EU EU TPD Postponed :)

[Toby]

Simon Clark - Taking Liberties - European Parliament postpones vote on Tobacco Products.Directive

 

[tommy2bad]

Good news. Mt mep tweeted this in response!

Nessa Childers MEP ‏@NChildersMEP4h
@mikakosinska @EPHA_EU You can see how lobbyists deal with this on twitter. Numerous e cig ones advancing on me in five minutes!

Oh dear! another twit that cant tell the diference.

 

[AgentAnia]

Wow... Did anyone see this coming?

 

[Toby]

Unfortunately it's still not definitely postponed yet...

From another source, a slightly different interpretation of events:

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) will support the centre right EPP request to postpone the TPD plenary vote from next week to October. However the final decision will be made tomorrow (Thursday) at a meeting of the political group leaders. The Socialist Group (along with the Commission) is fiercely opposing postponement. This means it could be overturned ...

 

[gayhalo]

Are you sure it says...

The decision, supported by the EPP, ALDE and ECR Groups – which together command a majority in the Parliament

Does someone have the power to oppose the majority.
Maybe more evidence of lack of democracy?

 

[tommy2bad]

@gayhalo Hence the frantic twittering this afternoon about Big tobacco lobbying specifically citing the ecig proponents.
Acording to the Facebook page of Dr. Renate Sommer, MdEP the ecigs and the graphic warnings were the most controversial parts and they (the Christian Democrats) now support the legal afairs commity recommendations on these measures.
i.e. removing the forced medicalization of ecigs except whare a health claim is made and the reduction to 50% for graphic warnings.
https://www.facebook.com/DrRenateSommer/posts/381975018596395
Youll need google translate and the mind of a sleuth to figure out what she said. I'm just guessing really but thats my take on it.

 

[Toby]

The vote is confirmed as delayed till the 8th October.

 

[Toby]

But now McAvan is submitting Rule 140 amend to put TPD back on agenda for next week.
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament - May 2013 - Rule 140 - Adopting and amending the agenda

It means that on Monday she only requires 40 signatures to get the TPD back on track. It has been confirmed that this is her intention and as far as numbers go she will have no trouble achieving it.

Rule 140 is not meant for this and it is an abuse of its existence.

 

[Oliver]

I hate to say this, but it's looking increasingly likely that the vote will indeed be happening next week.

My sources are telling me that Linda McAvan has invoked rule 140 in order to have an emergency debate next Monday which will force the vote to happen on Tuesday. We will know for sure by 4pm.

Note that after this became apparent, Linda McAvan put up this blog post: Linda McAvan MEP - Latest News

In other words, on the one hand she's saying she believes the vote will be in October, but behind the scenes she's using a rule to force the vote through, and she knows she will get this.

One can only conclude that she's trying to throw us off the scent.

So, we need urgent action right now across Europe to get MEPs to vote (a) against the vote on Monday, and (b) against the TPD on Tuesday.

[edit - sorry, hadn't seen Toby's post above]

 

[gayhalo]

Why would they ask for a delay today and vote to have it reinstated Monday? If she show so much desperation then I think she will loose support not gain it.

 

[Oliver]

She only needs forty MEPs to vote on her side for it to be forced through.

 

[tommy2bad]

Clive Bates has said on his blog that she is unlikely to gain enough support for her 140 attempt. It's intended for urgent use and this is only a 4 week delay and not that urgent.

 

[Thommi]

"Around 570 children between the ages of 11-15 start smoking everyday in the UK and we cannot justify a delay in acting on this."

I like that, gives quite an opportunity to ask back a few questions, like:

1) How many of these 570 children between the ages of 11-15 would stay away from start smoking if the new regulation was in place already?
2) How many of these 570 children between the ages of 11-15 would stay away from start smoking if ecigs were publicly known to be a safer alternative and same easy available to minors as tobacco cigarettes are?
3) How many additional children between the ages of 11-15 would start vaping if ecigs were publicly known to be a safer alternative and same easy available to minors as tobacco cigarettes are?
4) If #2 minus #3 is greater than #1, then why don´t we protect our children the better way?

I just don´t know who could forward these questions to her.

 

[Toby]

Date confirmed for October tweeted by D Dorn.

 

[gayhalo]

I like that, gives quite an opportunity to ask back a few questions, like:

1) How many of these 570 children between the ages of 11-15 would stay away from start smoking if the new regulation was in place already?
2) How many of these 570 children between the ages of 11-15 would stay away from start smoking if ecigs were publicly known to be a safer alternative and same easy available to minors as tobacco cigarettes are?
3) How many additional children between the ages of 11-15 would start vaping if ecigs were publicly known to be a safer alternative and same easy available to minors as tobacco cigarettes are?
4) If #2 minus #3 is greater than #1, then why don´t we protect our children the better way?

I just don´t know who could forward these questions to her.

Truth is she doesn't care. Her paymaster wants e cigs banned. That's all that matters.

 

[Berylanna]

Clive Bates has said on his blog that she is unlikely to gain enough support for her 140 attempt. It's intended for urgent use and this is only a 4 week delay and not that urgent.

Everyone in the Tobacco Control ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Pharma Protection field knows it IS urgent to get this passed before they get caught. Kind-of like needing a fast car for a getaway after a robbery.