ttip

[Der_Neugierige]

I have watched a german comedy show with the topic TTIP. I guess most Europeans do not want a free trade asociation with the USA.

 

Very shocking for me even that in the USA asbestos is not banned!!!

 

Even more they(us food industries and us-farmers) want GMO food exported to Europe thanks this shitty free trade association.

 

Also very shocking for is that in the USA chicken desinfectized with chorid!Yuck! That's illegal here.

[Daecon]

From what I gather, most of the New Zealand public don't want it either, but the politicians do...

[Endy0816]

Who stands to gain if they get you to fight against it?

 

Products still containing asbestos are limited. Not like we're all running around in fireproof T-shirts over here.

 

The chicken is washed with a pretty diluted amount. Not an uncommon process.

 

Have you ever looked at what some of the ancestors of crops looked like? Why do deliberate changes rather than random mutations, freak you out but what is already on your plate does not?

 

 

Honestly, I think EU needs this more than we do. Probably going to be more country bailouts down the line. No small amount of resistance to measures to improve productivity and reduce debt, even in the countries that could use it the most.

[CharonY]

As usual, politics is dominated by outrage rather than a careful analysis of the actual details. A recent book has taken a look at the differences in regulations and found that broadly speaking, neither country can claim to be stricter than the other ("The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe"),

Rather the elements that are strictly regulated in either country are subject to dominating public opinion. For example, Europe has a strong anti-GMO sentiment, resulting in harsher regulation (but surprisingly, not for plants that are pretty much the same but not obtained by the same techniques, which again, shows that the divergence between science and politics...), on the other hand US has harsher limitations on fine particle air pollution.

There are also areas in which some may state concern and have regulations, but not actually enforce them. For example, in the US antibiotics can be used to fatten cattle, whereas in Europe (IIRC) you can only do for health reasons. Yet de facto antibiotics use is pretty much the same on either side of the ocean.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, only big business gains from TTIP.

The consumers lose out because the corporations can sue governments for loss of income due to lost sales due, in turn, to consumer protection legislation.

 

That's why they have to negotiate about it in secret- if the public knew more about it, we would be outraged.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

[Der_Neugierige]

As far as I can tell, only big business gains from TTIP.

The consumers lose out because the corporations can sue governments for loss of income due to lost sales due, in turn, to consumer protection legislation.

 

That's why they have to negotiate about it in secret- if the public knew more about it, we would be outraged.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

As you can see only US-citizen are pro TTIP, while me(Swiss) you(English) and one man from New Zealand is against. We only lose whith this free trade association.

 

BTW once again you can see how undemocratic the EU institution in Brussel is. This is issue that should be cleared through a referendum!

I hope it won't pass.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Der_Neugierige

[CharonY]

As far as I can tell, only big business gains from TTIP.

The consumers lose out because the corporations can sue governments for loss of income due to lost sales due, in turn, to consumer protection legislation.

 

That's why they have to negotiate about it in secret- if the public knew more about it, we would be outraged.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

 

This is my reading, too. My major concern that it would soften up regulations to the lowest common denominator in terms of safety regulations. The ISDS mentioned by John is another big point of contention.

 

It is not an US vs Europe thing. It is more corporate vs individual interests. It is hard to figure out specifics due to the closed negotiations, which makes it even more ominous.

Edited May 30, 2016 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

As you can see only US-citizen are pro TTIP, ...

That might be roughly equivalent to saying that US citizens are pro Trump.

Many might be, but should know better.

It does not benefit US citizens any more than it does EU or other citizens.

[Endy0816]

That bit may not happen, as there is opposition here to ISDSs as well.

 

I'm not really for/against it so much so I'm against businesses preying on emotions to further protectionism. I do wish proceedings were more open. Some way where the work could get done without it getting bogged down in endless debate.

 

Honestly TTIP was barely even on my radar, trade happens the other way around where I live. People come here, exchange their currencies for goods and services and then happily haul the stuff home.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

That bit may not happen, as there is opposition here to ISDSs as well.

 

 

 

Honestly TTIP was barely even on my radar, trade happens the other way around where I live. People come here, exchange their currencies for goods and services and then happily haul the stuff home.

What mechanism is in place for that opposition to actually stop the process which is carried out without public involvement or consultation?

 

What happens if those goods are dangerously faulty?

Do they get taken back for a refund?

Is the buyer legally entitled to that refund (and to other costs/ damages?)

What would happen if the seller suddenly was allowed to say that the legislation that protects the buyer is a burden on his business and he is able to claim the money back from the government?

That's where TTIP is heading.

[DrP]

The idea of an American company suing our government because we won't sell their products which contain chemicals banned in the EU is dumb... of course we don't want it. It will probably go ahead regardless of what we want anyway.

[Phi for All]

These types of agreements historically turn a few very wealthy people into ridiculously wealthy people by taking the extra from workers beneath them. Meetings where the public is not invited to discuss use of public funds rarely works out well for the public.

 

Your leaders are invited, they represent your vote, but do they really represent how you feel about the continuous relaxation of regulations and taxation of Big Business? The ultimate goal of Big Business is to pay no taxes at all, have the public pay for infrastructure improvements, as well as subsidize continued corporate success. Should we be comfortable with such heavy influence from the Capitalist part of our hybrid governments?

[Endy0816]

What happens if those goods are dangerously faulty?

Do they get taken back for a refund?

Is the buyer legally entitled to that refund (and to other costs/ damages?)

What is the law on product recalls in the UK?

 

 

What mechanism is in place for that opposition to actually stop the process which is carried out without public involvement or consultation?

Politicians are responsible for ratifying it. We'd probably still be negotiating the end of WWI if we tried direct democracy for treaty ratification.

 

 

These are selected bits from Wikipedia and a US Gov's site on the matter:

 

Tribunals

 

Investment disputes can be initiated by corporations and natural persons and in almost all cases, investment tribunals are composed of three arbitrators. As in most arbitrations, one is appointed by the investor, one by the state, and the third is usually chosen by agreement between the parties or their appointed arbitrators or selected by the appointing authority, depending on the procedural rules applicable to the dispute. If the parties do not agree who to appoint, this power is assigned to executive officials usually at the World Bank, the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or a private chamber of commerce.

 

Other individuals cannot initiate a claim against a state under an investment treaty. Also, no individual or state can initiate a claim against a foreign investor under an investment treaty. This has led to criticisms that investor-state arbitration is not balanced and that it favours the "haves" over the "have nots" by giving foreign investors, especially major companies, access to a special tribunal outside any court. While the arbitration process itself does not provide explicitly privileged access for larger investors over individuals or SMEs, the costs of ISDS, as in any court or arbitration system, tend to be off-putting for smaller claimants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Tribunals

 

 

According to the most recent UNCTAD data, only a quarter of concluded ISDS cases worldwide have been decided in favor of investors. When investors win, the damages they are typically awarded are substantially less than the value they have claimed. Because of high arbitration costs, the low winning percentage, the potential for future retaliation against the investor by the government being sued, ISDS is typically a recourse of last resort.

In an effort to safeguard against potential abuses of ISDS, TPP will have state-of-the-art protections. It will recognize the inherent right to regulate and to preserve the flexibility of the TPP Parties to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, and the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources. The investment chapter will include carefully defined obligations and exceptions designed to ensure that nothing in the chapter impinges on legitimate regulation or provides foreign investors with greater substantive rights than those already available under U.S. law. It will also reaffirm the right of any TPP government to ensure that investment activity in its territory is undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental, health, or other regulatory objectives.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

 

 

 

http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS?status=1

 

Should treat what you consume from the media as if it were a PopSci article.

 

Totally different if you decide that these corporations really are rat bastards when you have all the information.

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of an American company suing our government because we won't sell their products which contain chemicals banned in the EU is dumb... of course we don't want it. It will probably go ahead regardless of what we want anyway.

You've got it backwards. This is all an elaborate ploy for the EU companies to start importing Kinder Surprise eggs and the like to the US.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Endy0816

[Phi for All]

You've got it backwards. This is all an elaborate ploy for the EU companies to start importing Kinder Surprise eggs and the like to the US.

 

Oh, well, that's different. I need more Magic Car Racers. Bring it on!

[John Cuthber]

According to the graphic that Endy0816 posted, in about a quarter of cases they decided to overrule the state.

But the state was enforcing the law.

So, in a quarter of cases this process lets companies ignore the law.

How democratic is that?

[fiveworlds]

I have heard a lot of scaremongering on facebook about ttip. Like if we ratify ttip we would have to allow corporations like Monsanto and Walmart into the country but I honestly haven't read it. Does anybody have a link to the actual document??

[CharonY]

I think that is part of the problem as ttip is not a formalized agreement (yet) that could be scrutinized in detail. This is used by proponents and opponents to utilize half-truths to sway public opinion. For example, I doubt that there are any imitations that either company could enter a market, but it could regulate the product they sell. It especially does not make sense to bring walmart into it, as it does not create its own products. But its business model is not profitable everywhere.

For example, Walmart operates in 28 countries and was in Germany (and still is in the UK as ASDA), but exited from Germany due to massive losses.

Likewise, Monsanto basically operates worldwide with facilities on every continent (maybe except Australia, but they sell products there). So the claim has little basis.

Edited May 31, 2016 by CharonY

[fiveworlds]

Likewise, Monsanto basically operates worldwide with facilities on every continent (maybe except Australia, but they sell products there). So the claim has little basis.

 

Doesn't stop the scaremongering though

 

https://www.facebook.com/StopTTIPUK/posts/866157223437581

 

[CharonY]

Yeah, at this point Monsanto has become the face of evil though to be fair, their practices as whole does not appear to be more problematic than, say certain pharmaceutical companies or large corporations in general. Incidentally, Bayer (German company) is trying to buy Monsanto...

[Endy0816]

According to the graphic that Endy0816 posted, in about a quarter of cases they decided to overrule the state.

But the state was enforcing the law.

So, in a quarter of cases this process lets companies ignore the law.

How democratic is that?

 

You would be okay with Bob taking your house if Bob said it was okay for Bob to take your house?

 

Basically the issue.

 

I'm pretty sure all the arbitrators do is award damages in the case that they can't get the parties to reach some kind of agreement. Have to have something or businesses just won't bother or worse resort to getting their government to embargo and attempt to overthrow a foreign power because it nationalized their refinery.

 

Yeah, at this point Monsanto has become the face of evil though to be fair, their practices as whole does not appear to be more problematic than, say certain pharmaceutical companies or large corporations in general. Incidentally, Bayer (German company) is trying to buy Monsanto...

 

I just wonder if people will be able to hate a company they associate with a plain looking pill bottle to the same extent.

 

 

 

 

Oh, well, that's different. I need more Magic Car Racers. Bring it on!

 

In the EU there is stuff in the food, in the US there is stuff on the food. I'm switching to Soylent. :|

[Der_Neugierige]

Oil fracking also would get relegalized if ttip comes! Currently Oil fracking is not legal in Europe.

[CharonY]

Do you have any reports on this? Also note that fracking is not illegal throughout Europe. A number of countries, such as e.g. Netherlands have put a moratorium, France has banned it, it is legal in Germany, but not economically viable, Poland is actively trying to start or have already started and so on.

[John Cuthber]

Oil fracking also would get relegalized if ttip comes! Currently Oil fracking is not legal in Europe.

Oh yes it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36356245

[MigL]

There's 'stuff' in Soylent too, Endy.

 

"Its people !

Soylent Green is made out of people."

 

C. Heston, best NRA member, ape fighter and Red Sea parter, ever.

[Endy0816]

There's 'stuff' in Soylent too, Endy.

 

"Its people !

Soylent Green is made out of people."

 

C. Heston, best NRA member, ape fighter and Red Sea parter, ever.

 

That's okay. I only eat organic and antibiotic free.