Ttip

I've only skim read this and apart from the comedy entries I posted above I can only find a few really problematic clauses. For example, they need to think about the wording of the second paragraph here, I've quoted the first paragraph so you understand the context and highlighted the bit in the second paragraph I think is stupid:

Article 14:Expropriation
1. Neither Party shall directly or indirectly nationalise, expropriate or subject to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as 'expropriation' ) the investments of investors of the other Party except:
(a) for a public purpose;
(b) under due process of law;
(c) on a non-discriminatory basis; and
(d) against payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation.
For greater certainty, this paragraph shall be interpreted in accordance with Annex X on Expropriation.

2. Such compensation shall amount to the fair market value of the investment at the time immediately before the expropriation or the impending expropriation became public knowledge plus interest at a commercial rate established on a market basis, from the date of expropriation until the date of payment. Such compensation shall be effectively realisable, freely transferable in accordance with Article Y.10 (Transfers) and made without delay.

This is daft, if the reason for the nationalization is impending bankruptcy and the market doesn't know about the problem then the actual value of the concern could be zero and the market price a few billion. If the service being provided is vital then a national government shouldn't have to wait around for things to go belly up before nationalizing.
What do they mean by "made without delay", they already specified one has to pay interest, so they assume there will be a delay and then insist there can't be one.

The last section concerns exceptions:

2. Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where like conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on establishment or cross-border supply of services, nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public security or public morals or to maintain public order;
(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
(c) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are applied in conjunction with restrictions on domestic investors or on the domestic supply or consumption of services;
(d) necessary for the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value;
(e) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Title including those relating to:
(i) the prevention of deceptive and fraudulent practices or to deal with the effects of a default on contracts;
(ii) the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts;
(iii) safety;
(f) inconsistent with Articles 4 and 22 (on National Treatment), provided that the difference in treatment is aimed at ensuring the effective or equitable imposition or collection of direct taxes in respect of economic activities, entrepreneurs or services suppliers of the other Party.

So there is no reason to change health and safety laws and it does not give concerns a green light to run roughshod over sites of special scientific interest and so forth.

The document does not mention genetically modified organisms. Also (b) would allow one to rule out planting GM crops to protect non-GM crops and wild species from cross-pollination.

I don't see the big problem. The devil tends to be in the detail so maybe there's clever little catches my non-legally trained mind didn't spot. Largely the requirements seem to be that if one restricts a foreign signatories companies one has to restrict ones own enterprises as well. Since every state who is a signatory (AFAIK) does all this anyway I don't see the point of the agreement. It looks to me like Obama wants an international agreement so he can point to an international agreement.

Originally posted by finnegan
Whether this would to any degree stimulate trade is a moot point. What is stated here is that stimulating trade is not the objective. The objective is to enable large corporations to operate without regard to the constraints reflected in regulation, by which democratically accountable national governments secure benefits such as improved health and safety, ...[text shortened]... side the oligarchy of stunningly wealthy owners of these anti-social wealth-destroying machines.

I really don't see the problem with democratically elected governments working out trade deals with other trade blocs.

Originally posted by finnegan
http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/ttip

[quote]The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a comprehensive free trade and investment treaty currently being negotiated – in secret – between the European Union and the USA.

The intention to launch TTIP negotiations was first announced by President Barack Obama in his State ...[text shortened]... n informed and active part. Not today. What passes for political awareness is a wash of twaddle.

"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a comprehensive free trade and investment treaty currently being negotiated – in secret – between the European Union and the USA."

The notion that a "FREE TRADE" agreement has to be negotiated is a hoot.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I really don't see the problem with democratically elected governments working out trade deals with other trade blocs.

Negotiated trade between governments has never been "free" nor will it be.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[quote]As officials from both sides acknowledge, the primary aim of TTIP is not to stimulate trade through removing tariffs between the EU and USA, as these are already at minimal levels. The main goal of TTIP is, by their own admission, to remove regulatory ‘barriers’ which restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations on both ...[text shortened]... from the fact that the blocs participating in the negotiations are not sufficiently democratic.

What is wrong with the exotic notion of widget makers freely negotiating with widget buyers, and leave the damned government bureaucrats out?

Originally posted by finnegan
Small Government = big business

We need government that can stand up to business because otherwise we are serfs.

You presume that somehow government and big business are opposed to one another. History tells us the opposite.

Originally posted by normbenign
What is wrong with the exotic notion of widget makers freely negotiating with widget buyers, and leave the damned government bureaucrats out?

One word: thalidomide.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
One word: thalidomide.

Sorry but that is absurd. Thalidomide did not occur in a free market, but in a highly regulated one.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I've only skim read this and apart from the comedy entries I posted above I can only find a few really problematic clauses. For example, they need to think about the wording of the second paragraph here, I've quoted the first paragraph so you understand the context and highlighted the bit in the second paragraph I think is stupid:[quote]Article 14:Expro ...[text shortened]... to me like Obama wants an international agreement so he can point to an international agreement.

Such compensation shall amount to the fair market value of the investment

There is nothing but the most divine sense of course in sorting out terms on which the owners of a company should be compensated... Now imagine a scenario in which a free trade agreement enables a business to transfer skilled jobs away from a country like the US(say) and into a country like Mexico (say - just hypothetically). What aspect of a free trade agreement will compensate the workers, their families and their communities for the economic and social destruction arising from this process?

Nobody said this proposed new agreement is stupid or that none of its clauses will be sensible. What is said rather is that the entire procedure is for the benefit of corporate profits and not for the benefit of the people in any of the countries involved.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I really don't see the problem with democratically elected governments working out trade deals with other trade blocs.

In itself nothing, but why do the negotiations have to be in secret?

Originally posted by normbenign
Sorry but that is absurd. Thalidomide did not occur in a free market, but in a highly regulated one.

Really? It occurred in an inadequately regulated market; in a highly regulated one:

The regulatory authorities in the German Democratic Republic, as the former communist East Germany was called, did not approve thalidomide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#History

A market as "free" as you desire would have NO restraints on such possible disasters.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In itself nothing, but why do the negotiations have to be in secret?

Virtually all successful negotiations occur in secret.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I really don't see the problem with democratically elected governments working out trade deals with other trade blocs.

Think about it for just a few moments. Democratically elected governments will favor the interests of their constituents. What about others? Who will the alleged "free trade" favor? Consumers? Producers? Transportation interests? Stock market manipulators? The object of government interference is to favor some interest.

Originally posted by normbenign
Think about it for just a few moments. Democratically elected governments will favor the interests of their constituents. What about others? Who will the alleged "free trade" favor? Consumers? Producers? Transportation interests? Stock market manipulators? The object of government interference is to favor some interest.

So what? Since when were you sooooooooooooooo opposed to two parties coming to what they conclude are a mutually beneficial agreement?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Really? It occurred in an inadequately regulated market; in a highly regulated one:

The regulatory authorities in the German Democratic Republic, as the former communist East Germany was called, did not approve thalidomide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#History

A market as "free" as you desire would have NO restraints on such possible disasters.

It surely would have restraints. One bad product could not only lose all the money of that company, but lose its future prospects altogether. The other alternative leaves it open to law suits, but usually protects the entity's future sometimes with government bailouts.