Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - TTIP

[villakram]

On 11/25/2015 at 15:23, Awol said:

Any UK/US bilateral trade deal outwith the EU would by definition be independent of TTIP which is designed to encompass a block - like its sister the TPP.  It would therefore be far more transparent and negotiated by people accountable to us, not by some grey suited Euro soup on our behalf. 

As for UKIP, they've been pushing for NHS exemption from TTIP and other good amendments but were defeated in the EU Parliament by a block including Labour MEPs.  I wouldn't want them governing the UK but it's wrong to suggest they are not on the correct side of this issue. 

The idea that, if the negotiating was done by official representatives of her majesties government instead of "some grey suited Euro suit", things would be much better for the average person is laughable. Open your eyes!

[Rodders]

http://www.waronwant.org/media/what-i-didn%E2%80%99t-read-ttip-reading-room

Quote

 February 2016 - 5:45pm

NEWS

Katja Kipping was one of the first German MPs to gain access to the new TTIP reading room opened in Berlin this week, and she has written up a report of her experience. We thought it was well worth translating from the original, ‘The Opposite of Transparency’.

TTIP, the EU-US free trade deal, has secrecy written all over it. Those responsible for it live in dread of any public scrutiny. If it was up to me, I would give everyone who’s interested the chance to make up their own minds on the text of the agreement in its current form. Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for Economic Affairs and a top cheerleader for TTIP, has now set up a reading room in his ministry where since the beginning of February German MPs can each spend two hours looking at those texts on which consensus has already been reached.

A political friend of mine asked me the day before whether she could come with me into the reading room. I had to say no. After a long, tough struggle with the government, at least MPs are able to read the text, but they are the only ones. We are not even allowed to take security-cleared specialists with us into the reading room. As for members of the public, who will ultimately have to bear the brunt of TTIP, they are to have no access whatsoever to the secret text. Not what transparency looks like in my book!

Access ‘granted’

Even the registration procedure for the reading room speaks volumes. Once I’d registered, I was sent the instructions on how to use the room. The first thing that I noticed was that the terms and conditions had already been the subject of negotiations between the European Commission and the USA. Get your head round that: TTIP isn’t even signed yet, and already individual countries have lost the right to decide who gets to read the texts, and on what terms.

The following extract from the rulebook for MPs who, like me, want to use the reading room reveals the attitude towards democracy that lurks behind TTIP: “You recognise and accept that in being granted access to the TTIP texts you are being extended an exceptional degree of trust.”

Now I’d always thought that elected MPs have a right to information. Yet the TTIP negotiators (and who gave them their legitimacy?) reckon they are GRANTING us access out of the goodness of their hearts. Access as a sign of exceptional trust. Whoever wrote that – did they really think that we MPs would feel flattered? To me it smacks more of totalitarianism. ‘Granting access’ and ‘extending trust’ is not the language you use if you really believe in democracy. 

Tuesday 2 February was my day. I’d registered for the reading room. A guard took me in through security and asked me to lock away my jacket and my bag. He checked that I wasn’t taking any camera or mobile phone into the reading room, and then knocked on a door. The heightened level of secrecy made me all the more excited as to what I was going to find, but the room itself was nothing special. There were eight computer work stations, and I was only allowed to sit at the one designated for me. A friendly woman sat in the room. She got me to sign the visitor rules – if you don’t sign, you don’t get in, so I signed. There was a thermos of coffee and a plate of biscuits in the corner. Yet no amount of caffeine or blood sugar would have made it possible to get through the 300 or so pages of text in the two hours I had available to me.

Fodder for crafty lawyers

The criticism has often been made that the TTIP texts only exist in English. Not every MP has grown up using English as a second language, and you can just imagine what would happen if US senators were only granted access to the texts in French. So much for equality between negotiating partners. There were dictionaries in the room but no internet access, and thus no way of using any translation apps, which didn’t make the translation of the technical legal wording any easier.

Even those MPs who have no difficulty reading official English texts are faced with a problem: without a legal commentary you are still in the dark as to the potential impacts of many of the terms used. Let me give an example that I expressly did not see in the reading room, but in an insider report coming out of Brussels. 

The US side has assured the EU that there will be no restriction on its ability to introduce ‘science-based regulations’ in future. Any unbiased person might conclude from this that it will still be possible to restrict the use of certain types of genetically modified organisms within the EU. But the USA considers large parts of the EU’s food safety regime not to be ‘science-based’, so a resourceful trade barrister could make use of the clause in question to launch a successful lawsuit against those food safety regulations. For us MPs to have a proper understanding of the potential significance of the terms used, we’d need not only to have the full text of TTIP but also to get all the wording checked by international trade lawyers, and these are precisely the people we are not allowed to have in the room with us. In some cases, however, you don’t need that much imagination to work out how a crafty lawyer could make use of the wording – in the interest of big business, of course.

What I DIDN’T read

Given that Sigmar Gabriel claims that TTIP is going to be of particular benefit for small and medium-sized enterprises in Germany, I was naturally curious to read what the documents had to say about them. Now, I am not allowed to tell you anything about the text that I read. But I never signed anything to say that I can’t reveal what I DIDN’T read. So, for the record: I read nothing that even vaguely supported Gabriel’s claim.

Of course, this is no great surprise. A recently leaked Council document made no secret of the main objective of the EU negotiators in the TTIP talks, namely: access to the massive procurement contracts of the USA. The complex tendering processes involved are not the usual stamping ground of small businesses, either here or there.

The two hours I had in the reading room were obviously not enough to read all the documents. Yet afterwards I realised that nothing I had read would make me rethink any of my previous criticisms of TTIP. I read nothing to alleviate my concern that the US side wishes to make life more difficult for public and community enterprises and to secure better terms for transnational corporations in the battle for public tenders. I also read nothing to calm my fears that EU negotiators are prepared to sacrifice our social and environmental standards for the prospect of winning lucrative contracts for big European firms. 

I read nothing that would lead me to reconsider my previous criticism that consumer protection plays no part in TTIP other than to proclaim free market competition to be the highest form of consumer protection that exists.

Crawling with typos

I hope I’m not breaking any state secret if I register my amazement that the documents are simply crawling with typos. The word ‘and’ is regularly written ‘andd’ and ‘the’ often appears as ‘teh’. Either the negotiators are really shoddy workers or this is one of those famous security measures we’ve heard about. Just in case anyone manages to get round the camera ban and copies a screenshot of the secret documents, these specially introduced ‘errors’ will enable the authorities to work out who was the source of any leak.

It is revealing in itself that the Ministry for Economic Affairs is prepared to go to such lengths in order to keep the text of TTIP under wraps. And they have every reason for doing so. Anyone who was going into these negotiations to enhance environmental protection, consumer protection and labour standards would have nothing to fear from transparency. Anyone who’s engaged in selling out democracy, on the other hand, is obviously going to want to avoid public scrutiny. If Sigmar Gabriel and the negotiators are really so convinced of the benefits of TTIP, why don’t they just make the text available to everyone online?

 

It is insane. Such a full scale assault on an increasingly vestigial notion of democracy. Hail The TNC and their right to absolute power

Edited February 8, 2016 by Rodders

[Awol]

But, but... The EU is wonderful... We couldn't possibly make a better and more transparent trade deal as a sovereign country... The UK is useless, etc, etc. 

The European Union is a sovereignty swallowing, democracy destroying corporate project run by, with and for big capital and the European elites who serve them.

It's no coincidence that Morgan Stanley is the biggest contributor to Cameron's campaign to stay in the EU (followed by JP Morgan), you can bet your last penny they know exactly what is in the TTIP as they are probably 'helping' to draft it.

[OutByEaster?]

The EU now serves pretty much the same purpose as the Pentagon; it's a device for moving public money into private hands. It's strange, but the EU was conceived as a way to strengthen Europe and allow it some protection from the avarice of US driven corporatism - it now carries out the very duty it was created to prevent.

Unfortunately, it's initial principle still holds true, sovereignty no longer really exists, the UK is already run by and for people like Morgan Stanley, the only real hope was enough people getting together to form some sort of resistance to that - it's failed - and sadly it was about the best hope we had.

 

 

 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

The EU now serves pretty much the same purpose as the Pentagon; it's a device for moving public money into private hands. It's strange, but the EU was conceived as a way to strengthen Europe and allow it some protection from the avarice of US driven corporatism - it now carries out the very duty it was created to prevent.

Unfortunately, it's initial principle still holds true, sovereignty no longer really exists, the UK is already run by and for people like Morgan Stanley, the only real hope was enough people getting together to form some sort of resistance to that - it's failed - and sadly it was about the best hope we had.

 

 

 

The European Federalist Movement was funded and directed by the Americans (via CIA) to ensure they would never have to come over and peel France and Germany off each other again.

It was recognised that Germany would always be the hegemonic power of Continental Europe so a mechanism had to be found to achieve that peacefully, hence the EEC/EU.  The EU is not and has never been an "axis of resistance" to the USA. 

I would agree that the UK is controlled by high finance, but the only possible way to alter that is a reordering of our politics.

The first step in doing that is to break away from the EU, which we will have our one and only opportunity to do this summer - assuming the theatre of Cameron's sham renegotiation is completed in time. 

The reason our politics is so sterile and deracinated is the establishment acceptance of the above world order. Free decide our own fate political debate would once again be about ideas, rather than the current pretence and deceit masquerading as democracy.

[chrisp65]

Yep, the way to stop TTIP, the way to stop big business and banks and the establishment from taking everything, is to leave the EU.

Once we are free of the EU then our current media set up, our politics, the money houses, the international investment funds, lobbyists and our businesses will be free to unite and ensure that the honest hardworking British family is put before profit and control.

Where do I sign up for this bollocks?

 

[lapal_fan]

I just don't get "it".

I've always thought the the E.U was a good thing, free trade between E.U countries, although we pay into the E.U we always seemed to get more out of it.

I'm not very well versed in the politics (obviously), but what benefit would the UK have by leaving the E.U?

What problems would we face? 

And how would it affect the every man?

[chrisp65]

It's so obvious what the advantages of leaving would be.

Whilst we are in europe we have to comply with their rules to sell them stuff and their stuff that we buy has to be of an agreed standard.

Obviously if we weren't in the club making the rules we could sell them any old shit that didn't comply with their rules. We would also then be free to trade more with India. Currently Belgium does more trade with India than we do, so clearly it's the EU holding us back.

To be honest Lapal, I think it comes down to what shade of grey suit you'd rather be **** over by. A somber dark grey British suit, a mid grey German suit, a stiff black Chinese suit, or a shiny silver American suit. You're free to pick any colour suit you fancy for your **** over, that's the beauty of democracy.

 

[Awol]

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, the way to stop TTIP, the way to stop big business and banks and the establishment from taking everything, is to leave the EU.

Once we are free of the EU then our current media set up, our politics, the money houses, the international investment funds, lobbyists and our businesses will be free to unite and ensure that the honest hardworking British family is put before profit and control.

Where do I sign up for this bollocks?

 

Anyone can construct a straw man, knock it down and then say "look how clever I am!" 

My point was leaving the EU isn't a destination, it is (or could be) the beginning of a journey to genuine political change. The existing two major parties are corporate shills that need to be smashed and replaced by new parties in a sovereign Parliament that can fight over real ideas.

The EU is a straitjacket that prevents any chance of it ever happening, its purpose is to centralise and suck power to the centre by increasing control over the member states.

If you actually listen to the President of the EU Parliament or the leaders of its various factions they are explicit in stating that the end point of the EU journey is a Federal Superstate. They make that case honestly and openly, which although I disagree is a position I respect. 

The UK establishment goes out of its way to play this down or flat out ignore it because most British people don't want it. 

You may well think that is "bollocks" but at least say why instead of that smug effort above. 

[chrisp65]

I thought my second paragraph was all the explanation, all the 'why' that was needed for my smug closing one liner.

What odds would you give on Britannia Utopia being the end result of leaving the EU?

What exactly would be demonstrably improved for an average family in Taunton or Carlisle? 

 

[tonyh29]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's so obvious what the advantages of leaving would be.

Whilst we are in europe we have to comply with their rules to sell them stuff and their stuff that we buy has to be of an agreed standard.

Obviously if we weren't in the club making the rules we could sell them any old shit that didn't comply with their rules. We would also then be free to trade more with India. Currently Belgium does more trade with India than we do, so clearly it's the EU holding us back.

To be honest Lapal, I think it comes down to what shade of grey suit you'd rather be **** over by. A somber dark grey British suit, a mid grey German suit, a stiff black Chinese suit, or a shiny silver American suit. You're free to pick any colour suit you fancy for your **** over, that's the beauty of democracy.

 

maybe India really really likes Belgian chocolate  ?  Cameron signed a £9bn trade deal with India in Nov last year which probably isn't factored into the stat you're quoting though

If you look at direct Imports and Exports  Switzerland is the biggest European trading partner of India and they are outside of the EU  .. as are the 5 trading partners above them in the list ..... 

 

interestingly during his visit last year Modi was quoted as saying  "As far as India is concerned, if there is an entry point to the European Union, that is the UK".

[chrisp65]

Yep, noted Tony.

I think my point (as clumsy and rushed as it was), was that it isn't membership of the EU that is stopping us trading overseas. The EU isn't restricting you or me from selling our services to India or Malaysia or Brazil.

I'm not particularly pro or anti the EU. I'm just getting increasingly frustrated by nebulous opinion on what flag is nicest being touted as facts about our future security and prosperity.

[tonyh29]

21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What exactly would be demonstrably improved for an average family in Taunton or Carlisle? 

it's a trick question really  .... chances are any figures quoted for this would be dismissed as being from some Uber right little Britain organisation and then be countered with figures from a pro Europe source 

 

according to figures in 2013 we paid £10 bn more into the EU pot than we took out , divide that by 60 million people and that's a saving of £166 per person  .... in it's simplest terms .. ( though I'm crap at maths so I'd double check that figure)  .. but Mr Joe Taunton is better off in that case

 

the case about jobs and import and exports is far more complex of course ... if we could leave and still secure zero tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU then the impact wouldn't be as huge as it would be if that deal couldn't be secured .... and I guess that's the millions € question on all of this debate  and why ultimately I think the UK will vote to stay in  

Edited February 9, 2016 by tonyh29

[chrisp65]

I've seen that calculation based on the 10 Billion net contribution. Then I've also seen the 'counter' argument that if we scrap all that silly money in versus money out non-sense, leave the EU but still want to be a favoured trading partner, then we will have to 'buy' a licence to trade.

This is what Norway has done, and that costs them 30 Billion. So Joe Taunton would be one hundred and fifty quid worse off. If that is the case, if we are being asked to choose between being 10 or 15 quid better or worse off a month, then it's getting towards insignificant. They could redress that with a shave one way or the other on Nat Insurance.

The 'counter counter' argument currently appears to be that ah yes, but they wouldn't make us pay a licence, we're British!

I don't understand how we can be asked to decide something without any actual agreed undisputed facts and figures. I know we can't predict the future, but surely we can know basic costs and consequences. That leads me to think that we've actually lost any grip on what anything actually costs and what any levers actually control and are being asked to choose between two snake oil salesmen. I don't want to do that.

[snowychap]

55 minutes ago, Awol said:

Anyone can construct a straw man, knock it down and then say "look how clever I am!"

The problem with any discussion/debate about the EU and what happens as the result of a yes or no vote in any referendum is that it is littered with straw men and dubious certainties on each side as to what may or may not happen and that includes any trade deals and how they may compare to the likes of TTIP and TPP or in whose interests a supposedly sovereign UK's negotiating team would actually be working.

Edited February 9, 2016 by snowychap

[snowychap]

48 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

interestingly during his visit last year Modi was quoted as saying  "As far as India is concerned, if there is an entry point to the European Union, that is the UK"

If the UK were no longer part of the EU then wouldn't it therefore cease to be that entry point for a country like India?

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

If the UK were no longer part of the EU then wouldn't it therefore cease to be that entry point for a country like India?

Which itself may or may not depend on whether we leave, then negotiate a 30 billion pound favoured partner status.

 

[tonyh29]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

If the UK were no longer part of the EU then wouldn't it therefore cease to be that entry point for a country like India?

I'm not entirely sure what he meant to be honest  .... I took it at face value to be saying India would deal with you regardless of if you are in or out ( I can't see India stopping direct trade with he EU and going through the UK only ) but would prefer it if we stayed in

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

the UK is controlled by high finance, but the only possible way to alter that is a reordering of our politics.

The first step in doing that is to break away from the EU, which we will have our one and only opportunity to do this summer - assuming the theatre of Cameron's sham renegotiation is completed in time. 

The reason our politics is so sterile and deracinated is the establishment acceptance of the above world order. Free decide our own fate political debate would once again be about ideas, rather than the current pretence and deceit masquerading as democracy.

Yes the UK (as per America and much of the rest of the world) is really controlled and run for the benefit of big business and multi-national finance.

I'm not sure I agree with your proposed "solution" though. I think the TTIP is an absolute abomination and the way that it's being progressed within the EU is appalling. Trouble is, the "people" bringing this to our attention are not UK politicians - where's the outcry, such as there is one coming from? Pretty much from Greens and left wing and left-ish MEPs and pressure groups. By and large mainstream UK parties are not addressing TTIP in ways other than to passively ignore it (Labour), support it, but say little (tories), or meekly respond to the odd question by picking on a small part of it that suits their agenda (UKIP).

UK politicians mostly are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Splitting from the EU would likely see the break up of the UK as Scotland wants to stay in. We'd be left with an England with a  permanent tory Gov't. Unfortunately the tories are the most supine, fat cat friendly pro big business and multi-national finance party you could possibly conceive of. leaving the EU would expose us to worse, not better "resistance" to being ever more walked over by corporations.

The whole Europe/EU thing is like choosing between two unappealing punishments. Either way you get a beating

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

We'd be left with an England with a  permanent tory Gov't

even though Blair would have won his 3 terms without Scotland and even allowing for the boundary changes that Labour then put in place to make it difficult for the Tory's to win a majority ( though of course they are changing  (or will)  these back now the Lib Dems can't tit for tat and stop them )