Ttip

Originally posted by finnegan
The War on Want material which I linked you to in the original post appears to have been insufficient, although it includes a very good video of a lecture setting this proposed new agreement into context. http://www.waronwant.org/news/events/previous-events/18102-ttip-a-recipe-for-ruin

The European Commission is an unelected body empowered to negotiate t ...[text shortened]... our big day. You will get much of what you want without even fighting an election to get there.

include services as well as goods. That will include enforcing public sector services to be opened to international commercial interests

But it does not force the privatisation of any of them.

remove "non tariff barriers to trade" - That means that companies can take governments to a trade court and demand compensation for the costs of regulations.

They can only do that if the regulations are applied to foreign companies but not domestic ones.

create an immense trading area which can impose its will on other regions, sidestepping the multilateral negotiations that have been so difficult precisely because of the failure to address the needs of less developed nations.

How is that different from the status quo?

...it is a bid to undermine and destroy the range of diverse regulations by which democratic governments have set constraints on the freedom of corporate interests to seek profit without accepting responsibility to people, to communities or to the environment

No, the draft I read says that you can have such regulations provided they do not unfairly discriminate against investors from the other party. They do not remove the right of governments to regulate, but the regulation has to be even handed.

I'll read the other link you posted, maybe they understand the document better than I did.

Too many questions but you are far too relaxed and laid back for your own good. For example, there are already many examples of governments being impeded in making policy decisions by the effect of trade agreements, which give investors the same legal status as governments, a major feature of the proposed TTIP agreement.

June 5, 2012
With Germany’s nuclear power phase-out being a cornerstone of goverment policy, the challenge by Swedish energy company Vattenfall is bringing the rather arcane subject of investor-state arbitration into the headlights of the national press: Based on the Energy Charter Treaty, Vattenfall is seeking compensation of losses that result from Vattenfall having to phase out its nuclear power plants in Germany. Allegedly, damages are in the billions.

Vattenfall had been expected to take that step for quite some time, being the only non-German operator of nuclear power plants in the country. The new matter has been registered with ICSID on May 31, 2012 (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12), and the tribunal is now to be constituted.

Vattenfall has a history of taking Germany to arbitration, having done it before over the Moorburg power plant (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/6) in 2009, a matter that was settled in March 2011 on undisclosed terms. No doubt the issue of transparency in investor-state arbitration will be discussed more intensely in the light of the new matter, giving both the size of the claims and the political implications.

- See more at: http://www.disputeresolutiongermany.com/2012/06/atomic-arbitration-vattenfall-challenges-germanys-nuclear-power-phase-out-in-icsid-arbitrated/#more-1046

In the UK recently, a decision of Parliament to impose plain packaging on cigarettes and destroy the use of brands to encourage smoking has been set aside pending a decision in a legal action by the tobacco industry against the government of Australia. [The whole point of anti smoking legislation is to reduce the profits and income of the tobacco industry. The whole point is to kill the tobacco industry. Why on earth is it desirable to compensate them for their loss of income when they are destroying lives systematically and on such a vast scale? The tobacco industry of course is one of the major lobby groups shaping this so called trade agreement to suit their own ends.]

There are more examples in the links I supplied. The range of government policies that are threatened in this TTIP monstrosity is terrifying.

Originally posted by finnegan
Too many questions but you are far too relaxed and laid back for your own good. For example, there are already many examples of governments being impeded in making policy decisions by the effect of trade agreements, which give investors the same legal status as governments, a major feature of the proposed TTIP agreement. [quote]June 5, 2012
With Germany’s ...[text shortened]... d. The range of government policies that are threatened in this TTIP monstrosity is terrifying.

You may not like the tobacco industry, but it does employ a lot of people, some of them making decent money.

Those that are killed giver their permission by purchase and use of the products, with considerable benefit to governments via taxation. Perhaps a decent government would not be obsessed with killing particular businesses that some deem to be unacceptable. Let consumers decide.

Originally posted by normbenign
You may not like the tobacco industry, but it does employ a lot of people, some of them making decent money.

Those that are killed giver their permission by purchase and use of the products, with considerable benefit to governments via taxation. Perhaps a decent government would not be obsessed with killing particular businesses that some deem to be unacceptable. Let consumers decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

Originally posted by finnegan
The War on Want material which I linked you to in the original post appears to have been insufficient, although it includes a very good video of a lecture setting this proposed new agreement into context. http://www.waronwant.org/news/events/previous-events/18102-ttip-a-recipe-for-ruin

The European Commission is an unelected body empowered to negotiate t ...[text shortened]... our big day. You will get much of what you want without even fighting an election to get there.

It is unaccurate to say that the European Commission is an "unelected" body. It requires approval of the European Parliament and generally its composition is decided by the wheeling and dealing of elected European national governments. I would prefer to give the EP more power over the Commission (and change the way elections for the EP are held), but they are not "unelected."

Originally posted by normbenign
You may not like the tobacco industry, but it does employ a lot of people, some of them making decent money.

Those that are killed giver their permission by purchase and use of the products, with considerable benefit to governments via taxation. Perhaps a decent government would not be obsessed with killing particular businesses that some deem to be unacceptable. Let consumers decide.

It's an addictive drug. The decision to start smoking may well be free, but my freedom to decide to stop smoking is compromised by the addiction. I smoke cigarettes and if it wasn't for television advertising (smoking in films etc. was ubiquitous until the early 1990s) I don't know that I would have started. No one forced me but I was subjected to their propaganda.

Originally posted by finnegan
Too many questions but you are far too relaxed and laid back for your own good. For example, there are already many examples of governments being impeded in making policy decisions by the effect of trade agreements, which give investors the same legal status as governments, a major feature of the proposed TTIP agreement. [quote]June 5, 2012
With Germany’s ...[text shortened]... d. The range of government policies that are threatened in this TTIP monstrosity is terrifying.

I agree that the international tribunal is a bizarre concept. Apart from that I do not see that the trade agreement does any of the things you are worrying about. Australia is not part of this deal, so the litigation there is proceeding despite it. Similarly the Swedish company is suing under E.U. rules rather than under this treaty. So these examples show that the trade deal won't actually change anything from that point of view.

As I read them the rules as laid out in the draft document do not allow U.S. agricultural produce to be sold in the E.U. unless it fulfills the same rules that apply to E.U. produce - specifically concerning overuse of antibiotics and the use of growth hormones. There is no reason that GM produce should not be labelled as such under this agreement so I don't think that that is a worry. In any case from a U.K. perspective both our major parties are so pro-GM that it couldn't possibly make any difference.

One problem you mentioned was moving jobs around. I think the difficulty is the other way round from what you described. It seemed to me, from the draft, that it would be possible for a concern from one party could set up a subsidiary in the other parties territory without employing any skilled labour from the host country - which removes one of the major advantages of foreign investment.

I'd like to see the agreement as it currently stands - it is possible it's changed to the point where your worries would be realistic, but as the draft stood I do not see the problem.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I agree that the international tribunal is a bizarre concept. Apart from that I do not see that the trade agreement does any of the things you are worrying about. Australia is not part of this deal, so the litigation there is proceeding despite it. Similarly the Swedish company is suing under E.U. rules rather than under this treaty. So these example ...[text shortened]... he point where your worries would be realistic, but as the draft stood I do not see the problem.

I agree that the international tribunal is a bizarre concept. ... these examples show that the trade deal won't actually change anything from that point of view.

You miss the point. The mechanism has indeed been road tested and now the intention is to extend its scope very widely indeed. We can see from the examples how it will function and the extent to which elected governments are increasingly constrained in their ability to develop and implement social and environmental policies in opposition to the profit motive. What this illustrates is the way in which corporations are setting themselves up in direct opposition to elected government. When you observe the NeoLiberal ideology which includes incessant attacks on the very principles of government and democracy, the significance is even more clear.

The fact that you personally feel relaxed about this astonishing expansion in the scope of corporate power is revealing about your personal politics. Sufficient then to notice that I am not relaxed about it.

Incidentally and as an aside, this also helps illustrate my belief that Obama, far from progressive, is a neoliberal and deeply opposed to many progressive ideas.

Originally posted by normbenign
You may not like the tobacco industry, but it does employ a lot of people, some of them making decent money.

Those that are killed giver their permission by purchase and use of the products, with considerable benefit to governments via taxation. Perhaps a decent government would not be obsessed with killing particular businesses that some deem to be unacceptable. Let consumers decide.

Private profit, ignoring "externalities" which are the immense social costs: a very convenient way to think about economics - if you are the one making money out of it. Your attitude on this is cynical and beneath contempt.

It is of course the job of government to address those very externalities.

There is no suggestion I might persuade you personally on this but you may like to consider whether the alternative to follow is one of revolutionary change to overthrow oppression or democratic change to establish equitable economic arrangements that are sustainable. Whichever you prefer, and I would choose democratic change, only a worm would tolerate such behaviour without setting about the destruction of a business model that smiles on the harm it does to its victims.

Originally posted by finnegan

I agree that the international tribunal is a bizarre concept. ... these examples show that the trade deal won't actually change anything from that point of view.

You miss the point. The mechanism has indeed been road tested and now the intention is to extend its scope very widely indeed. We can see from the examples how it will function and t ...[text shortened]... that Obama, far from progressive, is a neoliberal and deeply opposed to many progressive ideas.

The fact that you personally feel relaxed about this astonishing expansion in the scope of corporate power is revealing about your personal politics.

I don't agree that the trade agreement amounts to "an astonishing expansion in the scope of corporate power".

Originally posted by finnegan
The War on Want material which I linked you to in the original post appears to have been insufficient, although it includes a very good video of a lecture setting this proposed new agreement into context. http://www.waronwant.org/news/events/previous-events/18102-ttip-a-recipe-for-ruin

The European Commission is an unelected body empowered to negotiate t ...[text shortened]... our big day. You will get much of what you want without even fighting an election to get there.

Another extensive discussion is availabe in the following document: http://www.s2bnetwork.org/fileadmin/dateien/downloads/Brave_New_Atlantic_Partnership.pdf
This sets out more fully the specific risks.

The document "Brave New Atlantic Partnership" (BNAP from now) is full of words like "if", "might", and "could". Further, in BNAP on p. 28 one of the bullet points is:

The harmonisation of regulation – think of food safety standards including GMOs and REACH (Europe’s recent chemical regulation) – between the EU and the US, which would include the recognition of each other’s regulatory frameworks as virtually equal, could result in many social and environmental protections becoming ineffective in protecting patients, consumers and the environment;

But the EU's Impact Assessment Report note's the following:

In the public consultation, a limited number of stakeholders pointed to possible negative effects of harmonising environmental and safety standards on the lowest common denominator. In this respect, it has to be noted that in line with the WTO rules, the EU usually includes general exceptions in its trade agreements with respect to the environment and public health, which can legally override the trade obligations. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the EU and the US will keep its "policy space" with regard to these matters.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

Yes. It is true that there are seen and unseen effects of various policies. I pointed out some of the less visible facts about the tobacco industry.

The proper application of Bastiate's parable, would be that the seen benefits of killing tobacco would be healthier non smoking people. The unseen would be that many would be made unemployed, and many would suffer the loss of freedom by such actions.

Originally posted by finnegan
Private profit, ignoring "externalities" which are the immense social costs: a very convenient way to think about economics - if you are the one making money out of it. Your attitude on this is cynical and beneath contempt.

It is of course the job of government to address those very externalities.

There is no suggestion I might persuade you personal ...[text shortened]... etting about the destruction of a business model that smiles on the harm it does to its victims.

How do you get to "externalities" from people willingly buying a product, using it pleasurably, and those same people suffering adverse affects from the product?

Are you talking about 2nd hand smoke. Hardly a problem at all any more.

You talk about "social costs" when the real costs are to individuals who have made what is probably a poor choice. Your method is to deny people choices, and force them to comply. That is tyranny. That earns my contempt.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Another extensive discussion is availabe in the following document: http://www.s2bnetwork.org/fileadmin/dateien/downloads/Brave_New_Atlantic_Partnership.pdf
This sets out more fully the specific risks.

The document "Brave New Atlantic Partnership" (BNAP from now) is full of words like "if", "might", and "could". Further, in BNAP on p. 28 ...[text shortened]... assume that the EU and the US will keep its "policy space" with regard to these matters.[/quote]

The assurance is not considered adequate for reasons set out in the video for example but your confidence is not going to be shifted here. Let's disagree and move on.

Originally posted by normbenign
Yes. It is true that there are seen and unseen effects of various policies. I pointed out some of the less visible facts about the tobacco industry.

The proper application of Bastiate's parable, would be that the seen benefits of killing tobacco would be healthier non smoking people. The unseen would be that many would be made unemployed, and many would suffer the loss of freedom by such actions.

Oh dear, it seems like you don't get it at all. Bastiat's point is that "industry/government service X provides Y employment" is not an argument for maintaining X, because the "unseen" effect of people not smoking anymore is that they would spend their money elsewhere.