European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA
stop-ttip.org
stop-ttip.org
Investigation for tax fraud and insider trading ( http://goo.gl/wnBN95 ). He is never going to get punished (the judges are his friends). If he sues me about writing this, i'm probably fucked
These initiatives are trade agreements, that's why the EU can keep the meetings / documents a secret. Also, votes are anonymous when it comes to trade agreements.
As the guy of ACTA, he would simply ignore the democratic rejection of the parlement: http://goo.gl/ucrnNX ).
Here are some videos where he was obviously caught lying about ACTA and the economic importance of it (an interview): http://goo.gl/NG6hOq
He also send a letter in the past to the European Commission to defend ACTA and lied about ACTA: http://goo.gl/8AOmSX
PS. He is the reason why i don't trust the EU i live in. Everyone knows about the above (tax fraud, ...), but nothing happens. He is now getting promoted to head of foreign policy of the EU
PS2. There is nothing you can do about Karel De Gucht... He will try again with another agreement in the future, if this would fail. ( ACTA became CETA became TIPP ). I'm worried that people will resist less every time a new "trade-agreement" comes up
Our best hope is to shoot this thing down when it has to be ratified by the EU parliament. During the last legislative period, the parliament has shown that it can and will use its powers to protect the citizens. (I'm thinking about its recent work on net neutrality and privacy.)
We can expect nothing from the Commision and we should expect to be betrayed by the council (that's the national leaders), but the EU Parliament is firmly on our side.
The citizens in a lot of EU countries have massively protested, that's why it got rejected, in Belgium, none of the protests even came in the Belgian media (tv, newspaper, ..) - http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs .
In the letter in my previous post, Karel De Gucht tried to influence the commission, so that they would't reject the proposal solely on the fact that a massive ammount of people emailed/contacted politicians about ACTA (it's cleary mentioned in the letter of Karel De Gucht, asking for the politicians not being influenced by the massive protests http://goo.gl/8AOmSX )
But i distrust the EU commission (not the entire EU), you corrected me on that one
PS. The popular newspaper linked was HLN (het laatste nieuws), but feel free to search any Belgian alternative newspaper :)
PS2. I haven't met anyone in person that thinks Karel De Gucht does a good job. If there is someone who disagrees with me, i'm sorry. But you are probably not from Belgium :)
The situation you describe raises some questions, though. If he is this unpopular and disliked in Belgium, how on earth did he manage to become Belgium's representative in the Commission, holding a key post (Commissioner for Trade)?
(He was being investigated after he went in the EU)
Also, it has been shown that the Russians are astroturfing in favor of right and left wing extremists in Europe...
The EU parliament is the only aspect that is partially on the side of the people. But on the other end there's the EU Commission, the council of ministers and the entire corrupt EU bureaucracy that is beyond any form of oversight.
Parliament is the least powerful element of the EU, and any positive news that reaches HN from the EU is usually about parliament managing to pull off a rare victory over all of those other forces. (For instance Net Neutrality or defeating ACTA.)
And this only after massive popular lobbying of said parliament. EU parliament certainly isn't "firmly" on our side, but since their the only part of the EU that is actually democratically elected we can occasionally get a small majority to interrupt lining their pockets and take a stand.
The EU itself is a backdoor for treaties like TTIP and CETA. Without it, such treaties would have to go through the democratic processes of sovereign nations, which, although far from perfect, are most certainly more transparent and democratic than the EU. (At least, that was the case until the EU started including blatantly corrupt nations.)
If we can stop this, it's despite the EU, certainly not because of it.
Uhm... no? If there was no EU, we'd now have a lot of bilateral agreements between the US and single European states, with each individual agreement consisting of 90% what the US policy makers want and 10% what the country's policy makers want.
The only reason that this takes so long is because the EU is actually large enough to put up some resistance. Every individual country, including my native Germany, would have been steamrollered by the US.
Just look at the bilateral treaties that EUropean countries have with the US. They are always really lopsided, like that one where the UK extradites its own citizens to the US, but the US doesn't reciprocate.
The lack of democracy is no.1 problem with the EU. Any person who believes in democracy really can't say I believe in EU at the same time.
What sort of democratic process would you prefer?
The EU parliament approval is done in secret. So you can't hold responsible your elected official for supporting someone you wouldn't support. What is the point of having EU Commisars selected in secrecy? What is the point of having EU Commissars elections where there is only one candidate?
Why they can't simply follow standard democratic procedures? Why all the secrecy and elections over one-candidate? What is it? An USSR polit-biuro?
I did not perceive this system as particularly non-democratic, especially since the actual MPs are elected in a decent way (not FPTP nor that strange electoral college used in US president elections).
In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as "one comparatively minor element".
The answer is that it's not minor and a corner stone of the corporatism agenda.
EDIT: And his dismissing of the gutting of safety standards by using the lowest common denominator is disingenuous at best and nakedly corrupt at worst.
A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent.
In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who?
In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states.
These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted.
For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally.
Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.
TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement
TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
THE FUTURE I imagine them super rich counting there money on the smoking remains of what once WAS our beautifull plannet. PROBABLY BEING DUMB ArSE HAPPY FOR HAVING MADE SUCH A HUGE PROFIT.
ACTION: STOP THIS BUNCH OF IMBECILE F. UPS BY ANY MEANS SIMPLY BY EXPOSURE (de gucht is a criminal)
Free trade does a lot more for people than national sovereignty. I rather doubt anyone here thinks we'd be better off with 180 national networks instead of a global internet, but that's what most of you are arguing for where physical goods are concerned. If it were up to me I'd like to see unrestricted movement across borders of goods, capital and people.
What I find particularly galling is how TTIP proponents dangle a decimal point rise in GDP in front of us when it is not even possible to forecast accurately the economy as it is. What is more, let's go with it and assume it came to pass -- GDP miraculously increased by what they said it would as a result. What about the costs incurred in terms of loss of (even more) control over our food supply chain, increase in health care costs, more draconian imposition of your patent and copyright laws, etc etc.
Nobody with a job and not a specialist can be reasonably expected to get to know in detail what such agreements entails. So there needs to be a basis of trust that the US will not fuck us over. And here you seem to forget: The US, since Adolf Bush and his co-captain Barack Hitler, is doing its best to lose massive amounts trust and goodwill here, even in traditionally pro-America Germany. You don't have much credit left, both literally and figuratively, better not squander it. We believe you less and less. Just go away. You have already taken more than enough.
So what exactly does opposition to TTIP in particular and trade negotiations w/o public dialogue or debate in general have to do with mercantilism or Irish nationalism?!
Also, you might also think that after most of the trade barriers have already been removed, what remains probably does so for a reason. European people just do not want GMO food, for example. Many polls in different countries always reach the same conclusion. It doesn't matter if some trade official in the pocket of Monsanto thinks it's okay. Europe is the last bastion of freedom and liberalism since Bush wrecked America's soul. It should isolate and defend itself vigorously from the US, at least until the US remembers what it once stood for in the world.
PS: And btw, why would anyone have an interest in making the US more like the EU? Who cares about what the US does to itself? I just don't want the US meddling and diluting laws and ways of life here.
The corporations in corporatism are understood to be representatives of the broad professional groups.
There was an assembly - Câmara Corporativa - that was a representative and consultive body that had no decision power but that the National Assembly - the legislative body - had to consult for all the laws that they'd propose.
It was actually a good idea in my opinion. It's a much more transparent way of having the economical, social, syndical, etc "interest groups" or "corporations" participate in the political decision process. A lot better than US style lobbying, as it was completely public and not dependent on money. Besides, that way, there would always be technical and real-world advice for every law passed.
From wikipedia:
Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
EDIT: added reference to Wikipedia.
Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-dea...
What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.
(CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada - China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unravelling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al.
There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are:
1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:
A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by:
i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders & ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse and B) to protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations...
...For the FULL ARTICLE, see; Google: "TPP...INSIDER TRADING; David E.H. Smith", & Facebook; "David Smith, Sidney, BC" to the access List of RECENT ARTICLES & CORRESPONDENCES by DEHS.
The EU fought hard to get two legal precedents :
1) that international treaties preceed the constitutions of member states (and any and all other laws).
2) that the European Commission would be allowed to agree to international treaties on behalf of member states.
There is nobody that can stop this that isn't already in power and Volcker can push this through without ratification by any kind of elected body. Stopping it can only be done in the United States, where it actually has to pass parliament ("congress").
At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name.
Just because something might not be a democratic process doesn't mean we can't fight against it and book a win against it.
I can understand the rationale for keeping the negotiations largely secret. This is a very big negotiation, and in general, all sorts of demands or proposals are put on the table in the beginning. Many of these proposals have no chance of getting ratified, but they would still be lethal ammunition for any EU-hating party.
Which does not change the fact that the current way the treaty is negociated is probably too secret.
This process isn't undemocratic in the least. It's just that the decisions are complex. I'm not strongly in favour of TTIP in its current form, but the more I know about it, the less I believe all the fear mongering.
There seems to be a gut reflex of "I don't understand it, so it must be undemocratic!!"
Explanation/Clarification is not something a voter is entitled to. He can demand it, and usually the media is giving it to him, if at all.
There is also a very good disincentives for politicians to explain "too much". Essentially, when talking to an audience of millions of people, everything you say can be used against you in a court of public opinion. Everything can and will be understood wrongly. That is also partly why effective politicians aren't particularly eager to "tell the truth".
Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company’s “expected future profits”.
taken from: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . From my understanding this is basically an incentive for national governments to make their (consumer) laws as accordant with each other as possible. One problem I see with this implementation is that this will result in an accordance (of national laws) on the lowest common denominator, ie. the weakest form of consumer protection. In this specific case this would mostly mean levels of consumer protection as seen in the USA and this is in my opinion not in the interest of the general consumer (but that's a discussion of its own).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Europ...
And yes it passes the parliament, however
1) treaties can be adopted without a parliamentary "yes" (has happened many times in the past, because it didn't even used to be asked at all)
2) parliament can say yes or no, but cannot change anything.
3) looking at the contents of previous treaties, it is blatantly obvious that the rules introduced using this instrument would never have passed parliament using other means.
An example of this would be, well, and example of this would be TTIP itself, if the contents are what they're rumored to be, which seems like. Other examples include, for example, the copyright directive [1].
Because any country with "Democratic" in the name is usually a totalitarian undemocratic communist dictatorship? :P
1) The national constition is the highest part of the German law, not EU law. The courts cooperate in many ways and co-exist, but EU law is not above the Constition / Grundgesetz. (See for example http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und...)
2) The TTIP has to be ratified by the member states. (See for example http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html)
Now, the full text should be understood when it's time for things to actually be ratified or signed into law.
This thing changes so many parts of European law that we took decades to agree on, that the effort to make it "fly under the radar" seems comical.
Please give a pair of two EU countries, one of which is better of because it has struck a deal concerning free trade with the United States in the last two decades that was denied to the other country. I'm curious.
Education, same.
This is what should be exported to the rest of the world? Who are you kidding? The only thing USA could export is guns and dirt bikes.
I'd say this post is deliberately offensive. More importantly for HN it is simply inaccurate.
Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article.
The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy.
The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products.
I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions.
(1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...
Vattenfall suing the German state makes sense considering the business impact the change had. Add to that, Vattenfall is wholly owned by the Swedish state so the TTIP should have no impact what so ever on their dealings.
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/tti...
Otherwise, even without malicious intent on part of a member state, a country like china would just go shopping around the 26 member states and ask who's giving them the best conditions and then do all their trade through them...
Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development.
Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.
Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.
Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.
- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).
- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.
What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".
The reality is, that very much (if not most) of our electronics garbage goes to Africa, where it goes to wild garbage dumps and young children are destroying their health by burning the valuable materials out of the garbage without any health or environmental measures.
Even when the phones are decomposed and parts are recycled, we are very far from recycling 100% of electronic gadgets. Maybe you could (with much effort, that is not cost effective) recycle 40% of the materials. The idiotic method of glueing all together makes things even more difficult!
What you tell here, is just science fiction, that is presented as facts from the media to give us better feelings.
I live in a country with very high standards for garbage recycling -- but even here, most of the stuff is either just dumped or burnt, since that is the most cost effective thing -- that is done, of course after the private households took much effort into waste separation -- it is just dumped/burnt together. I know that, because I brought my things separated to official recycling and was advised to dump it together into one big hole.
Don't believe, what media and press tells you, because governments want to shine a bright light on our industries! You are being just brain-washed.
Telling me the work of me and my colleagues that I witness with my own eyes is "the media" reflects poorly on you.
Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.
Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.
The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).
But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...
All in the name of god money.
According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )
Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.
But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."
I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.
It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.
That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.
Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.
The numbers from independent researchers are different. Read the book from Piketty: http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pik...
Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.