It is even worse than that. Nothing has changed but has become more severe. It is not the democratic process in charge of this agenda, but the pushers of the Agenda at the negotiating table: the same old same old.
The culprit here is a negotiated contract to which the State, although not authorized, is subject to.
This is jurisprudence. This means that the contracts the leading politicians made with the WEF and its agenda, are just as much pack and parcel of the Obligations of the State. This also means that the negotiations going on in terms of an agricultural agreement, are just as much legally binding.
The bio-argiculture has already submitted to the WEF-agenda.
Hence, this hurray hurray we are winning is bullcrap.
It is even worse than that. Nothing has changed but has become more severe. It is not the democratic process in charge of this agenda, but the pushers of the Agenda at the negotiating table: the same old same old.
The context is often forgotten or unknown.
See the Urgenda case. https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/05/state-of-the-netherlands-v-urgenda-foundation/
The culprit here is a negotiated contract to which the State, although not authorized, is subject to.
This is jurisprudence. This means that the contracts the leading politicians made with the WEF and its agenda, are just as much pack and parcel of the Obligations of the State. This also means that the negotiations going on in terms of an agricultural agreement, are just as much legally binding.
The bio-argiculture has already submitted to the WEF-agenda.
Hence, this hurray hurray we are winning is bullcrap.