7 ms·

What is with all the tinfoil hat conspiracies in here? Can we please resume to a rational discussion?

by jcfrei 11y ago

RobertoG 11y ago
OK, 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 11y ago
  Some 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 11y ago
    Resulting 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 11y ago
    This "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.
- kspaans 11y ago
  > 4. The conversations happen in secret. Not commenting on any other aspects of TTIP, but they happen in secret for a reason.[0][1][2] Most trade negotiations are secret too, and if the whole process was public there would be too much bikeshedding and pressure on the negotiators. EDIT: forgot to include a TL;DR summary of why they are secret. Fixed NPR link 0 - http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo... 1 - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-thought-for-the-day.html#comment-1977162 http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-t... 2 - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-thought-for-the-day.html#comment-1977162 http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-t...
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    I fucking hate these arguments, that "we need secrecy to negotiate effectively". The problem is, the negotiations are "effective" on behalf of corporations, not the public. Yes, they happen in secret for a reason, but that's not a reason we're bound to respect.
    - ASalazarMX 11y ago
      If only "in secret" really meant "only between diplomats" and not "hidden from the public but not corporations".
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    The first link doesn't even discuss secrecy, unless the implicit reason is, "because negotiator's lie".
    - kspaans 11y ago
      Thanks, that was indeed the wrong NPR story. Fixed!
  - Analemma_ 11y ago
    > and if the whole process was public there would be too much bikeshedding and pressure on the negotiators. That's a feature, not a bug. Whence this argument that trade negotiations are somehow different from every single other aspect of good governance? For all other mechanisms of government, everyone agrees that transparency is a vital mechanism for preventing corruption, and that whatever inefficiencies it introduces into the system are a necessary evil. Yet somehow free trade agreements operate on a different set of rules; even though time after time it's been shown that this invites boatloads of the exact corruption that government transparency is meant to combat. [source: every TPP/TTIP leak thus far]
misja111 11y ago
I don't think it's because of some conspiracy that EU leaders like Merkel favor TTIP. They probably think it's the right way to go, because TTIP will make EU's economy grow. (See for example http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/151787.htm http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/151787.htm) And it is obvious that major internationals on both sides will be the ones that benefit most from the cuts in government regulations proposed by TTIP. So a substantial portion of the economic growth will go to them. Therefore I don't think you need to be in the tinfoil hat camp to support the believe that they are lobbying for TTIP. The mistake that our EU leaders make, IMO, is that what's good for the EU's economy, is not necessarily always good for the majority of its citizens. Those government regulations were there for a reason, for instance to protect the environment, support area's who are economically behind etc.
- jcfrei 11y ago
  Thanks, just to be clear: I'm not an advocate for TTIP.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    Not sure where you're from, but it's hard to imagine a rational basis for the European public to be an advocate of it. My understanding of TTIP and TPP are that they're the US's last ditch attempt to standardise international trade along US lines before China overtakes and starts to set the tone. On that basis they kinda make sense from a US perspective. From an EU perspective not so much. (edit: not saying the US has a chance of staying ahead of China if TTIP/TPP are successful, just that standardised trade rules may soften China's negotiation position)
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      And in theory, this is actually a really good idea, and something the Western nations should be doing. China's human rights and environment records are abysmal. It would be to the advantage of western nations to be more unified for their common benefit, and force China to catch up. However the TTIP/TPP are going the wrong way: they're trying to water down or eliminate environmental and consumer protections in favor of large corporations' profits. In other words, they're trying to lower the bar rather than to raise it as they should be. We really could use a standardized international trade treaty, but it has to be done in the open, and with input from more parties than just big corporations interested only in their profits, it needs input from environmental groups, workers' groups/unions, consumer rights advocates, food-safety organizations, etc.
mangeletti 11y ago
Yeah, there's nothing conspiracy-like about a group of powerful people colluding in secret to produce laws, via illegal means, for nearly the entire planet. That's literally a superset of the definition of "conspiracy". Do you spend a lot of time looking into the sun?
wfo 11y ago
If you call people stating facts and accurately describing the trade deal "tinfoil hat conspiracies" then you are arguing in bad faith and should stop. Even if you believe such a ridiculous thing the cheap insults and incendiary language doesn't help your cause. You need to understand these deals as they are -- negotiated primarily by large corporate representatives, used as a back door to slam through legislation that would never pass domestic muster in its respective countries as a single up-or-down omnibus deal that legislators cannot reject. No conspiracy at all, rather, business as usual.

What is with all the tinfoil hat conspiracies in here? Can we please resume to a rational discussion?

by jcfrei 11y ago

What is with all the tinfoil hat conspiracies in here? Can we please resume to a rational discussion?

OK, 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 11y ago
Some 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 11y ago
  Resulting 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 11y ago
  This "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.
kspaans 11y ago
> 4. The conversations happen in secret. Not commenting on any other aspects of TTIP, but they happen in secret for a reason.[0][1][2] Most trade negotiations are secret too, and if the whole process was public there would be too much bikeshedding and pressure on the negotiators. EDIT: forgot to include a TL;DR summary of why they are secret. Fixed NPR link 0 - http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo... 1 - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-thought-for-the-day.html#comment-1977162 http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-t... 2 - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-thought-for-the-day.html#comment-1977162 http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-t...
- astazangasta 11y ago
  I fucking hate these arguments, that "we need secrecy to negotiate effectively". The problem is, the negotiations are "effective" on behalf of corporations, not the public. Yes, they happen in secret for a reason, but that's not a reason we're bound to respect.
  - ASalazarMX 11y ago
    If only "in secret" really meant "only between diplomats" and not "hidden from the public but not corporations".
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  The first link doesn't even discuss secrecy, unless the implicit reason is, "because negotiator's lie".
  - kspaans 11y ago
    Thanks, that was indeed the wrong NPR story. Fixed!
- Analemma_ 11y ago
  > and if the whole process was public there would be too much bikeshedding and pressure on the negotiators. That's a feature, not a bug. Whence this argument that trade negotiations are somehow different from every single other aspect of good governance? For all other mechanisms of government, everyone agrees that transparency is a vital mechanism for preventing corruption, and that whatever inefficiencies it introduces into the system are a necessary evil. Yet somehow free trade agreements operate on a different set of rules; even though time after time it's been shown that this invites boatloads of the exact corruption that government transparency is meant to combat. [source: every TPP/TTIP leak thus far]

misja111 11y ago

I don't think it's because of some conspiracy that EU leaders like Merkel favor TTIP. They probably think it's the right way to go, because TTIP will make EU's economy grow. (See for example http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/151787.htm http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/151787.htm) And it is obvious that major internationals on both sides will be the ones that benefit most from the cuts in government regulations proposed by TTIP. So a substantial portion of the economic growth will go to them. Therefore I don't think you need to be in the tinfoil hat camp to support the believe that they are lobbying for TTIP. The mistake that our EU leaders make, IMO, is that what's good for the EU's economy, is not necessarily always good for the majority of its citizens. Those government regulations were there for a reason, for instance to protect the environment, support area's who are economically behind etc.

jcfrei 11y ago
Thanks, just to be clear: I'm not an advocate for TTIP.
- richmarr 11y ago
  Not sure where you're from, but it's hard to imagine a rational basis for the European public to be an advocate of it. My understanding of TTIP and TPP are that they're the US's last ditch attempt to standardise international trade along US lines before China overtakes and starts to set the tone. On that basis they kinda make sense from a US perspective. From an EU perspective not so much. (edit: not saying the US has a chance of staying ahead of China if TTIP/TPP are successful, just that standardised trade rules may soften China's negotiation position)
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    And in theory, this is actually a really good idea, and something the Western nations should be doing. China's human rights and environment records are abysmal. It would be to the advantage of western nations to be more unified for their common benefit, and force China to catch up. However the TTIP/TPP are going the wrong way: they're trying to water down or eliminate environmental and consumer protections in favor of large corporations' profits. In other words, they're trying to lower the bar rather than to raise it as they should be. We really could use a standardized international trade treaty, but it has to be done in the open, and with input from more parties than just big corporations interested only in their profits, it needs input from environmental groups, workers' groups/unions, consumer rights advocates, food-safety organizations, etc.

mangeletti 11y ago

Yeah, there's nothing conspiracy-like about a group of powerful people colluding in secret to produce laws, via illegal means, for nearly the entire planet. That's literally a superset of the definition of "conspiracy". Do you spend a lot of time looking into the sun?

wfo 11y ago

If you call people stating facts and accurately describing the trade deal "tinfoil hat conspiracies" then you are arguing in bad faith and should stop. Even if you believe such a ridiculous thing the cheap insults and incendiary language doesn't help your cause. You need to understand these deals as they are -- negotiated primarily by large corporate representatives, used as a back door to slam through legislation that would never pass domestic muster in its respective countries as a single up-or-down omnibus deal that legislators cannot reject. No conspiracy at all, rather, business as usual.