TTP and TTIP: agreements that you should petition against

[kNIOKAS]

As you may know or not know, some international Free trade agreements are being developed, mainly TTP (between some nations of Americas) and TTIP (between US and Europe, roughly).

They are negiotiated by the US Trade Representative and business entities together with state institutions of other countries (for example, it it European Commision in case of TTIP).

In case of US, the negiotiations are secret and the terms of agreement will only be made public 4 years after being put into effect. The legislators will have to vote on it as all-or-nothing, without being able to correct parts of the deal that they do not agree with. Here is Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate of economics breaking down the agreements (sorry for the low sound):
https://www.facebook.com/selconvendola/videos/1008223595862166/?fref=nf

The agreements have received noteable backclash from intellectuals, however, has seen only minor attention by the media. Please help the world and sign the petition to stop TTIP (European part):
https://stop-ttip.org/

Or TTP (Americas):
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-trans-pacific
or http://stopthetrap.net/
(don't know which one counts the most).

http://i62.tinypic.com/jszpj4.jpg
Please feel free to provide another link for petitions. I urge you to spend a minute and make the world a better place for you and future generations.

[DonD13]

yeah, we can't have the low US food quality standards here :no:

data privacy another problem imo.

[kNIOKAS]

Don't tell me what to do
a patient said to a doctor

[KevinNYC]

To may knowledge they are negiotiated by the US Chamber of Commerce and business entities together with state institutions of other countries (for example, it it European Commision in case of TTIP).

The US Chamber of Commerce is not negotiating this agreement. The CoC is a private, not a governmental group.

It's being negotiated by the US Trade Representative which is an office in the Executive Branch.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/history

[NumberSix]

What possible reason is there to be against free trade?

[CeltsGarlic]

What possible reason is there to be against free trade?
:biggums:

[kNIOKAS]

Good one but I've met my fair share of doctors who have no f*cking clue what they're talking about.
That's also true but I'm just saying being politically aware and active shouldn't be consider gauche, if you will. Not that me telling people what to do helps... Still.


The US Chamber of Commerce is not negotiating this agreement. The CoC is a private, not a governmental group.

It's being negotiated by the US Trade Representative which is an office in the Executive Branch.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/history
Ok I fixed it.

However, it does not make too much of a difference as the people representing big business go in and out of the office all the time. They work for the corporations, do a good job, then take the administrative office, leave, come back to their respecitve businesses and do even better. So yeah... Pretty disappointing.

[NumberSix]

That's also true but I'm just saying being politically aware and active shouldn't be consider gauche, if you will. Not that me telling people what to do helps... Still.


Ok I fixed it.

However, it does not make too much of a difference as the people representing big business go in and out of the office all the time. They work for the corporations, do a good job, then take the administrative office, leave, come back to their respecitve businesses and do even better. So yeah... Pretty disappointing.
So, is your problem with the policy that is being proposed, or the people negotiating it?

I'm with you that, there is no way any corporation should be arguing a nations trade policy. They will obviously rig it to work in their own favour and against any potential competitor.

Easy solution..... Completely open, free trade. No tariffs whatsoever. None of this "this percent for these kinds of imports, and this percent for these other kinds". Set it at 0. None. Nothing.

[kNIOKAS]

So, is your problem with the policy that is being proposed, or the people negotiating it?

I'm with you that, there is no way any corporation should be arguing a nations trade policy. They will obviously rig it to work in their own favour and against any potential competitor.

Easy solution..... Completely open, free trade. No tariffs whatsoever. None of this "this percent for these kinds of imports, and this percent for these other kinds". Set it at 0. None. Nothing.
There are structual and factual flaws in the process and in the agreement itself, as far as representing the interests of all people equally goes.


It is right to be pro-free trade in the actual sense of the word, however, there are signs that the free trade is an utopia because it is a self-arranging system - that arranges itself to not be free, paradoxically.

Not talking theoretically but practically - without tariffs or subsidies or any of the regulations, the trade cannot be free just because the labour is not free - people speak different languages, have different commitments and education levels. They are not able to participate in the market freely, as of now. Not that I wish they could - I think globalization has some very scary effects that I'd like to see postponed.

[kNIOKAS]

I'm curious about why the media is so damn silent about these deals. It seems like there's no publications to tell the public about the agreement, let alone weight and address the possible consequences of it.

However, I came up one article accidently in a magazine for business. It was praising the deal to no extent and did not list any of the concerns or drawbacks - which any deal has. It said something about the "scare about GMOs, fracking and gas that has postponed the deal two years ago". Crazy, because that's the most misconstrued way to approach what the critics have been saying.

I like what Nobel Prize laureate for Economics Stigliz said: if you want to make a free trade agreement, just sign a three-pages-long document that says both sides stop the tarrifs, stop the non-tarrifs, and stop the subsidies. Now drafts of those agreements that we're talking about gets to 30 000 pages... That's getting rid of regulations en masse!


So sign the petition, and consider yourself not got mugged for today.

[shlver]

There are structual and factual flaws in the process and in the agreement itself, as far as representing the interests of all people equally goes.


It is right to be pro-free trade in the actual sense of the word, however, there are signs that the free trade is an utopia because it is a self-arranging system - that arranges itself to not be free, paradoxically.

Not talking theoretically but practically - without tariffs or subsidies or any of the regulations, the trade cannot be free just because the labour is not free - people speak different languages, have different commitments and education levels. They are not able to participate in the market freely, as of now. Not that I wish they could - I think globalization has some very scary effects that I'd like to see postponed.
lol what? Trade agreements have been kept confidential for the last couple of decades and rightfully so as these kinds of agreements are accompanied by demagoguery such as "There are structual and factual flaws in the process and in the agreement itself, as far as representing the interests of all people equally goes." How can you expect thousands of competing interests to come to an agreement attempting to represent all "equally?"

[kNIOKAS]

lol what? Trade agreements have been kept confidential for the last couple of decades and rightfully so as these kinds of agreements are accompanied by demagoguery such as "There are structual and factual flaws in the process and in the agreement itself, as far as representing the interests of all people equally goes." How can you expect thousands of competing interests to come to an agreement attempting to represent all "equally?"
I don't know...

Maybe we should consider giving up on the idea of representing all people equally in business agreements like these. You've pointed out how it is impossible for the competing interests of the business and of all people to come to terms... I can see your argument.

Maybe if we just officially forfeited our interests, maybe those agreements wouldn't have to be done in secret anymore. Let the big business to take care of their interests without us interfering. Way more probable..?

[NumberSix]

I'm curious about why the media is so damn silent about these deals. It seems like there's no publications to tell the public about the agreement, let alone weight and address the possible consequences of it.

However, I came up one article accidently in a magazine for business. It was praising the deal to no extent and did not list any of the concerns or drawbacks - which any deal has. It said something about the "scare about GMOs, fracking and gas that has postponed the deal two years ago". Crazy, because that's the most misconstrued way to approach what the critics have been saying.

I like what Nobel Prize laureate for Economics Stigliz said: if you want to make a free trade agreement, just sign a three-pages-long document that says both sides stop the tarrifs, stop the non-tarrifs, and stop the subsidies. Now drafts of those agreements that we're talking about gets to 30 000 pages... That's getting rid of regulations en masse!


So sign the petition, and consider yourself not got mugged for today.
Isn't that exactly what I just said, which you felt the need to disagree with?

[BurningHammer]

The Senate just passed the fasttrack bill?

[kNIOKAS]

The Senate just passed the fasttrack bill?
I think actually it went the opposite way, which is refreshing.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/major-win-us-senate-blocks-tpp-fast-track-bill


Opponents of sprawling and secretive international agreements won a significant victory today when U.S. Senators voted to block the advancement of its Fast Track trade bill. The legislation would have allowed massive undemocratic trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to be rushed through to ratification, and legitimized the nontransparent and corporate-dominated negotiations proposing restrictive digital regulations that threaten the Internet and users' rights.

[kNIOKAS]

Isn't that exactly what I just said, which you felt the need to disagree with?
In a way you did say that, however, I gave you some reasons why one shouldn't be naive when talking about the concepts such a free markets and how do they transfer to the real world.

Also, you may be occasionally sensible here and there, but it doesn't mean much because you tend to think of economy as of fish, or as two corn farmers.

[kNIOKAS]

Seems like TTP passed alright in the US,
In Europe, there are still some time to sign the petition:
https://stop-ttip.org/

Over three million signatures already, it should amount to something.

[BurningHammer]

Corporations are winning as always. :(

[knickballer]

I like the initiative but I don't think it's gonna change anything. Politicans/Government aren't representative of the population and they will pass whatever laws they want if it benefits their own interest. Democracy is an illusion.

[kNIOKAS]

I like the initiative but I don't think it's gonna change anything. Politicans/Government aren't representative of the population and they will pass whatever laws they want if it benefits their own interest. Democracy is an illusion.
That might be true, but what if signing the petition would illuminate that even moreso.

[RidonKs]

Seems like TTP passed alright in the US,
In Europe, there are still some time to sign the petition:
https://stop-ttip.org/

Over three million signatures already, it should amount to something.
petitions do virtually nothing dude

they don't make noise so nobody listens

maybe they can get play in local or state level politics but not federally

[kNIOKAS]

petitions do virtually nothing dude

they don't make noise so nobody listens

maybe they can get play in local or state level politics but not federally

We're just about to see. It certainly did nothing back in late July (?) when another negotiations stage got confirmed by the European Commision. But lets see this.

[bladefd]

How are Obama and Conservative Republicans on the same side?? :eek: :eek:

Teaparty'ier fool Ted Cruz once called Obama a communist and said he is killing America.. yet Cruz is supporting Obama in pushing for TTP?? :roll:

[kNIOKAS]

False. The bill is made public 60 days before voting by law.

Could we get the text then?



And he is pretty much the only economist opposed. In a field where everything is argued and there are few consesuses getting the whole block to agree to something is rare.

Here is an actual fair assessment of the agreement

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21649613-america-inches-towards-big-trade-deal-asia-barack-obama-faces-showdown

In essence, this agreement means China wont be dictating our future, we get more growth, more international oppurtunities for bussiness, and lower costing goods. You have groups who cant compete with lower costing goods afraid because now they wont be able to rip off their consumers and will be out of bussiness. One example is Canadian dairy afraid of being out produced by Americans to a massive extent. This, as already explained, is why the negotiations arent public. To keep out special interests that people seem to think are running this thing anyway.
Yeah but this isn't "a fairer assessment". This is simply junk.

First paragraph is introductionary, with names of countries and percentage of the trade they share. It says "TPP is meant to tackle tough issues such as intellectual property, labour and environmental standards" - well precisely, it's meant to tackle them down to the dirt. Intellectual property is corporatized, while labour and environmental standards are undercut. Is that a good thing?
"American trade negotiators predict that by 2025 the TPP will make the world $220 billion a year richer" - there's no free lunch. Who is getting $220 billion richer? Who is losing their positions of the previous status quo?

Second paragraph tells a lot of democrats oppose the deal, and it's the conservatives who would push it through.

Third paragraph tells that the geopolitical consequences of the deal are favourable for the US. "[I]If the 12 TPP countries plump for common trade standards (for instance, mutual recognition of regulatory approval processes in medical services), then those rules

[RidonKs]

We're just about to see. It certainly did nothing back in late July (?) when another negotiations stage got confirmed by the European Commision. But lets see this.
well... i'm all for optimism :lol :cheers:

[bladefd]

In essence, this agreement means China wont be dictating our future, we get more growth, more international oppurtunities for bussiness, and lower costing goods. You have groups who cant compete with lower costing goods afraid because now they wont be able to rip off their consumers and will be out of bussiness. One example is Canadian dairy afraid of being out produced by Americans to a massive extent. This, as already explained, is why the negotiations arent public. To keep out special interests that people seem to think are running this thing anyway.

While that sounds good, that is the only the portion that was public. There are other clauses that are still secret even AFTER agreement. I want to see those.

If the corporations (mainly Big Pharma), who were the ones ripping off the consumers the most WANT this agreement to go through, there is CLEARLY a reason in the secret clauses. Possibly the ability to sue countries? or the right to get cheap labor overseas in Vietnam or in South America?

The conservative republicans like Ted Cruz are willing to overlook their anger for Obama to support Obama here. Remember how they were never going to support Obama in anything? :biggums:

[kNIOKAS]

This is risks as identified on Bernie Sanders website:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

[QUOTE]1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

[kNIOKAS]

So what do you think, magnax1? Do these concerns change your outlook anyhow? I know they do not bother to explain the mechanism of how the treaty leads to these worrisome outcomes, but the general understanding of the treaty would lead us to think that it very well could lead to those outcomes. For example, the universal acceptance of the standards of either of the partners in the deal is likely to become the race to the lowest denominator. The investments protection would hinder the government's ability to regulate and set the environmental factors, etc.

[Derka]

How are Obama and Conservative Republicans on the same side?? :eek: :eek:

Teaparty'ier fool Ted Cruz once called Obama a communist and said he is killing America.. yet Cruz is supporting Obama in pushing for TTP?? :roll:

The old adage of "Politicians should have to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers with huge patches on them so we know who sponsors them" applies here. I'm sure a lot of rich people who give Ted Cruz money are in on deals like this.

[KingBeasley08]

I don't like what I hear about the deal but the secrecy behind it is an overblown issue. Every international agreement is secretly negotiated to keep special interests from stalling it forever and hijacking it. Remember the Iran Deal was also negotiated in private and then released giving Congress 70 days to read it and then vote on it.

They'll probably release it in a few weeks and then we'll have till December/January to read it and break it down. By then, every major economist, think tank, special interest group, corporation etc.. will giving opinions on whether it should pass/fail

[kNIOKAS]

Thanks for your extensive response, I'll reply to your first comment tomorrow.


I'd like to go over Sander's claims, as they're honestly even worse and mostly filled with parochialism, but really I don't want to write a bunch of stuff again right now. Maybe later. They are though, almost needless to say when talking about Sander's economic policies, very childish, nationalist, and filled with a level of ineptitude that could be mistaken for malice if you don't examine them closely.
Well you definitely need to write on that.


I do have one good example of Sander's backwards economics that is a little faster though.
There happens to be one economist who wrote a paper on how free trade might be bad, under certain circumstances, which mostly include poor nations using tarrifs to build an industrial base to lift off their economy. Obviously this doesn't include the USA.
Needless to say, this was controversial, and really not very well supported if I'm being honest.

Well Sanders, the idiot that he is, found this article, and posted it with the intention of using it to back up his anti trade rhetoric. I hope I don't need to explain why this is dumb.
We'd use the article and the explanation.

I know "free-trade" is bad because it does not mean the labour market to be free - there are million reasons why it isn't and pretty much cannot be so - immigration quotas for first, but all other limitations of the worker begining with family, real estate or even cultural roots that prevents labour to move. That results in capital being free, but not the workers being able to pursue the best paid job for them. That's how you get slave labour in China and places like that, and other countries getting their cheap smartphones. So at least in that regard "free-trade" should ring alarm bells.

[knickballer]

Politician: This bill will give our workers a fighting chance!
me: How will it give our worker a fighting chance?
Politican: Well, I actually don't know since the bill is secretive and I'm not allowed to read it...

Nation state sovereignty is over and has been over. Democracy is just an illusion. World is run by the corporatists, lobbyists, banksters and other bilderberg group members who greet eachother with some obscure gesture like wearing a goats head.

Das it mayne. Now they'll come for the interwebz and if you make comments like this you'll be fined or some BS. Thank god ISH has outdated servers doe

[falc39]

Well, what a surprise (not). Hillary Clinton flip flops and is opposing the trade agreement. Funny thing is that she probably still supports it but is doing so because she needs support from unions and all the other entities she has to pander to. Count on nothing substantial to come from her opposition. She may even flip flop back to supporting it when it's all done.

http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-hillary-clinton-flip-flops-trade-agreements-tpp-nafta-colombia-2132052

[kNIOKAS]

Ok lets address this

Trade is not a zero sum game. This is a very simple and fully proven principle of economics.
Yes, but social power is. If by increasing the trade the power of already-powerful is increased, what is left for the other people?


I'll give you some simple wiki links to look through so you can understand it better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Looking at it from this perspective gives you a false idea of the deal, and is clearly one of the reasons you don't understand it well.
It's a bit arrogant to claim I don't understand it well. I think neither of us do. You remind me more of a guy who is so deep into an obscure concept of something (say Lord Saviour Jesus Christ, Free-Market, Masonry, etc.), that arguing with whom only gets you and answer "but you simply just don't understand it right". I mean come on.

The comparative advantage and the Lump of labour fallacy are some terms that are trying to reflect reality. That's fine. However, the latter one is bound to become a fallacy itself, as human labour is getting replaced by machine labour. Less people are working in manufacturing, because machines do a better job. Now, the service sector is growing, with part of it being the soul-crushing jobs and pointless existance of just to keep the system running.

I think both categories you're mentioned is also connected to a biggest fallacy of all - that human needs are infinite, and that the growing economy is good, and that it can grow forever. Marketing surely helps to tell the serfs they need a new smartphone model, but generally the artificial facilitation of needs is going to hit the wall. The contemporary existance is somewhat repulsive, and a lot of people are seeking refuge from the consumerism, sometimes by taking up living in a small communities, sometimes by going to a festival that is consumerism-free.



There is a very clear reason to care if China is creating international rules for trade-it's not beneficial to anyone in the US's sphere of influence IE most every developed country in the world. If you want a deal that's worse for you....well....okay, but it doesn't make sense.
It does not make sense to make it all-or-nothing issue, and implement [potentially] damaging policies only because to do it first than the other side (China). It's like dropping A-bomb - a plenty of evil done, no matter the way you look at it. Also, you seem to identify the interests of big corporations to be equivalent to the interests of the people in the West or in the world in general - and that's a big mistake. If the trade deal might result in very well worse outcomes for me, I want neither US nor China to do such a deal.



That's a HUGE number. It's 0.4% a year, in an economy that sees 2-3% growth year on year, that's just massive for a political deal.
I might be missing something, but it says 0.4% a year of income for americans, meaning the money the people get will be 0.4% more. How about inflation that is ever going on? Also, how about the real buying power has been stagnant for decades now? Will that be somewhat shaken by this huge number? Another question on the same breath - has the economical growth of 2-3% have been helping the real wages, lately?



And you're misunderstanding the point of the agreement. It's not about boosting exports. It's about increasing trade.
I was told of a good way to explain this a few days ago. See, there are two ways to build a car. The first one is build a factory, extract the materials, hire the laborers, and build the car. The second one is to make a farm, grow some wheat, and use the profits of that wheat to buy a car from Germany. The objective should be to buy the car in whichever way is cheaper to the US. It's an extension of the idea of comparative advantage. No matter who you are trading with, they will always be able to build something comparatively cheaper than you, and that should be taken advantage of.
To blindly increase the general trade is an inefficient way to approach a problem . Corporations are crafting rules where [I]they increase their trade. How much of that will "trickle-down" to a regular person is unclear. The welfare people might get some cheaper goods to attain, yet less jobs to earn the money and become heard in the society. This very well might increase the economic disparity.



I don't think it's all that unclear why many Democrats oppose this bill. Their biggest donors are unions, who, because the deal is not public and is designed to create a more level playing field, don't know if this is to their personal liking. It's a selfish motive that is not for the overall good of the nation, or the world for that matter.
Well, unions look after themselves, isn't that natural. Are you trying to say that those who essentially are writing the treaty - the corporate lobby - is looking for the good of the nation, somehow?



Which has increased the average families purchasing power by 10 grand. I don't get your point. Because things are being built outside the US, it's inherently bad even if it makes the US wealthier?
It's good americans can purchase more, but it also should be noted that good jobs are leaving the US, and, what's pointed out in the article - lower end jobs pay less. I don't know the ratio of this trade-off, but it's not an one-edged sword.


The Democrats made Obama tack on worker displacement programs to get the bill through the fast track anyway.
America, should not be focusing on low skill workers anyway. We have one of the highest College grad rates in the world, we have more educational and business related resources than any country, and trying to make more 20k a year manufacturing jobs is a silly priority unless it's 1955 again and I'm just not aware.
I have no rebuttal to this because this is very curious reasoning I'm seeing for the first time. Well, with manufacturing being done in the other parts of the world the good jobs are leaving too. I also thought that the problem is that in US as in the most of the West the college graduates are having problems finding jobs... Isn't it so?

[kNIOKAS]

To make a standard set of rules, and improve global trade? I feel like at this point you just don't understand the purpose of the deal... It's not to stop India from trading with us, that's for certain.
Well it implies that the low-skilled jobs are paying less because of the imports, but not because the "free-trade" deals have boosted them. They are boosted by themselves... Which makes me ask why to boost up the trade even further? We are trying to boost up the trade by treaties, but it's not our treaties that caused big imports that caused less payed low-skilled work in our country :confusedshrug: :hammerhead:


Look it up on google scholar if you want. What the article said is true. Very few economists think NAFTA had a large effect on the labor market. For one, Mexico isn't exactly a direct competitor to the US in much of anything. Oil I guess, but to call it competition is silly since we basically buy all of their oil+all of our oil+all of Canada's oil anyway.
I guess this depends on the sources. Say this:
NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality

<...>outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promises made by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.

The data also show how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality; how since NAFTA, U.S. trade deficit growth with Mexico and Canada has been 45 percent higher than with countries not party to a U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and how U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the pre-NAFTA rate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html



So because the TPP was written behind closed doors to keep the deal moving and within some limits of fairness, it must be a corporate agenda?
:biggums:
Well of course. It is highly influenced by corporations. How could it not be a corporate agenda?
http://i61.tinypic.com/cnb7n.png



Labor standards are low in the US how? You're being fairly unspecific.


The International Labor Organization, created by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, has published labor standards in dozens of areas, but it has identified eight essential core standards (see box on page 13), most of which refer to basic human rights. Of the 175 ILO member countries, overwhelming majorities have ratified most of the eight standards. More than 150 have ratified the four treating forced labor and discrimination in employment and wages. Washington has ratified just two standards, one abolishing forced labor and the other eliminating the worst forms of child labor, placing the United States in the company of only eight other ILO member countries, including China, Myanmar, and Oman.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/09/fall-globaleconomics-burtless


I don't know much about the TTIP. As far as I know, it's a ways off.
You seem to misunderstand what the deal is doing anyways. It's likely it won't change much in terms of national laws. Certainly not about labor standards. The US can't go in and say "No, you can't give people overtime pay anymore, and lunch breaks are over." The deal really has nothing to do with that stuff.
Well, not really. If the standards of both sides to be universal, the side with the lower standards have a right to claim to not be discriminated, therefore, they can enforce their standards on the other side. It is the race to the lowest common denominator, and it is what has been identified as a potential risk of the TTIP treaty. Similarly, the company investing in a country with low standards can claim damages, if that country suddenly adops more rights to the workers.

One of the examples, but I could dig up more info on what the mechanism is:
EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal

US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free trade deal
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal

Also, the buzz around the treaty is claiming that it will set the precedent and the rules of the trade for the whole world. Treaty is a piece of legislation. Yes, it will change the laws.


If the environment is ****ed is equivalent to nothing changed concerning the environment, then yes.
Right. Well the treaty deals with so-called investment-protection, which means that if the country decides to step up their environmental standards, the company x (say oil company or chemical plant) can claim damages and say they lost this much of the projected profits because of the deal.

Why the deal was held behind closed doors was already explained to you by someone else. Don't be stubborn.


The deal mostly concerns trade done by corporations. I don't know why it would look any different than this.

Are you serious? I'm being stubborn because the explanation of "preventing the special interests impacting the treaty" is somehow sane? Wait, it is the special interests that are basically writing this treaty. The corporate lobbyists have numerous advantage over the public interest groups - isn't that an evidence that the treaty is shaped by corporate agenda and not public interests? Or you think there is no adverserial relationship between corporate interests and public interests?


Which is kind of unfortunate, because it definitely impacts free trade. Of course, considering the nations involved, it shouldn't be surprising.
What do you mean by that?



The fast track gives Obama the ability to negotiate on behalf of congress in essence. Without it the deal would not be possible. Congress still has to vote on it.
Why wouldn't it be possible? I see it as a way to push some controversial rules, by making the Congress hostage to either accept it whole or decline it whole.


To recap: you are saying that the treaty is aimed to boost the international trade, it concerns the corporations and therefore it is natural that it is written by them and not, say, labour unions - those are selfish. Well, corporations are also selfish, and to let them write the legislation concerning their own international trade... Isn't there anything to be wary of? :biggums:

[kNIOKAS]

Well, what a surprise (not). Hillary Clinton flip flops and is opposing the trade agreement. Funny thing is that she probably still supports it but is doing so because she needs support from unions and all the other entities she has to pander to. Count on nothing substantial to come from her opposition. She may even flip flop back to supporting it when it's all done.

http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-hillary-clinton-flip-flops-trade-agreements-tpp-nafta-colombia-2132052
Probably a focus group told her hair looks better when she's moaning "I oppose the treaty after what I found out about it now". They probably had different tapes to show them.


Politician: This bill will give our workers a fighting chance!
me: How will it give our worker a fighting chance?
Politican: Well, I actually don't know since the bill is secretive and I'm not allowed to read it...

Nation state sovereignty is over and has been over. Democracy is just an illusion. World is run by the corporatists, lobbyists, banksters and other bilderberg group members who greet eachother with some obscure gesture like wearing a goats head.

Das it mayne. Now they'll come for the interwebz and if you make comments like this you'll be fined or some BS. Thank god ISH has outdated servers doe
Amen

[kNIOKAS]

Berlin anti-TTIP trade deal protest attracts hundreds of thousands

Hundreds of thousands of people marched in Berlin on Saturday to oppose a planned free trade deal between the European Union and the United States that is claimed to be anti-democratic and to threaten food safety and environmental standards.

http://i59.tinypic.com/24mteo5.jpg
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/berlin-anti-ttip-trade-deal-rally-hundreds-thousands-protesters