R.I.P. TTIP?

[marmar]

R.I.P. TTIP?
by Don Quijones • May 4, 2016

[font color="blue"]Holy Grail US-EU trade deal is “probably doomed.”[/font]
By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET.


TTIP, the once super-secret transatlantic trade deal that is now broadly despised on both sides of the Atlantic, may not be alive yet but it could soon be dead. And all thanks to leaks which confirm a longstanding suspicion in Europe that the ultimate goal of TTIP is to pry open European markets for big U.S. corporations, with little offered in the way of reciprocity.

The UK Independent reports that the 248 pages of documents released by Greenpeace show that the “hated” deal would grant US corporations “unprecedented powers” over any new public health or safety regulations to be introduced in the future:

If any European government does dare to bring in laws to raise social or environmental standards, TTIP will grant US investors the right to sue for loss of profits.

It is iron-clad confirmation that many of our biggest fears were well-founded. At long last the treaty that should not be named is being exposed to the harsh light of day, all its darkest intentions splashed across the front pages of Europe’s biggest selling newspapers. As the European Green party notes, “every single publicly voiced suspicion concerning the lack of transparency in these TTIP negotiations has been justified by the revelations stemming from the leak.” ................(more)

http://wolfstreet.com/2016/05/04/r-i-p-ttip-eu-us-trade-pact-leaks/

[Katashi_itto]

1. Hillary will begin to push this 5 mins after she is sworn in.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Sad but True

[Baobab]

41. This is how they get them passed now, they signal left, turn right.

TTIP would prevent environmental laws. It will shield makers of incredibly costly endocrine disrupting chemicals, lock in fracking ban bans,They want it so very badly.

They would never walk away from it. Don't believe any thing they say.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Let's make sure she isn't sworn in, and support Sanders up to the hilt.

[TIME TO PANIC]

10. Yep, it will just have a different name. n/t

[Baobab]

42. Another name for TTIP is TAFTA

People are getting hip to the confusing name game, though.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. It's how she'll convince the GOP to not impeach her.

You can't buy the love of the GOP but you can rent their approval by the hour.

[fasttense]

20. Very funny, I spitout my coffee after reading that.n/t

[snort]

18. Given the number of Delegates up for grabs in Cali and Oregon,

maybe it won't be that way at all.

[Arugula Latte]

22. Yes. I think this is the major driver behind the push to elect her.

I hope the Europeans can squash her & Bill's dreams.

[GummyBearz]

29. Yep, Bernie has his work cut out for him. Fillibustering all her horrible policy ideas.

It is going to be really hard, but I think he can do it. Feel free to add to the list of republican policies she is in favor of:

-Fracking
-Increased number of H1B visas
-Less regulation for wall street
-Foreign trade policies that benefit corporations and harm workers
-Foreign regime change (could be out of his hands unless she calls for an IWR type vote)

A republican congress would pass all of these and she would sign everything. There are probably more I am forgetting

[Baobab]

43. this is my nomination

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Nick%20Skala%20GAT%20and%20Health%20Reform.pdf

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Won't do her any good

since France at least and possibly also Germany have signalled that they're probably not really interested in lowering their standards on environmental protection, labour law, and animal welfare to those of the USA. And without unanimous European agreement it's dead in the water.

[cali]

3. One can hope

[pampango]

4. It does sound like continuing to have the WTO govern things is preferable to TTIP.

Europeans seem to be worried about competition with low-wage, non-union American workers and American laissez faire economics.

Attitudes have changed in the last couple of years.



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/is-europe-on-board-for-a-new-trade-deal-with-the-u-s/

[Blue_Tires]

5. Holland has elections coming up and has to 'position' himself

France also has some in-house industries they desperately want to protect...

[marmar]

6. It's not just France. The TTIP is about as popular in Europe as George W. Bush was.

[Blue_Tires]

7. But France is the only country who actually stopped negotiations

I don't blame them, Europe as a whole probably want to straighten their own house out first anyways.

[Betty Karlson]

9. I think you mean Hollande, the president of France?

Holland are two of the 12 Dutch provinces. Where they are preparing a 'corrective referendum' to shoot TTIP down with extreme prejudice.

[Equinox Moon]

11. mega corporations = slavery...

...more and more I have this understanding, for there is a nebulous overlord (Corp) that has ZERO interest in humanity or the planet. The TTP and TTIP is straight out of SciFi. "Corporations take over the planet". It is very out-of-balance with life itself.

It is so far out to me that these "agreements" got this far. I guess the secrecy was the method, but insanity is the how. IMO.

[bbgrunt]

12. Never say never. I can only hope that this

is true, but never believe the corps will give this up. Remember that they control the press too and this may only be a temporary tactical retreat.

[FlatBaroque]

13. Evil never rests

We the people must remain vigilant as these sociopathic miscreants will keep trying to sneak in bits and pieces until they get another chance to ram it down our throats.

[scottie55]

14. Corporations Aren't People Mitt, They Are Gods

And they rule us.

All for pennies a share!

Just shut up and pay, or die, or pay and die anyway.

Screw labor, and the environment.

This iz Ammerikka.

[ronnie624]

15. "Despite all the tough talk from the French government,

I have a sneaking suspicion that EU governments could be merely hard balling the U.S. in the hope of extracting better concessions for their own pet corporations, in particular the holy grail of more equal participation in U.S. public procurement processes. Also, as Nick Drearden of Global Justice Now warns, a system is already in place in Europe for trade deals to come into effect even without a vote in member parliaments:"

http://wolfstreet.com/2016/05/04/r-i-p-ttip-eu-us-trade-pact-leaks/

Working people need a way to organize on a global level. The oligarchs outmaneuver us at every turn.

[Overseas]

16. K&R. Yes please!

[florida08]

19. That would be wonderful

But evil doesn't die it just changes forms. Would feel so much better with Bernie in charge for the next 8 years so I'm going to write him in as my candidate in November. I hope all independents who didn't get to vote in the primaries will do it too. When David Koch sanctions H.Clinton as the best president that's a big red flag for me.

[whatthehey]

21. I thought this one was terrible for America?

Now it's terrible because it's biased towards us?

[Kittycat]

23. US Corporations does not equal us/people.

We've known this for a long time. Since when does a US corporation care if they poison our water, our air, our crops, our people? Since when does a US corporation care about good labor policy, unions, living wages, shared profits? Yes, we do have some progressive companies in this country, but they are the exception to the rule. Corporations are mostly beholden to their share holders (aka profit), or their own greed.

The government is there to regulate that in the best interests of "we the people" who elect them. Unfortunately, instead of our politicians promoting trade agreements that elevate our country, incomes and jobs. Instead of rising to the standards of Europe and developing trade policies to ensure developing countries can as well, we are promoting trade policies that allow us to sink lower in every regard.

Hurray for capitolism and free trade! Screw the people everywhere. 1% rule.

[Arugula Latte]

25. It's terrible for the workers and the environment and citizen control on on both sides.

You're the CEO of a giant corporation? Well, hey, it's your lucky day when the TPP passes! Doesn't matter what side of the Atlantic you're on then.

[malthaussen]

36. But here's the question I'd like you to answer:

Why should it matter what side of the Atlantic you're on? Or even if you are not on the Atlantic at all (obviously, a question pertaining to more than the TTiP).

To assert that it does matter, as I see it, is to assert that one collection of people is more important than another.

Multinational trade agreements do not address this question (they see all of us as unimportant, I'd say. which is both different from and similar to seeing us all as important), but an objection based on one group of people having priority over another seems inequitable.

-- Mal

[Baobab]

44. the whole point of the T-deals is to lower regulations and wages to the lowest common denominator

procurement will make government purchasing of services an international affair. that will push wages down whenever any kind of project is done and eliminate carve outs for women and minority owned businesses, replacing them with carve outs for corporations from less developed countries. That is also how they plan to 'fix' healthcare, education and IT.

We may see many more stories with framing like this in the near future: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-dispute

Also, you are right on equal pay for corporations - many will employ very low wage foreign workers.

Since they can, they want to. Google World Competition Day to see the logic behind it.

[ronnie624]

26. It is biased against working-class people throughout the world.

Its purpose is to benefit the owners of the global economy at the expense of everyone else, by making it more difficult to institute policies to improve labor conditions and wages, protect our biosphere and provide public services to the needy. The people who are promoting these 'partnerships', are motivated by a desire for self-enrichment, and little else. They are not your allies.

[Baobab]

45. Yes basically that true but we need to understand that poor countries have been strung along for 20

years with these promises of jobs.

For how they see American and EU workers, see the bottom of Page 7 here

http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dom_reg.pdf

[malthaussen]

24. Well, how about a little philosophical advocatus diaboli...

... the philosophical question I see emerging from these mega-trade agreements is this: why is State rule superior to Corporate rule? We can stipulate, for the nonce, that the nation-state was a useful construct for a lot of years, although we must also acknowledge that we have to take a lot of bad with the good. Setting aside the demerits of such transnational trade agreements (which are pretty evident, IMO), isn't the biggest argument against them reducible to "I got mine, screw you?" in respect of the people of other nations? There is a strong element of isolationism in anti-trade arguments, whereas the con used to support them points out that, while people in Des Moines may have to adjust their standards of living downward, people in Shanghai are going to greatly improve theirs. Now, why should I, a resident of the suburbs of Philadelphia, care more about the people of Des Moines than the people of Shanghai? Because the latter are not "my kind?" Because the people of Des Moines, with none of whom I am personally acquainted, share with myself "allegiance" to some abstract notion that creates nothing so much as a self-perpetuating barrier between me and others? Which barrier, of course, provides a convenient excuse for us to exploit those others, and vice-versa, with the punch line being that the real beneficiaries are the ruling class in both states, who are laughing at me all the way to the bank.

No, gentle reader, I am not so naive as to believe the con, and I do understand that multinational trade agreements are designed to serve the ruling class (or, to put a finer point on it, the owning class), and that the small increase in standard of living for the residents of Shanghai is disproportionate to the depression in Des Moines, and to the profits for the corporations. What I suggest is that the arguments against such agreements typically perpetuate an obsolescent system which leads to much the same result as the proposed changes, in that the owning class will still derive obscene profit. The only difference I see is that I -- and possibly those in Des Moines, continue to be, if you will, "more better off" than those in Shanghai; and I suggest that this is not, ultimately, a particularly charitable rationale.

-- Mal

[ronnie624]

27. The People can act only through the State.

It is through the State that a people maintain their national sovereignty and self-determination. Handing control of social organization and the establishment of public policy over to corporations, eliminates sovereignty and subordinates the principles of democracy and self-determination to the greedy desires of elites. The entire concept of such a system is mind-blowing lunacy, considering the challenges we face in our immediate future.

[pampango]

28. National sovereignty is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In the UK the far-right

is trying to exit from the EU while unions want to stay in to preserve workers' right that are part of EU membership. The right, of course, maintains that membership in the EU weakens the UK's sovereign right to weaken workers' rights if it wants to. Workers' rights are more than national sovereignty.

Handing control of social organization and the establishment of public policy over to corporations, eliminates sovereignty and subordinates the principles of democracy and self-determination to the greedy desires of elites.

Your view of the American sovereign government as a force that resists "Handing control of social organization and the establishment of public policy over to corporations ... and subordinates the principles of democracy and self-determination to the greedy desires of elites" is very quaint. Many of us view the government as quite the opposite - a captive of corporations and the greedy elites.

In fact, any international agreement limits 'national sovereignty'. If the climate change agreements are successful we lose the sovereign right to built as many coal-fired power plants as we would like. In the Iran nuclear deal, Iran gave up some 'sovereign' right to develop certain weapons in exchange for something else.

Progressive countries can sign international agreements that sacrifice national sovereignty in return for something they value more.

Trump wants to tear up all of our international agreements. I do not look at him as any kind of pro-worker liberal.

[ronnie624]

31. I don't disagree with anything you said.

I just don't want corporations making such decisions on behalf of the public. The owner class is motivated exclusively by a desire for self-enrichment, which is demonstrably detrimental to the common good.

Fuck capitalism.

[malthaussen]

35. Presumably, you disagree with "The Fable of the Bees" then,

.. as well as Federalist #10 and the body of thinking that asserts that a sort of dynamic equilibrium results from competing selfishnesses?

-- Mal

[ronnie624]

37. Obviously,

you embrace a shitload of false, illogical underlying assumptions about the nature of the universe and human behavior, as evidenced by your circuitous, rambling attempt to rationalize a belief in your economic theology.

[malthaussen]

33. There's a piquant irony in the fact...

... that the corporations want essentially to abolish the nation-state, which is a truly progressive goal, for the most reactionary and selfish reasons, greed and the desire to exploit workers more efficiently.

-- Mal

[JDPriestly]

49. I want to have a say in whether a company can pollute the air in the

area in which I live. The TPP will not allow me to have that say, not in any meaningful way.

People who feel bound to each other geographically should be able to form a government amongst themselves and govern themselves. That is what self-government means.

I do not want to have people in Singapore involved in the law-making in my country or my area of my state or my city.

The reason is quite simple: People in Singapore don't know anything about what it is like to live where I live, what the shared values are of the people who live in my community (the City of Los Angeles, California to be exact), our needs, our priorities or our general personality. The people in Singapore don't know our customs, our religious tolerance, or much of anything about our culture.

And I know very little about all those aspects of life in Singapore.

That's why we don't want international corporations suing our country and forcing us to pay them a ransom to get them to leave us alone when we want to be left alone to make our own rules.

California is a state with people from diverse backgrounds. Nevertheless, we have a unique culture. The United States has a unique culture. Americans differ as to their values depending on where they live within the US but also share fundamental values.

We do not want decisions made about what goes on in the US by people who have never lived here.

[malthaussen]

51. I approach this downthread.

Personally, I live in Philly, which is about as far from LA as one can get and still be in the Lower 48. Arguably, people in California should not be making decisions that affect Philadelphia (and vice-versa), but they do insofar as federal legislation is concerned.

The whole argument about State's Rights is grounded in the philosophy that each state should make its own laws, and that's one reason why 18 is the legal age of consent in California, but it is 16 in Pennsylvania. I suggest that the idea that LA has no business making rules for Philadelphia (or Singapore for LA), is obsolescent and can lead to more trouble than it is worth. It is just because of this concept (and the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to support it) that North Carolina can forbid transsexuals from using the bathroom, or that various states can disenfranchise entire classes of voter.

The whole point of a Federal system of government is to regulate conduct among quasi-sovereign states (states with a little "s," if you will) while allowing them to handle other issues in their own fashion. The question is, are labor and environmental laws of a stature that they should be executed at the highest level possible, or is some variation reasonable? Given that they affect people in more than one jurisdiction, we could argue the former; OTOH there are certain specific areas in which it is ludicrous for LA and Philadelphia to be making rules for each other.

Of course, the proposed trade agreements want to exploit this, not to validate it, and it is a good argument, IMO, to argue that national sovereignty prevents corporations from reducing environmental and labor laws to the least common denominator (which is, of course, the prospect that has them licking their lips in anticipation). But it is an essentially reactionary response, if the motivation is to secure a higher standard of living for one group of people and not all.

-- Mal

[JDPriestly]

52. I'd say that whether an issue should be decided locally or federally depends on the issue.

And of course, that is the way our system works. Some issues are best decided at a local level, like the schedule for schools or certain building codes, police matters, etc. Los Angeles has a very strict earthquake building code, for example, that would not be needed in an area further from the St. Andreas fault.

That is why deciding regulations in an international code is just unacceptable. We simply don't need it. If companies want certain uniform international codes, let them argue their case code by code in legislature by legislature and not setting up a kangaroo court in which they have most of the power because they, not the people in the locality in which the codes are to be enforced, own half of the legislature.

Having national governments representing people of countries as large as the United States, Canada or Mexico, etc. is just absurd. As for small countries like Lichtenstein, it would be financially impossible. Same for very poor countries like Viet Nam. Just impossible.

The idea that corporations should have the right to appear in international tribunals defies the understanding.

They should appear and be heard, that is file their cases, in the local courts controlled by judges appointed or elected in democracies, judges that answer the people of a smaller area, a state or at the very least, a country. People decide democratically on most issues just how large the political area that they want their area to be. And that is as it should be.

I'm for democracy. I'm not for corporate rule. I'm for the rule of real human beings.

[malthaussen]

53. Anti-Federalist, are you? :)

I think some matters -- interstate commerce being a classic example -- have to be handled at a higher level than local jurisdictions provide. And consider that variations on something like the age of consent are ridiculous, because physical maturity does not vary significantly from locality to locality: one could not reasonably claim that teenagers in California and Pennsylvania differ fundamentally in their development, especially as both states have education systems roughly on par with each other in their sophistication.

-- Mal

[JDPriestly]

54. It depends on the issue. We would very much like to ban fracking in California.

The earthquake danger is too great. If people in other states want fracking, that is their business.

We have a different climate than other states. Water conservation is a big issue in California. We need to be able to decide our own water law.

Flooding is a bigger problem, a more common problem in some states than it is in California. Those states should be free to decide their own policy on how to deal with floods.

And so it goes. Some issues are decidedly local. The TPP and the TPIP would make it difficult for local laws to meet local needs or for national laws to meet national needs.

Just watched a very interesting video comparing European agricultural laws to ours. Theirs are better.

Europeans do not want our Monsanto products. They should have the right to exclude them.

The European law is a civil law system. Our is based on English common law with some exceptions. That should remain.

The TPP and TPIP are impossible and will create many problems.

[malthaussen]

30. Well, "National Sovereignty" is impossible without a State...

... therefore the first part of your reply reduces to "Only through the State do the People maintain the State," which is of course a tautology.

As to self-determination, setting aside the more obvious questions, I'm curious as to what slice of people constitutes a reasonable number for a group to be entitled to self-determination. There are what, 170-odd nation states now, which is considerably up from the number when I was a lad. Populations and territories vary greatly. For example, the nation-state of Andorra contains fewer people than the county in which I live. Yet the nation-state of Andorra may (subject to evident pressures from neighbors) determine many questions on which my county is not privileged to rule. If nations preserve my self-determination (stipulating that there is such a thing), then how is it a State of over 300 million can be in any way construed to maintain such to the same extent that one of 80,000 can?

-- Mal

[GummyBearz]

32. Philosophy is great

And your critique of the concept of nations (could even call it tribalism) in the new, global, market place is well phrased. The only problem is it is not reality. People in power (ie. the king of country X, the president of country Y) are not going to throw away their power in order to create a unified planet earth. Lines have been drawn on a map, and people who control what is inside those lines will go to war to keep their lines intact.

A globally coordinated uprising to over throw those in power has the same odds of success as the american communist party does winning control of the house and senate

[malthaussen]

34. But of course.

What's interesting is that the ruling class are beginning to find that their class interests really are more important than their national ones. (Nothing new to this, but it was held in abeyance for awhile when the "new" concept of the nation-state seemed to hold better possibilities for the ruling class to have their fun)

We may be in a period when the concept of "power" is shifting from older models. It's not so much about real estate anymore.

-- Mal

[Baobab]

47. they will throw away their power in exchange for money.

and the problem with trade deals is that they are irreversible.

[JDPriestly]

50. The size of the group that is entitled to self-determination should

depend on the size of a group that can govern itself.

The US is one country that enjoys self-determination over a large geographical area because there is a lot of local self-rule in smaller sections of the country combined with a representative body drawn from and representing all parts of the country. We have a good combination. We share our language and the basic assumptions about government, its purpose and organization that are set forth in our Constitution.

We do not want supernational agencies or organizations governing us. I do not like the WTO or any similar organizations to the extent that they have the authority to order me in my home town around.

California is but one state in the Union but it is the 7th largest economy in the world. We govern ourselves on many matters, and we like it like that. France does not want to have to follow laws that Americans might love just because Americans like them. That is absolutely understandable.

I have lived in altogether five different countries in the world. Four in Europe. Each has its own culture and rightfully enjoys the ability to govern itself in many ways.

Yet European countries join together and if enough of them agree, they impose common laws upon themselves within certain limits. That is their right. It is their right to agree to do that.

The differences between Europe and the US especially in terms of the legal systems and other laws are just too great to permit unification of the sort that the TTIP would provide.

[Baobab]

46. trade deals put corporations on top of nation-states

State rule is better for people because people exist in it. Corporate rule has no qualms about starving millions of people to death or freezing them if somebody else will pay more for their food or heating gas. It sees that as normal.

It basically rolls back the gains of the 20th century.

[Jopin Klobe]

38. R.I.P. TTIP? ...

... to those specific letters in that specific order? ...

... yes ...

... and, then ... alottaothercrapinthedark ...

[Hotler]

39. Rest in peace hell!

it should die a violent painful death, quivering and shaking till the end and its last gasp is heard.

[malaise]

40. Neo-liberalism by force

as in Fascism