Quote:
Respenus,
your link leads to directives that are valid until today. The article of the (conservative) FAZ that I summarised is about how they want to change the status quo. Directive 2001/20-EU they want to almost delete completely by content.
|
So simple to read a link isn't it.
The link Respenus posted contains the directive that is valid for three years after the new proposal is enacted into law, it contains all the events going back to 2008 involving the process of drafting the proposal and it contains the new proposal.
Just for good measure it contains the full 2009 public consultation and the 2011 paper, its amazing just how much information on the new proposal Respenus single link provides.
Who knows perhaps its another one of his invisible ink pieces of legislation where everything that is wrtten is false and only Skybird can see the real document
Quote:
|
My summary of the major paragraph in my opening post is no opinion by me, but just repeats the major points of the article. My opinion starts after that.
|
Yet neither reflects the facts you have been presented with, your failure to even register facts that are clearly and plainly placed before your eyes by Respenus says a lot about you.
A further example of nonsense...
Quote:
|
Somewhere else I read the ethics work group of parliament also has become aware of the issue and starts to fight against it.
|
At what stage was this proposal sent to that body for consultation and approval by them before being passed back for the next stage of the prosess?
Simple stuff isn't it, and all the information can be found in a single link