8 ms·

That overzealous secrecy around TTIP is a shame. It doesn't look like such a bad piece of legislation. The overall theme seems to be some deregulation on EU sid

by auganov 11y ago

That overzealous secrecy around TTIP is a shame. It doesn't look like such a bad piece of legislation. The overall theme seems to be some deregulation on EU side (as generally EU is the over-regulated side) and bringing regulatory standards closer together. The IP protections are the most concerning part so far IMO? I don't know much about that kind of negotiations, the secrecy might as well be the right strategy to push it through I guess?

tobltobs 11y ago
" the secrecy might as well be the right strategy to push it through I guess" Why not canceling this whole concept of democracy.
inDigiNeous 11y ago
The most alarming features of this proposed legislation are the facts that it contains this: ".. it also contains an ‘investor protection’ provision allowing corporations to effectively sue governments for taking action to harm their business." (source: http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-big-business-could-sue-governments-over-tax-profits http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-...) So .. effectively, this could mean that a corporation could overrule a government in legislation if it would be harming it's profits. The big problem with this for example here in Finland is that through these measure big corporations could try to take over the nations natural resources, like water and forest, which are and should be protected by local laws. But through this kind of legal means, these corporations could be allowed to sue the government over the loss of a profit due to protecting legislation, in order just to make a profit out of it. Which is complete and total bullshit.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  My biggest issue with the TTIP; thanks for calling it out.
  - jakub_g 11y ago
    And if someone thinks this is a virtual threat, google for "Philip Morris vs. (Australia|Uruguay)" (countries being sued for anti-tobacco regulations hurting business of PM)
    - pas 11y ago
      That's a frivolous suit. They are grasping at straws. http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-morris-scores-an-own-goal-4967 http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-m... Yes, it's a virtual threat.
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be entirely clear. The case you refer to in Australia was apparently thrown out because of some dubious changes to the company ownership arrangements that appeared to have been made just for the purposes of bringing a lawsuit, when the change in cigarette packaging rules was already public knowledge by that time. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra...
        pas 11y ago
        Yes, they played an empty hand, and when their bluff was called they promptly lost.
  - pas 11y ago
    Then you should read up on it, because it's basically the least problematic part of TTIP. ( here's a comment I just wrote trying to explain why people are mistaken about the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 )
- pas 11y ago
  Okay, first of all, that's bullshit. ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) is a sane concept. The implementation might have problems (for example closed courtroom "trials"), but it's not about protecting profits. It's about protecting equality and fairness for all before the law, and in case of States, holding them accountable to make fair and egalitarian laws. What's the typical example? A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh, a) better make a law against whatever they are doing, or b) better make a law against (that specific or all) foreign companies doing whatever. Which one(s) is (are) problematic? Also, the other thing, fairness, comes in when a State wants to buy out a company but doesn't want to pay market price. Basically eminent domain without unfair compensation. The same goes for ending tax breaks (or other investment incentives) sooner than promised. Because that's a breach of agreement. Your link (publicfinanceinternational.org) refers an article from globaljustice.co.uk which has a list of problematic ISDS arbitration cases, that's the real data, anything else is just fluff. ( http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/taxes-on-trial-how-trade-deals-threaten-tax-justice-global-justice-now.pdf http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/re... ) Let's look at the big bully US agribusiness vs Mexico (the rules of arbitration are set by NAFTA). http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0133_0.pdf http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita... the concrete "award" (findings of the tribunal). It turns out that these tribunals are looking at laws and apply them. Like courts. And they are much likely more objective than any court in either host country. And then that award was reviewed by the courts of a place chosen by the parties (the Ontario court system). Seems quite like due process to me. I'm not saying all of the cases are jolly good and there was absolutely no problematic awards, but just looking at the Vodafone vs India one, the "retrospective capital gains tax" hits us and makes you wonder, what the fuck were the Indians thinking, first rule of how to legislate. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty ) But enough on ISDS. There are big problems with TTIP, but not this one.
  - mikemoka 11y ago
    "A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh," when this has been done and when it has happened not in the interest of public well being? on the other hand here is an example of what some corporations actually do in the present https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s
- Hockenbrizzle 11y ago
  Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Obama's stance on this particular part of the legislation? He was just in Hanover and was asked about this by the public, but avoided giving a clear answer. Are there any records of him explaining why he actually might think this is a good thing?
spdy 11y ago
"(as generally EU is the over-regulated side) Why is regulation a bad thing? These rules exist for a reason in health/food for example.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Generally I agree with you. The recent changes to VAT feel like a mess. Maybe I'm missing something there and they're not as bad as they seem?
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    Aren't they exactly what was wanted, to stop big companies like Amazon from taking advantage of the tax system (invoice everything in Luxembourg) that aren't practical for small businesses? Or, to prevent foreign online retailers from undercutting local ones simply through lower "local" taxation rates.
    - jakub_g 11y ago
      In theory the laws are great. But they should be applied over a certain revenue threshold, say €1M. They're a mess for someone selling a few items per month to customers all around Europe (like selling an ebook on your own website).
      - pas 11y ago
        Can you link to more details about this? As far as I know the VAT law applies only to service providers (like Skype, and AWS) and you can easily file taxes through the mini one-shop-stop way ( http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/tax/articles/eu-2015-place-of-supply-changes-mini-one-stop-shop.html http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/tax/articles/eu-201... - chose an EU Member State, I recommend Ireland, their online thingie seems to be okay ).
        Silhouette 11y ago
        Unfortunately, it appears that you have been misinformed. There is no lower threshold to who the new rules affect. Also, while the mechanics of filing via MOSS aren't too bad in themselves, there are numerous other problems caused as a direct result of the VAT changes. As a couple of examples, there are several practical problems with keeping records to the required standard, and related conflicts between the rules about VAT and other EU consumer protection rules about advertising all-inclusive prices. As someone running small businesses that do have to deal with EU tax rules in some cases, it is hard to imagine how they could have got this one more wrong. I know several people who run other relatively small businesses (though in some cases much larger than any of mine) who after also going through the hassle of modifying all of their systems to comply as well as possible have the same conclusion as me. For all of us, the most commercially reasonable option if we had known the full cost of compliance would have been to instead simply decline to take on any EU customers outside our home nations from the date the new rules came into effect and have nothing to do with the rest of the EU or its VAT rules at all.
onetimePete 11y ago
I am a citizen, i voted for those regulations, these are the laws i wanted, you try to step upon.
- mcv 11y ago
  And that's the root of what's wrong about TTIP: the US doesn't like the way Europeans vote, and wants to put a stop to it. Business interests need to be protected against the evil democracy.
kbart 11y ago
"generally EU is the over-regulated side" We usually call it consumer protection here and most of EU citizens like the way it is.

by auganov 11y ago

tobltobs 11y ago

" the secrecy might as well be the right strategy to push it through I guess" Why not canceling this whole concept of democracy.

inDigiNeous 11y ago

The most alarming features of this proposed legislation are the facts that it contains this: ".. it also contains an ‘investor protection’ provision allowing corporations to effectively sue governments for taking action to harm their business." (source: http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-big-business-could-sue-governments-over-tax-profits http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-...) So .. effectively, this could mean that a corporation could overrule a government in legislation if it would be harming it's profits. The big problem with this for example here in Finland is that through these measure big corporations could try to take over the nations natural resources, like water and forest, which are and should be protected by local laws. But through this kind of legal means, these corporations could be allowed to sue the government over the loss of a profit due to protecting legislation, in order just to make a profit out of it. Which is complete and total bullshit.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
My biggest issue with the TTIP; thanks for calling it out.
- jakub_g 11y ago
  And if someone thinks this is a virtual threat, google for "Philip Morris vs. (Australia|Uruguay)" (countries being sued for anti-tobacco regulations hurting business of PM)
  - pas 11y ago
    That's a frivolous suit. They are grasping at straws. http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-morris-scores-an-own-goal-4967 http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-m... Yes, it's a virtual threat.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be entirely clear. The case you refer to in Australia was apparently thrown out because of some dubious changes to the company ownership arrangements that appeared to have been made just for the purposes of bringing a lawsuit, when the change in cigarette packaging rules was already public knowledge by that time. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra...
      - pas 11y ago
        Yes, they played an empty hand, and when their bluff was called they promptly lost.
- pas 11y ago
  Then you should read up on it, because it's basically the least problematic part of TTIP. ( here's a comment I just wrote trying to explain why people are mistaken about the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 )
pas 11y ago
Okay, first of all, that's bullshit. ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) is a sane concept. The implementation might have problems (for example closed courtroom "trials"), but it's not about protecting profits. It's about protecting equality and fairness for all before the law, and in case of States, holding them accountable to make fair and egalitarian laws. What's the typical example? A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh, a) better make a law against whatever they are doing, or b) better make a law against (that specific or all) foreign companies doing whatever. Which one(s) is (are) problematic? Also, the other thing, fairness, comes in when a State wants to buy out a company but doesn't want to pay market price. Basically eminent domain without unfair compensation. The same goes for ending tax breaks (or other investment incentives) sooner than promised. Because that's a breach of agreement. Your link (publicfinanceinternational.org) refers an article from globaljustice.co.uk which has a list of problematic ISDS arbitration cases, that's the real data, anything else is just fluff. ( http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/taxes-on-trial-how-trade-deals-threaten-tax-justice-global-justice-now.pdf http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/re... ) Let's look at the big bully US agribusiness vs Mexico (the rules of arbitration are set by NAFTA). http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0133_0.pdf http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita... the concrete "award" (findings of the tribunal). It turns out that these tribunals are looking at laws and apply them. Like courts. And they are much likely more objective than any court in either host country. And then that award was reviewed by the courts of a place chosen by the parties (the Ontario court system). Seems quite like due process to me. I'm not saying all of the cases are jolly good and there was absolutely no problematic awards, but just looking at the Vodafone vs India one, the "retrospective capital gains tax" hits us and makes you wonder, what the fuck were the Indians thinking, first rule of how to legislate. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty ) But enough on ISDS. There are big problems with TTIP, but not this one.
- mikemoka 11y ago
  "A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh," when this has been done and when it has happened not in the interest of public well being? on the other hand here is an example of what some corporations actually do in the present https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s
Hockenbrizzle 11y ago
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Obama's stance on this particular part of the legislation? He was just in Hanover and was asked about this by the public, but avoided giving a clear answer. Are there any records of him explaining why he actually might think this is a good thing?

spdy 11y ago

"(as generally EU is the over-regulated side) Why is regulation a bad thing? These rules exist for a reason in health/food for example.

DanBC 11y ago
Generally I agree with you. The recent changes to VAT feel like a mess. Maybe I'm missing something there and they're not as bad as they seem?
- Symbiote 11y ago
  Aren't they exactly what was wanted, to stop big companies like Amazon from taking advantage of the tax system (invoice everything in Luxembourg) that aren't practical for small businesses? Or, to prevent foreign online retailers from undercutting local ones simply through lower "local" taxation rates.
  - jakub_g 11y ago
    In theory the laws are great. But they should be applied over a certain revenue threshold, say €1M. They're a mess for someone selling a few items per month to customers all around Europe (like selling an ebook on your own website).
    - pas 11y ago
      Can you link to more details about this? As far as I know the VAT law applies only to service providers (like Skype, and AWS) and you can easily file taxes through the mini one-shop-stop way ( http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/tax/articles/eu-2015-place-of-supply-changes-mini-one-stop-shop.html http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/tax/articles/eu-201... - chose an EU Member State, I recommend Ireland, their online thingie seems to be okay ).
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        Unfortunately, it appears that you have been misinformed. There is no lower threshold to who the new rules affect. Also, while the mechanics of filing via MOSS aren't too bad in themselves, there are numerous other problems caused as a direct result of the VAT changes. As a couple of examples, there are several practical problems with keeping records to the required standard, and related conflicts between the rules about VAT and other EU consumer protection rules about advertising all-inclusive prices. As someone running small businesses that do have to deal with EU tax rules in some cases, it is hard to imagine how they could have got this one more wrong. I know several people who run other relatively small businesses (though in some cases much larger than any of mine) who after also going through the hassle of modifying all of their systems to comply as well as possible have the same conclusion as me. For all of us, the most commercially reasonable option if we had known the full cost of compliance would have been to instead simply decline to take on any EU customers outside our home nations from the date the new rules came into effect and have nothing to do with the rest of the EU or its VAT rules at all.

onetimePete 11y ago

I am a citizen, i voted for those regulations, these are the laws i wanted, you try to step upon.

mcv 11y ago
And that's the root of what's wrong about TTIP: the US doesn't like the way Europeans vote, and wants to put a stop to it. Business interests need to be protected against the evil democracy.

kbart 11y ago

"generally EU is the over-regulated side" We usually call it consumer protection here and most of EU citizens like the way it is.