Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

minininja · #1 by **minininja** » Sep 14, 2014 9:52 pm

Outrage as EU blocks democratic challenge to US trade deal

There is something rotten in the state of Europe when an unelected, unaccountable EU body can glibly inform millions of us that we no longer have the right to question its most dangerous and unpopular policies.

This is exactly what has just happened, as the European Commission has announced that it will not allow a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to challenge the secret trade talks it is holding with the US government, supposedly on our behalf.

The ruling is a slap in the face for the 230 civil society organisations from across Europe that have lined up behind the initiative, and the millions of European citizens they represent. The ECI is the only vehicle available to us to challenge the shadowy bureaucrats of the European Commission. Now even this seems to be too much scrutiny for them.

The negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have become one of the hottest political topics across Europe. TTIP is effectively a new bill of rights for multinational corporations, granting them unprecedented powers and undermining vital labour, environmental and food safety standards in the name of 'free' trade.

TTIP is also a direct threat to our democracy, as the European Commission seeks to allow companies to challenge future policies introduced anywhere in Europe that could jeopardise their bottom line. The ECI, by contrast, was a fully democratic response. And the Commission has blocked it.

http://politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/ ... to-us-trad

From everything I've read, TTIP is a major step to the dystopian nightmare that many global corporations seem to be itching to achieve. There's real democratic opposition to these trade deals and the erosion of democracy they would bring, - despite the almost complete lack of coverage in the mainstream media, - but it's shocking to see the European Commission just squashing it down.

The fight continues.

tuco · #2 by **tuco** » Sep 14, 2014 11:25 pm

Is this related in any way? I am not familiar with the ECI nor the (secret) TTIP. Are there any particular issues we should be aware of? The claim that the European Commission is not elected body, coming from the ECI (which one of the registered is it?), is lets say debatable. I am fan of direct democracy but need more detail.

chairman bill · #3 by **chairman bill** » Sep 15, 2014 8:53 am

Some years ago, the people of Eastern Europe rose up against their oppressive governments, overthrew them & established democratic alternatives.

Since the demise of the Eastern Bloc, western corporations have grown ever more powerful, and governments have become ever more subservient to them. The corporate state is the oppressor now, and before long there will be a popular uprising against this too. Politicians should think long & hard about just how much they push this pro-capital, anti-democratic agenda.

mrjonno · #4 by **mrjonno** » Sep 15, 2014 8:56 am

Has any national government stood on a platform that is against this?, if not then you can hardly expect the EU to object.

Democracy is not rule by pressure groups

chairman bill · #5 by **chairman bill** » Sep 15, 2014 9:06 am

But giving corporations the same status as nation states, is also not democracy.

tuco · #6 by **tuco** » Sep 15, 2014 9:10 am

Well yes, there are certain trends those who are found of (and informed about) democracy, freedom, justice and equality cant fail to spot. Still, if TTIP is evil, lets examine it properly because vague statements like "the European Commission seeks to allow companies to challenge future policies introduced anywhere in Europe that could jeopardise their bottom line" tell nothing. Or?

mrjonno · #7 by **mrjonno** » Sep 15, 2014 9:10 am

chairman bill wrote:But giving corporations the same status as nation states, is also not democracy.

The EU only consists of representatives of national governments, if you don't like what they are doing complain to your national government. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this to blame the 'EU' is a cop out

VK-machine · #8 by **VK-machine** » Sep 15, 2014 11:45 am

minininja wrote:From everything I've read, TTIP is a major step to the dystopian nightmare that many global corporations seem to be itching to achieve. There's real democratic opposition to these trade deals and the erosion of democracy they would bring, - despite the almost complete lack of coverage in the mainstream media, - but it's shocking to see the European Commission just squashing it down.

The fight continues.

From what I've read the decisions seems unlikely to stand up in court.
In Germany there is extensive coverage of TTIP (and CETA). It seems that UK and US media take a different stand. I had wondered about that.
CETA is a similar agreement with Canada. It's equally unacceptable but is much further along.

VK-machine · #9 by **VK-machine** » Sep 15, 2014 12:23 pm

mrjonno wrote:
chairman bill wrote:But giving corporations the same status as nation states, is also not democracy.

The EU only consists of representatives of national governments, if you don't like what they are doing complain to your national government. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this to blame the 'EU' is a cop out

Separation of powers is an important feature in democratic countries. The fact that national governments (the executive branches) have law-making powers through the back-door of the EU is an extreme problem. However, these problems are being addressed so I'm not particularly concerned.

Anyways, the EU does not only consist of representatives of national governments. The EU has an elected parliament. It is not just representatives of national governments, There is also the ECI.

VK-machine · **#10** by **VK-machine** » Sep 15, 2014 1:06 pm

tuco wrote:Well yes, there are certain trends those who are found of (and informed about) democracy, freedom, justice and equality cant fail to spot. Still, if TTIP is evil, lets examine it properly because vague statements like "the European Commission seeks to allow companies to challenge future policies introduced anywhere in Europe that could jeopardise their bottom line" tell nothing. Or?

One issue that people worry about is that these treaties in general are a trojan horse to undermine national laws that protect the public; health and safety, environmental regulation, workers' rights, consumer protection, that stuff.
Given that the negotiations are secret but have almost exclusively input from industry lobbyists (not citizen groups) this seems well justified.

The issue with investor-state-dispute-settlement(ISDS) is this:
ISDS creates special "courts" for investors. Equality before the law, anyone?
If legislation is passed that hurts the profits of an investor, the investor can sue for damages. The "court" consists of three "judges". One is named by the investor, one by the government, and one by both.
The fact that this court then decides if a piece of legislation was right puts it at a level comparable to a Supreme Court. Can anyone imagine a Supreme Court of 3 judges, 2 of which the plaintiff has a say in naming?
The "court" can decide to make part of its judgments secret. There is no appeal.
I don't know how the government would go about naming "judges". That's another issue. Clearly whoever gets to do that gains enormous power.
Well, that's just IMHO.

Here's a more informed take:
http://corporateeurope.org/internationa ... s-eu-trade

tuco · **#11** by **tuco** » Sep 15, 2014 8:54 pm

Thanks VK-machine. I've read the article and some links in it.

I am aware of ISDS, at least on level media report about such cases over here, for example this one. As far as I know these are taken to regular courts and involve groups of lawyers. The case you referring to, "court" consisting of 3 "judges", comes from this article or actual documents regarding TTIP?

btw as it seems "online public consultation" been closed and also I still did not find any evidence (because the talks are secret?) I could base my opinion upon. I do agree however that corporate money are probably the biggest threat to democracy today so I do agree this issue is very important. Unfortunately, due to complexity and lack of information/ignorance I am not sure where to go from here.

VK-machine · **#12** by **VK-machine** » Sep 16, 2014 11:42 am

tuco wrote:Thanks VK-machine. I've read the article and some links in it.

I am aware of ISDS, at least on level media report about such cases over here, for example this one. As far as I know these are taken to regular courts and involve groups of lawyers. The case you referring to, "court" consisting of 3 "judges", comes from this article or actual documents regarding TTIP?

btw as it seems "online public consultation" been closed and also I still did not find any evidence (because the talks are secret?) I could base my opinion upon. I do agree however that corporate money are probably the biggest threat to democracy today so I do agree this issue is very important. Unfortunately, due to complexity and lack of information/ignorance I am not sure where to go from here.

At least one draft of TTIP has been leaked, as well as what's probably a final version of CETA.

This is from CETA.

A claim may be submitted under the following arbitration rules:
(a) the ICSID Convention;
(b) the ICSID Additional Facility Rules where the conditions for proceedings pursuant to
paragraph (a) do not apply;
(c) the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; or
(d) any other arbitration rules on agreement of the disputing parties.

Also CETA explicitly says that the "judge" (mediator)
Those are not regular courts. UNCITRAL says that the usual number of arbitrators (what I called "judges") is 3 unless both parties agree that it should be 1.

I am particularly worried by the increase in cases. There were very few until shortly after the end of the cold war. Since the mid 90ies the numbers are increasing exponentially.

tuco · **#13** by **tuco** » Sep 16, 2014 12:57 pm

Which - mediator having final say in awarding alleged damages - if put into works, is ridiculous.

I've studied a bit of annex-1-still-not-loving-isds.pdf from the link you posted.

For example, the IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) analysis indeed states:

The legal analysis of this approach is extremely clear and simple: it does nothing to establish or enhance a right to regulate. Rather, it does the exact opposite: it makes it clear that the right to regulate is fully subject to the Agreement. All exercises of the right to regulate, at both the federal and provincial levels, must conform to the agreement. Contrary to what is often implied by referring to a “right to regulate” provision, this approach in fact prioritizes conformity with treaty obligations over the right to regulate.

Thus, based on what is available to date, the text appears to do the opposite of what the European Commission argues in its first point.

however, on the same page 2, it also states:

However, in order to fully assess the European Commission’s assertion, we have also examined key exception provisions that might exempt certain types of regulatory measures from the obligations in the draft text. Overall, the current text has the same range of obligations on governments towards foreign investors as the previous generations of EU investment treaties signed by individual member states with other governments. The bilateral investment treaties (BITs) (of which there are approximately 1,200 that EU states are party to), are the forerunner to the present text in that way. None of the traditional obligations appear to be left out of the current draft CETA. A few have been subject to more extensive drafting, and we will return to those separately below. For this section, we look at the exceptions to this set of obligations on states—exceptions which are new to the EU models—to assess whether they help preserve the right to regulate.

then it goes to analyze particular articles and unless we gonna go over them in similar fashion ..

Will TTIP be subject to vote in the European Parliament? Because else I do not see how this process could be influenced.

Corneel · **#14** by **Corneel** » Sep 16, 2014 1:27 pm

tuco wrote:Will TTIP be subject to vote in the European Parliament? Because else I do not see how this process could be influenced.

Yes. Both Parliament and Council need to approve the final proposal.

tuco · **#15** by **tuco** » Sep 18, 2014 12:54 am

Thanks.

The lack of public and academic debate over this is disturbing. The corruption potential set by environment, as described, is enormous and indicated by the mentioned number incidents. As are irreversible damages on states/societies - the money are legit and gone. Putting let say technicalities aside, this case rises fundamental questions about democracy. It is not like nobody cares, but nobody can do nothing about it.

Lets also note that this problem is probably not problem inherent to supra-large structures. Investors want guarantees, which translates to the capital going by lowest resistance. Supra-large are profits but the principle is the same regardless of size.

Perhaps one NGO should not have the right to dismiss a policy, but perhaps one NGO could ask for public audit of such policy before being adopted. After all, there is no democratically elected representative who would admit corruption, not materializing the voice of the people but others.

We can imagine model where there are equal opportunities, profits and costs, globally. Investors have the same guarantees everywhere. Not free market or dystopia? How its not free? Its admittedly just one, united. The difference is in who sets the rules.

fisherman · **#16** by **fisherman** » Nov 04, 2014 9:56 pm

Interesting background analysis by George Monbiot on the reason for Cameron's vociferous attacks on Jean-Claude Juncker's candidacy for EC President.

"When David Cameron and the corporate press launched their campaign against the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for president of the European commission, they claimed that he threatened British sovereignty. It was a perfect inversion of reality. Juncker, seeing the way the public debate was going [re- TTIP investor-state dispute settlement], promised in his manifesto that “I will not sacrifice Europe’s safety, health, social and data protection standards … on the altar of free trade … Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU member states is limited by special regimes for investor disputes.” Juncker’s crime was that he had pledged not to give away as much of our sovereignty to corporate lawyers as Cameron and the media barons demanded."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/british-government-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade

Scot Dutchy · **#17** by **Scot Dutchy** » Nov 05, 2014 9:43 am

Corneel wrote:
tuco wrote:Will TTIP be subject to vote in the European Parliament? Because else I do not see how this process could be influenced.

Yes. Both Parliament and Council need to approve the final proposal.

Exactly.

The Commission can not work on its own.

Another example of non-knowledge of EU system of government.

Clive Durdle · **#18** by **Clive Durdle** » Nov 05, 2014 9:58 am

Editorial and articles in New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... FntZIcUcYU

Scot Dutchy · **#19** by **Scot Dutchy** » Nov 05, 2014 10:01 am

From that article:

But we can't be sure about that, because the talks are being held behind firmly closed doors. If a deal is struck, it is most likely to be approved summarily, with little opportunity for public feedback.

Someone who has not got a clue how the EU works.

mrjonno · **#20** by **mrjonno** » Nov 05, 2014 10:57 am

Has any national government in the entire of the EU said they don't want this treaty?

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Re: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Who is online