17 ms·
So business groups and lobbyists for companies like IBM, Apple, Google et al. are deeply involved in the US side of negotiations (far more than any public inter
by tommyman 10y ago
So business groups and lobbyists for companies like IBM, Apple, Google et al. are deeply involved in the US side of negotiations (far more than any public interest groups).
Then on the EU side, business groups and lobbyists for companies like IBM, Apple, Google et al. are deeply involved in negotiations to the detriment of all public groups.
So this is really lots of big US companies negotiating with themselves on how to screw over Europe.
This is a takeover attempt through the backdoor.
- leaveyou 10y agoWhat you say seems quite plausible and I wonder if this scheme wasn't used before against EU interests. US has the ability to spy basically any person in EU. That has serious implications.
- tamana 10y agoYou mean like ECHELON?
- _pmf_ 10y agoYou can probably bet that the German government uses TTIP as leverage against future "irregularities" regarding automotive regulations. The spin in Europe (at least in Germany) is that the EU is portrayed as being pro-consumer, which is basically a joke (ask any VW owner in Germany how they are being compensated).
- Hermel 10y agoWhat is a joke is the disfunctional legal system of the US with its exorbitant fines, out of which a disproportionate amount flows into the pockets of reckless lawyers.
- lispm 10y agoThe spin in Germany actually is that regulation GENERALLY in the EU is working differently and that few want to change to the US model (less regulation to bring products to the market, but costly court cases). You can study the effects of the differences in many areas. That it is not working in some areas and that there is a lot industry lobbying is another topic.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoThe problem with the automotive industry is, that the top lobbyist in the EU for it is the German chancellor (which name soever he/she has).
- lispm 10y agoNo, the problem with industry general is that it is tightly interwoven with politics and naturally tries to find loopholes in any regulatory system. The question is, given that the regulatory approach is not perfect, which one has still more benefits for the consumer. * a new pesticide enters the market. After three years we find out that it kills bees and would lead to the death of a species. Germans usually would want that some independent upfront effort is done to determine that this product is potentially harmful and prevent it from entering the market. In real life, this leads to all kinds of practical problems. But that does not mean we should give up this approach, just because it is not perfect.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoThe problem will be, that with such treaties as TTIP, the worst of both systems will become the default. So it is very likely, that the US will get the standards for air pollution (from automobiles) from the EU and the EU will get the food standards from the US.
- gulpahum 10y agoLooks like the EU will only get the standards from the US: "The US insisted on its request for the commission to “require” in its standardization request, CEN and CENELEC to involve US experts in its standards development process (with no guarantee of reciprocity) as a condition for referencing harmonized standards." https://twitter.com/jwildeboer/status/727086878621634560 https://twitter.com/jwildeboer/status/727086878621634560
- tazjin 10y agoTrump is probably our only chance at stopping this from becoming a reality.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoBefore Obama was elected, they said the same thing about him and spying on US citizen. Edit: Seems, I said something right here -- hence the many downvotes! For those not knowing: Obama was much criticizing the spying when he still was Senator.
- dexterdog 10y agoBut that was OK because he had the most transparent administration ever as promised.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoSo, it is OK, to violate the rights of the people in a "transparent" way? Or are you just want to say, that it is an improvement that he at least kept one of his promises?
- the_mitsuhiko 10y agoNice that only ever US citizens are considered.
- grecy 10y ago>This is a takeover attempt through the backdoor. In case it wasn't already immensely obvious, the third world war has been underway for some time. This one isn't a war fought with guns and bombs, it's a war fought with information, deals and economies. See China's massive economy and ownership of the US, the massive drop in oil price and what that's done to the world economy etc. The citizens of the world wouldn't tolerate full-scale war - they'd vote out their leaders, so this is what we get when countries still want to dominate each other.
- kevando 10y agoIn case I didn't misunderstand your comment, no, the ongoing WW3 is not obvious.
- ppod 10y ago>this is what we get when countries still want to dominate each other. The most peaceful, prosperous, and healthy period known in human history?
- egeozcan 10y ago"The best we have got" doesn't really mean so much if one considers how bad the preceding periods had been. I'm not saying the quality of life had been constantly improved through the history but, thanks to the improvements in a lot of areas (technology and human rights being some important ones), it is a generally upwards trend. In summary, you can't tie quality of life so easily to a single criterion.
- mvanvoorden 10y agoYou're repeating propaganda. May be there's less violence, but the amount of suffering has skyrocketed over the years. A more than significant amount of people are dependent on tranquilizers and anti-depressants to make their life bearable, because for them it has become mundane and meaningless without. Statistiscs may tell a story of less violence, and people getting older and having more material possessions, but these do not reflect the actual well-being of people, and also these numbers don't show how much exploitation and environmental damage our alleged 'prosperity' causes in other parts of the world.
- tdkl 10y agoThe corporations have hijacked the US government years ago it was always only the matter of time that they'll spread to EU. What saddens me more is that the cucked EU will let them, forgetting all the achievements this continent has to offer.
- lumberjack 10y agoI think the EU itself was simply the start of the "hijacking". After all it is mainly an economic union meant to liberalise trade within Europe. What's interesting is that there is actually more Fortune 500 companies in the EU (though really just in western Europe) than in the US. However the difference, I believe is that till now political power is less concentrated in the EU than it is in the US so Shell has much less influence on most EU states than Chevron has on US states simply because it is harder for Shell to influence policy outside of the Netherlands and UK. But with the harmonisation of markets and EU policy and centralisation of political power this will all change.
- hellbanner 10y agoQuote?
- mark_l_watson 10y agoI agree. I was not surprised that President Obama waded in on the British EU exit referendum. This issue is not of much importance to US citizens, but it is very important to the one world government movement. Off topic, but: I find it sad but amusing when my friends argue about democrats vs. republicans; both parties serve their 'people', the corporations.
- pmontra 10y agoI was surprised because it goes against the principle of divide et impera. Apparently a divided Europe makes it easier for the USA and China to do whatever they want, and Russia too. Unless the EU with a skeptical UK is worse off than without it. But I see your point. It's not American interests against European ones. It's to prevent a secession in a geographical space more and more dominated by some corporations and financial institutions. A secession would make it a little bit harder for them, but not so much IMHO, unless it spreads and the EU shatters (maybe because of the migrants crisis.)
- jcfrei 10y agoWhat is with all the tinfoil hat conspiracies in here? Can we please resume to a rational discussion?
- RobertoG 10y agoOK, let's go to the facts: 1. A treaty is negotiated between the two major markets in the world. 2. We know that when this kind of treaties are passed is almost impossible to go back. 3. We know that the most important input to those treaties come from corporations. 4. The conversations happen in secret. 5. The democratic representatives are not allowed to read the treaty except in a hurry and without legal help. 6. Free trade is already a reality but, somehow, a wider treaty that create new tribunals where corporations can sue states is necessary. You are right. No need for tinfoil conspiracies.
- legulere 10y agoSome further facts: - the treaty tries to abolish market regulation differences between the two markets - costumer protection regulations between the US and the EU are incompatible - In the US often e.g. chemicals are allowed until proven hazardous, in the EU they are outlawed until proven harmless - the tribunals will operate outside the normal juridical systems of the US and the EU
- consp 10y agoResulting in: - No differences, but - US consumer protection (which is hardly any) - US (bio)chemical regulations - A non-conformative tribunal which is not elected, not governed, has no oversight and has no basis in any civil law (as you cannot appeal/trail as a civilian if you are disadvantaged by its rulings)
- belorn 10y agoThis "allowed until proven hazardous" vs "outlawed until proven harmless" is such a misrepresenting of the disagreement. Okey, lets put this concept into practice. I will sell fungus as antibiotics, and I will stop once its proven if it work. This would of course not work, and we follow a "outlawed until proven harmless" when it comes to medicine. In the context of medicine, that is a good rule to have and both US and EU agree on this. So, its not about "proven to be safe" vs "proven to be unsafe", but rather specific regulations in specific contexts where EU and US disagree which one is best. In medicine, both agree. With additive in food and pesticide residue laying around in crops, they disagree. There could have been a public debate, but this treaty is not that. It even go as far as forbid laws that grants the consumer a legal right to know what substances they ingest.
- mineshaftgap 10y agoIf Europe was a democracy then they could stop this.
- JPKab 10y ago"So this is really lots of big US companies negotiating with themselves on how to screw over Europe." Let me change this for you to something more accurate: So this is really lots of big multinational corporations negotiating with themselves on how to screw over working people throughout the world. When you start tuning this into "US companies screwing over Europe", you play right into their hands. As if there aren't dozens of European corporations screwing us all over right now. Until recently, I owned a diesel VW that spewed poison into the air every time I drove it, thanks to a bunch of German executives who valued profit over air quality. This goes beyond borders.
- switch007 10y agoEvery internal combustion engine in history has and will spew poison in to the air. You just thought it was slightly less than it actually was.
- ekianjo 10y agoEver considered that internal combustion engines actually also saved lives (and made life possible in places where it was not) ? Let's not paint the world black and white.
- cmelbye 10y agoYes, but that has nothing to do with diesel fuel vs. others, which was the point of the previous two comments.
- soperj 10y agoHonestly, where has it made life possible where it was not? Most places have been inhabited for eons, or settled before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
- tacos 10y agoHonestly, please report back with a plan that gets the USA from 30 million people in 1860 to 300+ million people today without using the internal combustion engine.
- alanwatts 10y ago>So this is really lots of big US companies negotiating with themselves on how to screw over Europe. What exactly do you mean by US companies? Corporations like Apple and Google are not sovereign to any nation, they are super-sovereign, hence their ability to do what you are saying.
- tommyman 10y agoThey are american companies based in the US, with ties to US government (ie. susceptible to US secret courts, gag orders yadda yadda). They operate internationally. ymmv.
- shard972 10y agoI don't know why anyone would be surprised. Victoria Nuland said it herself: "Fuck the EU". The US wants to screw over the EU, not help them. The quicker the EU realizes this the better.
- Iv 10y agoNot just Europe. They are trying to achieve the corporate dream that is a prerequisite for every cyberpunk dystopia: a set of corporate laws that is placed in a jurisdiction superior to that of the state and that could even fine government that do not obey them. We still can't agree that there should be an international jurisdiction over war crimes, but millions (billions?) are spent in this effort to create a universal right to profit over different nations.