This is insane. And you guys know it’s the US government who wants this secrecy right? Since it’s the same as the TPP which is nothing to do with us. The crazy thing is that I’m not even EU, I’m EEA, but my government is all for this agreement. For reasons. Idiots.
2 Likes
Is that what Investor-state dispute settlement panels are called these days?
1 Like
Or say pass a law (since that’s what these people do) stating that trade agreements negotiations must be open to all legislative representatives at all stages of of the negotiations or they cannot be brought to a vote.
2 Likes
The business executives have no need to read it. They wrote it.
5 Likes
If something is … then authority will want it imprisoned. Don’t matter what.
1 Like
You’re not supposed to view it at all, that’s how. You’re only supposed to hear about it, as in “don’t worry, MEPs have access to the full text.”
“normally”
3 Likes
Looking at the bill isn’t the problem. It’s writing down the contents verbatim that is the problem.
But that aside, the first “mistake” Flanigan made was to sign the document. If he violates any conditions therein, he has opened himself up for legal action.
If Flanigan really wanted to buck the system, he would have signed his “name” as a flowing, illegible “I. D. Klein”, then walked out of there with the entire TPP document under his arm.
That would have no legal effect. At least not in Ireland or any common law system unfortunately.
Plus the issue being highlighted here was the way the secrecy is maintained. Greenpeace looked after the text.
Agreed that the issue being highlighted is the secrecy. But let’s change topics slightly: you’re telling me that if you fail to sign your name to a document, you are bound by its terms?
It’s one thing to refuse, another to deliberately fake signing it. I don’t know the legal ramifications in the EU, but if he didn’t sign he wouldn’t have been authorized to enter the document room. I’d think all sorts of fraud and trespassing charges could apply.
Signing is a funny thing. In common law you don’t have to sign a contract for example merely act as if the contract is valid (accept and consideration happening) in this case if you sign some squiggle the Jesuitical wriggle that “sir, that is not my signature!” Would elicit absolutely no sympathy from a judge. It would be a bit like a farcical freeman on the land refusal to recognize the court. And rightly so. It’s bollocks imho.
Yes, well, that is an obvious extreme that wouldn’t fly. But if you were to write quite clearly, “I Do Not Agree” or some such unambiguous language, wouldn’t the courts agree that you are declining to accept the terms of the contract?
And the gatekeeper wouldn’t let you in then because you hadn’t agreed to the terms and conditions…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
