless of request for authorization - but it is not happening, absolute majority of protests is allowed.
Rules for registration make perfect sense - quite often, you have two antagonist groups protesting (pro-gay and ultra-right-wing for example) on same day in same city. Thanks to authorization, city can make sure they will remain separate and put extra police in places they might meet.
Now, in some imaginary Europe where you would
The Secrecy Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
has been negotiated behind closed doors for nearly a year now
There is no excuse for the closed door policy. This is an agreement that could affect hundreds of millions of people, but they're not allowed to know what's going on? It'll be dumped in a "take it or leave it" form. Congress and parliaments openly debate bills, why the secrecy here? Because they're afraid that people will object to certain provisions? Good. It's the right of people to know how agreements that will affect them are being negotiated. Would that make the agreemnet impossible to agree on? Tough, that'll be because it's an agreement people don't want. Try again. Sorry if the democracy stuff makes your lives harder.
Re:The Secrecy Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Numerous Senate and Congressional meetings occur behind closed doors.
We're hardly fully transparent.
Translucent on a good day...
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that Western power brokers allow their respective populaces the illusion of choice (suffrage),
encourages me that they don't believe they can just take what they want. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Numerous Senate and Congressional meetings don't revolve around the principles of exporting the most hated parts of the US legal system to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not familiar with EU policy: Do the member states have to ratify stuff like this through direct popular vote? Or is it like the US where our elected keepers will push it through without any regards to public opinion or the best interests of their constituents?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See Nice Treaty, Lisbon Treaty
See also the Not-So-Nice treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
No Ireland still gets to vote on issues which would amend the Irish constitution, that continues to remain in force and was mostly the reason we got a vote on these treaties in the first place as I recall. The politicians can agree to whatever they want but if it means changing a word of Bunreacht na hEireann they have to run it by the people first. Which while awesome is mostly used by the population to strategically force the politicians to get a better deal rather than specifically opting out of European
Re:The Secrecy Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress and parliaments openly debate bills,
Only after they have gone through committees and had a lot of "behind closed doors" discussions. This agreement will be debated by every government that needs to enact it.
It'll be dumped in a "take it or leave it" form.
There is a third option; send it back for revision.
why the secrecy here?
Do you really think is is a good idea for every proposal or wording to be debated in the open? Most of these idea/proposals will not make it into the final draft yet having to publicly defend them will just distract from the work at hand.
Because they're afraid that people will object to certain provisions that never get into the final draft.
FTFY
The problem with public review of every proposal is that it stifles creativity. Try having a creative discussion when every proposal must be perfect before it is presented. It does not work.
Re:The Secrecy Sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with public review of every proposal is that it stifles creativity.
I'm 100% okay with stifling the "creativity" of these government thugs. 99% of the time they're trying to take away our rights; their "creativity" won't be missed.
Though, your statement is a load of bullshit to begin with. Public debate can and should be part of the process. Always. That's what it means to live in a free & open society. Do you honestly think it's okay for these scumbags to be debating legislation behind closed doors, getting bribed by industry assholes, and for people to have no real idea what's happening? I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress and parliaments openly debate bills,
Only after they have gone through committees and had a lot of "behind closed doors" discussions. This agreement will be debated by every government that needs to enact it.
Debated as a take it or leave it proposition. No real debate. No chance to change it.
It'll be dumped in a "take it or leave it" form.
There is a third option; send it back for revision.
No option to send it back. This is a truly "take it or leave it" question.
why the secrecy here?
Do you really think is is a good idea for every proposal or wording to be debated in the open? Most of these idea/proposals will not make it into the final draft yet having to publicly defend them will just distract from the work at hand.
Because the peasants might have objections and the peasants are always a distraction.
Corporations, OTOH, have the inside track to get their proposals in place without distraction.
Because they're afraid that people will object to certain provisions that never get into the final draft.
FTFY
The problem with public review of every proposal is that it stifles creativity. Try having a creative discussion when every proposal must be perfect before it is presented. It does not work.
Yes, it's certainly much more "creative" to just have the corporations and bureaucrats write the agreement.
Those peasants are too creative and just gum up the works.
Re: (Score:2)
...
Do you really think is is a good idea for every proposal or wording to be debated in the open?
Absolutely.
Most of these idea/proposals will not make it into the final draft yet having to publicly defend them will just distract from the work at hand.
First off - it is not a given that "the work at hand" even needs to be done. The fact that corporations and other power brokers want these agreements does not mean that they are "needed" by citizens of the affected nations at large, or the world in general.
Second - the need to publicly defend proposals is a good thing, not a "distraction". Every stake-holder should have the ability to see and comment on the draft as it is developed. But only select government "representatives" and corporations a
Re: (Score:2)
It is only finalized after the involved countries pass legislation to enact the agreement. When the bill comes before the individual countries that is the time for open debate and objections.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no excuse for the closed door policy. This is an agreement that could affect hundreds of millions of people, but they're not allowed to know what's going on?
I've long come to the conclusion that any law/treaty/etc that's discussed in closed door locations should probably be ignored by the population at large. After all, it's not being discussed in the spirit of a free and open society, why should society pay heed to such a law.
You want hitlers to rise to power (Score:1)
Because this is how you git hitlers to rise to power.
Re: (Score:1)
No, Hitler got to power because the US was funding nazis.
Oh wait..
Every Frickin' Time! (Score:3)
Water Cannons (Score:1)
an increasing number of leaks indeed.
Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
USA media companies want to make copyright infringement an extraditable offence in all the signing countries, so they don't have to go through the pain they're having with Kim Dotcom.
First time I read the English acronym (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't even know what it's called in English! known as "Grand Marché Transatlantique" here. But we vaguely know what's coming, mainly that big corporations will be allowed to sue sovereign states so that they can overrule the rule of law.. which is ridiculous, but we should know we can't write off things because they sound so stupid and ridiculous and "they'd never dare do that".
I'm sure a lot of media bickering will be done regarding what hormones can be in food or such and such old issues. About the only real piece of news was about one year ago when France "stood up" to the Man and got Culture exempted - i.e. books, television, movies etc. Like accepting the rest does not matter! All that France, EU, US have won is there will be less opposition from celebrities, writers, artists etc.
But as I said it's not what we have to care about. "Officially" that TTIP is set to come online by 2015. For all I care it's the date that European Union will become a dictatorship. I didn't thought that would come so early.
Of note is that European elections (for the "parliament") are this Sunday, so be sure to show up at the vote! DON'T vote for a party that supports that thing (even if simply by omission), or is actively "negociating" it while never communicating about it at all. Don't vote for a mainstream "socialist" party, they're selling themselves and selling you to oligarchical interests. e.g. maybe it's a better idea to vote "Die Linke" than "SPD".
If you don't want to vote left-wing please vote for a right-wing non-nazi party or list that say negative stuff about the treaty or Europe in general.
Be careful what you are posting here (Score:2)
all your anti-government rants are probably being recorded by the NSA.
Being that said, there is one golden rule in any political duel:
The enemy of your enemy is ALWAYS your fiend
Re: (Score:2)
More often than not, the enemy of your enemy is just another enemy.
Kennedy said it best (Score:3)
WTF? (Score:2)
The US press has been been bought and sold on this (Score:2)
Belgian police (Score:2, Interesting)
After checking some local newspaper: the protest was allowed, but the protester did go outside of the previously allowed area automatically enticing a police action. However the videos i have seen look like the matter was handled in a very professional and controlled manner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sff3GjtSZRw
Re: (Score:2)
If I thought your "step 2" would have any negative impact on the media companies, I'd be all in favor of it. Your "step 1" has a lot more effect than your "step 2", which is just used as an excuse for more repressive laws.
More effective would be to publish the home address of their secretaries. (They probably have their own homes already protected.)