European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA

by Tsiolkovsky • 12 years ago

188 85 12 years ago

If this is defeated won't individual deals between each country have to be struck? That seems likely to have a worse outcome for Europe as countries will be played against each other.

daenney2• 12 years ago

The goal is to stop this in its current form. It's currently being negotiated in secret, which is never a good sign. It's also very likely to once again include all kinds of directives greatly benefitting a few lobbying partners without the EU citizens knowing what's going on until it's too late.

waps2• 12 years ago

EU citizens ? Why do they matter ?

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.

danielweber• 12 years ago

"Negotiated in secret" is totally normal in representative democracies. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take, taking positions that you don't actually want in hopes of getting something else, brinkmanship, and trying to come to a meeting of the minds with the other side.

Now, the full text should be understood when it's time for things to actually be ratified or signed into law.

throwaway289742• 12 years ago

Why? There have been no such deals for the last 20 years and things are working just fine.

peterclary• 12 years ago

Please define "fine", throwaway28974. And for whom?

Orinocco3• 12 years ago

I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press conference.

touristtam• 12 years ago

There is a nicely explained article about the potential threat to democracy that is TTIP: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta. Incidently techdirt just ran an article on how Bolivia broke their own trade agreement with similar clauses: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/boliv...

pizza234• 12 years ago

One of the major concerns of the TTIP is the Investor State Dispute Settlements, which allows US investors to be able to sue EU Member States in cases where their investment has been diminished due to regulatory changes made in the public interest (1). This is corporatocracy at its finest.

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...

walterbell2• 12 years ago

There are many moving parts. One open issue is lawsuits from foreign corporations against national governments. There's a running log here:

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/tti...

pjc502• 12 years ago

EU countries cannot make their own bilateral trade agreements.

bayesianhorse6• 12 years ago

And they shouldn't. For one thing this would be an anticompetitive move against the other members, and for another, once you import something into one EU country it's really hard to stop it from going into the other countries. So the EU has to approve the regulation of such an agreements...

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...

morkbot• 12 years ago

For those wondering what's wrong with TTIP, a while ago Geroge Monibot wrote a well documented piece about it: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-wing-...

bgarbiak• 12 years ago

...and here's a response from Ken Clarke, a politician, defending the TTIP: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-t...

In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as "one comparatively minor element".

Marazan• 12 years ago

The rhetorical question is that if it's so minor why is so much effort being expended to try and get it in?

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.

contingencies• 12 years ago

You don't have to read the details to grok the truth here.

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.

NicoJuicy4• 12 years ago

I'm from Belgium, Karel De Gucht (who tried to get ACTA through and the guy who is obviously behind TTIP and CETA also) is also from Belgium, here are some things i know about him or his methods:

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

sentenza4• 12 years ago

I see no reason to distrust the whole of the EU just because they don't reject Karel De Gucht. After all, if Belgium stands behind him, the EU can't do much. If that isn't satisfying for you, I recommend distrusting the EU Commission. That's what I do.

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.

NicoJuicy4• 12 years ago

Nobody of the public in Belgium stands behind him, if you understand dutch go to the reactions page of an(y) article about him of a popular Belgian newspaper: http://goo.gl/duj8ml (can't do it with Google Translate (the comments use Ajax), i haven't seen 1 positive reaction ! )

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 :)

bowlofpetunias• 12 years ago

I can think of plenty of other reasons to distrust the EU.

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.

leccine4• 12 years ago

This is one very good argument against the EU in its entirety. We don't need crooked politicians from a random country making decisions for the rest of the EU. It seems like things are going terribly wrong since this project started. The only gain we got is a higher dose of cocaine in the urine of the EU parliament members.

Nanzikambe• 12 years ago

Quite funny that in Switzerland most are apparently most concerned with fractions of a percent of the economy by being left out other than other issues raised.

Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-dea...

grondilu• 12 years ago

It seems to me that the Wikipedia page is fairly documented and referenced, for an article about a "secret" agreement.

PythonicAlpha6• 12 years ago

That is partly because, many information was leaked by people that where stirred up by the process.

yottah2• 12 years ago

"Public interest" is mostly an excuse for unnecessary statism and senseless regulation of European bureaucrats. European economy is very weak compared to that of US, and proponents of regulations under the guise of "public interest" have zero legitimacy because the results are terrible.

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.

leccine4• 12 years ago

"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.

ohitsdom• 12 years ago

Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...

yottah2• 12 years ago

You are welcome to move to Venezuela, Belarus or some other unlivable place. I'd prefer Europe to be economically free and in growing prosperity much like Singapore. Sadly most of EU citizens are overly brainwashed with statist propaganda from birth, and promoting degenerate policies which cause economic weakness.

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

Crony capitalism is bad, and so is Marxist claptrap.

snowwrestler• 12 years ago

Yes, youth unemployment riots in Paris are great; let's keep things just the way they are.

HSO4• 12 years ago

TTIP is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and corrupt. In other words, in the best traditions of post-Bush America. Please don't export this shit to Europe.

happyscrappy2• 12 years ago

Pretending that EU leaders have no culpability in this is a great way to ensure US dominance over Europe.

NicoJuicy4• 12 years ago

For anyone who wants to know more about any form of "trade agreement" the EU is up to. https://www.laquadrature.net/ is a very good documented website. Here is everything about TTIP, also known as TAFTA https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA

TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement

TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

ronnyronny• 12 years ago

ttip is an undemocratic attack on civil rights. Devised by big corps for big corps. A destorted result of profit thinking whith forseeable devastating inpact on citizens and environment. There is a simple logic here ...FOR...PROFIT...ONLY...

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)

bayesianhorse6• 12 years ago

Could you be so kind as to cite a single violation of civil rights being proposed as part of TTIP?

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

I'm disappointed to see so many people objecting to a free trade agreement that would benefit both the US and EU tremendously. When people oppose such things, I always ask whether they think the US would be better off as a patchwork of 50 countries, each with their own tariffs etc., or if they think the EU was better when you needed to go through passport control every time you crossed a border and products needed to go through separate sets of approvals in every country before they could be sold.

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.

HSO4• 12 years ago

Excuse me, but this is not about "free trade" per se. Trade between Europe and America already is to a large extent free. Why do you think it has the volume it already has today? So free trade rhetoric is misplaced here. What TTIP is about is about regulations, for example concerning food or medicine, patent and copyright laws, etc. And I, for one, abhor US patent laws, or their blatant and complete disregard for the environment or animal beings, etc. I don't want your crap food here, your GMO conglomerates, or your patent lawyers. And for sure I don't want Germany or France to be financially liable to some faceless big corp when it rules certain things in the interest of the people it is supposed to protect and represent! Sure, do what you want, you can have your "standards" at your side of the Atlantic and continue to get reamed by your political elite and Washington lawyers. But don't export them here, to us!

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.

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

I'm from Ireland. Your ranting reminds me of the arguments nationalists make against greater EU integration. However, I have no wish to see the EU revert to being a bunch of mercantilist nations, and I don't support US-EU mercantilism either. The best way to make the US more like the EU is to deal with it, not lie on the ground like a child throwing a tantrum.

yeureka• 12 years ago

Reading about TTIP reminds me of the "Estado Novo" - the Portuguese corporatist dictatorship that lasted for a large chunk of the 20th century. Corporation rights above people, that is the way forward...

hjrnunes• 12 years ago

You are wrong. The "corporations" of Estado Novo were not commercial corporations like Monsanto, or P&G.

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.

DavidEHSmith• 12 years ago

Do YOU understand how the following INFO can be used to IDENTIFY your INFO. DEPRIVERS & to FLACIDATE "your" members of the GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY? * SECRET TPPartnership, CETA & C-CIT TRIBUNALS due INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists' Clients & Parties' Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES. Repatriating off-shore; profits, goods & services contracts, financing, etc. and co-manufacturing still not on the table? LINE UP to "PREFERRED" IPOs SHOrtens.

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.

European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA

Related Stories