 Herzlich Willkommen zu unserer kleinen Woche. Mein Name ist Karina Nuckour und ich arbeite als Kampainerin bei CAMPEC. Ich bin Marita Strasser, auch Kampainerin. Ich bin der erste Ereignis von 2 CAMPEC. Seit einem Jahr für das Thema FITEP und die Europäische Bürgerinitiative zuständig. CAMPEC ist ein Bürgernetzwerk, eine Bürgerbewegung, die online und offline miteinander verbindet, um mit dem Ziele eine Prozessinbewegung voranzubringen. Die schöne neue Welt der Handelsabkommen der USA. Da sind vier Abkommen benannt. Die Bullets sind wieder nicht richtig. Es werden noch mehr. Wir sagen übrigens nie frei Handelsabkommen dazu. Das Wort frei Handelsabkommen, Sie sind nicht frei Handelsabkommen, Sie sind nicht frei Handelsabkommen. Wir sprechen übrigens nie frei Handelsabkommen dazu. Das Wort frei Handelsabkommen, Sie sind nicht frei Handelsabkommen. Das Wort frei Handelsabkommen, Sie sind die Regierung und die Regierung sind die Burma d'Artenwas. Es geht darum, ne��ibriere Politik um zu verportieren. Wie seine letzten Jahrzehnte entendeu, ich habe versucht zu analyticen ihre demokratische Die meisten dieser Abkommen werden vollkommen geheim verhandelt, jahrelang. Und dann überfallartig verabschiedet, gratifiziert. Und dass irgendjemand davon weiß, die Abgeordneten darüber entscheiden. Eingeschlossen. Das meiste oder viele von denen, was wir wissen, beruht, der daher aufliegt. Ja, das ist die Grundlage unserer Arbeit. Ja, wenn wir über Handelsabkommen reden, dann sollen wir direkt zum Kern das Problem vorstellen. Und das sind die unseligen Investor-Startklagen, die in den meisten dieser Handelsabkommen drin sind. Investor-Startklagen werden auch kurz mit dem niedlichen Kürzel ISDS. Abgekürzt ISDS steht für Investor's Date Dispute Settlement. Und das bedeutet, dass den einzelnen Konzern, die in den verschiedenen Kreisen sind, wirtschaftlich tätig sind, erlaubt wird, vor Gericht zu ziehen gegen einen der Vertragspartner, also einen der beiden Vertragspartner der beiden Staaten. Nehmen wir mal beispielsweise TTIP. Das ist ein Abkommen des Zwischen der EU und den USA. Die Regierungen, also die EU-Kommission und die Regierungspartner und die Interessanterweise erlauben, dass die Kompagnen nicht die Regierungspartner sind, sondern die Substanzerreise der Kompagnen, also die Regierungspartner, das bedeutet also, wenn wir einen Konzern haben, der in einem Beispielsfall, sagen wir mal, Das heißt, die USA könnte mit einer Schichtgerichtung sowohl in den USA, als auch in den EU-Fraktion. Ja, und warum regen wir uns über diese Räder? Das ist eine zukommene Privatisierung des Erwährendenkreises. Das ist eine Privatisierung des Erwährendenkreises. Jederzeit vor diesem zusätzlichen Gremium geklagt werden kann, das heißt, ein Unternehmen, das sich irgendwann beißt, jederzeit verlügt, muss nicht in der Praxis, gibt, man kann auch in keiner von ihnen davon kommen, um die Verklagen zu verklagen, kann man spielen. Aber die Besonderung in der Praxis ist eben, dass man den Staat aufgrund anderer Klauseln verklagen kann hier im normalen Recht nicht vorgesehen. Also, ich muss sagen, diese drei Personen, die jeder Verklage gesehen, wir haben heute auch, die können jeweils tauschen von Verfahrensverfahren. Also, wer in einem Verfahren die Kläger-Seite vertreten kann, kann in einem Verfahren der Richter sein. Und wir brauchen die Lawyers, die die deal with this kind of things, can switch between the prosecutor and the judge and these private work structures. Im Großteil aller Klagen weltweit machen unterschiedlichen wechselnden Rollen sind immer dieselben. Daraus entstehen natürlich auch Fressenkonflikte. Es gibt auch einen sogenannten Ehrengruppe-Podex, das gibt auch einen natürlichen Konflikt von Interesse. Und da ist ein Pseudo-Podex noch nicht mal festgelegt, was ein Fressen-Konflikt ist. Das heißt, die Leute sind also, was ist das? Die Wahlverklagen, die werden auch noch tief um Geld und dann sehr viel Geld, wenn es klaren wird. Sie werden, das gibt dann sechsstellige Summen, das Sie da verliehen, wenn Sie sich rauskommen. Also Sie haben ein ökonomisches Interesse, möglichst viele Fragen zu haben. Und deshalb diese ganze Verträge nur ist, stensiv auszulegen, teilweise gehen die Kanzleien, gehen die Angehörigen viel auf Mandanten-Suppe. Du klack doch mal, und da kennst du. Und hier findest du, wir machen eine Luki für Beratung, haben ein Beratungs-Suppe für Beratungs-Suppe. Und da ist es so, wenn es jetzt hier macht, ist es normal. Eigentlich nicht so hohen Chancen als Konzernen aus. Ich fühle mich auch aus irgendeinem Grund ungerichtet an. Und da kommt der Anwaltskanzler auf mich zu und sagt, hast du schon mal von ISDS gehört, das ist eine ganz tolle neue Möglichkeit. Und da kannst du klagen. Dann tritt folgender Fall ein, wenn die Frage eingereicht wird. Sowohl der Kläger als auch der Beklage liebt sich ein Schiedsrichter hoch. Und dann zusammen einigen sie sich auf einen Dritten. Und gemeinsam, also mit so einem Urteil, muss immer mit einer Mehrheit gesprochen werden. Meistens werden sie sich aber auch so in wie ein Konsens einig. Das heißt, so recht als Verhandlungslösung. Um einen Vergleich zu nehmen, wenn ich jemand wegen einer Urheberrechtssache in Deutschland rankriegen will, und ich habe irgendwelche Urheberrechtssachen, und ich arbeite in Deutschland, oder sonst was, dann gehe ich normalerweise nach Hamburg. Weil ich weiß, in Hamburg ist die Rechtsprechung relativ, auf Seite der Urheber, auf der Seite der Urheber, und weniger auf der Seite der Nutzer. Ich kann mir aber den Richter natürlich nicht aussuchen. Das wäre ein Witz, wenn ich sagen könnte, der Richter passt mir nicht. Und zusätzlich kann auch noch der Beklagte in Berufung gehen. Wenn ihm das Urteil nicht passt, was in Hamburg auf der Fall ist, dann geht man in die nächste Instanz und hat die Möglichkeit, in dieses Urteil zurückzurudern. Und interessanterweise fehlt diese Möglichkeit bei den Schiedsrichtern. Ich habe hier ein paar Probleme mit Technologie. Ich bin sehr sorry über das. Du hast wahrscheinlich den Beginn unserer Translation vermisst. Wir werden jetzt versuchen, in das Gespräch zu kommen. Das ist über Investor-State-Dispute-Settelmen in der Framierung von Freedraht-Aggremien, die unsere Spektakel haben geordnet, ein ideologischer Termin, und wir werden jetzt in die Translation kommen. Ich möchte eine kleine Geschichte von Rumänien, von den 90ern, die 1990er-Jahren. Nach dem Fall von Kommunismus, die zwei Brüder, die Nikola-Brüder, haben wir gedacht, dass sie ein Swedish-Konglomerate kaufen. Und die Füllungen, die wir in Rumänien und viel Profit machen konnten. Es war ein fantastisches Geschäft, besonders weil die Rumänien-Govereinheit sehr generös war. Die Füllungen von Profit-Aggremien waren nicht leidbar. Sie waren nicht bezahlt. Und die Darstellerinnen und Darsteller waren nicht leidbar. Jetzt sind wir da. Wir werden sie auch verwenden. Aber die Rumänien-Govereinheit hat einen Punkt gesagt, dass sie die EU, die Europäische Union, während der Negotiations-Konglomerate geschah, dass die, wie wir das sagen, Städte und Subzitzen nicht so kompatibel war mit der Lage. Die Rumänien-Govereinheit und die EU hatten das, die die EU an der Stelle hatte, die diese zu ergeben. Die beiden Brüder wussten nicht, was man so tun würde. Es war sehr interessant, die ISDS zu benutzen. Was sie gemacht haben, war, dass sie ein fremdes Top-Lawyer aus der ISDS-Kommunität war. Und auf der Basis des ISDS-Kommunitäts zwischen Sweden und Rumänien ging sie zu den Arbitration-Paneln in Washington, wo das war, und sie argumentiert, dass wir auf diese Begründung begreifen, um immer zu bleiben und was wir erwähnt haben. Und, ja, das Panel erinnert, das war komplett verrückt, warum die Regierung plötzlich starten zu regulieren. Du hast 250.000.000, 250.000.000 Dollar von der Regierung. Die EU-Kommission hat die Rumänien-Kommission gesagt, nicht zu handeln. Das ist absurd, die EU-Kommission hat gesagt, das ist eine demokratisch-elected Parlament, wollen, um das Gesetz zu verabschieden und um das zu bezahlen. Nein, nicht das. Und das same EU-Kommission ist jetzt verabschieden, mit genauer Klausen. Die Menschen, die in den Klausen kommen, sind nicht so stark, dass sie sich nicht verabschieden. Das ist ein Problem, die sich nicht verabschieden. Und das ist ein Problem, dass die EU-Kommission in den Klausen, die die EU-Kommission überführen, dass sie sich nicht verabschieden. Aber das ist ein Problem, das sie sich nicht verabschieden. Aber das ist ein Problem, das sich nicht verabschieden. Das ist ein Problem, das sie nicht verabschieden. Das ist ein Problem, das sie sich nicht verabschieden. Das g頭 yet die Gselfurnird die um die Negation zu verabschieden und mehr aus der Negation zu verabschieden zu den Firmen. Und die... ...eine Lande Argentinien, zum Beispiel, die jetzt wirklich im Dumpf sind, haben jetzt eine Dettkante und mehr als 40 dieser Prozesse, die dann auf diese Prozesse geholfen wurden. Und ein einziger dieser Prozesse könnte ca. 1 Billion in Volumen sein. Und natürlich, das könnte die Krise wirklich größer werden. Und die Argentinien, die der Staat, sagte, während ihrer Krise, dass die Menschen ihre Arbeit verlieren. Sie wissen nicht, wie sie ihre Billen payen sollten. Und also werden wir die Krise für Wasser und Energie fixen, um die Menschen zu wenig zu überleben. Und dann, eine Wartekompagne kommt, und sagt, wir wollen ein Fein. Wir wollen, dass wir Dammages zu sagen, Dammages für was, das du fragst. Und Risiken und Seileffekte, es ist nicht nur uns, die payen, es ist auch unsere Zeichen, unsere Verlustung. Es kann bis zu 20 Jahre dauern für ein Investor, um eine Prozesse so zu starten, nach dem Event. Ja, das ist die Hardware. Diese Arbitration-Panel sind die Hardware. Und das Code, was wir auf dieser Hardware lernen, ist das. Das ist ein Extrakt von einer solchen Investor-Staats-Protektions-Aggreement, von CETA, der Europäische-Konäden-Aggreement, Artikel X9. Das Recht, das jedes Investor garantiert, ist, diese Reise aus A- und F-Komissionen, dass sie ein Teil dieser Reise sind. Das ist etwas, das die EU-Kommissionen sehr stolz sind, weil sie gesagt haben, dass diese sehr flexiblen Klaren, die die klaren Klaren, die immer nennen, die immer nennen, die Kritik, das durch diese klare und dicke Liste, sagen, aber unter dieser Liste gibt es noch einen Paragraph, der sagt, dass, wenn diese Liste geplant ist, es sein soll, welche legitimativen Überraschungen ein Investor hätte, weil die Prämissionen von irgendwem, in der Reise oder in der Aurelie, das ist nicht wichtig. Wenn diese Prämissionen dann frustriert sind, ist das die Maßnahme, die geplant ist. Wenn diese Liste tight und fix ist, dann gibt es dieses Paragraph von legitimativen Überraschungen, das led Marcus Krajewski, einer der wenigen Independent-Experts, viele der Experten, Arbitration-Panelisten, Arbitration-Judges selbst, dieser Person hat gesagt, dass er nicht ablehnt, zu erklären zu seinem Student, was das bedeutet. Es ist ein missbarer Code, aber es wird noch mehr missbarer. Hier haben wir die EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, niemand weiß das, es ist fertig, es ist verabschiedet, es ist ein Wettbewerb zu verabschieden. Es könnte momentan ratifizieren, aber es könnte auch im Ratification-Prozess, aber es könnte auch für die EU-Singapore einen Court of Justice geben, um für sie zu entscheiden, ob es ein Missbarer-Augument ist, d.h., ob sich jeder Mitgliederstaat auch ein Missbarer-Augument ist. Das wäre ein Bisschen in einem Verabschied. Diese Frage ist pendent. Wird die EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement direkt oder wird es in den EU-Singapore ein Court of Justice geben? Wir wissen nicht. Aber was ich finde, besonders interessant und wunderschön in dieser Verabschiedung, ist, dass die Definition, was ein Investor ist, der Knapp-Europe-Augument ist, sehr unterschiedlich, dass man von der Bundesrepublik ein Knapp-Europe-Augument, dass es auch eine Verabschiedung gibt, aber dann ist es einермarm. Was ich finde, ist, dass der Knapp-Europe-Augument Investors can be anyone and Singapore neatly is a tax haven as well. There are hundreds of thousands of post boxes there to add another one there. And that's why exclusively I have the great business tip for you. But please give me five percent if I tell you please. Okay, agreed. The business tip is this. In the state of Baden-Württemberg in southwest Germany just opened some internet company, started internet company, any kind of shack. And then you go to PricewaterhouseCoopers or any other consultancy firm and let them create a holding for you or get a share in a holding that saves your taxes and you can then use this agreement as well. And you then refer to item C and sue the state of Baden-Württemberg for damages your expectations have not been filled because the broadband bandwidth isn't enough or whatever, select anything at all. And as proof for the disappointed expectations you use that famous advertisement from the Baden-Württemberg state which said we can do everything apart from standard German and that will give you damages. With this code that is perfectly possible. And another hint. We did say that these arbitration judges would take about a thousand euros per hour or something which is a bit much admittedly but there is a solution for that. There are business models for business for people like you perhaps. And this is that investors can say we will actually loan you the money if your case looks promising but we'll get 20 or 40 percent from the gains as it were. So that's the less good news I have to say about costs of a procedure like this. There is a cost calculator. Ask Google or MetaGear, the other search engine or whatever. You'll find it quite easily and you can then calculate here you see one million damage sum, a three-person arbitration panel, medium complexity, European tariffs, which are not the most expensive ones. So one million is the value of the procedure and what's this? Oh, 1.2 million costs. That can't be true. Well, it is true. And our Economy Minister, Siegmar Gabel, says that these agreements would benefit small and medium enterprises. Yes, of course. Immediately obvious, of course. And normally in front of the court, if you are given, if they would in your favor and normally you wouldn't have to pay costs. With these arbitration panels, of course, it's different. How else could it be? There are many, many decisions in which states had to defend themselves against completely absurd demands. And they still had to pay millions of costs from tax money, of course, from tax payers money. Okay, let's change the subject, shall we? We also looked at these agreements from an Internet-Politik's point of view. In the negotiations on this agreement, there were people from Google and Microsoft. And I can't stress enough how important these meetings are for lobbyists. Maybe one or another of you knows about these meetings. Yes, they're terrible. The ideal case is that you don't have to go to them at some point because your view of how the reality should look has become law. These agreements, TTIP, for instance, or TISA, or CETA, are unique opportunities for all these tired lobbyists to definitely get revenge for all these lost cases because arbitration courts can just circumvent all these cases. And the reason why privacy is in the crosshairs of lobbyists is that they'll cause lots and lots of new debates in courts. And these would come into effect immediately, the new laws that are being passed in the EU. And one of them would mean that if people use sensitive data, they have to use them inside Europe and save them inside Europe. They mustn't leave the continent. They must get privacy experts to agree on them. The interesting thing is that officially the European Union doesn't have a mandate to talk about privacy. But instead what they do is they talk about free data flows and interoperability. And that doesn't sound too bad. Nobody would argue against that. But the reality is that these are working against the hard facts that are supposed to be of privacy law. And especially for TTIP, we can have a look at the leaked details of some portions. It wants to impose strict limits on what states are allowed to do with personal data. And a similar clause already exists in an existing agreement in the one between South Korea and the European Union. And at that time the European Union, interestingly enough, went to South Korea and told them that we don't like that banks have to notify customers when they save data outside the country. We don't like that. And we're going to remind you of that clause. And funnily enough, the law was retracted afterwards. So people went to show how, you know, if it would stand in front of a court. That means that if it gets passed in the way it stands, it's on the paper here, then it would definitely have impact on privacy. And of course, the European Commission always says, you know, have searched the text, there's privacy written all over it. And yes, it says things like, each party shall adopt appropriate safeguards for the protection of privacy and fundamental rights. It doesn't say they have to. It just says they should. It doesn't say what appropriate safeguards are. Ask a US, ask a US judge. He'd say, yeah, well, then the Fourth Amendment isn't valid for EU citizens. But not only in privacy it gets a bit ugly. Also in copyright matters. Comparison has been drawn often between ACTA and TTIP. And interestingly, the EU really doesn't want these comparisons to be drawn. Because in all these cases it's a sad fact that the current regulations on privacy will be cemented, will be solidified. I would say a lot about TTIP on copyright. But as for CTA, you can say it's pretty bad, because the status quo of copyright will remain the same for lots and lots of years. Even 20 years later you can still sue based on these laws. So if one day we have the lucky occasion to have a parliamentary majority in favor of copyright revolution, then we could pass that. But it's going to get really expensive. And this will, of course, lessen the incentives. Now we are showing a small movie, showing what the other side has to say about that. Ah, der Sound kommt nicht rüber. No sound, apparently. So apparently nobody is rich and sound, so we can't show the movie. Also, we'll tell you what it's about. Karol Krich was interviewed by TV, he's a EU Commissioner, and was asked how many employment TTIP would give. Wie viele Arbeitsplätze gibt es in welches Wachstum wird durch TTIP? How much progress? Thank you very much for having us. Wie viele Wachstum gibt denn jetzt TTIP? How much economic growth will there be with TTIP? Commissioner, we are talking about TTIP. It's a great project. What effects do you hope to get from TTIP? You start? Yes. Okay. If you would look at me. So, there you have it. What effects do you expect from TTIP? TTIP is by far the biggest trade negotiation, bilateral trade negotiation that the European Union ever has been doing. And if we get to a result, this could have a dramatic effect, I believe, for the European economy, directly because it will create a lot of new economic activity, hundreds of thousands of jobs, additional income for our citizens. But I believe that indirectly it will also strengthen our economy on a global scale if you join up the two biggest economies in the world, which are the United States and ourselves. And by the way, we are the biggest European Union. That represents about 50% of the world economy. Now, you can expect that the next big battle on trade is about norms, standards, subsidies. Ah, yes. Who tells you that TTIP will create hundreds of thousands of jobs? Where do you know that from? Well, we are not simply inventing that. We have asked an independent study, and that's the result they are arriving at. The study also says that it would mean 545 euros for a household. Now, I don't think you can figure this out. Five or ten euros close, you know, but it's obvious that we could have a beneficial effect on the income of citizens and also on the coming road. And it will, yes. I'm pretty sure that it will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. You should not forget that already now, owned by Americans. And vice versa, it's about the same. Because it will not be E, but also in the United States. Sorry to interrupt you. Let's maybe stick to the effect. You were referring to the study of the commission. I take the CPR study. It's a study that has been ordered by the commission. We have not been doing it ourselves. Okay. What does the study say? The study says it will be, after the TTIP is done, it will be 0.5% growth in GDP, in European GDP, in 10 years, which means it's 0.05 points every year. That's not a big effect, as you called it. So, yes, more translation. TTIP will be 0.05% more growth, but over 10 years take together, accumulate it. So, it's not actually a very much. So, it's 0.5% over 10 years, 0.05% per year, or something like that. Plus, die Studie, auf die er sich da beruft, sagt gar nichts zu Arbeitsplätzen. So, the study that he presented, didn't say anything about employment opportunities. This study by CPR is based on an economic model, that's an economic balancing model, based on offer and demand. And so, every single balance each other out, and there is no unemployment in this model. And so, there is obviously also no gain of employment opportunities. Now, we have a new European Commission. Goch didn't sell himself very well. So, we have a new phase of the Commission. Cecilia Momsrum, also known as Cecilia, for a censorship in her old job. So, now she is head of market, DG market. So, now they are very much into transparency. The new Twitter account, and we now use your website. The facts on one hand, the fact of the EU Commission. And on the other hand, we have the fears, that's always the fears that we presented to you in the last half hour. Like, the thing with fears is that, you know, you have to call the placardress or something like that. And so, in Syria should deal with that in a good way as a commission, but that's actually not what they want to do, because that's a lot of work. And they don't actually still, don't actually answer the important questions. Like, why do we even need those agreements? So, it's not for economic growth, apparently. That's only homeopathic. So, we can add to that, that if the news dies by Jean-Marie Carpal, though the Tufts University is not true, that a lot of jobs in Europe will be lost, then we can be glad, even. Right, and on with ... So, we have this campaign against TTIP, that we started last year in December last year. In spring, we had more than 400,000 signatures against TTIP. And in May, there was a negotiation pending in Washington. I wanted to go there. And because I am a German citizen, I applied for the waiver regulation. I was surprised that they asked me to apply for a visa. And truthfully, I said that the resistance against TTIP was the intention, the purpose of the journey, and I was invited to go to Daalim in Berlin, asked to switch off all my electronic devices. Can you imagine being without electronic devices for three hours? I had an interview with an official from the Department of Homeland Security who asked me why I wanted to go there. And I said, well, this is a meeting of civil rights organization. The purpose is to move against TTIP. And he asked me, did you ever have problems with the police? Out of a clear conscience, I said no. And then he asked, and what was in 1981 at the border to Switzerland? It's no joke. What was that, he asked. And I admit, yes, I have been living. I was living in 1981. I was alive. I was 16, 33 years ago. I was with three people in a car, driver, co-driver, and I was a passenger. And next to me was a piece of dope. And as you wouldn't have to expect, we were stopped and hours of interviews with driver and co-driver and never heard anything about that since then until that day in Daalim. And how they had digitized that, I have no idea. You're probably no better than I do. And as a souvenir of that memorable interview, I was given a blue piece of paper that you see scanned up here. The visa was not granted. And there was a cost of 120 euros to my employer and eight hours of lost work time. And then Maretta was really, really furious. And I can tell you, you do not want Maretta to be furious at you. Yeah. And then we said, all right, it's the European election campaign. The elections are coming up in May. And that is kind of boring. There's not really an issue. So let's invent an issue. TTIP would be a great one. And we made TTIP an issue in the European election campaign. With this tool that you see here, a nice piece of software that we developed. It's that you could choose streets and check whether someone would distribute leaflets there. And if not, enter yourself and ask for these door hangers. And hang those on door handles. They would list all parties with an assessment of their position in the European elections. There was thumbs, well, a medium thumb for the Social Democrats. Thumbs down for the CDU. This is the Christian Democrats. Thumbs up for the Greens, Pirates and the FDP, the Liberals. So you remember those? They went out of Parliament in 2013. They had a, what did they have? Thumbs up, thumbs down, I can't see. So that made TTIP an issue in the election campaign. And we were quite surprised when the first time we met Martin Schulz, in the European Parliament, he had a position paper ready about TTIP. He was quick with that. And you tell me, tell us how it went on. You have to remember, just imagine being in Martin's shoes for a while. I don't know if you want to do that or can do that, but he is known as a proponent of data of attention. And I had a bit of a confrontation with him about Martin Schulz. I thought, well, he is smiling so neatly from the posters. And one of those said, Europe of people, not of money. So that should mean we should be able to talk to him, right? So I went to Martin Schulz. As a sideline, he is a president of the European Parliament, but of course he cleanly separates that from his role as leader of the Social Democrat group. So you traveled to Aachen in Western Germany in an invitation from the local Social Democrats. You have written paper, press, are there, sausages are ready, as you would expect from a Social Democrat meeting. And then you have your speech, you give your speech and for the first time what democracy occurs. And you do know that word will come a bit more often and there are those kind of people there, you know? This is of course not Katarina's speech, but the one held by Martin Schulz were from the Tee Protesters. For us it was perfect, because we did not have to invite the press, the SPD had done that. These press people just had to turn around. And we were not just in Aachen with that. Martin Schulz had appearances, he said to himself, well, when badly it's just to go to Hanover and that didn't go that well either. And Berlin and in Dortmund we were as well. And how did we do that? We do not just collect signatures for our online petitions. We inform people as well if there are events on the ground. And that's what makes politicians really angry. Particularly from the Christian Socialists, the Bavarian Christian Democrats. If people appear that are not just, are there not those lefty people from Berlin, but actually local people from Bavaria holding up banners, that really annoys them. There was just one time when we were thrown out and that was in Brandenburg when there was a straw bale festival. They probably do not know demonstration law yet. Because this is a free expression of opinion at an event in the open. So there is no law enabling them to claim this their space from which they can evict you. Just a tip for you. Christian Democrats, who are less ready to hold open air events these days. So less easy to troll. We did not just pursue party heads. We thought actually the idea about parties is that the base has power. But it's probably a bit of a dream, but I still have that dream. And it's worthwhile remembering people in parties to stop their own figureheads and leave that, not leave that reminding to us, but the people in the party. So we went to party events and had targeted information. We had pretzels in Bavaria, red trousers with the social democrats. These people have some kind of expectations and there are lobby booths over and over there. And also for free there was a brochure handed out, an independent study about TTIP with a lot of information about its effects locally in local communities. And this is really effective before the grand speech held by the party heads and even the social democrats as well as the Christian Democrats said, the party base said they did not want these ISDS Tribunals. But the problem is that this hasn't really permeated through to the top. And there is still work to be done. And that's because that's why there's a multitude of further actions. We have our best of tools here, of props. What you see up there is the Canadian parliament that went with our Sita Hammer. You can very nicely install this on top of a parliament building and visualize governments under the hammer. And it's very interesting with Canada in particular because there's this procedure there going on. A company that is involved in fracking has been buying concessions or permits. So they had expectations and the citizens came along and they were as bold to say we're not sure about fracking. There's not so much good that you hear, so we'll have a moratorium on that. And a Canadian company invoked NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement and they had a subsidiary in the US. So that enabled them to pursue their own government, exactly. It's been a month now since a very memorable speech you may have heard it from Zygmar Gabriel, German politician, and he said we can't reject Sita now. It's only Germany where there's protest against these agreements. The rest of Europe is embracing them. And the Minister of Commerce of Economy says that we can disprove it. In order to do that, we started a citizens initiative, a European citizens initiative. We initially wanted to create an official one and you have to write 200 characters and you have to use a special software from the European Union, so it's worthless. And then we wrote our own and we had to get it certified. And finally, you need a million signatures and you have to get a certain quota in more than seven countries. And finally, if you've done all that, you get some warm words from the European Commission. But they didn't even allow us that. So we rejected it and thought that was the end of it. But we told ourselves no, we can do it without the European Union. We sued them and we started our own citizens initiative. And we have, after two months, we got more than one million, we reached the quota in seven countries. Now we're at 1.2 million in nine countries and we need some more signatures and then we'll have the tenth country, Ireland, as well. That's just the beginning, though. We're carrying on, at least until the next million and after Junker, after we spoiled Junker's 60th birthday in Brussels and this will have been the only topic in all the European media, we're going to continue doing that. We've got loads more on our plate. What you can see here is a grassroots movement. That's really being carried out in many European countries and it's starting to bubble up to the top. And these are two maps. You can see them on our website. And it shows how it looks on a regional basis, as well. Interestingly, many CDU and SPD-Mairs have started to realize that these agreements aren't really in citizens' best interests. And more and more resolutions are coming up in Germany that object to these. And it's the same in France. And interestingly, TTIP and CTAB are mixed agreements. So not only the European Commission can sign it for us, but it's also necessary that the individual countries vote on these laws. A mixed agreement therefore means that all European member countries have to agree on it. And that's where the first problem crops up. So Sigma Gabriel saying that we can't make an exception for Germany. That's simply not true. And it's happened before. Also, TTIP und SPD-Mairs sind alle in Deutschland. Und Sie können das auch tun. Ja. So, was ist das Result? So, Christmas-Holidays. Wir schauen wieder weiter. Es ist viel Spaß. Es ist viel Spaß. 150.000 Leute haben eine Konsultation geplant. Wir hatten einen großen Demo. Wenn ihr in Berlin auf den 17. Januar seid, das wäre eine große Demo Dürfen ihr dabei seid. Und bitte zuzusehen, wir werden über TTIP und CTAB Ich hoffe, dass es noch mehr gibt und dass es viele Waffen gibt. Und in Mai wird ein EU-Parlament sein, über die Betrachtungs-Klausen in den Freien und Trade-Aggremien. Wir schauen forward to what the European Parliament will decide. Wir haben eine Mendei, um unsere Arbeit zu fortsetzen. Und wir lieben das. Aber mit den anderen Aktivitäten würde ich euch ein paar Lassen zeigen. Online-Tools sind wirklich toll, aber Off-Line-Aktivitäten und Tools sind auch sehr wichtig. Politiker leben sehr offline, so dass ihr die Off-Line-Aktivitäten wirklich braucht, so wie das Door-Hanger, das wir geplant haben. Das war nur möglich, um die Leute zu holen und die Flieger zu holen. So ein little rage und das Kommitment ist wirklich hilfreich. Und wir versuchen, dass es ein paar breit und weite Allianzen gibt, zwischen verschiedenen NGOs. Das hilft viel, und das hilft viel. Wir haben z.B. die Gesellschaft, die Associationen, die konsumerischen Associationen, die kulturellen Associationen, die Pharma-Associationen. Und viele Synergie zwischen den anderen Associationen. Das ist wirklich ein gutes Mix. Nur durch diese Strukturen und diese Technologien können wir effektiv arbeiten und hoffentlich die Wörter verhindern. In diesem Sinne, ich denke, wir erinnern uns ein bisschen an diese Verhandlungen. Und ich hoffe, dass nächstes Jahr wir die Abholung der Verhandlungen oder der Plan für sie und hoffentlich mit den Menschen's Lebensbedingungen zu machen. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Die Internet hat viele Feedback. Tausend Fragen. Wir obweite nicht. Können wir jetzt T-Tiff verhindern? Können wir jetzt noch T-Tiff? Können wir jetzt noch T-Tiff verhindern? Und was können wir jetzt realisieren? Kann der EU-Parlament still prevent them? And what can we still do realistically? Well, the EU-Parliament can prevent it. The National Parliaments can do so as well. What we realistically can do is to keep the pressure up, particularly on our German members of parliament and our German parliamentarians in the EU. They're all online. They all have websites. You just go to the surgery, the date, the official meeting with your local MP and tell him or her if you are going to reject this agreement, I might vote for you. That is what really gives them and has an impression on them. And what's the timeline for this? From now until the end of the year in principle at any time for the European members of parliament, members of the European Parliament, it's particularly important at the end of April, beginning of May before this resolution will be voted on. And I'd like to add that even agreements that have been signed already, there have been hundreds of such agreements, investor state protection agreements. It's often the case that the Global North is trying to sue the Global South into the ground if they noticed that, if these countries noticed that the neoliberal recipe weren't working. And these could be cancelled, these agreements could be cancelled, but you then would have to deal with investors still trying to sue after the contracts have been cancelled, but the earlier the better. Question from Mike from one. Hi, thanks for your work. Quick question. What's your position for the rest of the content of these agreements? If arbitration clause will be taken out, are you still against them? We are still against those agreements even without ISDS, investor state dispute settlement, because there are problems in the area of services. There's a threat of a large wave of privatisation. And with all these agreements, there's the high risk that other areas, such as environmental protection, food safety, Agriculture, the wheel will be turned back and necessary progress might be prevented, because the status quo is not always that nice and what might get solidified, cemented. We are simply cutting what we can do as a democracy. We are curtailing our democratic means. Our ability to say after the fact maybe liberalisation has gone too far and if you then have clauses in these agreements that prevent decisions that have once been taken to be taken back, that in my view is wrong and it's wrong to leave this to our ancestors, sorry to our descendants, a state of things that has proved to be not helpful. Just let Oliver ask his question. Miko, three. Thank you. Thank you to you too for your great work. Great work by Kampakt. I think nobody's going to doubt that. I'm also a member of the EU Council of the European Committee of the State Parliament of Northern Westphalia. The speaker of the Christian Democrats have promised to join us on the streets. Isn't it time for the next level against TTIP? Und against work of agreements? If you look at the structure of the commission like you don't have to be surprised about the results with all the lobby organisations and who's working for PricewaterhouseCoopers and so on. So they are already kind of working for them. Wouldn't it be also interesting for people interested in Internet-Politik, Internet-Governance und monetary-Networks und was Kampakt-Plans in this? Okay, thanks a lot. I'll have to get myself cloned. Well, seriously, we cannot do everything we would like to. We will evaluate ideas towards EU, Europe, but we cannot promise anything. Fundamentally, we are willing to look at economic conditions at a larger scale. We have a few things we'd like to do, such as resolutions, petitions, Direct-Democracy. And some of our people are also co-founders of attack Germany. So there is a link with the movements that is critical of capitalism and globalization. Stiftungsmäßig. Diejenigen, die Gutachten erstellen, anzugreifen, werden Bertels Mann ans Bein bitten. Und auch keine Co-Referrate. Noch eine abschließende Frage. One last question, please. And then the time is up. I'm not going to thank you again, because I worked there themselves. Yes, Oliver, that's right. I'm the S-Problematic. Thanks for granting that again. Isn't it the right time right now to kill the existing ISDS agreements, where we already have a lot of them, that the German Republic signed? Well, I have this kind of domino theory. I believe that if ISDS will be taken out of the agreements that are pending now, then this whole system, probably as a whole, will begin to slide. What I keep saying to those that say, we have to have ISDS, because the whole system is so badly regarded and it's been so much abused in recent years. So those that say, the whole system will fall apart and we cannot longer have investor status with developing countries. So I say, as soon as we kill this, the time is ripe to really kill ISDS as a whole, but we'll have to use another time for that. And also I believe that currently there is an interesting counter-movement. If you look at the success of procedures and the amounts of damages, these agreements have been in place for a long time. Usually it was the case that the North insisted on these agreements with the Global South, saying that our investors will not be willing to invest if they are under protections, although there has been no proof for that. So in these years, more and more procedures have surfaced where investors have turned things around and said we can sue another way and sue the rich countries too because there might be more to gain there too and there have been procedures like Wattenfahl, the Swedish electricity supplier against the German energy change policy and the more procedures like that we have and the more they are debated and noticed by parliamentarians, so as to question that whole system. Thank you, that's all the time we have. And thank you very much for listening. Again, apologies for the late start. Our speakers have been Sebastian and...