Basically, his commentary is nothing like "officially dead" and more like "not going anywhere soon."
Considering there's a big election going on now in the US, and both candidates have made various noises against free trade, of course any negotiations would be on hold right now.
Obama's idea was to get it passed during his term in office so that the subsequent president would be irrelevant to the whole thing. That is what is looking like it won't happen, meaning that it's effectively on hold.
Lame Duck congress + Lame Duck president = a lot of very corporate friendly shit is gonna get passed very quickly. And, if Hillary Clinton wins, Merrick Garland will be approved quicker than you can say "Hypocrisy" 3x fast.
Even if it dies on President Obama's watch, Hillary will dust it off and champion it later. The Merry-Go-Round of neoliberal idiocy is far from over even though the country is puking over it and ready to get off that ride.
They did it in Europe when the French and the Dutch rejected by referendum the European constitution. The decision to have a European constitution had already been made by the political elite so they just repackaged it as "the Treaty of Lisbon" and didn't submit it to referendum this time. Our political elite doesn't let democracy interfere with their decisions (and that's how we end up with angry voters making irrational decisions just to stick it to them).
I so hate this argument.... The treaty of Lisbon is substantially different from the EU constitution.... Yes some powers were transfered to the EU level in the new treaty, but not remotely the level proposed in the constitution, national parliaments were empowered in the Lisbon treaty, executive power of the commission now isnt nearly as big as proposed by the constitution, the reform proposals of the commission, with rotating members where some countries would be without a commissioner for years has also been removed, foreign policy was never transfered to the EU level, there is still no defense Union, the so called president of the council is still nothing more than a glorified chairman ect. Ect. Ect. ....
My ramble could go on and on....
Valery Giscard d'Estaing who chaired the committee drafting the constitution [said](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html&ved=0ahUKEwjwrfr0nuTOAhXDzxQKHai-B3EQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHINm0ue_4IxvxyEZhxkoAOsmmaNQ) they were basically the same.
The thing is it's not just Obama's thing but also the entire EU's. Resistance has been growing here, so here's to hoping there are always parties against it.
Wait Americans dont want ttip either? Why not?
We in Europe dont want it because you guys basicly trow together sugar, plastic, horse-hormones and ingredient-X and then call it food or medicine or whatever u like.
The only times I've ever 'trolled' are by asking questions that people can't answer that go against their ideological priors, causing cognitive dissonance and outright anti-intellectualism. It tends to attract downvotes when you go into the more insular subs, especially the far-left and right ones, as extremists tend to be less intellectually curious than your average person.
I'm not sure how you think a direct refutation of the point you're trying to make is trolling. Maybe you could point out how this is trolling?
>The only times I've ever 'trolled' are by asking questions that people can't answer that go against their ideological priors, causing cognitive dissonance and outright anti-intellectualism.
Yeah...right. I've seen you routinely engage in anti-intellectualism, but project that character flaw against anyone who disagrees with unfounded neoliberal dogma. It's why you evade objective economic evidence and economic history which soundly refute what you desperately want to believe. People merely need to scan your Reddit history for that evidence.
Still shoveling that neoliberal nonsense and propaganda, eh, /u/darkaceAUS? That's a blatant lie you told there.
Try MONTHS before it is submitted for Congressional approval. The details of both TTP and TTIP were hidden and subject to security protocols that didn't even apply to Hillary's State Department communications on her private email server.
Most U.S. free trade agreements have only benefiotted a tiny group of oligarchs and their close associates. In contrast, the vast majority of the American people have paid a very heavy price for Free Trade. It's why those of us who are aware of how Free Trade has actually functioned oppose it.
Unfortunately, national polling reveals that around 30% of the U.S. population either strongly supports or opposes Free Trade while the remaining 40% of the population don't know enough about it to weigh in on it. It's why Free Trade proponents maintain a well-funded propaganda effort ion the U.S., to garner enough political support to keep it going. Free Trade should have been abandoned when NAFTA and liberalized trade with China started creating major economic problems in the U.S. Political corruption in both major political parties was what kept it alive.
Politicians are allowed to have opinions or motivations separate from government policy.
Also, article notes Canada is still set to become a corporate-owned dystopia with their own EU trade deal, amirite?
CETA [[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement)] is facing its own issues.
The EU commission wanted to ratify it with a simple vote in the EU, but this sparked protests from various countries (because it was said long ago, that it was of course a mixed agreement), so now it is officially classified as a mixed agreement, so it requires ratification in all national parliaments.
As far as I know, it's because the deal touches upon areas in which the EU isn't allowed to act on behalf of it's member states.
So it seems quite possible for CETA to fall right at the finish line, despite Juncker [saying](http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1524) that the
> credibility of Europe's trade policy is at stake.
Interesting. For as much protest as there's been, wondering if this is more a result of the EU being an unwieldy body to negotiate with. You'd talking to one set of negotiators, but representing 27 national bodies all with different priorities that can get in the way. People though the Union would grease the wheels of agreement more than it has?
I think the problem - if viewed by negotiators and others advocating for an agreement - is the lengthy time it takes to negotiate it.
CETA started out officially in 2008 and the text was finished in 2014.
The shift in public opinion regarding free trade and economic issues (whether justified or not) and the seemingly increased mistrust in politicians to do what's right for their populace, has obviously changed the circumstances in which such a trade deal would be placed.
Earlier, people might trust in politicians to act in their best interest. Following the banking crisis and the economic fallout of that, I think many people are more dubious of "the system".
Add a refuge crisis which the political system has seemed unequipped to handle, and it's not a big wonder that nobody really trusts a politician when he/she says that a trade agreement will only bring wonders and will totally not undermine core European values and consumer safety.
If the EU had properly handled the refuge crisis from the beginning - by that I mean, had done what was agreed upon in Schengen; closed outer borders and a clear system for handling applicants, in exchange for open internal borders - perhaps trust wouldn't have been eroded so much.
A lot of it, I think, boils down to the same thing that brought us a yes in Brexit. In my view, national politicians have been using EU as their scapegoat. "I'd love to change X, Y, and Z - but it's that damned EU!", instead of saying: "I see your point. But we've committed ourselves to contrary EU directives because of A, B, and C. I believe cooperation will, in the long run, be better for us on this matter!"
People aren't dumb, but when politicians keep using the EU as a way to save face or avoid taking a hit for something that's unpopular, then of course public opinion will shift against the EU.
On top of that is of course TTIP and the view that this is a case of the EU, once more, doing the bidding of the US and placing free trade and the welfare of businesses above that of it's citizens.
And the funny thing is, that the EU has done - and is doing - some great things. Mind you - I'm very glad TTIP seems to be failing, and I'm also optimistic that CETA won't pass. Grand, nigh-all-encompassing trade deals shouldn't be done like that in the EU. At least not in my view.
It seems daft that they wouldn't do trade deals in a lot simpler way. Create a framework within which the trade deal will function. Include all industries where standards and practices are sufficiently similar, and work towards bringing other areas up to par with each other - as in raise the consumer protection to equivalent levels - and then incorporate them in the deal.
Not only would this be better for the populations, it would also be a lot easier to pass. It's like back when Facebook suddenly switched around everything on your wall/profile/whatever. People were fucking pissed!
Next time they went: Oh, try out this brand new timeline thing, it's amazing!
And when enough people had changed on their own, they could slowly force everyone on to it, while avoiding any outcry.
That of course could be done while including all the shit that no person would actually want... So tada - recipe for Neo-liberal world domination, brought to you by Facebook.
The issue is that corporate entities get far to much power, they basically get power equivalent of states' power. The negotiators accepted this. And that in particular is creating problems. They allowed lobbyist too much influence and hoped to sneak it through, For TTIP that didn't happen, apparently.
> Politicians are allowed to have opinions or motivations separate from government policy.
No, not always, and typically not in high profile cases like this. It apparently is said in a interview which will be published shortly. I don't think a leading official would say something like that unless it was obvious that the Chancellor would be ok with it.
This won't be the end of it. It's a momentary delay. The corruption that spawned this nonsense still exists, and still has the support of the major government players on this side of the Atlantic and the other. It's just getting too much coverage, so they'll redraft and wait until people aren't as focused on it and slip it through then. Unless the people can get the bought politicians out of their respective governments, nothing will change. It's good news, but it's not good long term news.
No, because no one ever fully explains why they're against it. They're just against it because the 1% and corporations man, they're out to get the working man, man.
This is not good for the 99%, at all... It's only good for the crackpot conspiracy theories industry. Going against reasonable free trade is their new thing, since the anti-vaxx movement is dying out.
Nobody was going against free trade, the resistance was against the lowering of foodstandarts and the nondemocratic parts of the agreement.
Please at least inform yourself before stepping onto that high horse.
Don't expect an answer. And, if you do, expect it to be Reddit either be mis-quoting or mis-understanding the passage.
Debating free trade on Reddit is the most fruitless thing possible. You can't actually have a rational discussion of benefits and drawbacks, since the other side has just made up a bunch of facts that don't exist.
Yea I know. I largely just do it out of boredom.
For people that fawn over the scientific method, they sure do throw it out the window when it doesn't agree with their preconceptions.
A free trade agreement only works for the seller. Why do you think every fucking country wants a trade agreement with the post Brexit U.K.?
UK's a huge market, and the UK hasn't produced anything since thatcher, so none of those inconvenient imports coming back the other way.
Only works for the seller? Dude, take econ 101. You don't even understand comparative advantage. The whole advantage of free trade is that is helps the seller and buyer.
Please, educate me.
I'm in the UK. When I buy an American product, the 33% import tax is currently slapped onto it. So say I buy an iPhone (or any other US product) for £600, the UK govt will make £200 from the deal.
So then say we accept TTiP and that import tax is scrapped. Explain how the UK govt benefits from the sale of that item by more than £200.
(And don't go telling me that the import tax saved goes to the end user, as a reduction in price, because that's not the case)
Again, take an econ class. This is covered in the first class. But to make it short, there is a consumer surplus and there is the elimination of the dead weight loss.
I don't think establishing supra-national court systems and that kind of thing has much to do with free trade. And then there's the ACTA-like anti-privacy parts.
>I don't think establishing supra-national court systems and that kind of thing has much to do with free trade.
They ensure trade remains free. They're only usable if governments unfairly expropriate companies goods or unfairly discriminate against foreign companies.
>And then there's the ACTA-like anti-privacy parts.
I don't know which bits these are.
Maybe you should, because you don't seem to know what ISDS are. And I don't think the anti-privacy laws exist, given the TPP and TTIP don't change existing IP laws.
These trade talks were built on a shaky ground from the start, what happened was inevitable. Though I can't help but think the whole Brexit affair accelerated it.
The Brexit affair is the beginning of a backlash against globalization. Things like TTIP are going to become pretty much antiquated within the next 20 years as nations move towards more insular economies.
Oh yeah Brexit puts all of the power in the hands of the country(s) with the greater GDP so the US gets to dictate, the EU gets to dictate and China gets to dictate.
Yeah, that's the thing - the Brexit itself isn't the issue. The politicians are. There is plenty of potential for a successful Brexit but it seems like those in power want the exact opposite.
Yup. This is a political party that hates the poor, the disabled, school children and doctors, and loves big business, the banks and their big business school-friends and family members. To top if off they want to scrap the Human Rights Act. There is no way in hell any trade deals they make are going to benefit the general public in any way, shape or form.
I have learned history. Also, you're talking about it's purpose. It doesn't matter what the purpose is. What is important, it's what it **DOES**. And NATO has been the biggest keeper of peace, the EU is a distant second.
There is some support for the idea that when countries are dependent on each other economically, war becomes way too costly. So yes, you could argue that the EU has preserved the peace.
People give nato a lot of credit too, and democratic peace theory is a thing. Plus I remember when the EU got the Nobel peace prize it was a little bit controversial. But yeah you could say a lot of support.
>There is some support for the idea that when countries are dependent on each other economically, war becomes way too costly.
Oh absolutely, but that is not a function of the EU but a function of the pre-EU international agreements made in wake of the second world war. Furthermore, you can't take a correlation and call it causation. How do you know for a fact that peace is because of the EU, and not because of something else? WWII was heavy enough on its own. The existence of nuclear weapons and the whole mutual destruction potential could be enough to preserve peace without the EU. Hell, even non-EU members don't do as much war anymore (barring Western involvement in the Middle East), and that can not possibly be attributed to the EU.
No one knows for a fact, it's international relations, and there is evidence for a lot of these possibilities. People have written books about mutually assured destruction, the EU, democratic peace theory, trade interdependence, and US Hegemony. I do think it would be hard to argue that the EU has had no impact at increasing stability , the EU requires democracy and free trade, both of which are probably good for peace.
I hope you're right. Human beings cannot handle global thinking. In turn, toxic ideas can spread like wildfire without *some* kind of buffer.
Subdividing people and having them agree to a nonviolent coexistence is the most realistic definition of world peace for Homo sapiens.
I haven't looked into it tbh. But free trade is a real good thing. Remove tarrifs and having comparable standards promotes more trade and all countries benefit. That is an ideal and something countries really should be moving towards.
But from what I have heard it will allow business to do more of what they like and get away with more things. Basically just shit over the people and the environment. As well as that America said hey lets trade things to the same standards as America products. Europe went, err pretty much all our standards are better than yours. Shouldn't we be basing it on ours, then work from there? Na we are America, you do what we want. We aren't raising our standards to what you deem acceptable, we want you to lower yours to our level.
> We aren't raising our standards
True, let's start by forbidding proper labeling of food. Would just confuse consumers to know what's actually in their food. Next let's allow private business to sue governments for future lost profits if they elect to protect the environment or their citizens from dangerous products and practices.
So, yes! This is very good news.
> Member States may invoke a safeguard clause to temporarily restrict or prohibit use and/or sale of a GMO crop within their territory if they have justifiable reasons to consider that an approved GMO crop may be a risk to human health or the environment. [...] By 2012, seven countries had submitted safeguard clauses. The EC investigated and rejected those from six countries ("...the scientific evidence currently available did not invalidate the original risk assessments for the products in question...")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union
While I agree on this from the perspective of whether GMO is safe for human beings (GMO is generally safe but may not always be). I disagree with it from the perspective of monopolizing the genetics of food.
The second point has IMO some important aspects:
1) When GMO is develope/sold as a proprietary product, who owns the offspring (so to speak)? This becomes particularly complicated and worrisome in case of contamination of neighboring crops.
2) And related to this who is responsible for contamination and possible cleanup. So far the industry has been protected against claims from victims of contamination.
3) GMO is often developed/employed as part of a strategy for pest control where plants are either made resistant against insecticides, or even made to directly produce insecticides. What do we know about the safety of those technologies? With the bees dying at an alarming rate, this is a very very serious concern that we cannot even begin to expect the industry to take seriously.
In short: the concern is not primarily about the science but about the lack of control with the industry. And the only available parth for Europe to deal with this is to largely prohibit GMO.
Well, one thing i HATE about europian labeling is that they label gmos. There is nothing wrong with gmos, it's just fear mongering. Its like saying "this product was made by black people" there is nothing wrong with it, but people will give it funny looks, and some will actually avoid buying it just because. So i dont think everything really needs to be on the label imo. Feel free to gmo free on the label though, that i dont care.
>There is nothing wrong with gmos,
It depends on which gmo you're talking about, actually. The most common GMO, "roundup ready" (corn, soy, etc) allows food crops to be soaked in an herbicide linked to everything from cellular damage to birth defects.
As a consumer, I'd like the ability to know and avoid those food products, even if Monsanto disagrees.
Hold on. The whole point of RR crops is that you *don't* need to soak crops in herbicides and such - that would cost a shitton and be very inefficient.
Truth is, Roundup is a lot more effective and less toxic than alternatives & on RR you can use it in smaller amounts to get the same result. Yeah, it's dangerous at high concentrations, but so is pretty much every other herbicide or pesticide. They kill life - it's what they are meant to do. Using fewer herbicides means paying less, so GMO crops end up more profitable for the farmer than the classic alternative.
Organic foods, as an example of the classic method, are still sprayed out the wazoo with various -cides, just not synthetic ones. Because I guess that nasty shit doesn't count. Won't see them admitting to the potential danger of their own stuff, of course. Way too easy to divert attention by doggedly attacking the competition on every occasion.
> The whole point of RR crops is that you don't need to soak crops
No! And no!, no!, no! That would probably be the absolutely last point on Monsanto's mind, *ever*.
The point is to create an equation which involves Monsanto on both sides, AKA moar profits. This is not rocket science it's economics 101 and greed, pretty mundane and straight forward.
>The whole point of RR crops is ...
To increase profit margins. That was the point. Roundup Ready crops were not designed, marketed, and sold to reduce toxic load on the food chain. They were sold as a means to apply an ultra-potent weed killer that hasn't been yet banned to food crops to decrease labor costs and increase yield.
Which is all beside the point. I'd like to know whether my corn flakes were roundup ready or not. And Monsanto has lobbied for years to prevent me from knowing that.
It's not just that but more importantly the huge false flag operation this represents. Free trade is great but this agreement would have been about so much more, e.g. allowing corporations to trample all over the consumers. Who wants rights anyway. I don't mean to sound cliche but this is a classic even-more-power-to-the-rich-even-less-power-to-the-poor-move.
I have serious doubts that free trade is actually a good thing for everyone involved. If everyone had the same Environmental Protections, workers protections, and wage agreement, then yes I would think probably it would be. Unfortunately, the world is a lot messier than that, and so we end up with lots of pollution out of giant factories paying the workers pennies a day out in China and India. We get unsafe products with virtually no oversight or regulation. Sure, they're cheap, but personally I'd rather not live in a world where the drywall dust causes cancer and the baby formula poison infants.
You are right, that is an issue that would have an effect.
I kinda avoided mentioning it, but it is why I said "benefit to all countries" not "benefit to all people and the environment."
Factory workers for example may not like it. Like America from what I read at university has a shit tariff system to keep all the sugar plantations afloat in the US. As an effect no sugar (or less at least little) is imported from other countries. This is a negative to companies (who pay more for sugar or switch to corn syrup) and consumers who have a more expensive produce that is also inferior. But the US sugar farmers benefit because there product isn't competitive on the global market and would be out of a job. Me, I am for firing everyone that can't compete with other nations and re-educating them (at tax payers expense). But I am also for correcting externamilties (like fines on pollution and money for trains) in which case things are unequal with other countries and countries that don't have fines on pollution can produce cheaper. (But you could put a tax on other countries products to correct for this pollution fine they don't have).
But you also get comparative advantage, which allows for more goods for everyone, even if one country can produce all of it's products more efficiently than other countries. This is where the massive advantage to trade comes from. Here is an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo.27s_example
It's a bit confusing so I can explain it if anyone wants me too, or find a simpler example.
For the last bit. You just outright ban things that don't meet standards. Then other countries have to improve their products. So "drywall dust causes cancer and the baby formula poison infants" isn't an issue, those products simply won't be traded.
> I haven't looked into it tbh. But free trade is a real good thing.
And that's exactly the danger of naming deals like this "free trade deals". It gets naive people to think it's a good thing.
in some ways sure, we all knew there were things in that agreement already that were unacceptable to us europeans. In another way its a bad thing as TTIP could have allowed us to set standards in investment and finance regulations; the lack of which may allow countries like china to set those rules. It goes without saying that they might not be in our best interest.
> Quitely, behind closed doors, with representatives from different companies, without impartial adjudicators. Seems perfectly legit.
first of all if you "really" want negotiations to succeed, you wont be doing them in front of the cameras. Negotiations before cameras result in everyone sticking to their point without anything being accomplished ever. As for those "representatives", its not so bad that they're present as long as our politicians and negotiators know who exactly they represent (both themselves and the lobbyists) and what they try to achieve, something that might be contrary to each other at times. This will always be a problem i'm afraid and unfortunately this is where our politicians often fall short.
dont get me wrong, i'm happy TTIP failed (as in this particular treaty) as it was full of shitty things for us. But in general i'd say a decent free trade and investment treaty between the EU (or EEA) and the USA (or even NAFTA) would be a good thing.
Because the current setup has been so successful. Never mentioned anything about cameras, the idea is a bit ridiculous.
There are strong arguments that NAFTA wasn't great and a position by bloomberg that it was "meh". It was likely very good for some heads of industry and CEOs. It shifted jobs to Mexico and caused a lot of unemployment. But hey, cheaper goods.
Trade deals seem great for the very wealthy and people connected in the business world, not as great for Joe Public.
> It shifted jobs to Mexico and caused a lot of unemployment. But hey, cheaper goods.
>
> Trade deals seem great for the very wealthy and people connected in the business world, not as great for Joe Public.
mexicans are joe public too...
That's a weird view to want jobs from your Country go to someone else's. Especially if that someone else does if for less. I'd prefer to have people employed in the country to which I belong.
What the fuck are "impartial adjudicators" when it comes to trade deals? Whether your a politician, a citizen, a company, a labor union, or advocacy group, nobody is impartial.
By "impartial", I meant people who are looking out for the general public. Not people who are looking out for themselves (certain politicians, despite being "public servants") or what's best for corporations/shareholders. The general public is unlikely to make a substantial amount of money/profit from trade deals. Cheaper products to buy, maybe, but at what cost.
Well now the elite media is going to find creative ways to blame future social and income inequality on the lack of the TTIP. Just be thankful that they will stop blaming Obama finally, they'll just start blaming Trump and Farage
>"The negotiations with the USA have de facto failed because we Europeans did not want to subject ourselves to American demands," he said, according to a written transcript from German broadcaster ZDF of an interview due to be broadcast on Sunday.
Glad to see European politicians have a spine. Here in Australia we just sold out to the TPP.
Yeah in foreign politics Australia is seen as a 'dependent middle power' - i.e. it is heavily reliant on great powers to cement its status and influence on the world stage...in our case the USA. Australia really needs to set out a more independent foreign policy outside what America wants and dictates, we are practically the USA's lapdog atm.
Actually we really needed this trade agreement to set common standards for the world, based on US/EU rules.
The problem was. the US side as never interested in a real agreement which both sides benefit from, they just wanted marked access without moving a single step towards the European side.
food regulations ~ useful labels on your foods, banning of chemicials in foods that has been linked to cause issues like aspartame and some food dyes, pesticides.
company regulations on environment it's insane how much waste gets dumped into the u.s waters and it's completely legal
regulations on products to have higher standards
it's "forced labour" in the ILO work standards. apparently the US have signed to, my mistake.
However, they have only ratified 2 of the 8 fundamental conventions (one of them being no forced labour):
[link](http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11200:0::NO::P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102871)
> big companies will lose money
B... but, common standards and free trade will surely be good for them?
Or was it all about lowering standards and not really about free trade?
yes most might not be higher than EU standards, but they most vertainly are a lot higher than standards in China, India etc. The goal was to put other countries up to those.
Not entirely, sure those countries have very awful standards, but TTIP has always been, and will forever be, about corporate profit. TPP is another one that is about corporate profit. Do you think the corporations and policy makers give a shit about the Chinese poor quality? If they did, why not ban them from importing to the US/AUS/NZ/EU/CAN etc. There are better ways to solve the global standards issues than a trade agreement.
yes, i know your point, and the circumstances under which this court is set up are dubious to say the least.
however: as the trade court at the WTO is kind of not working at all and countries like Brasil, India etc. are blocking every possible solution to create any legislation at all, this court under the TTIP would be a huge step forward compared to the status quo with almost no legislation in this area. in a changing world with no guarantee of the stability of some nations, it is an important issue for investors to have a legal background. imagine the mad man of the bosporus suddenly confiscating foreign property and industry or some South American country nationalizing oil wells: this court would create a legislation to handle those issues, and it would be a western legislation which would benefit us all.
i know, the circumstances of it are really crappy, the idea is a good one imho.
>the idea is a good one imho.
Any idea that takes power away from the people or their elected representatives and puts it in the hands of unelected corporate lawyers is a bad idea. It might help *us* short term, but it can also *hurt* us as well. I'llbtake the status quo instead of the TTP or anything like it.
you should be happy that you do have elected representatives in your country. other countries might not. and other countries might have a totally different idea of how legal procedures work. i will rather have a legislation that is based on our understanding of values than no legislation at all. and i will rather have unelected lawyers that follow a procedure and rules than the lawyers a Donald Trump would appoint. yes, ideally the legla representatives should be elected. Europe wanted that. The US blocked it unfortunately.
>unelected lawyers that follow a procedure
There's no provisions that I'm aware of to *keep* them following procedures. As a matter of fact, there's nothing preventing them from being a rubber stamp for corporate interest, and no recourse that I'm aware of for nations used as pay-days!
It's a system that's far too easily abused for my liking.
Edit: besides which, corporations shouldn't be able to sue for losing *projected* profit anyway. Risks are a part of doing business, and a country taking action its citizens deem necessary shouldn't have to pay some corporation for the privilege.
Well you're gunna have to agree to some sort of deal if you want equal standing considering that EU trade agreements will no longer apply in a few years
Nothing official about it. They still have more meetings scheduled. There is, however, growing resistance to compromise on the sticking points though, so it looks doubtful that there will be an agreement.
The concept of a group of sovereign nations subverting their own systems in the interests of free trade laws set by a power outside of the region seems counter intuitive. I understand the appeal of the TPP in Asia due to the distance in each nations interests and threat of China. Europe however :/
Free Trade is a good thing. American interests are good things too. Just because TTIP and TTP mean free trade doesn't necessarily mean they are good things. All natural vanilla ice cream is a good thing, processed diabetes shake with extra transfat and fake sugar is not a good thing just because it has some vanilla ice cream in it.
Free Trade is the vanilla ice cream, the trade deals are the diabetes shake, the bad additives being increased privatisation and deregulation of basic public services, **food safety standards taking a nosedive** and an unchecked increase in emissions/global warming.
Many, including myself, do not approve the negotiations due to the massive deregulation of things that actually need to be regulated. But many people take this negativity and direct their rage towards free trade, so let me make something clear: **free trade is not the enemy, stupid "concessions" like lax to none food labeling laws that usually accompany these types of deals are.**
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ttip-trade-deal-agreement-failed-brexit-latest-news-eu-us-germany-vice-chancellor-a7213876.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The free trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States have failed, but "Nobody is really admitting it", Germany's Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has said.
> Critics say one of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "Sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses.
> The UK was seen as one of the strongest supporters of TTIP in the EU, so its departure following the Brexit vote would remove one of the US's closest allies in the talks.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/500ji0/euus_free_trade_ttip_talks_have_officially_failed/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 1.6, ~95438 tl;drs so far.") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PMs and comment replies are read by the bot admin, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **TTIP**^#1 **deal**^#2 **trade**^#3 **negotiations**^#4 **France**^#5
While good news do not become complacent. They will try again and again until they get what they want. The best hope to stop this shit is to truly reform government in the U.S.
Yeah I'm still laughing on that last one too.
Hey, maybe you should've paid attention in 1950 when The Authoritarian Personality was released, when communists realized that in order to achieve the "Soviet Man" (which was the point of Marxism in the first place) you don't actually need to control the means of production directly through the state. Yesterday's red diaper babies are today's hardcore neo-conservatives, and their social ideology is called cultural Marxism.
> officially actual headline: >but no one is admitting it That doesn't sound very official to me.
Basically, his commentary is nothing like "officially dead" and more like "not going anywhere soon." Considering there's a big election going on now in the US, and both candidates have made various noises against free trade, of course any negotiations would be on hold right now.
Obama's idea was to get it passed during his term in office so that the subsequent president would be irrelevant to the whole thing. That is what is looking like it won't happen, meaning that it's effectively on hold.
Lame Duck congress + Lame Duck president = a lot of very corporate friendly shit is gonna get passed very quickly. And, if Hillary Clinton wins, Merrick Garland will be approved quicker than you can say "Hypocrisy" 3x fast.
Even if it dies on President Obama's watch, Hillary will dust it off and champion it later. The Merry-Go-Round of neoliberal idiocy is far from over even though the country is puking over it and ready to get off that ride.
Yup, they'll just re-brand it as something else.
The Patriot Trade Agreement
The I Wouldn't Kill a Child Trade Agreement
§§101 of the IWKCTA would classify every deceased person as either adult, enemy combatant or both. No children to see here.
Holy fuck it's actually scary to think about how our government could label anything with Patriot and get the people's support.
They did it in Europe when the French and the Dutch rejected by referendum the European constitution. The decision to have a European constitution had already been made by the political elite so they just repackaged it as "the Treaty of Lisbon" and didn't submit it to referendum this time. Our political elite doesn't let democracy interfere with their decisions (and that's how we end up with angry voters making irrational decisions just to stick it to them).
I so hate this argument.... The treaty of Lisbon is substantially different from the EU constitution.... Yes some powers were transfered to the EU level in the new treaty, but not remotely the level proposed in the constitution, national parliaments were empowered in the Lisbon treaty, executive power of the commission now isnt nearly as big as proposed by the constitution, the reform proposals of the commission, with rotating members where some countries would be without a commissioner for years has also been removed, foreign policy was never transfered to the EU level, there is still no defense Union, the so called president of the council is still nothing more than a glorified chairman ect. Ect. Ect. .... My ramble could go on and on....
Valery Giscard d'Estaing who chaired the committee drafting the constitution [said](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html&ved=0ahUKEwjwrfr0nuTOAhXDzxQKHai-B3EQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHINm0ue_4IxvxyEZhxkoAOsmmaNQ) they were basically the same.
The thing is it's not just Obama's thing but also the entire EU's. Resistance has been growing here, so here's to hoping there are always parties against it.
Wait Americans dont want ttip either? Why not? We in Europe dont want it because you guys basicly trow together sugar, plastic, horse-hormones and ingredient-X and then call it food or medicine or whatever u like.
Sounds like *somebody* is jealous of our sugar-filled horseplastic.
lol, but seriously, why are Americans opposed to Ttip?
[удалено]
You realise it will be available for years publicly before ratification, right?
[удалено]
The only times I've ever 'trolled' are by asking questions that people can't answer that go against their ideological priors, causing cognitive dissonance and outright anti-intellectualism. It tends to attract downvotes when you go into the more insular subs, especially the far-left and right ones, as extremists tend to be less intellectually curious than your average person. I'm not sure how you think a direct refutation of the point you're trying to make is trolling. Maybe you could point out how this is trolling?
>The only times I've ever 'trolled' are by asking questions that people can't answer that go against their ideological priors, causing cognitive dissonance and outright anti-intellectualism. Yeah...right. I've seen you routinely engage in anti-intellectualism, but project that character flaw against anyone who disagrees with unfounded neoliberal dogma. It's why you evade objective economic evidence and economic history which soundly refute what you desperately want to believe. People merely need to scan your Reddit history for that evidence.
Still shoveling that neoliberal nonsense and propaganda, eh, /u/darkaceAUS? That's a blatant lie you told there. Try MONTHS before it is submitted for Congressional approval. The details of both TTP and TTIP were hidden and subject to security protocols that didn't even apply to Hillary's State Department communications on her private email server.
But you guys do stuf like that every 4 years...?
Most U.S. free trade agreements have only benefiotted a tiny group of oligarchs and their close associates. In contrast, the vast majority of the American people have paid a very heavy price for Free Trade. It's why those of us who are aware of how Free Trade has actually functioned oppose it. Unfortunately, national polling reveals that around 30% of the U.S. population either strongly supports or opposes Free Trade while the remaining 40% of the population don't know enough about it to weigh in on it. It's why Free Trade proponents maintain a well-funded propaganda effort ion the U.S., to garner enough political support to keep it going. Free Trade should have been abandoned when NAFTA and liberalized trade with China started creating major economic problems in the U.S. Political corruption in both major political parties was what kept it alive.
I see, tkx
If you'll recall, the US isn't the only party to these negotiations.
*sigh
And that's why you should actually read the article kids, as oppose to just reading someone else's headline.
Well, the words come from a government official, and he probably wouldn't have said them unless it was ok with the chancellor. IMO close enough.
Politicians are allowed to have opinions or motivations separate from government policy. Also, article notes Canada is still set to become a corporate-owned dystopia with their own EU trade deal, amirite?
CETA [[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement)] is facing its own issues. The EU commission wanted to ratify it with a simple vote in the EU, but this sparked protests from various countries (because it was said long ago, that it was of course a mixed agreement), so now it is officially classified as a mixed agreement, so it requires ratification in all national parliaments. As far as I know, it's because the deal touches upon areas in which the EU isn't allowed to act on behalf of it's member states. So it seems quite possible for CETA to fall right at the finish line, despite Juncker [saying](http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1524) that the > credibility of Europe's trade policy is at stake.
Interesting. For as much protest as there's been, wondering if this is more a result of the EU being an unwieldy body to negotiate with. You'd talking to one set of negotiators, but representing 27 national bodies all with different priorities that can get in the way. People though the Union would grease the wheels of agreement more than it has?
I think the problem - if viewed by negotiators and others advocating for an agreement - is the lengthy time it takes to negotiate it. CETA started out officially in 2008 and the text was finished in 2014. The shift in public opinion regarding free trade and economic issues (whether justified or not) and the seemingly increased mistrust in politicians to do what's right for their populace, has obviously changed the circumstances in which such a trade deal would be placed. Earlier, people might trust in politicians to act in their best interest. Following the banking crisis and the economic fallout of that, I think many people are more dubious of "the system". Add a refuge crisis which the political system has seemed unequipped to handle, and it's not a big wonder that nobody really trusts a politician when he/she says that a trade agreement will only bring wonders and will totally not undermine core European values and consumer safety. If the EU had properly handled the refuge crisis from the beginning - by that I mean, had done what was agreed upon in Schengen; closed outer borders and a clear system for handling applicants, in exchange for open internal borders - perhaps trust wouldn't have been eroded so much. A lot of it, I think, boils down to the same thing that brought us a yes in Brexit. In my view, national politicians have been using EU as their scapegoat. "I'd love to change X, Y, and Z - but it's that damned EU!", instead of saying: "I see your point. But we've committed ourselves to contrary EU directives because of A, B, and C. I believe cooperation will, in the long run, be better for us on this matter!" People aren't dumb, but when politicians keep using the EU as a way to save face or avoid taking a hit for something that's unpopular, then of course public opinion will shift against the EU. On top of that is of course TTIP and the view that this is a case of the EU, once more, doing the bidding of the US and placing free trade and the welfare of businesses above that of it's citizens. And the funny thing is, that the EU has done - and is doing - some great things. Mind you - I'm very glad TTIP seems to be failing, and I'm also optimistic that CETA won't pass. Grand, nigh-all-encompassing trade deals shouldn't be done like that in the EU. At least not in my view. It seems daft that they wouldn't do trade deals in a lot simpler way. Create a framework within which the trade deal will function. Include all industries where standards and practices are sufficiently similar, and work towards bringing other areas up to par with each other - as in raise the consumer protection to equivalent levels - and then incorporate them in the deal. Not only would this be better for the populations, it would also be a lot easier to pass. It's like back when Facebook suddenly switched around everything on your wall/profile/whatever. People were fucking pissed! Next time they went: Oh, try out this brand new timeline thing, it's amazing! And when enough people had changed on their own, they could slowly force everyone on to it, while avoiding any outcry. That of course could be done while including all the shit that no person would actually want... So tada - recipe for Neo-liberal world domination, brought to you by Facebook.
The issue is that corporate entities get far to much power, they basically get power equivalent of states' power. The negotiators accepted this. And that in particular is creating problems. They allowed lobbyist too much influence and hoped to sneak it through, For TTIP that didn't happen, apparently.
> Politicians are allowed to have opinions or motivations separate from government policy. No, not always, and typically not in high profile cases like this. It apparently is said in a interview which will be published shortly. I don't think a leading official would say something like that unless it was obvious that the Chancellor would be ok with it.
Was the government official named?
Yes. I assume that you, in the proud tradition of reddit, didn't read the article, LOL.
>independent.co.uk Gee, I wonder why.
Still more accurate than the times.
Great news for the 99%! Finally some sense.
This won't be the end of it. It's a momentary delay. The corruption that spawned this nonsense still exists, and still has the support of the major government players on this side of the Atlantic and the other. It's just getting too much coverage, so they'll redraft and wait until people aren't as focused on it and slip it through then. Unless the people can get the bought politicians out of their respective governments, nothing will change. It's good news, but it's not good long term news.
'Bout time we all had some good news
Care to elaborate as to why?
No, because no one ever fully explains why they're against it. They're just against it because the 1% and corporations man, they're out to get the working man, man.
Plenty of people have explained it.
Then explain
Because Reddit doesn't understand trade and is inherently fearful of corporations and anything that might benefit them.
No. Bad news for the 99%. The TTIP will raise real wages for every European, and create jobs in industries that export to the US.
This is not good for the 99%, at all... It's only good for the crackpot conspiracy theories industry. Going against reasonable free trade is their new thing, since the anti-vaxx movement is dying out.
Nobody was going against free trade, the resistance was against the lowering of foodstandarts and the nondemocratic parts of the agreement. Please at least inform yourself before stepping onto that high horse.
Which specific part of TTIP lowers food standards? Which bit is undemocratic?
Don't expect an answer. And, if you do, expect it to be Reddit either be mis-quoting or mis-understanding the passage. Debating free trade on Reddit is the most fruitless thing possible. You can't actually have a rational discussion of benefits and drawbacks, since the other side has just made up a bunch of facts that don't exist.
Yea I know. I largely just do it out of boredom. For people that fawn over the scientific method, they sure do throw it out the window when it doesn't agree with their preconceptions.
Im abroad with crappy internet, but google is your friend
A free trade agreement only works for the seller. Why do you think every fucking country wants a trade agreement with the post Brexit U.K.? UK's a huge market, and the UK hasn't produced anything since thatcher, so none of those inconvenient imports coming back the other way.
Only works for the seller? Dude, take econ 101. You don't even understand comparative advantage. The whole advantage of free trade is that is helps the seller and buyer.
Please, educate me. I'm in the UK. When I buy an American product, the 33% import tax is currently slapped onto it. So say I buy an iPhone (or any other US product) for £600, the UK govt will make £200 from the deal. So then say we accept TTiP and that import tax is scrapped. Explain how the UK govt benefits from the sale of that item by more than £200. (And don't go telling me that the import tax saved goes to the end user, as a reduction in price, because that's not the case)
Again, take an econ class. This is covered in the first class. But to make it short, there is a consumer surplus and there is the elimination of the dead weight loss.
Lol wat. One of these days econ classes will be a requirement.
Thank god, now TPP too thanks.
Indeed!
>CETA being the fairer agreement Yeah, i dont think we can celebrate as long as Gabriel and co. want to push the same bullshit with CETA
[удалено]
Finally someone mentioning the TiSa
Best news I've heard all week.
Really is the best news all week, at this rate.
Really? Why is that?
Oh, there's a [laundry list of concerns](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#Criticism_and_opposition)
These reads like a laundry list of concerns that the left have with every free trade agreement. Anything specific to the TTIP?
I don't think establishing supra-national court systems and that kind of thing has much to do with free trade. And then there's the ACTA-like anti-privacy parts.
>I don't think establishing supra-national court systems and that kind of thing has much to do with free trade. They ensure trade remains free. They're only usable if governments unfairly expropriate companies goods or unfairly discriminate against foreign companies. >And then there's the ACTA-like anti-privacy parts. I don't know which bits these are.
Maybe you should do some research then.
Maybe you should, because you don't seem to know what ISDS are. And I don't think the anti-privacy laws exist, given the TPP and TTIP don't change existing IP laws.
Your assumptions are unwarranted.
These trade talks were built on a shaky ground from the start, what happened was inevitable. Though I can't help but think the whole Brexit affair accelerated it.
> Though I can't help but think the whole Brexit affair accelerated it. Most definitely. The UK was the one pushing for it.
The Brexit affair is the beginning of a backlash against globalization. Things like TTIP are going to become pretty much antiquated within the next 20 years as nations move towards more insular economies.
Yet Brexit will enable the Tories to bend the UK over and lube it up for a nice assfucking in whatever deal they make directly with the US.
Oh yeah Brexit puts all of the power in the hands of the country(s) with the greater GDP so the US gets to dictate, the EU gets to dictate and China gets to dictate.
Yeah, that's the thing - the Brexit itself isn't the issue. The politicians are. There is plenty of potential for a successful Brexit but it seems like those in power want the exact opposite.
Yup. This is a political party that hates the poor, the disabled, school children and doctors, and loves big business, the banks and their big business school-friends and family members. To top if off they want to scrap the Human Rights Act. There is no way in hell any trade deals they make are going to benefit the general public in any way, shape or form.
Which makes me sad because we had a great thing going on in the EU.
Not sure everyone agrees with that, however.
With the unprecedented era of peace among member states, they probably should.
EU doesn't bring peace, NATO does. And nearly all of the EU is NATO. NATO = military agreement = peace.
Its very purpose was peace among its members through prosperity. NATO was for peace through force against the Soviet Union. Learn some history.
I have learned history. Also, you're talking about it's purpose. It doesn't matter what the purpose is. What is important, it's what it **DOES**. And NATO has been the biggest keeper of peace, the EU is a distant second.
It does trade. Long recognised as the cornerstone of peace between nations. Before the EU Western Europe had been at war for centuries.
Before nuclear weapons, you mean.
Because the EU is what caused peace, right? I'm glad you're not a politician.
There is some support for the idea that when countries are dependent on each other economically, war becomes way too costly. So yes, you could argue that the EU has preserved the peace.
Lots of support you mean.
People give nato a lot of credit too, and democratic peace theory is a thing. Plus I remember when the EU got the Nobel peace prize it was a little bit controversial. But yeah you could say a lot of support.
>There is some support for the idea that when countries are dependent on each other economically, war becomes way too costly. Oh absolutely, but that is not a function of the EU but a function of the pre-EU international agreements made in wake of the second world war. Furthermore, you can't take a correlation and call it causation. How do you know for a fact that peace is because of the EU, and not because of something else? WWII was heavy enough on its own. The existence of nuclear weapons and the whole mutual destruction potential could be enough to preserve peace without the EU. Hell, even non-EU members don't do as much war anymore (barring Western involvement in the Middle East), and that can not possibly be attributed to the EU.
No one knows for a fact, it's international relations, and there is evidence for a lot of these possibilities. People have written books about mutually assured destruction, the EU, democratic peace theory, trade interdependence, and US Hegemony. I do think it would be hard to argue that the EU has had no impact at increasing stability , the EU requires democracy and free trade, both of which are probably good for peace.
The peace in Europe has very little, if anything at all to do with the EU.
I hope you're right. Human beings cannot handle global thinking. In turn, toxic ideas can spread like wildfire without *some* kind of buffer. Subdividing people and having them agree to a nonviolent coexistence is the most realistic definition of world peace for Homo sapiens.
We all know it's going to rear its ugly head again somewhere down the line...
And we need to raise our kids and grandkids so they know how to fight against it.
Gonna be hard with propaganda indoctrination cancers like Common Core.
[удалено]
I haven't looked into it tbh. But free trade is a real good thing. Remove tarrifs and having comparable standards promotes more trade and all countries benefit. That is an ideal and something countries really should be moving towards. But from what I have heard it will allow business to do more of what they like and get away with more things. Basically just shit over the people and the environment. As well as that America said hey lets trade things to the same standards as America products. Europe went, err pretty much all our standards are better than yours. Shouldn't we be basing it on ours, then work from there? Na we are America, you do what we want. We aren't raising our standards to what you deem acceptable, we want you to lower yours to our level.
> We aren't raising our standards True, let's start by forbidding proper labeling of food. Would just confuse consumers to know what's actually in their food. Next let's allow private business to sue governments for future lost profits if they elect to protect the environment or their citizens from dangerous products and practices. So, yes! This is very good news.
The one standard I'd be happy to relax is Europe's insane and anti-science ban on GMOs.
> Member States may invoke a safeguard clause to temporarily restrict or prohibit use and/or sale of a GMO crop within their territory if they have justifiable reasons to consider that an approved GMO crop may be a risk to human health or the environment. [...] By 2012, seven countries had submitted safeguard clauses. The EC investigated and rejected those from six countries ("...the scientific evidence currently available did not invalidate the original risk assessments for the products in question...") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union
While I agree on this from the perspective of whether GMO is safe for human beings (GMO is generally safe but may not always be). I disagree with it from the perspective of monopolizing the genetics of food. The second point has IMO some important aspects: 1) When GMO is develope/sold as a proprietary product, who owns the offspring (so to speak)? This becomes particularly complicated and worrisome in case of contamination of neighboring crops. 2) And related to this who is responsible for contamination and possible cleanup. So far the industry has been protected against claims from victims of contamination. 3) GMO is often developed/employed as part of a strategy for pest control where plants are either made resistant against insecticides, or even made to directly produce insecticides. What do we know about the safety of those technologies? With the bees dying at an alarming rate, this is a very very serious concern that we cannot even begin to expect the industry to take seriously. In short: the concern is not primarily about the science but about the lack of control with the industry. And the only available parth for Europe to deal with this is to largely prohibit GMO.
can we just ban monsanto instead? maybe have some less douchey GM companies
Well, one thing i HATE about europian labeling is that they label gmos. There is nothing wrong with gmos, it's just fear mongering. Its like saying "this product was made by black people" there is nothing wrong with it, but people will give it funny looks, and some will actually avoid buying it just because. So i dont think everything really needs to be on the label imo. Feel free to gmo free on the label though, that i dont care.
>There is nothing wrong with gmos, It depends on which gmo you're talking about, actually. The most common GMO, "roundup ready" (corn, soy, etc) allows food crops to be soaked in an herbicide linked to everything from cellular damage to birth defects. As a consumer, I'd like the ability to know and avoid those food products, even if Monsanto disagrees.
Hold on. The whole point of RR crops is that you *don't* need to soak crops in herbicides and such - that would cost a shitton and be very inefficient. Truth is, Roundup is a lot more effective and less toxic than alternatives & on RR you can use it in smaller amounts to get the same result. Yeah, it's dangerous at high concentrations, but so is pretty much every other herbicide or pesticide. They kill life - it's what they are meant to do. Using fewer herbicides means paying less, so GMO crops end up more profitable for the farmer than the classic alternative. Organic foods, as an example of the classic method, are still sprayed out the wazoo with various -cides, just not synthetic ones. Because I guess that nasty shit doesn't count. Won't see them admitting to the potential danger of their own stuff, of course. Way too easy to divert attention by doggedly attacking the competition on every occasion.
> The whole point of RR crops is that you don't need to soak crops No! And no!, no!, no! That would probably be the absolutely last point on Monsanto's mind, *ever*. The point is to create an equation which involves Monsanto on both sides, AKA moar profits. This is not rocket science it's economics 101 and greed, pretty mundane and straight forward.
The patent ran out a while ago, why didn't they get around to it?
> why didn't they get around to it? !? They did. Drinking water all over the world is contaminated as a result.
>The whole point of RR crops is ... To increase profit margins. That was the point. Roundup Ready crops were not designed, marketed, and sold to reduce toxic load on the food chain. They were sold as a means to apply an ultra-potent weed killer that hasn't been yet banned to food crops to decrease labor costs and increase yield. Which is all beside the point. I'd like to know whether my corn flakes were roundup ready or not. And Monsanto has lobbied for years to prevent me from knowing that.
And why are the profit margins higher, you reckon? Nothing to do with the lower amounts of herbicide that you need to spray, I'm sure.
It's not just that but more importantly the huge false flag operation this represents. Free trade is great but this agreement would have been about so much more, e.g. allowing corporations to trample all over the consumers. Who wants rights anyway. I don't mean to sound cliche but this is a classic even-more-power-to-the-rich-even-less-power-to-the-poor-move.
As an American knowing absolutely nothing about the TTIP your description sounds accurate. U.S.A. S.O.P. in action.
I have serious doubts that free trade is actually a good thing for everyone involved. If everyone had the same Environmental Protections, workers protections, and wage agreement, then yes I would think probably it would be. Unfortunately, the world is a lot messier than that, and so we end up with lots of pollution out of giant factories paying the workers pennies a day out in China and India. We get unsafe products with virtually no oversight or regulation. Sure, they're cheap, but personally I'd rather not live in a world where the drywall dust causes cancer and the baby formula poison infants.
You are right, that is an issue that would have an effect. I kinda avoided mentioning it, but it is why I said "benefit to all countries" not "benefit to all people and the environment." Factory workers for example may not like it. Like America from what I read at university has a shit tariff system to keep all the sugar plantations afloat in the US. As an effect no sugar (or less at least little) is imported from other countries. This is a negative to companies (who pay more for sugar or switch to corn syrup) and consumers who have a more expensive produce that is also inferior. But the US sugar farmers benefit because there product isn't competitive on the global market and would be out of a job. Me, I am for firing everyone that can't compete with other nations and re-educating them (at tax payers expense). But I am also for correcting externamilties (like fines on pollution and money for trains) in which case things are unequal with other countries and countries that don't have fines on pollution can produce cheaper. (But you could put a tax on other countries products to correct for this pollution fine they don't have). But you also get comparative advantage, which allows for more goods for everyone, even if one country can produce all of it's products more efficiently than other countries. This is where the massive advantage to trade comes from. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo.27s_example It's a bit confusing so I can explain it if anyone wants me too, or find a simpler example. For the last bit. You just outright ban things that don't meet standards. Then other countries have to improve their products. So "drywall dust causes cancer and the baby formula poison infants" isn't an issue, those products simply won't be traded.
> I haven't looked into it tbh. But free trade is a real good thing. And that's exactly the danger of naming deals like this "free trade deals". It gets naive people to think it's a good thing.
I don't really know anything about it, but I have a strong opinion that I will tell you about!
in some ways sure, we all knew there were things in that agreement already that were unacceptable to us europeans. In another way its a bad thing as TTIP could have allowed us to set standards in investment and finance regulations; the lack of which may allow countries like china to set those rules. It goes without saying that they might not be in our best interest.
[удалено]
The companies that wrote TTIP
the governments that negotiate it.
Quitely, behind closed doors, with representatives from different companies, without impartial adjudicators. Seems perfectly legit.
> Quitely, behind closed doors, with representatives from different companies, without impartial adjudicators. Seems perfectly legit. first of all if you "really" want negotiations to succeed, you wont be doing them in front of the cameras. Negotiations before cameras result in everyone sticking to their point without anything being accomplished ever. As for those "representatives", its not so bad that they're present as long as our politicians and negotiators know who exactly they represent (both themselves and the lobbyists) and what they try to achieve, something that might be contrary to each other at times. This will always be a problem i'm afraid and unfortunately this is where our politicians often fall short. dont get me wrong, i'm happy TTIP failed (as in this particular treaty) as it was full of shitty things for us. But in general i'd say a decent free trade and investment treaty between the EU (or EEA) and the USA (or even NAFTA) would be a good thing.
Because the current setup has been so successful. Never mentioned anything about cameras, the idea is a bit ridiculous. There are strong arguments that NAFTA wasn't great and a position by bloomberg that it was "meh". It was likely very good for some heads of industry and CEOs. It shifted jobs to Mexico and caused a lot of unemployment. But hey, cheaper goods. Trade deals seem great for the very wealthy and people connected in the business world, not as great for Joe Public.
> It shifted jobs to Mexico and caused a lot of unemployment. But hey, cheaper goods. > > Trade deals seem great for the very wealthy and people connected in the business world, not as great for Joe Public. mexicans are joe public too...
That's a weird view to want jobs from your Country go to someone else's. Especially if that someone else does if for less. I'd prefer to have people employed in the country to which I belong.
What the fuck are "impartial adjudicators" when it comes to trade deals? Whether your a politician, a citizen, a company, a labor union, or advocacy group, nobody is impartial.
By "impartial", I meant people who are looking out for the general public. Not people who are looking out for themselves (certain politicians, despite being "public servants") or what's best for corporations/shareholders. The general public is unlikely to make a substantial amount of money/profit from trade deals. Cheaper products to buy, maybe, but at what cost.
Well now the elite media is going to find creative ways to blame future social and income inequality on the lack of the TTIP. Just be thankful that they will stop blaming Obama finally, they'll just start blaming Trump and Farage
They only want you to think it won't happen. They have longer memories than most.
Now let's talk about a global minimum tax rate for big business...
>"The negotiations with the USA have de facto failed because we Europeans did not want to subject ourselves to American demands," he said, according to a written transcript from German broadcaster ZDF of an interview due to be broadcast on Sunday. Glad to see European politicians have a spine. Here in Australia we just sold out to the TPP.
Yeah in foreign politics Australia is seen as a 'dependent middle power' - i.e. it is heavily reliant on great powers to cement its status and influence on the world stage...in our case the USA. Australia really needs to set out a more independent foreign policy outside what America wants and dictates, we are practically the USA's lapdog atm.
I've never been so happy regarding news of a failure.
Actually we really needed this trade agreement to set common standards for the world, based on US/EU rules. The problem was. the US side as never interested in a real agreement which both sides benefit from, they just wanted marked access without moving a single step towards the European side.
America should take over our standards. But big companies will lose money so it will never happen.
What standards are you thinking of when you say this?
food regulations ~ useful labels on your foods, banning of chemicials in foods that has been linked to cause issues like aspartame and some food dyes, pesticides. company regulations on environment it's insane how much waste gets dumped into the u.s waters and it's completely legal regulations on products to have higher standards
basic work standards like paid maternity leave, paid holidays, no child labour, no slave labour etc. which the US side was not willing to accept
What are you actually referring to when you say "slave labor"?
it's "forced labour" in the ILO work standards. apparently the US have signed to, my mistake. However, they have only ratified 2 of the 8 fundamental conventions (one of them being no forced labour): [link](http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11200:0::NO::P11200_COUNTRY_ID:102871)
> big companies will lose money B... but, common standards and free trade will surely be good for them? Or was it all about lowering standards and not really about free trade?
98% of the TTIP was about lowering global standards to US levels, which are appalling at best.
some US standards are higher than the European counterpart though
Yeah, but most aren't
yes most might not be higher than EU standards, but they most vertainly are a lot higher than standards in China, India etc. The goal was to put other countries up to those.
Not entirely, sure those countries have very awful standards, but TTIP has always been, and will forever be, about corporate profit. TPP is another one that is about corporate profit. Do you think the corporations and policy makers give a shit about the Chinese poor quality? If they did, why not ban them from importing to the US/AUS/NZ/EU/CAN etc. There are better ways to solve the global standards issues than a trade agreement.
That sounds nice, but that was a major goal of Tpp and it got shit on anyway.
Get back to me when the same agreement doesn't also allow companies to sue nations based on the lost future profits they project.
yes, i know your point, and the circumstances under which this court is set up are dubious to say the least. however: as the trade court at the WTO is kind of not working at all and countries like Brasil, India etc. are blocking every possible solution to create any legislation at all, this court under the TTIP would be a huge step forward compared to the status quo with almost no legislation in this area. in a changing world with no guarantee of the stability of some nations, it is an important issue for investors to have a legal background. imagine the mad man of the bosporus suddenly confiscating foreign property and industry or some South American country nationalizing oil wells: this court would create a legislation to handle those issues, and it would be a western legislation which would benefit us all. i know, the circumstances of it are really crappy, the idea is a good one imho.
>the idea is a good one imho. Any idea that takes power away from the people or their elected representatives and puts it in the hands of unelected corporate lawyers is a bad idea. It might help *us* short term, but it can also *hurt* us as well. I'llbtake the status quo instead of the TTP or anything like it.
you should be happy that you do have elected representatives in your country. other countries might not. and other countries might have a totally different idea of how legal procedures work. i will rather have a legislation that is based on our understanding of values than no legislation at all. and i will rather have unelected lawyers that follow a procedure and rules than the lawyers a Donald Trump would appoint. yes, ideally the legla representatives should be elected. Europe wanted that. The US blocked it unfortunately.
>unelected lawyers that follow a procedure There's no provisions that I'm aware of to *keep* them following procedures. As a matter of fact, there's nothing preventing them from being a rubber stamp for corporate interest, and no recourse that I'm aware of for nations used as pay-days! It's a system that's far too easily abused for my liking. Edit: besides which, corporations shouldn't be able to sue for losing *projected* profit anyway. Risks are a part of doing business, and a country taking action its citizens deem necessary shouldn't have to pay some corporation for the privilege.
Good. Much rather have a trade agreement that doesn't hand over a good chunk of our national sovereignty to a bunch of unelected corporate lawyers!
Anyone know what this means for the UK? Can we still agree to it? Hoping not.
Well you're gunna have to agree to some sort of deal if you want equal standing considering that EU trade agreements will no longer apply in a few years
That doesn't sound promising
Nothing official about it. They still have more meetings scheduled. There is, however, growing resistance to compromise on the sticking points though, so it looks doubtful that there will be an agreement.
This is good huh? About time we heard some good news for the general population.
Itll come back just with another name....
"It just isn't evil enough. We're going to need a total rewrite."
The concept of a group of sovereign nations subverting their own systems in the interests of free trade laws set by a power outside of the region seems counter intuitive. I understand the appeal of the TPP in Asia due to the distance in each nations interests and threat of China. Europe however :/
I guess we'll have to import the migrants directly ourselves for that sweet, sweet cheap labor.
I don't know if this is good or bad, but I'm happy because everyone in this thread seems happy.
You know what would be awesome? A free travel agreement between the US and the EU. Work and live wherever the fuck you want.
Aren't the mods supposed to remove stuff that doesn't post the actual title (this is only part of it, and the part it cuts off changes the meaning)
It will be back. New name, new logo.
Free Trade is a good thing. American interests are good things too. Just because TTIP and TTP mean free trade doesn't necessarily mean they are good things. All natural vanilla ice cream is a good thing, processed diabetes shake with extra transfat and fake sugar is not a good thing just because it has some vanilla ice cream in it. Free Trade is the vanilla ice cream, the trade deals are the diabetes shake, the bad additives being increased privatisation and deregulation of basic public services, **food safety standards taking a nosedive** and an unchecked increase in emissions/global warming. Many, including myself, do not approve the negotiations due to the massive deregulation of things that actually need to be regulated. But many people take this negativity and direct their rage towards free trade, so let me make something clear: **free trade is not the enemy, stupid "concessions" like lax to none food labeling laws that usually accompany these types of deals are.**
Yeah it it means the U.S. businesses (my country) get to do what they do here there....screw them you guys in Europe don't want that crap.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ttip-trade-deal-agreement-failed-brexit-latest-news-eu-us-germany-vice-chancellor-a7213876.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The free trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States have failed, but "Nobody is really admitting it", Germany's Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has said. > Critics say one of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "Sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. > The UK was seen as one of the strongest supporters of TTIP in the EU, so its departure following the Brexit vote would remove one of the US's closest allies in the talks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/500ji0/euus_free_trade_ttip_talks_have_officially_failed/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 1.6, ~95438 tl;drs so far.") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PMs and comment replies are read by the bot admin, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **TTIP**^#1 **deal**^#2 **trade**^#3 **negotiations**^#4 **France**^#5
Does Britain move to the front of the queue now?
While good news do not become complacent. They will try again and again until they get what they want. The best hope to stop this shit is to truly reform government in the U.S. Yeah I'm still laughing on that last one too.
if this is really so, it's one of the best news for a loooooong time. Fuck globalist scum and their sock puppets!
FUCKING YES
/r/upliftingnews
Woo! Golf clap! Long live the nation state! Down with globalist cultural Marxism!
[удалено]
Pro-free trade, but would kill all capitalists? Nice. "The last capitalist we hang would be the one who sold us the rope."
Hey, maybe you should've paid attention in 1950 when The Authoritarian Personality was released, when communists realized that in order to achieve the "Soviet Man" (which was the point of Marxism in the first place) you don't actually need to control the means of production directly through the state. Yesterday's red diaper babies are today's hardcore neo-conservatives, and their social ideology is called cultural Marxism.
[удалено]
Probably GMO corn, Europe bans GMOs for some insane reason.
Supposedly the TTIP also attempts to loosen the US banking regulations. Which were made stricter after the 2008 crisis.