Martin Schulz rules out split voting on the TPD

[Ninjaassasin1983]

that whole thing with the lib dems is ludicrous theyll decide whether or not to split and seperate after the TPD vote

 

[steffijade]

I just think that in terms of 'bang for buck' this will not achieve its goals in the way that a legal challenge will.

With proper PR covering this, with a coordinated campaign across all organisations and interested parties, we'd achieve far greater exposure and positive spin from working together. Much more so than a spin-off group who have yet to coalesce into a legitimate organisation.

Any push for fundraising would need a rally point of sorts.. a figurehead in the way of an organisation or individual to coordinate and organise things.

Placing that amount of control and indeed, pressure on an individual seems like a bad idea to me. That leaves the option of an organisation.

There are a few options in current organisations.. ECITA and ECCA for example. Although I'm extremely grateful for all the work done by Katherine and the team, I'm unsure if the members of ECITA would even want to be involved in a legal challenge. As for ECCA, they do a good job in promoting awareness in product recall cases and consumer advice but I'm not convinced they are equipped to mount a legal challenge.

An official political entity would have more of a platform for raising the profile of a fundraising campaign and they would also be subject to rules and regulations as regards financial affairs wouldn't they?

If not ECITA, ECCA or an official political entity, then where is that rallying point going to come from? I certainly wouldn't be volunteering for such a role.. I don't have the expertise or the fortitude to take on that much of a responsibility. How many of us actually would possess those qualities?

I'm not trying to have a dig by the way.. I'm just mulling over a few points that I've had under the tinfoil ever since the 'behind closed doors deal' that came up with the revised regulatory proposals.

It appears that most of the MEPs have succumbed to the blackmail of forcing them through to allow the proposals on tobacco cigarettes to pass, so the need for a 'fighting fund' and someone to administer it is becoming more of a reality as the final vote approaches.

What are your thoughts on this please?

 

[Mawsley]

Hell, Steff, I've not even had my first coffee of the morning. I don't start having thoughts till lunchtime

 

[Fubar1977]

Contact them all.
Again.

A heartfelt, non abusive letter stating why you feel article 18 needs to be split from the TPD.
There is NO chance the TPD itself will be defeated, nor should it be, but article 18 needs major surgery.

If not then all the devices we currently enjoy become, technically illegal.

If you don`t want to be condemned to personal imports from China, using Cigalikes or, God Forbid, smoking then make some bloody noise about it.

Link to clive Bate`s blog which has a one click link on it to email Martin Schulz and CC other MEP`s.

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1969

Do it.
Do it now.

If you have already done it, do it again.


Thank you.

 

[VaperCaper]

I'm unsure if the members of ECITA would even want to be involved in a legal challenge.

If and when it's required ECITA members will 100% be funding and mounting a legal challenge.

There are big companies in ECITA with a lot to lose and they aren't going to bend over and take an illegal law crimping their sales figures.

We're alright. (Jack) The vapers that read these forums, who already use generation 3 devices, who know who to ask to find out where to get "stuff" like nic base or larger tanks or whatever to get around any new law.
We don't really matter to the like of E-Lites say who are going to putting up lots of the funding as we don't buy any of their product. There are thousands and thousands of potential vapers out there currently smoking who will and a restriction on the strength is going to severely dent the effectiveness of cig-a-like devices which means less smokers will find them effective so less new vapers switch.

Big T are going after this market segment (cig-a-likes) not cos they want to make things that resemble their current products, but because that is where the Big Money is right now. If collectively ECITA members pony up a few tens of millions for a legal fund (and you'd better believe they can get that capital) it's dwarfed by the potential returns in a couple of years.

It's good business to fight bad laws that severely damage your business interests. It's actually pretty freaking stupid not to fight them.

I am still hugely optimistic about the long term future for e-cigs.

I very firmly believe that you cannot stop progress, and that e-cigs are en evolution of smoking into something much better. The Powers That Be missed the boat. Too many people use them now and daily more and more people make the switch and discover for themselves. National supermarkets sell them, pharmacies are starting to sell them, the internet is awash with them, you see them in petrol stations, it's only a matter of time before gen 2 stuff starts making it's way onto mainstream shelves.

Vaping has got some serious inertia behind it now. "Public Health" is funding study after study trying to find something, anything that points to them being bad for you so they can make a big noise about it. Every study to date with minor exceptions shows the opposite and science done for sciences sake that's getting published in peer reviewed science journals continues to stack up.

There are people like Robert West behind e-cigs, people like Dr. Murray Laugesen, names that carry a lot of weight getting behind and publishing solid science on e-cigs.

In the long term article 18 is irrelevant. If it passes it'll get reviewed in 2 years and put right, or it'll get thrown out by the courts if it gets that far.

It would be much better for all concerned to bin it now and write e-cig regs properly than to go through all of that but as someone famous once said:

"it is difficult to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon them not understanding it"

 

[steffijade]

I hope that you're right on this.. if ECITA members do support a legal challenge then it makes for a much stronger position.

My concern was that members might look at the proposal in article 18 and think it might be easier and less expensive to just 'toe the line' and adapt their business strategies accordingly.

If and when it does come to organising a legal challenge, it would be desirable to have someone who already has a known presence in the mainstream media (like Katherine) fronting any campaign.

I hope that you're correct and the members of ECITA give her the mandate to do so, if required.

 

[Fubar1977]

Thank you VaperCaper

I still believe it`s worth making as much noise as possible in Brussels.

Do I truly believe it will change anyones mind there?
Frankly, no but I still believe it`s worth making the noise anyway.

Quiet capitulation is exactly what they want from us and they won`t get it from me.

I have said many, many times here and elsewhere that it will be the courts that will decide this not the EU politicians.
I still believe this.

Make the noise anyway, rattle the cages, bang the drums, don`t go quietly it`s exactly what they want.

Then we shall see them in court.

 

[VaperCaper]

i still believe it`s worth making as much noise as possible in brussels.

hell yes

 

[Fubar1977]

A response from Martin Callanan, received within about 2 hours:


Dear Mr F** ********,

Thank you for copying me in to your correspondence with Martin Schulz. I am very grateful to you, and to many others, who have taken the time to lobby Mr Schulz regarding e-cigarettes.

I have been following this file on behalf of the Conservatives. Since the beginning of this process I have been convinced of the merits of e-cigarettes, and the significant benefits that they offer to public health.

With this in mind, when my colleagues and I were able to rally the rest of the Parliament to support us in changing the original text relating to e-cigarettes, we were delighted. However, when it came to negotiating with the Council and Commission, many other groups agreed to sacrifice the Parliament's flexible approach to e-cigarettes, in favour of the Council's highly limited approach.

Before the Directive as a whole comes before the Parliament for a final vote on February 26th, we are doing our utmost to persuade Mr Schulz to allow the text to be opened to splits and separates (as you request) so that this unfair treatment of e-cigarettes can be properly addressed.

The original purpose of the Tobacco Products Directive was to reducing smoking in Europe, especially with regard to young people. Therefore to highly limit access to a device which is proven to help people give up tobacco is ridiculous. The negotiations were rushed, and the authenticity of evidence presented in favour of making e-cigarettes medicinal products has since been called in to question. All in all this makes a very unsatisfactory situation.

I would therefore like to thank you for voicing your concerns for Mr Schulz, and calling for the TPD Plenary vote to be opened up to splits and separates. I truly hope that he sees sense in his decision, and enables us to try and get a fair outcome for e-cigarettes.

Yours Sincerely,

Martin Callanan
Conservative Member of the European Parliament for the North East
Leader, European Conservatives and Reformists Group

-----Original Message-----
From: R***** ********** [mailto:***@*********]
Sent: 21 February 2014 11:54
To: SCHULZ Martin, President
Cc: SPERONI Francesco Enrico; ZIMMER Gabriele; VERHOFSTADT Guy; SWOBODA Hannes; DAUL Joseph; CALLANAN Martin; FARAGE Nigel; HARMS Rebecca; COHN-BENDIT Daniel
Subject: Tobacco Products Directive

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to you as an ex smoker of over 20 years who was only able to quit as a result of using 2nd and 3rd generation electronic cigarettes.
I am gravely concerned by the content of Article 18 of the Tobacco Products Directive as it would appear to amount to a de-facto ban of all 2nd/3rd generation e-cigarette products and would also appear to be, frankly, a hastily assembled and poorly thought out piece of legislation which will remove the most effective products from the market.

My understanding is that in order to, effectively outlaw, an existing consumer product there has to be a demonstrable risk associated with the product, or type of product, or a clear, significant health benefit to be gained by the removal of this product from the open market.
I can see no appropriate scientific basis for the proposals to remove refillable containers, nor for limiting their size.
There is also no legal basis for these measures as significantly more harmful substances such as household bleach are marketed in large containers and are protected by childproof caps and appropriate labelling. There is no requirement for a "leak free" method of dispensing bleach so why would a nicotine liquid be required to adhere to this?
There is no requirement to make a packet of cigarette`s, for example, "child proof".

Many requirements being proposed for e-cigarettes are not being demanded of existing lit Tobacco products despite the scientific evidence that they are harmful.
There is no requirement for lit Tobacco manufacturers to provided "consistent" Nicotine dosing for example, which also cannot be guaranteed for existing NRT products as there are many variables which effect the Nicotine dose.
This would also seem inappropriate for a consumer product and seems more like a Medical Product requirement.

Effectively banning the most effective lit Tobacco alternative on the market does not seem like the best way to go about protecting the health of millions of EU citizens.

I would ask that you look to allow split/separate voting on article 18 of the TPD as it relates to e-cigarettes to allow for appropriate legislation and safety measures to be formed and sensibly applied based on scientific evidence of harm which, sadly, does not appear to be the case with article 18 of the TPD.

In fact, to an outside observer, it appears to be geared towards protecting the interests of the large Tobacco and Pharmaceutical companies rather than protecting the health of EU citizens, which surely cannot be the case?

The health of millions of people are at stake as this is a product which, with appropriate legislation, has the potential to virtually remove hazardous lit Tobacco from the market over a period of years using nothing more than market forces and "light touch" regulations.

Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated


Kind Regards
R***** **********

 

[Fleabag]

I find it interesting to see a Tory taking the high ground on this, when Tories and Labour alike were once saying "we see the potential of e-cigs to reduce smoking, which is why we want to destroy them with medicinal regulations" [paraphrased]