6 ms·

German economy minister says EU-US trade talks have failed

112 points by paol 10y ago

ced 10y ago
Gabriel accused Washington of being "angry" about the deal that the EU struck with Canada, known as CETA, because it contains elements the U.S. doesn't want to see in the TTIP. What would those elements be?
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  Very light on investor protections and retains a lot of the EU regulations to be kept. In particular about food safety and similar things.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    But why does it matter that these are not part of TTIP? If CETA is signed into law and includes those regulations, then US companies can just route their business with the EU through their Canadian branches and get the same benefits. (Unless, of course, European parliaments discover some leftover spine in their bodies and vote against CETA.)
    - celticninja 10y ago
      The US want their companies to have to adhere to less regulation not more. So essentially there are things in CETA that require Canadian companies to meet more a higher criteria with regard to food safety when trading with the EU. The US doesn't want to meet these higher criteria, a US firm selling to the EU through a Canadian branch would have to meet these higher criteria, which means that the US company would either have to forego selling to the EU or increase food safety standards across the board (they could just do it for export goods but that seems a bit silly) either way the companies costs increase. Evidently you thought that TTIP was some kind of reasonable deal for all parties however it is mainly beneficial to some large US corporations at the expense of the citizens everywhere.
      - majewsky 10y ago
        > Evidently you thought that TTIP was some kind of reasonable deal for all parties however it is mainly beneficial to some large US corporations at the expense of the citizens everywhere. To the contrary. I have attended quite some anti-TTIP rallies myself. My suspicion is that what we're seeing right now was the strategy all along: The European opposition (both inside and outside the parliaments) focused on TTIP because the US is an easier enemy (with all the latent anti-americanism boiling all over Europe). So the government(s) are now dropping TTIP very loudly, and while the public feels appeased, CETA is silently signed into law.
        celticninja 10y ago
        CETA, as far as I understand, is much less controversial than TTIP mainly because it is somewhat more fair to both sides, as opposed to the lopsidedness of the TTIP in favour of US corporations. In addition the text is easily available for people to read and review, unlike TTIP. However as I understand it the controversial ISDS remains however this may cause it to not be ratified by some EU nations.
    - josteink 10y ago
      > but why does it matter that these are not part of TTIP? If CETA The tinfoil hat summary is that the US is trying to push through its own policies worldwide, one dominated by lack of regulation, lack of work protection and lots of protection for investors and people with money. If they would be able to strick similar deals worldwide, US companies would be able to move production to wherever it is cheap, and no workers right exist, while having the investors money covered in case the corrupt dictatorships screws them over. Any new deal signed which mandates workers right, environmental protections, and doesn't put investor-money above human lives, is detrimental to this global power-grab effort.
      - mathiasrw 10y ago
        > The tinfoil hat summary is that the US is trying to push through its own policies worldwide There is no tinfoil hat about that...
      - nickff 10y ago
        Many regulations are introduced with the implicit purpose of disadvantaging foreigners; one example of this would be Chinese restrictions on importations of electronics (similar to European RoHS, but more stringent and only applied to foreigners). Regulations are often introduced to advantage large, coherent interests such as unions and industries.
- _of 10y ago
  I wonder what those elements are?
allendoerfer 10y ago
In the past he had a different opinion about TTIP [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Zb0XxSkxE&t=29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Zb0XxSkxE&t=29
timwaagh 10y ago
i guess its a case of the us not wanting to make any concessions. i think its ok though, america can keep its exceptionalism as we don't need ttip to flood the american market with cheap 'italian' shoes (they are likely products of macedonian or albanian sweatshop labour). we already have ft with canada apparantly and canada is in nafta, so they will pass through canada where they will be traded with the us under nafta free trade regime.
- celticninja 10y ago
  That's great for Europe as they can access the US market however it means the US cannot access the European market. I am sure that selling your products abroad is much more preferable to importing goods.
  - avar 10y ago
    So the US can't access the EU through: US -> Canada -> EU But somehow the EU can access the US through: EU -> Canada -> US What part af that path doesn't involve a bidirectional free trade agreement that would make it just as easy for the US to access the EU via Canada as the other way around?
    - riffraff 10y ago
      the assumption is that the EU-Canada agreement puts more restrictions on products so that everything which is allowed on the second path goes through all of it, but the opposite is not true. (AFAIK this isn't generally true outside of agro/food but that is a large part of potential US->EU exports being erased while "Italian shoes" and "french wine" still get through in the other direction)
slowmovintarget 10y ago
Only slightly more informative: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/what-is-ttip-controversial-trade-deal-explained https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/what-is-tti... From this article: >> One of the most controversial elements of the trade proposal is the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision. ISDS provisions have been included in many trade deals since the 1980s, to encourage overseas investment in poorer countries. It means private investors can ask a tribunal of international arbitrators to judge if a government has treated them unfairly – and can get compensation. That seems like a really bad thing.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  If the arbitrators had any democratic oversight, it would be less bad - protecting investments in a fair manner is important - yet the tribunal looks like a private get together - where they can shit on an entire country and no one really has any power to stop it.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    I wonder about this. I think the need for oversight of multinational corporations sort of requires an international democratic government then. I'm not sure how else you can have democratic oversight outside of a government that assures that it really is democratic and that those they regulate have full force of a law. Appointments from elected heads (ie., UN) only goes so far, because no one really listens to them anyway. What alternatives do we have[0]? [0] Honest question, I would like to see opinions on this, because it seems like the eventual result of globalism really is a world government.
- hartator 10y ago
  I don't know. Poor countries are often poor because of corruption. International courts might aleviate that and reassure foreign investors. Might introduce corruption at a different level though.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
raverbashing 10y ago
Good The benefits were much smaller than the drawbacks
aleksei 10y ago
This is not the first time Gabriel has expressed anti-TTIP views (https://www.rt.com/news/344785-ttip-germany-bad-deal/ https://www.rt.com/news/344785-ttip-germany-bad-deal/). However, Merkel for example is for the deal, so it's hard to say what the outcome will be. A lot of local politicians want to push the deal through, but talks have stalled and there is some opposition from the public as well. Interesting to see the final outcome here. Hopefully the obviously bad can be stripped, while retaining any good.
- lima 10y ago
  > some opposition from the public TTIP is highly unpopular in Germany. In recent polls, 70% had unfavorable views about the treaty. I personally don't know anyone who isn't concerned about it. The concerns I've heard to far were about consumer protection and the investor-state-dispute thing.
  - aleksei 10y ago
    Sure, but how many are willing to change their voting preferences or educate others about the dangers of TTIP? Many polls show people to be disgruntled by polticians, yet they keep electing the same people. And surely it was 70% of the people who took the poll and were consequently made aware of TTIP? I'm not saying there isn't opposition, most people I know are against it. But other people seem to not even know about it, or find it difficult to see why politicians would do something against their best interests.
    - samastur 10y ago
      I really dislike this argument. When I go to a polling booth, I don't get a list of issues where I could check my position on each one. What I get is one vote to select a person or party which across all issues I care about comes closest to a position I can (or have to) live with. I've yet to be in situation where I would be in agreement on every important issue with choices on offer. There are always multiple issues on which I have to compromise which doesn't mean they are not important. Individually they may be even at the top of my list, but can cumulatively still lose to others.
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
The US should concede nothing. Indeed if I were negotiating for the US, I would exploit the current weaknesses in the EU to impose a deal that makes clear Europe's decline.
SixSigma 10y ago
The UK is back of the queue but at least we're still in the queue !
- themihai 10y ago
  No deal may be better than a bad deal.
- gutnor 10y ago
  The problem for the UK getting quick trade deal is to get good deals. If it´s only trade deals that the UK wants they just have to accept the first draft of all the deals other government put on the table. Many countries will queue to sign for unrestricted access to the UK market, no string attached. The EU will be the first in line.
DominikR 10y ago
The reason why ISDS provisions are even discussed is that governments have become so overreaching in regulating economic activity that business owners today have the very real fear that they'll be put out of business because a government passes a law that will (sometimes even retroactively) force them to make gigantic payments. ISDS provisions are in that sense a solution for a world where we expect that government power over the economy will likely increase even more in the future. The solution that I prefer is to shrink government so it can't interfere anymore to a degree that turns good and successful investments retroactively into bad investments that cause investors to lose a lot of money and time.
finid 10y ago
> Gabriel's comments contrast with those of Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said last month that TTIP was "absolutely in Europe's interest." Just as the French will someday regret the day they elected both Sarkozy and Hollande, Germans will in time curse the day they elected Merkel.
- totocino 10y ago
  They don't, already? ;-)

112 points by paol 10y ago

ced 10y ago

Gabriel accused Washington of being "angry" about the deal that the EU struck with Canada, known as CETA, because it contains elements the U.S. doesn't want to see in the TTIP. What would those elements be?

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
Very light on investor protections and retains a lot of the EU regulations to be kept. In particular about food safety and similar things.
- majewsky 10y ago
  But why does it matter that these are not part of TTIP? If CETA is signed into law and includes those regulations, then US companies can just route their business with the EU through their Canadian branches and get the same benefits. (Unless, of course, European parliaments discover some leftover spine in their bodies and vote against CETA.)
  - celticninja 10y ago
    The US want their companies to have to adhere to less regulation not more. So essentially there are things in CETA that require Canadian companies to meet more a higher criteria with regard to food safety when trading with the EU. The US doesn't want to meet these higher criteria, a US firm selling to the EU through a Canadian branch would have to meet these higher criteria, which means that the US company would either have to forego selling to the EU or increase food safety standards across the board (they could just do it for export goods but that seems a bit silly) either way the companies costs increase. Evidently you thought that TTIP was some kind of reasonable deal for all parties however it is mainly beneficial to some large US corporations at the expense of the citizens everywhere.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      > Evidently you thought that TTIP was some kind of reasonable deal for all parties however it is mainly beneficial to some large US corporations at the expense of the citizens everywhere. To the contrary. I have attended quite some anti-TTIP rallies myself. My suspicion is that what we're seeing right now was the strategy all along: The European opposition (both inside and outside the parliaments) focused on TTIP because the US is an easier enemy (with all the latent anti-americanism boiling all over Europe). So the government(s) are now dropping TTIP very loudly, and while the public feels appeased, CETA is silently signed into law.
      - celticninja 10y ago
        CETA, as far as I understand, is much less controversial than TTIP mainly because it is somewhat more fair to both sides, as opposed to the lopsidedness of the TTIP in favour of US corporations. In addition the text is easily available for people to read and review, unlike TTIP. However as I understand it the controversial ISDS remains however this may cause it to not be ratified by some EU nations.
  - josteink 10y ago
    > but why does it matter that these are not part of TTIP? If CETA The tinfoil hat summary is that the US is trying to push through its own policies worldwide, one dominated by lack of regulation, lack of work protection and lots of protection for investors and people with money. If they would be able to strick similar deals worldwide, US companies would be able to move production to wherever it is cheap, and no workers right exist, while having the investors money covered in case the corrupt dictatorships screws them over. Any new deal signed which mandates workers right, environmental protections, and doesn't put investor-money above human lives, is detrimental to this global power-grab effort.
    - mathiasrw 10y ago
      > The tinfoil hat summary is that the US is trying to push through its own policies worldwide There is no tinfoil hat about that...
    - nickff 10y ago
      Many regulations are introduced with the implicit purpose of disadvantaging foreigners; one example of this would be Chinese restrictions on importations of electronics (similar to European RoHS, but more stringent and only applied to foreigners). Regulations are often introduced to advantage large, coherent interests such as unions and industries.
_of 10y ago
I wonder what those elements are?

allendoerfer 10y ago

In the past he had a different opinion about TTIP [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Zb0XxSkxE&t=29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Zb0XxSkxE&t=29

timwaagh 10y ago

i guess its a case of the us not wanting to make any concessions. i think its ok though, america can keep its exceptionalism as we don't need ttip to flood the american market with cheap 'italian' shoes (they are likely products of macedonian or albanian sweatshop labour). we already have ft with canada apparantly and canada is in nafta, so they will pass through canada where they will be traded with the us under nafta free trade regime.

celticninja 10y ago
That's great for Europe as they can access the US market however it means the US cannot access the European market. I am sure that selling your products abroad is much more preferable to importing goods.
- avar 10y ago
  So the US can't access the EU through: US -> Canada -> EU But somehow the EU can access the US through: EU -> Canada -> US What part af that path doesn't involve a bidirectional free trade agreement that would make it just as easy for the US to access the EU via Canada as the other way around?
  - riffraff 10y ago
    the assumption is that the EU-Canada agreement puts more restrictions on products so that everything which is allowed on the second path goes through all of it, but the opposite is not true. (AFAIK this isn't generally true outside of agro/food but that is a large part of potential US->EU exports being erased while "Italian shoes" and "french wine" still get through in the other direction)

slowmovintarget 10y ago

Only slightly more informative: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/what-is-ttip-controversial-trade-deal-explained https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/what-is-tti... From this article: >> One of the most controversial elements of the trade proposal is the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision. ISDS provisions have been included in many trade deals since the 1980s, to encourage overseas investment in poorer countries. It means private investors can ask a tribunal of international arbitrators to judge if a government has treated them unfairly – and can get compensation. That seems like a really bad thing.

emp_zealoth 10y ago
If the arbitrators had any democratic oversight, it would be less bad - protecting investments in a fair manner is important - yet the tribunal looks like a private get together - where they can shit on an entire country and no one really has any power to stop it.
- noobermin 10y ago
  I wonder about this. I think the need for oversight of multinational corporations sort of requires an international democratic government then. I'm not sure how else you can have democratic oversight outside of a government that assures that it really is democratic and that those they regulate have full force of a law. Appointments from elected heads (ie., UN) only goes so far, because no one really listens to them anyway. What alternatives do we have[0]? [0] Honest question, I would like to see opinions on this, because it seems like the eventual result of globalism really is a world government.
hartator 10y ago
I don't know. Poor countries are often poor because of corruption. International courts might aleviate that and reassure foreign investors. Might introduce corruption at a different level though.
- ThomPete 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

Good The benefits were much smaller than the drawbacks

aleksei 10y ago

This is not the first time Gabriel has expressed anti-TTIP views (https://www.rt.com/news/344785-ttip-germany-bad-deal/ https://www.rt.com/news/344785-ttip-germany-bad-deal/). However, Merkel for example is for the deal, so it's hard to say what the outcome will be. A lot of local politicians want to push the deal through, but talks have stalled and there is some opposition from the public as well. Interesting to see the final outcome here. Hopefully the obviously bad can be stripped, while retaining any good.

lima 10y ago
> some opposition from the public TTIP is highly unpopular in Germany. In recent polls, 70% had unfavorable views about the treaty. I personally don't know anyone who isn't concerned about it. The concerns I've heard to far were about consumer protection and the investor-state-dispute thing.
- aleksei 10y ago
  Sure, but how many are willing to change their voting preferences or educate others about the dangers of TTIP? Many polls show people to be disgruntled by polticians, yet they keep electing the same people. And surely it was 70% of the people who took the poll and were consequently made aware of TTIP? I'm not saying there isn't opposition, most people I know are against it. But other people seem to not even know about it, or find it difficult to see why politicians would do something against their best interests.
  - samastur 10y ago
    I really dislike this argument. When I go to a polling booth, I don't get a list of issues where I could check my position on each one. What I get is one vote to select a person or party which across all issues I care about comes closest to a position I can (or have to) live with. I've yet to be in situation where I would be in agreement on every important issue with choices on offer. There are always multiple issues on which I have to compromise which doesn't mean they are not important. Individually they may be even at the top of my list, but can cumulatively still lose to others.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

The US should concede nothing. Indeed if I were negotiating for the US, I would exploit the current weaknesses in the EU to impose a deal that makes clear Europe's decline.

SixSigma 10y ago

The UK is back of the queue but at least we're still in the queue !

themihai 10y ago
No deal may be better than a bad deal.
gutnor 10y ago
The problem for the UK getting quick trade deal is to get good deals. If it´s only trade deals that the UK wants they just have to accept the first draft of all the deals other government put on the table. Many countries will queue to sign for unrestricted access to the UK market, no string attached. The EU will be the first in line.

DominikR 10y ago

The reason why ISDS provisions are even discussed is that governments have become so overreaching in regulating economic activity that business owners today have the very real fear that they'll be put out of business because a government passes a law that will (sometimes even retroactively) force them to make gigantic payments. ISDS provisions are in that sense a solution for a world where we expect that government power over the economy will likely increase even more in the future. The solution that I prefer is to shrink government so it can't interfere anymore to a degree that turns good and successful investments retroactively into bad investments that cause investors to lose a lot of money and time.

finid 10y ago

> Gabriel's comments contrast with those of Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said last month that TTIP was "absolutely in Europe's interest." Just as the French will someday regret the day they elected both Sarkozy and Hollande, Germans will in time curse the day they elected Merkel.

totocino 10y ago
They don't, already? ;-)