European Parliament TTIP vote postponed ‘because of huge public pressure’

http://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2015/06/10/european-parliament-ttip-vote-cancelled-because-of-huge-public-pressure-say-green-meps/

by walterbell • 11 years ago

192 109 11 years ago

eureporter.co

sschueller• 11 years ago

Not cancelled but postponed.

Seems to me they are just waiting until the public forgets about it.

walterbell4• 11 years ago

Thanks, title changed.

mahouse• 11 years ago

This is great news nonetheless, as long as we do not allow the public to forget about it. Which, I know, is hard.

briandear4• 11 years ago

Great news? Have you read the agreement? Even US congressmen have been unable to read the agreement without great difficulties. Condemning an agreement you know nothing about would seem to be irresponsible.

KJasper• 11 years ago

They will discuss it and approve it while there is some major event going down. Let's say a complete meltdown of Greece, a natural disaster, more war in the middle east...

briandear4• 11 years ago

Maybe a trade agreement would prevent a Greek meltdown by freeing trade opportunities for Greece. The problem in Greece has been too much left wing and not enough economic liberalism.

mlamat• 11 years ago

Don't worry, they'll get in through the "parliament" sooner or later.

There is too much money at stake.

acd• 11 years ago

You do not get legislations like TTIP in smaller democratic circles, its only when the whole political apparatus is too big to be hold accountable. It's them the big top politicians in some far away country in EU that you cannot directly reach that we get this kind legislation.

I am assuming it’s also non-governmental think tanks that come up with the ideas that leave us the funny acronym sounding legislations that is not in the public’s best interest. Why do they have to draft the proposals in secret if it’s good for the public? If you are not ashamed of your actions you show it, if you hide something or lie you are afraid that in the light others might not like what you propose.

The computer analogy would be open source vs closed source or security by obscurity.

briandear4• 11 years ago

Is Singapore a democracy? If so, then your assertion doesn't hold.

tormeh4• 11 years ago

That is not a settled question, though.

matthewmacleod• 11 years ago

Small democracies are riddled with equally stupid legislation and decisions. I'm not sure that this follows at all.

sveme• 11 years ago

Why should the size of countries matter in this regard? How small does a country have to be to not succumb to these proceedings? Example 1: CETA, the Canada-EU trade agreement. Basically similar to TTIP, by a country with 35 mio citizens. Example 2: All the trade agreements done in the last 50 years by Germany with smaller countries such as Pakistan. Investor dispute settlement courts have been invented in these trade agreements. I'd argue quite the opposite - the larger one of the entities, the better the outcome for said entity in the talks. What do you think would happen in trade agreement talks between Hungary and the US? You think Hungary would have any weight on its side?

The problem is rather the disproportionate influence of corporations on trade talks through lobbying. That needs to end and there needs to be a complementary influence by NGOs to balance the effects of lobbyists.

tormeh4• 11 years ago

Pakistan is bigger than Germany. I know, it sounds weird.

dmichulke2• 11 years ago

I think you mean that politicians in smaller countries are more susceptible to public opinion because

- the politician lives necessarily close the majority of the people and his personal safety (and that of his family) is in danger if he blatantly disrespects the will of the people

- people can more easily "vote with their feet" because they just need to move a few dozen miles away to live in another legislation which enables them to keep most of their social network.

walterbell4• 11 years ago

Booklet on TTIP and Digital Rights, https://edri.org/ttip-and-digital-rights-the-booklet/

From http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-lega...

"Brazil has never signed up to this system – it has not entered into a single treaty with these investor-state dispute provisions – and yet it has had no trouble attracting foreign investment."

jmedwards• 11 years ago

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/embed/?s=brazilfordirinv&d1=...

pjc503• 11 years ago

Decontextualised graphs are not causation!

omniverse6• 11 years ago

Postponing something like this that would boost the prosperity of both continents is highly irresponsible. Majority of the public can only grasp emotional catchphrases and isn't nearly cognitively capable of grasping the enormous benefits of this important agreement. This is incredibly frustrating, it should have been signed 50 years ago.

gpvos2• 11 years ago

All the people I know who are against it are pretty smart. Apparently the decision makers are doing a bad job of explaining the benefits of this to us. Which is sad, because we are their employers.

kolme• 11 years ago

There's many people here in the EU who are strongly opposed (myself, for example).

We don't want this "prosperity" if they're going to undo many regulations we have in place for our safety. Food-industry regulations, plastic/chemicals regulations.

Thanks, but no thanks. Deregulating is not as cool as "liberal" guys tell us.

almavi• 11 years ago

Not to mention the new 'Private Justice' they want to set up in order to benefit corporations.

omniverse6• 11 years ago

Those EU regulations are not bad, but that's no need to discard the entire agreement, there is so much more at stake, it is ridiculous to be so small minded.

aroberge2• 11 years ago

Really? Can you explain why? Everything I've read, including emails obtained through FOIA points out to increasing rights for corporations at the expense of rights of individuals and weakening of protection for populations on the environment front. So why should it be signed?

omniverse6• 11 years ago

More trade = more economic growth = stronger and richer US and EU. I am not terribly interested in whatever excuses the environmental extremists have come up with this time.

anonyfox5• 11 years ago

I don't see any benefit for EU countries here. Also, as long as the papers aren't fully opened for the public, signing them would render our "democracy" here a joke. It's just not acceptable.

Basically this whole thing exists solely to strengthen the power of huge US companies against these "nasty" EU regulations. No thanks, deregulation isn't something we want here.

Even if everything here falls apart regarding connections to the US we would still be humming along just fine in the EU.

omniverse6• 11 years ago

EU is much poorer than US due to its socialist policies and if you oppose this agreement you wish to rob others EU citizens of prosperity, you should re-examine your tyrannical stance.

US companies run circles around EU companies because US has a freer business environment, although both could learn a lot from Singapore even more.

__m• 11 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8

josteink• 11 years ago

Profile created: 1 day ago

So it has come to this. TTP and TTIP has become so poisonous that its dirty lobby are now sending paid shills to create accounts on social networking and news sites and post fake support.

That's terrible and excellent news at the same time. It's terrible because I don't want those shills here. It's excellent because it means we're winning.

omniverse6• 11 years ago

Either that or hacker news does not afford freedom of speech and shadow bans accounts that post anything contrary to the socialist dogma. Your conspiracy theories are cute.

Karunamon• 11 years ago

Calling people shills just because they disagree with you is both a shitty thing to do, and also directly against the rules.

ionised2• 11 years ago

And what are the benefits?

briandear4• 11 years ago

It's interesting how the article explains the FUD aspects and not the benefits. There are significant benefits, but you wouldn't know it due to the anti-trade lobby's propaganda to the contrary. I don't have a position in the agreement because I haven't read it, but then again, neither has anyone else; even the U.S. congress can't get ready access to the agreement's text. So we're debating a phantom.

I would be glad if the agreement simply ended tariffs and protectionism. It's completely silly that certain products in the UK cost double the same product in the U.S., even after adjusting for VAT. For example Grivel G12 crampons cost $175 in the U.S. And about £150 in the UK. Things like clothing are hugely more expensive in France than the U.S. (North Face jackets for example.) Hershey's syrup is triple the price than in the U.S. However conversely, Nutella is actually cheaper in the U.S. There are thousands of examples like this. It's funny how a Volkswagen made in the U.S. And sold in the U.S. is less expensive than a Volkswagen made in Germany and sold in Germany.

codewithcheese• 11 years ago

Am I right in thinking individual countries can end tariffs and protectionism? Seems to me the concern is that countries are being leveraged into a position which is not in the interests or the favour of the people. Through multi-country treaties.

aroberge2• 11 years ago

You don't need a treaty like that to drop import tariffs: this can be done by an individual country. This can be done unilaterally without losing any sovereignty - which is not the case for such trade agreements.

DanBC2• 11 years ago

You haven't read it but you know there are significant benefits and that the opposition to it is FUD?

makeitsuckless• 11 years ago

Ah, the well known "anti-trade lobby". Right up there with alien anal probes and the conspiracy behind 9/11. I bet the commies are behind it.

pjc503• 11 years ago

International price discrimination is not going to go away because of this. It's highly likely that increased IPR protections will work against "grey imports" that would otherwise equalise prices.

toyg3• 11 years ago

You are seriously misinformed. Do you really think international price disparity is due to "tariffs"? The average tariff rate is 3.5%. It's nothing to do with that.

In a globalized world where even transport costs have been nuked into the ground by megaships and their likes, prices reflect only what the local market will bear. Clothes cost more in France because the French will pay more for them, simple as. That's why we pay £ 1 for an iTunes song in UK and in the US they pay $ 1, regardless of where the music is "manufactured".

Nursie5• 11 years ago

TTIP and CETA need to go away. The trade aspect isn't terrible. Everything else is.

Treaties shouldn't be negotiated in private and withheld from scrutiny. Not anywhere claiming to be democratic.

ISDS is just wrong. TTIP opens the way for companies to use a supranational, binding court of arbitration to sue any country that impacts future profits. If a country, for instance, changed environmental protections, worker rights, food safety standards, whatever, they can be sued for large sums.

It's anti democratic and it hands sovereignty over to business interests. It's being pushed by bureaucrats and lobbyists who have tried their damnedest to keep it out of the light. To the extent that even MEPs have had to sign an NDA before being allowed to set eyes on a draft (we know this because one or two broke the NDAs)

https://stop-ttip.org

pathy• 11 years ago

You are aware that ISDS already exist and have been a part of trade deals for at least 20 years?

TTIP may extend these rights, and it certainly should be negotiated in such a secretive way, but the ISDS provisions are nothing particularly new. ISDS exist because national courts are not always unbiased, and may unduly favour the host nation.

amirmc• 11 years ago

"ISDS exist because national courts are not always unbiased, and may unduly favour the host nation."

As opposed to favouring ... what, exactly?

gpvos2• 11 years ago

You are aware that ISDS already exist and have been a part of trade deals for at least 20 years?

Yes, I recently learned that, too. I find it shocking.

I can understand it somewhat when dealing with underdeveloped and corrupt countries, but even then I'm not sure it would be the best way. But most countries involved in this treaty have a well-functioning and reasonably fair court system. A secretive arbitration system is no improvement.

rbehrends• 11 years ago

You are aware that ISDS already exist and have been a part of trade deals for at least 20 years?

Yes, and it has created its share of problems already. Which is exactly why a lot of people are concerned; i.e. because it is known to not just be a hypothetical issue.

Nursie5• 11 years ago

I am aware that such things exist already, yes, and I disagree with their existence at all.

Extending their reach, as you may gather, is not something I'm in favour of.

I don't really care why ISDS exist, it's a dilution of democracy and national sovereignty.

lordfoom• 11 years ago

I live in South Africa, which is currently renegotiating or terminating all such treaties because we've discovered first hand that it allows corporations to evade or set government policy.

Just because it isn't new doesn't mean we should shrug and accept it.

rylee• 11 years ago

and it certainly should be negotiated in such a secretive way

But why?

PythonicAlpha4• 11 years ago

The problem with TTIP in my opinion is, that those that pull the strings from the background are the big corporations and those that act for the interests of the big money. The results can be seen for example in the US/Mexico treaty that resulted in lower standards (eg. environmental, health, worker welfare, ...) and lower wages on both sides of the border.

jcfrei• 11 years ago

I am also very concerned about the implications of ISDS for democracies. However I would not argue that TTIP should be abolished entirely because of it. Studies expect an annual increase in GDP growth of about half a percent - which doesn't seem like much considering the historical GDP growth, but GDP growth is expected to be much weaker in the western hemisphere than in the past - so we shouldn't outright dismiss half a percent as too little.

Furthermore, as mentioned by other commentators, ISDS is already a part of many treaties. However one fundamental flaw - which is a part of many of the previous treaties involving ISDS - was that the conditions required for allowing corporations to sue governments were very loosely defined: The treaties usually allow corporations to sue governments if any kind of "indirect expropriation" occurs - From a paper on CETA: "Indirect expropriation can only occur when the investor is substantially deprived of the fundamental attributes of property such as the right to use, enjoy and dispose of its investment; " (1)

This clause allows corporations to sue against a very broad range of policy measures. The TTIP supposedly contains a more detailed outline under what circumstances corporations can sue (2):

    • We have reaffirmed the right to regulate. In CETA we have made clear in the preamble of the agreement that the EU and Canada preserve their right to regulate and to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as public health, safety, environment, public morals and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity. 

    • We have defined key concepts like “fair and equitable treatment” and “indirect expropriation”, in order to prevent abuse. For the first time, CETA provides a definition of these terms. "Fair and equitable treatment" is defined through a clear, closed text which defines precisely the content of the standard without leaving unwelcome discretion to arbitrators. Moreover, detailed language has been agreed upon to clarify what constitutes indirect expropriation, particularly excluding claims against legitimate public policy measures.

As it so often happens during negotiations, the fundamental decisions are made when definitions are being defined. Only if the policy makers in the US and EU can agree on a very specific definition of "indirect expropriation" that is not vulnerable to abuses by corporate lawyers, then we can hope for a good long term outcome for the consumer. And if these requirements are enforced in the arbitration courts, then the ISDS in my opinion becomes a much more sensible part of the treaty. However due to the secrecy involved in the current negotiations, I don't know which exact definitions are currently part of the treaty.

(1) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_1...

(2) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408...

Nursie5• 11 years ago

I, personally, do not think ISDS should exist at all. It constitutes an undermining of democratic self-determination.

Lancey2• 11 years ago

ISDS isn't the only problem with the treaty, though. It's just another problem that highlights how much TTIP would empower corporations at the detriment of private citizens.

PythonicAlpha4• 11 years ago

The question is: Who paid for the studies. We in Europe where told how much we could get from TTIP -- afterwards, the EU had to revise the figures again and again. Also it was predicted, that people in the EU will have 500 EUR extra per year ... but nobody guarantees, that everybody will have the same figure.

I predict, that it will go like with the Mexico treaty. I lately saw a documentary about it and they said, that some people in Mexico have more money -- but the poor people have less, since many farmers are in disadvantage because of the treaty. Also many workers have disadvantages, because worker prices have dropped on both sides of the border.

belorn• 11 years ago

There were a article about this a few days ago that showed the half a percent to be best case estimates, where the first section that deals with removal of tariffs does the heavy lifting regarding GDP growth.

But all commentators that is against the agreement have been about the other sections in the agreement, not the removal of tariffs. The agreement could be cut by 90%, and majority of the best-case GDP growth would still happen. Add with the skulduggery and non-democratic process, it is easy to view this as a Trojan horse which 10% good and 90% maliciousness added in. If the political process forces people to a binary decision, abolish it and then create a new agreement which only include the stuff about tariffs.

antientropic• 11 years ago

It's not half a percent annual growth but total growth between now and 2027, so something like 0.03% annual. And in fact, even that projection is considered too optimistic by some. (For instance, it assumes that more IP protection is good for the economy.) See http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/why-is-it-so-accept....

a3n4• 11 years ago

It's anti democratic and it hands sovereignty over to business interests.

I wouldn't like that, but playing the devil's inquirer, why shouldn't business interests hold sovereignty? And what's to stop them?

Nursie5• 11 years ago

> why shouldn't business interests hold sovereignty?

Society is allegedly organised by the people, for the people. Businesses are allowed to exist and governed by laws set up with the benefit of the society in mind. They are limited by inconvenient things like safety standards, pollution restrictions etc etc.

The pure profit motive with which businesses operate (and with which some will advocate they are required by law and shareholders to operate) are necessarily on conflict with these as they add cost. If these protections are removed then we all lose out, including businesses, as they have to operate in a society wracked with illness from pollution, or from accidents (in my trivial example).

So it's not in anyone's interest to let business set all the rules. Not even in the interests of business.

> And what's to stop them?

Now that is a much more interesting question...

stsp• 11 years ago

why shouldn't business interests hold sovereignty?

One reason is that humans need affordable and clean water to drink. ISDS cases have caused water quality and price regulations to be disregarded in Germany and Argentina.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-lega...

mister_m2• 11 years ago

Rousseau would probably say that a business's interests are inherently selfish and not in line with the general will of the populous. Businesses, in my mind, are not members of a republican government. An argument as to why they are will frankly never make any sense.

Additional edit: There is a huge amount of evidence that can be seen already about how businesses wreak havoc on political systems. The United States is a perfect example over and over again. Whether is it government intervention in the forming of labor unions, military intervention around the world and in south america (especially the early 20th century), corporate sponsorship of congressional members, etc - we can already see that this is a thick cloud over our representative government. Noam Chomsky has written extensively about this. Our senators and representatives are continually caught up in this via lobbying and etc. When you let businesses into the process as much as we have you will have problems - but if you allow them further access beyong what they currently have then that would be absolute insanity.

pjc503• 11 years ago

why shouldn't business interests hold sovereignty?

I can't understand how anyone brought up in a democratic country would ask that question.

a3n4• 11 years ago

Thanks for the replies, the devil says well done. :)

My thoughts are more intuitive than informed and studied. In general it's most likely a bad outcome to give sovereignty over me to a corporation whose explicit goal is to take from me as much as I can sustain. Corporations have demonstrated that they will rape the commons, given the chance.

More specifically I fall back on the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... etc etc

By this statement, governments are created for the benefit of all. Corporations are created for the benefit of the corporation, and as they get hyper-large they don't even serve the needs of their own employees; they become self-aware, and their survival and growth becomes their reason for existence.

Governments can be concerned with my interests. It's impossible for corporations to play that role.

fweespeech2• 11 years ago

ISDS isn't wrong. ISDS is a necessary part of trade treaties to balance the scales and prevent Country Y from screwing Country Z because Country Z exports 90% of substance N while Country Y wants people to use domestic substitute M.

That said, the problem with ISDS in several treaties in the past 20 years is how it has been employed [e.g. Cigarette companies using in attempts to force labeling changes and/or threatening small countries with ISDS cases. ]

It really just needs a "If the company who pursues the suit loses, they pay Costs+$X" provision to strongly discourage ISDS suits that are frivolous and to have a public health/safety exception.

PythonicAlpha4• 11 years ago

In theory, you might be right. In practice it is absolute different. Those courts where mostly installed in the past to protect the interests of bigger countries against smaller countries. Of course, in some cases it was necessary, but in practice it was used to protect the interests of big corporations against the smaller countries. And that is the reason, we got such frivolous acting of corporations. They just knew, that the courts acted on their side.

An exception in direction "health/safety" will not help either, since bad countries will label everything "health/safety" further on and the other way around there are still enough possibilities for frivolous movements of corporations.

Secret courts will never be the solution!

paulsutter• 11 years ago

Secret treaties, secret laws, and secret courts making secret decisions all must be stopped. Doesn't matter if it's about trade or surveillance.

ajmurmann• 11 years ago

iI would actually argue that everyone involved in this should be prosecuted for trying to overthrow our democratic system.

yeureka• 11 years ago

Public pressure should be enough reason to vote against the treaty, not postpone it until people forget about it.

dmichulke2• 11 years ago

The very fact that "public pressure" is obviously the most appropriate device for influencing the course of the government / law giver spells out the complete failure of democracy in most western nations.

Public pressure should but it won't.

vetinari• 11 years ago

It was postponed, because currently it would not pass due to pressure. So they are buying time for lobbying.

Not that it really matters, because the EC doesn't have to respect the result of the EP vote. It is just symbolic.

tormeh4• 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure they do have to respect the vote. EU bureaucrats are far too frustrated with the EU parliament for it to be merely symbolic

eadz• 11 years ago

I thought the investor/state dispute settlement idea was prone to abuse, then I read this:

"secret courts"

Secret Courts? Seriously! We have (mostly) open courts today because we have learned something in the past few thousand years. Let's not go back to the dark ages. This agreement needs to fail!

DamnYuppie• 11 years ago

The funny thing to me is that Corporations are trying to enact a form for Corporate Feudalism. They control all the resources, and we the humble workers and consumers are bound to them.

louithethrid• 11 years ago

The very fact, that such a propsal makes it into parliament to be discussed, which is basically a self-castration of power shows how far politics have degenerated. What has a world come to- when you cant even trust the lust of the mighty to be in controll?

themartorana• 11 years ago

You can - it's just lust vs. lustier.

pgeorgi• 11 years ago

Some of them might hope for a ticket for the new power base in exchange for their compliance.

cyphunk2• 11 years ago

Even if you are pro-trade the economics don't make sense. The health cost for dropping EU legislation to ban 31 specific pesticides would be projected to cost more than all the gains TTIP would provide (€160 vs €140 over 12y):

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/05/eu-dropped-plan...

tim333• 11 years ago

Not a fan of TTIP but Ars got that wrong. The estimated costs are mostly from "endocrine disruptors found in food containers, plastics, furniture, toys, carpeting and cosmetics"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-co...

cyphunk2• 11 years ago

Where was the Ars error? Its seems to say the same as The Guardian article you linked to, or did I miss something?

Lancey2• 11 years ago

I'm pessimistic about the chances of TTIP being stopped. For all the public outcry and actions of those brave politicians standing against it, I have a feeling that negotiations will side with the money.

cLeEOGPw• 11 years ago

Politicians want money so they are able to influence public and get them elected again. Signing this will directly hurt the chances of reelection. That's what is holding them back. if they will lose more voters than get money to compensate for the loss it may not be worth it to take that money for them.

European Parliament TTIP vote postponed ‘because of huge public pressure’

Related Stories