Secretive trade pact the TTIP: Death of the web – or a brave new horizon? The trinity of trans-Atlantic trade deals that have been under negotiation for two years appear to be heading toward some kind of initial conclusion. The free-trade deals between the US and various nations have become renowned for being negotiated in secret and for efforts to open the process resulting in ludicrous …
TTIP IS A VERY BAD IDEA
If TTIP goes ahead you don't need to be a genius to realise that the UK Government deficit will balloon out of control.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
Here are six other reasons why we should be scared of TTIP, very scared indeed:
1 The NHS
Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.
The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP. However, according to the Huffington Post, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table.
2 Food and environmental safety
TTIP’s ‘regulatory convergence’ agenda will seek to bring EU standards on food safety and the environment closer to those of the US. But US regulations are much less strict, with 70 per cent of all processed foods sold in US supermarkets now containing genetically modified ingredients. By contrast, the EU allows virtually no GM foods. The US also has far laxer restrictions on the use of pesticides. It also uses growth hormones in its beef which are restricted in Europe due to links to cancer. US farmers have tried to have these restrictions lifted repeatedly in the past through the World Trade Organisation and it is likely that they will use TTIP to do so again.
3 Banking regulations
4 Privacy
5 Jobs
The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower.
6 Democracy
TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.
Canada’s government was successfully sued for daring to turn down a large mining quarry which threatened to cause environmental damage in Nova Scotia.
Other cases
Philip Morris the Marlboro maker is suing Uruguay – population 3.4 million – over its decision to increase the size of health warnings on cigarette packets from 50 per cent of the cover to 80 per cent. he Marlboro maker is suing Uruguay – population 3.4 million – over its decision to increase the size of health warnings on cigarette packets from 50 per cent of the cover to 80 per cent.
Tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Australia for billions of dollars in lost profits because the government took action to reduce teenage smoking.
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly is suing Canada for $500 million, just because Canada has laws to keep essential drugs affordable.
Worst of all, these cases are happening in secret international courts to which only corporations have access.
What could possibly go wrong?
Very well put, to add balance I will let David Cameron have his chance to reply!
Speaking at the G20 in Brisbane David Cameron said claims that TTIP would result in a National Health Service sell-off were “bogus nonsense.”
Signalling his intention to take on Britain’s trade unionists and others who oppose TTIP, the prime minister told G20 delegates he intends to fire “rocket boosters” under the EU-US trade agreement – a landmark deal he stresses that could bolster the British economy by £10 billion.
“It is time to take on some of the opponents of this deal and expose the arguments against it,” he said. “This is good for Britain – good for growth and British families.”
Speaking to crowds gathered at the summit, Cameron said arguments posed by UK trade unionists and campaigners against the trade deal were “weak.”
Regarding a potential NHS sell-off, the prime minister emphasized the health service was “in the public sector” and would remain so. “There is no direct threat to the NHS from TTIP,” he insisted.
Considering what happened after Tory manifesto stated there would be no reorganisation of the NHS and David Cameron's point blank refusal to remove the NHS from TTIP negotiations, I think we should be afraid, very afraid.
Interpreting the potential threat that the TTIP can have is one thing, the point is to change it. What can you do then, first offcan I request that you visit https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/index.php/pages/486/ or just Google “38 Degrees TTIP” if you do not like clicking any old link!
There you can sign the petition, see how your MEP voted on your behalf and email him, also you can join us by taking part in the day of action on 22nd of August.
Trade agreements favour the party in the strongest position. No surprise there because most agreements are that way.
What is unknown is why the lesser parties (like Australia) would want to sign them.
The problem with these agreements - specifically - is that the US has deregulated everything and want other countries to do the same. And for what? Not for the benefit of the local businesses, that's for certain.
Therein lies the the problem. The lack of government oversight in the US has allowed corporates to build up massive cash piles. This has implications for Europe and Australasia. Bluntly put, the playing field is not level. Even if it were made level in competition terms, US Corps massive cash pile would allow it to run operations at a loss or at a very low profit level. Once the European companies are out of business or devalued, the US companies can buy them or let them die, eliminating the competition and allowing price rises. Short of having companies of equal financial clout, there can be no level playing field, regardless of the competition policy.
So, is "protectionism" dirty? Well it might be, but most of the regulation US companies hate applies to European companies too. What's "unfair" is that the American companies aren't set up to deal with and want to make money without adhering to it. Well boo-hoo - such are the trials of being a multi-national. You're going to have to hire some Frenchies who understand French culture and you won't be able to roll out US-like policies... because France isn't America. I know Americans have little grasp of that concept, but its true.
Different cultures have different values. That's a good thing. Some people want sun-ripened tomatos, not some GMO monster which is red even when its unripe ("because red is what consumers want") and balloons up to five times the size of a normal tomato by absorbing water, becoming tasteless, because, "Hey, customers pay by the kilo."
I do not want "regulatory convergence." Just play by our rules in our country or you are free to stay at home.
The US economy has basically reached the point where it can no longer sustain itself in the long run; with too much wealth concentrated in a few companies (and individuals), there is very little left for "the masses" who are starting to wonder where it is all going. So it is doing what ancient Rome (and yes, Germany in WWII) ended up having to do: gobble up territory in order to use *those* funds to keep the people at home happy.
Look how well *that* worked out for both of them. Eventually they overreached themselves and the whole structured collapsed on itself. Admittedly, the Roman empire took longer to go away and died more gracefully...
Admittedly, the Roman empire took longer to go away and died more gracefully...
It took a long time to die, but in the meantime split into two, sometimes competing blocs - the Eastern and Western empires, involved a great deal of death and a loss of standards of living for the many (at least the many who did not make a living out of raiding and/or extortion).
"So it is doing what ancient Rome (and yes, Germany in WWII) ended up having to do: gobble up territory in order to use *those* funds to keep the people at home happy."
Sorry, but wasn't that true with the Empire too, perhaps that's too close to call.
The TTIP should be scrapped completely, a trade agreement should be about trade, short and clear.
The problem, as I see it, is that multinational large corporations want to write the rules. We can write about cultural differences, democracy and what ever but we should remember that those types of considerations where never a part given or demanded of corporations. We, the people, write the rules (how naive that has started to sound) for them to adhere to, not the opposite way.
Some Americans have started to see what has happened to their country, do we need to copy that.
No, the fundamental reason why these "trade pacts" should be kicked out is simply the undemocratic process by which they were generated. Secret negotiations with only a few officials (and certain lobby groups) being given access, and not us, the people to which they will apply.
So no matter what they are offering, they should be destroyed on the simple principle that they are attempting to re-write our laws by the back door - by secret agreement that is then presented as fait accompli for the EU nations, Australia, etc, to swallow without any sort of scrutiny.
Well, objectively speaking, no trade pact can be enforced without it becoming public.
When it does become public, the Public to which it applies will be able to review it and notify their representatives that they do not agree. If popular opinion is sufficient, the pact will be struck down.
The real issue is that the secrecy of the negotiations means that all the work to straighten things out will have to be done after the fact instead of before its implementation, which obviously means taking time and judiciary resources that would have been better employed elsewhere.
Personally, I can't say that the secrecy of the negotiations bother me. It's much more the fact that the result will be imposed without so much as a "by your leave".
If, however, the deal was written up and then democratically voted on for its acceptance, then it would be all right - for the People. For the multinationals, that would be something entirely different though.
The undemocratic process is one thing that (hopefully) makes TTIP less likely to pass. Another thing is that the US seem to (erm) overestimate the worldwide popularity of its politics.
But even if TTIP would fall, it will be respawned under different names, again and again, until finally "accepted". Politics, you gotta love it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
