TTIP negotiations continue

[K. A. Pital]

Another (9th) round of TTIP negotiations has passed and the 10th is coming this July.

The same problems as before persist: ridiculous secrecy surrounding talks, corporate lobbying, no clear indication that there will be any positive effect for the European countries, and the scrapping of very important European environment and consumer protection principles, like the precautionary laws that require proving a chemical is safe before commerical use, replacing them with something like the MURRICA principle of "use it while it is not proven harmful". Finally, the ridiculous right of corporations to sue governments for laws that could impact their profits (shortly known as ISDS), and the prohibition of enacting any regulation that would "endanger" the pact's articles in any way.

The potential damage to Europe is going to be enormous. In many ways the European countries - even despite the post-Thatcher onslaught on labour rights - have maintained a very rigorous consumer and labour protection system. All of this is going to be threatened by a pact discussed by a bunch of fucking oligarchs, some members of the EU "government" and, of course, American 'representatives' of the megacorp lobby front office, otherwise known as the US "government" (and no, I reject the name "government" for a fatcat club that is completely beholden to megacorps in a fashion where corporate cock never leaves the "people's" government throat).

Bear in mind that the US has ratified fewer of the ILO fundamental conventions than many Third World countries - its ILO ratification record is similar to Brunei and Burma; labour standards in the US are fucking horrible, they are sweatshop-like, workers amount to shit - never considered humans with dignity - and if the same happens in Europe, human suffering will surely increase a lot.

In Germany, both SPD and CDU have shown themselves as nothing but corporate puppets, supporting TTIP and even the ISDS which allows corporations to sue European governments for unwelcome legislation, as their response to the TTIP concerns way back in 2013 have aptly demonstrated.

So all hope lies only with the Green and Left opposition to this bullshit. This report from the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (updated to reflect 2015 state of the situation), neatly outlines all the problems with the TTIP:
http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/TT ... update.pdf

What can you do?

If you are a European citizen, you should contact your elected representatives in both the EU Parliament and your national parliament, and voice your concerns about the TTIP. National parliament deputees and even MEPs are kept in the dark by the corporate cocksuckers in the most offensive fashion, just like most of the public.

At the very minimum, it is important to stop any attempts to strike down REACH in Europe or pull ISDS via this ugly "pact".

[salm]

Their attempt at transparency is awesome. A reading room which some people may access and wade through hundreds of pages of legal mumbo jumbo without even being allowed to take notes with a pen.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, they are staying classy by giving people who go into reading rooms prison threats:
http://ttip2015.eu/blog-detail/blog/Hei ... rency.html

Since the beginning of the year, the Commission made its reading room available for all other MEPs, not only the members of the lead committee on International Trade.

Prior to the visit I had to receive training on confidentiality procedures by Parliament's classified information's unit. I was warned that Commission officials had even been sentenced to prison for breaching confidentiality. I suppose that was needed for a chilling effect.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What is this? The days of the Iron Curtain? What the fuck is so embarrassing that they can't fucking have a public debate on the matter?

[Thanas]

The policy is stupid because there is a lot of propaganda already about TTIP coming from the left and the right and making it public will give people a chance to understand it. I mean, this is the greatest economic pact the EU will form and they are hiding it. No matter if you think it will help (as I do) or hurt (as others think), the public deserves to know the full terms.

[Grumman]

What the fuck is so embarrassing that they can't fucking have a public debate on the matter?

Abuse of power and betrayal of the people. There are very few valid reasons for the government to keep a secret from the people, and none of them seem to apply here.

[Welf]

The policy is stupid because there is a lot of propaganda already about TTIP coming from the left and the right and making it public will give people a chance to understand it. I mean, this is the greatest economic pact the EU will form and they are hiding it. No matter if you think it will help (as I do) or hurt (as others think), the public deserves to know the full terms.

Which makes me curious why you think this would help? I'm generally pro free trade, but this isn't really about lowering duties (mostly because there aren't many left).

[Thanas]

The policy is stupid because there is a lot of propaganda already about TTIP coming from the left and the right and making it public will give people a chance to understand it. I mean, this is the greatest economic pact the EU will form and they are hiding it. No matter if you think it will help (as I do) or hurt (as others think), the public deserves to know the full terms.

Which makes me curious why you think this would help? I'm generally pro free trade, but this isn't really about lowering duties (mostly because there aren't many left).

It is rather simple, we are a nation of exporters (and some of our products are IIRC still hampered by duties, like cars) and have profited from every free-trade agreement we signed in the past. India and China will have 1 billion domestic markets, India maybe even 2 billion. The EU has 500 million with a most likely stable population. Thus, we need to increase the common market to keep up with them. This is not an issue for ten or twenty years, but for 50 years onwards. So those are my reasons. I shall also note that I don't have any interest in going any further than that in explaining them, as I just had the two-hour discussion about it.

[Pelranius]

The policy is stupid because there is a lot of propaganda already about TTIP coming from the left and the right and making it public will give people a chance to understand it. I mean, this is the greatest economic pact the EU will form and they are hiding it. No matter if you think it will help (as I do) or hurt (as others think), the public deserves to know the full terms.

The TPP is just as bad in terms of secrecy, with a ridiculous "I said it was"/"No, I said it was" back and forth between the Congress critters over here in DC, especially with regards to the Trade Promotion Authority.

It also makes things worse for the TPP that they're trying to sell it as a way to counter China, until Obama admitted on June 3 that China is likely to join the TPP sometime. A narrative contradiction that makes them look both warmongering (China yellow peril!) and crassly opportunistic (well, China will likely join sometime, depending on your definition of sometime).

[K. A. Pital]

It is rather simple, we are a nation of exporters (and some of our products are IIRC still hampered by duties, like cars) and have profited from every free-trade agreement we signed in the past.

The TTIP is not a "free-trade agreement" like most FTAs are (lowering duties). The US has worse standards than the EU in almost all aspects of the future "common market". Duties already are very low. Removing REACH or introducing ISDS so that you can have more Vattenfall-like cases... is going to help you sell cars? Seriously?

[Thanas]

It is rather simple, we are a nation of exporters (and some of our products are IIRC still hampered by duties, like cars) and have profited from every free-trade agreement we signed in the past.

The TTIP is not a "free-trade agreement" like most FTAs are (lowering duties). The US has worse standards than the EU in almost all aspects of the future "common market". Duties already are very low. Removing REACH or introducing ISDS so that you can have more Vattenfall-like cases... is going to help you sell cars? Seriously?

I shall also note that I don't have any interest in going any further than that in explaining them, as I just had the two-hour discussion about it.

Take that as a concession if you will.

[madd0ct0r]

Apparently we should do it because it's about trade and trade is good. And regulations aren't worse, just different.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 86820.html

Read and despair

[K. A. Pital]

This needn’t mean standards are higher or lower. Just as we drive on the left and they on the right, some regulations are not better or worse, just different

https://chemicalwatch.com/17748/ngo-pla ... -chemicals

The legal basis for the US regulation of chemicals is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Dating from 1976, it is generally considered a huge failure because it leaves to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the burden of proving that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk before being able to apply a restrictive rule to it – whilst using the least burdensome means. Due to this mechanism, only five of approximately 62,000 “existing” chemicals have been restricted under TSCA. Thus the US has relied upon voluntary initiatives to regulate hazardous chemicals, following legal measures taken by other countries/regions, because Section 6 of TSCA has created an insurmountable burden on regulators. Further, the US is not a party to the major international treaties that are relevant for chemicals; such as the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent and the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

...

Therefore, there are two fundamental issues which distinguish the key US law on chemicals from that operating within the EU: the responsibility of the producer of the chemicals; and the promotion of innovative solutions to design and use safe chemicals. REACH adopts a hazard approach to the regulation of chemicals. This means that a substance can be regulated due to its potential to cause harm, even if exposure is minimal or can be controlled. In the US, by contrast, an exposure to the substance under normal conditions of use must be proved, and this exposure must constitute an unreasonable risk in order for the chemical to be regulated as a substance of concern. And, as already mentioned, the EPA must introduce the least burdensome measure in regulating a substance of concern.

In 1991, on the basis of these principles, and in the absence of thorough cost benefit analysis, a US court of appeal rejected the EPA’s ban on existing uses of asbestos – a chemical that has been known for decades to cause lung cancer and that was banned in the EU in 2005. Since then, the EPA has not regulated a single chemical for its unreasonable risk.

Let us all be driving on the proper side, then, eheheh.

[madd0ct0r]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 10965.html

An historic vote on the biggest trade deal ever negotiated between the EU and the US has had to be postponed after the European Parliament descended into chaos.

European MPs were due to vote on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on Wednesday. But the vote had to be delayed because there were too many proposed amendments.

"It's panic in parliament," Yannick Jadot, a Green MEP from France, told AFP. Ministers have disagreed over a controversial dispute mechanism that some fear would allow big companies to bypass national courts to resolve disputes with investors.

Socialist groups in the European Parliament reportedly blocked the dispute mechanism on Tuesday, which resulted in the vote being postponed.

Brussels had suggested a separate investment court to resolve disputes but lawmakers in the US have insisted that this is unnecessary.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Good that there's a fight back. Sadly, in Asia, where most Governments pay lip service to giving a fuck about its citizens, there won't be one.

[K. A. Pital]

And TTIP supporters apparently also voted to postpone the debate after they failed to prevent a surge of amendments from opponents.

Well, if they are thinking that there will be another chance to pull this shit undercover in July or later, I hope they're gravely mistaken.

As for the rosy-glasses people who think there will be no damage, the damage is already happening:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/20 ... e-from-us/

[His Divine Shadow]

More and more it looks like the EU was dumb and the euro was even dumber, to join.

[K. A. Pital]

More and more it looks like the EU was dumb and the euro was even dumber, to join.

Maybe it is high time to talk the merits of giving the Eurocomission so much power. The Parliament has been working good so far, with the utter rejection of ACTA.

I've also updated the OP link to the 2015 edition of the RLS report on TTIP.

[K. A. Pital]

Today the EP voted to greenlight ISDS.

Fuck you, fat Eurocrat moneybags. In the end, I can once again vote with my feet, being a nomad at heart, but I still think it is possible that this agreement does not pass. However, now the hope is very slim.

[Thanas]

I don't agree with ISDS at all. We got courts, use them instead of calling on extralegal tribunals.

[Welf]

I'm pretty sure the ISDS are one of the main features of the contract. That way business-friendly laws can be perpetuated, because legislatures and voters will be scarred by possible lawsuits.

[Irbis]

More and more it looks like the EU was dumb and the euro was even dumber, to join.

EU was good idea. You know, old EU, before Reagan-like shits captured the government and started turning it into dumber, weaker USA (with better food, admittedly) acting as boot-licking vassal to real one. In a sense, TTIP is like USA joined EU, but with all the privileges, none of the responsibilities, and influence far exceeding that of any existing EU member or even group of members.

Behold, ISDS might be about to end any sort of anti-smoking regulations in the UK and Australia, by means of 11 bln £ lawsuit, and the TTIP ones will be far stronger and less likely to listen to states than the ones in place in UK now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/busin ... ettes.html

In fact, the very same corporations already ended anti-smoking regulations in several Asian, South American and African countries too poor to fight them in ISDS, hooray for literally profiting on human blood and misery!

[His Divine Shadow]

That does it, I'm taking up smoking!

[K. A. Pital]

Without ISDS the United States would simply drop negotiations, so it is actually easy to understand why it is there. What amazes me to no end is the idea that you can operate in a country and ignore the authority of its courts. And I love how the European Commission TTIP website just lies about what ISDS is, saying there cound not be lawsuits against nations implementing healthcare reforms... When Achmea sued Slovakia for its healthcare reforms just recently.

[His Divine Shadow]

They should call their bluff, and if they drop it, fuck them.