9 ms·

European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA

188 points by Tsiolkovsky 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
happyscrappy 12y ago
If this is defeated won't individual deals between each country have to be struck? That seems likely to have a worse outcome for Europe as countries will be played against each other.
- daenney 12y ago
  The goal is to stop this in its current form. It's currently being negotiated in secret, which is never a good sign. It's also very likely to once again include all kinds of directives greatly benefitting a few lobbying partners without the EU citizens knowing what's going on until it's too late.
  - waps 12y ago
    EU citizens ? Why do they matter ? The EU fought hard to get two legal precedents : 1) that international treaties preceed the constitutions of member states (and any and all other laws). 2) that the European Commission would be allowed to agree to international treaties on behalf of member states. There is nobody that can stop this that isn't already in power and Volcker can push this through without ratification by any kind of elected body. Stopping it can only be done in the United States, where it actually has to pass parliament ("congress"). At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name.
    - daenney 12y ago
      Sure, it can be pushed through, as could have previous tech-related secret bills. However, they weren't, because so many people and organisations took up arms and fought against it. Just because something might not be a democratic process doesn't mean we can't fight against it and book a win against it.
      - bayesianhorse 12y ago
        This "process" can't be democratic or undemocratic. The only question can be how far the decision making process is removed from the public. I can understand the rationale for keeping the negotiations largely secret. This is a very big negotiation, and in general, all sorts of demands or proposals are put on the table in the beginning. Many of these proposals have no chance of getting ratified, but they would still be lethal ammunition for any EU-hating party.
    - phtrivier 12y ago
      I beg to differ : as far as I know, the European Commission has been granted a mandate to negociate, but the European Parlement (which represents the EU citizens, however badly/poorly elected it is) will have to ratify it ; then depending on the exact content of the treaty, national parlements might have to ratify it, too. Which does not change the fact that the current way the treaty is negociated is probably too secret.
    - bayesianhorse 12y ago
      You seem to lack a basic understanding of the EU, or democracy in general. Volcker can't "push TTIP through without ratification by any kind of elected body". The elected government, eu parliament, in many cases national parliaments will have a strong voice in ratification. This process isn't undemocratic in the least. It's just that the decisions are complex. I'm not strongly in favour of TTIP in its current form, but the more I know about it, the less I believe all the fear mongering. There seems to be a gut reflex of "I don't understand it, so it must be undemocratic!!"
      - gpvos 12y ago
        Then a democratic entity has the duty to explain and clarify it to its voters. I am seeing next to nothing of that.
        bayesianhorse 12y ago
        Actually it doesn't. With negotiations that's especially murky, because they are extremely complex and can contain proposals which don't have a chance to go into the agreement. Explanation/Clarification is not something a voter is entitled to. He can demand it, and usually the media is giving it to him, if at all. There is also a very good disincentives for politicians to explain "too much". Essentially, when talking to an audience of millions of people, everything you say can be used against you in a court of public opinion. Everything can and will be understood wrongly. That is also partly why effective politicians aren't particularly eager to "tell the truth".
    - jcfrei 12y ago
      A fundamental critique stems from the following effects of the policy: Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company’s “expected future profits”. taken from: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . From my understanding this is basically an incentive for national governments to make their (consumer) laws as accordant with each other as possible. One problem I see with this implementation is that this will result in an accordance (of national laws) on the lowest common denominator, ie. the weakest form of consumer protection. In this specific case this would mostly mean levels of consumer protection as seen in the USA and this is in my opinion not in the interest of the general consumer (but that's a discussion of its own).
    - ginko 12y ago
      TTIP would still have to pass the directly elected EP. Juncker, the new head of the commission was also nominated due to his fraction winning the most seats in parliament.
      - waps 12y ago
        Some more discussion about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Europ... And yes it passes the parliament, however 1) treaties can be adopted without a parliamentary "yes" (has happened many times in the past, because it didn't even used to be asked at all) 2) parliament can say yes or no, but cannot change anything. 3) looking at the contents of previous treaties, it is blatantly obvious that the rules introduced using this instrument would never have passed parliament using other means. An example of this would be, well, and example of this would be TTIP itself, if the contents are what they're rumored to be, which seems like. Other examples include, for example, the copyright directive [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
    - rmc 12y ago
      > At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name. Because any country with "Democratic" in the name is usually a totalitarian undemocratic communist dictatorship? :P
    - patrickg 12y ago
      (Germany only, don't know about other states) 1) The national constition is the highest part of the German law, not EU law. The courts cooperate in many ways and co-exist, but EU law is not above the Constition / Grundgesetz. (See for example http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und-eu-recht http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und...) 2) The TTIP has to be ratified by the member states. (See for example http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html)
  - danielweber 12y ago
    "Negotiated in secret" is totally normal in representative democracies. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take, taking positions that you don't actually want in hopes of getting something else, brinkmanship, and trying to come to a meeting of the minds with the other side. Now, the full text should be understood when it's time for things to actually be ratified or signed into law.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Secrecy and trust, like hands-off management, are earned.
    - sentenza 12y ago
      If a treaty of this extent is negotiated in secret and then made public for ratification it _can_ _only_ _fail_ to be accepted. (At least if the democratically elected EU parliament is involved in the acceptance process) This thing changes so many parts of European law that we took decades to agree on, that the effort to make it "fly under the radar" seems comical.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Most EU countries do not have a US-style ratification process. And local legislation implementing EU directives is usually passed with near-zero scrutiny.
- throwaway28974 12y ago
  Why? There have been no such deals for the last 20 years and things are working just fine.
  - peterclary 12y ago
    Please define "fine", throwaway28974. And for whom?
    - throwaway28974 12y ago
      For everyone, by default. Please give a pair of two EU countries, one of which is better of because it has struck a deal concerning free trade with the United States in the last two decades that was denied to the other country. I'm curious.
      - leccine 12y ago
        You are right. In US there is no good healthcare and this is the most expensive system that provides the least value for an _average_ individual. Education, same. This is what should be exported to the rest of the world? Who are you kidding? The only thing USA could export is guns and dirt bikes.
        sirkneeland 12y ago
        And in all likelihood the software that powers your smartphone (to say nothing of heavy industry, biotech, higher education... ). If you wanted to mention something that sounds "dumb" you could have at least gone with agriculture and hydrocarbons or something more accurate. I'd say this post is deliberately offensive. More importantly for HN it is simply inaccurate.
- Orinocco 12y ago
  I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press conference.
  - touristtam 12y ago
    There is a nicely explained article about the potential threat to democracy that is TTIP: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta. Incidently techdirt just ran an article on how Bolivia broke their own trade agreement with similar clauses: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/bolivia-shows-how-to-dismantle-corporate-sovereignty-provisions-treaties-without-losing-foreign-investment.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/boliv...
    - Orinocco 12y ago
      Thanks, very informative - I see why this is a problem now!
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - pizza234 12y ago
    One of the major concerns of the TTIP is the Investor State Dispute Settlements, which allows US investors to be able to sue EU Member States in cases where their investment has been diminished due to regulatory changes made in the public interest (1). This is corporatocracy at its finest. Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article. The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy. The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products. I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions. (1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-investor-state-dispute-settlement-and-the-future-of-international-investment-law-in http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...
- walterbell 12y ago
  There are many moving parts. One open issue is lawsuits from foreign corporations against national governments. There's a running log here: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/ttip-updates-the-glyn-moody-blogs/index.htm http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/tti...
- pjc50 12y ago
  EU countries cannot make their own bilateral trade agreements.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    And they shouldn't. For one thing this would be an anticompetitive move against the other members, and for another, once you import something into one EU country it's really hard to stop it from going into the other countries. So the EU has to approve the regulation of such an agreements... Otherwise, even without malicious intent on part of a member state, a country like china would just go shopping around the 26 member states and ask who's giving them the best conditions and then do all their trade through them...
danger-freak 12y ago
Very appreciated, but what about TISA??? http://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/ http://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wgicDEvSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wgicDEvSM
morkbot 12y ago
For those wondering what's wrong with TTIP, a while ago Geroge Monibot wrote a well documented piece about it: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-wing-politics/ http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-wing-...
- bgarbiak 12y ago
  ...and here's a response from Ken Clarke, a politician, defending the TTIP: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-trade-deal-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-democracy http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-t... In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as "one comparatively minor element".
  - Marazan 12y ago
    The rhetorical question is that if it's so minor why is so much effort being expended to try and get it in? The answer is that it's not minor and a corner stone of the corporatism agenda. EDIT: And his dismissing of the gutting of safety standards by using the lowest common denominator is disingenuous at best and nakedly corrupt at worst.
  - contingencies 12y ago
    You don't have to read the details to grok the truth here. A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent. In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who? In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states. These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted. For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally. Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.
NicoJuicy 12y ago
I'm from Belgium, Karel De Gucht (who tried to get ACTA through and the guy who is obviously behind TTIP and CETA also) is also from Belgium, here are some things i know about him or his methods: Investigation for tax fraud and insider trading ( http://goo.gl/wnBN95 http://goo.gl/wnBN95 ). He is never going to get punished (the judges are his friends). If he sues me about writing this, i'm probably fucked These initiatives are trade agreements, that's why the EU can keep the meetings / documents a secret. Also, votes are anonymous when it comes to trade agreements. As the guy of ACTA, he would simply ignore the democratic rejection of the parlement: http://goo.gl/ucrnNX http://goo.gl/ucrnNX ). Here are some videos where he was obviously caught lying about ACTA and the economic importance of it (an interview): http://goo.gl/NG6hOq http://goo.gl/NG6hOq He also send a letter in the past to the European Commission to defend ACTA and lied about ACTA: http://goo.gl/8AOmSX http://goo.gl/8AOmSX PS. He is the reason why i don't trust the EU i live in. Everyone knows about the above (tax fraud, ...), but nothing happens. He is now getting promoted to head of foreign policy of the EU PS2. There is nothing you can do about Karel De Gucht... He will try again with another agreement in the future, if this would fail. ( ACTA became CETA became TIPP ). I'm worried that people will resist less every time a new "trade-agreement" comes up
- sentenza 12y ago
  I see no reason to distrust the whole of the EU just because they don't reject Karel De Gucht. After all, if Belgium stands behind him, the EU can't do much. If that isn't satisfying for you, I recommend distrusting the EU Commission. That's what I do. Our best hope is to shoot this thing down when it has to be ratified by the EU parliament. During the last legislative period, the parliament has shown that it can and will use its powers to protect the citizens. (I'm thinking about its recent work on net neutrality and privacy.) We can expect nothing from the Commision and we should expect to be betrayed by the council (that's the national leaders), but the EU Parliament is firmly on our side.
  - NicoJuicy 12y ago
    Nobody of the public in Belgium stands behind him, if you understand dutch go to the reactions page of an(y) article about him of a popular Belgian newspaper: http://goo.gl/duj8ml http://goo.gl/duj8ml (can't do it with Google Translate (the comments use Ajax), i haven't seen 1 positive reaction ! ) The citizens in a lot of EU countries have massively protested, that's why it got rejected, in Belgium, none of the protests even came in the Belgian media (tv, newspaper, ..) - http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs . In the letter in my previous post, Karel De Gucht tried to influence the commission, so that they would't reject the proposal solely on the fact that a massive ammount of people emailed/contacted politicians about ACTA (it's cleary mentioned in the letter of Karel De Gucht, asking for the politicians not being influenced by the massive protests http://goo.gl/8AOmSX http://goo.gl/8AOmSX ) But i distrust the EU commission (not the entire EU), you corrected me on that one PS. The popular newspaper linked was HLN (het laatste nieuws), but feel free to search any Belgian alternative newspaper :) PS2. I haven't met anyone in person that thinks Karel De Gucht does a good job. If there is someone who disagrees with me, i'm sorry. But you are probably not from Belgium :)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- lilsunnybee 12y ago
  Trade negotiations are more likely to be free from backlash if they are at least open. The secrecy is the biggest hindrance here.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Where has this retroactive approach worked? Maybe the W3C should try using it for defining web standards.
- vfclists 12y ago
  Where is the substance to your claims? The last few years has seen a constant erosion of income both in the USA and Europe. In any case why should trade agreements cede arbitration and disputes to tribunals and panels which are not subject to public scrutiny and proper judicial and democratic oversight?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - moritz 12y ago
      “Economists estimate that the introduction of the fifth version of Apple’s iPhone delivered a GDP increase up to eight times higher than the projected effect of the TTIP/TAFTA.” http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta
      - mschuster91 12y ago
        Yeah, the GDP may have increased due to the iPhone - but loads of the profits Apple did ended up in Apple's coffers and not back in circulation...
Nanzikambe 12y ago
Quite funny that in Switzerland most are apparently most concerned with fractions of a percent of the economy by being left out other than other issues raised. Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-deal-decisions/40499264 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-dea...
grondilu 12y ago
It seems to me that the Wikipedia page is fairly documented and referenced, for an article about a "secret" agreement.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  That is partly because, many information was leaked by people that where stirred up by the process.
yottah 12y ago
"Public interest" is mostly an excuse for unnecessary statism and senseless regulation of European bureaucrats. European economy is very weak compared to that of US, and proponents of regulations under the guise of "public interest" have zero legitimacy because the results are terrible. Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development.
- leccine 12y ago
  "European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development." Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
  - ohitsdom 12y ago
    Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...
    - leccine 12y ago
      I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.
      - avz 12y ago
        Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth: Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing. Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services. Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.
HSO 12y ago
TTIP is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and corrupt. In other words, in the best traditions of post-Bush America. Please don't export this shit to Europe.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Pretending that EU leaders have no culpability in this is a great way to ensure US dominance over Europe.
NicoJuicy 12y ago
For anyone who wants to know more about any form of "trade agreement" the EU is up to. https://www.laquadrature.net/ https://www.laquadrature.net/ is a very good documented website. Here is everything about TTIP, also known as TAFTA https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
ronnyronny 12y ago
ttip is an undemocratic attack on civil rights. Devised by big corps for big corps. A destorted result of profit thinking whith forseeable devastating inpact on citizens and environment. There is a simple logic here ...FOR...PROFIT...ONLY... THE FUTURE I imagine them super rich counting there money on the smoking remains of what once WAS our beautifull plannet. PROBABLY BEING DUMB ArSE HAPPY FOR HAVING MADE SUCH A HUGE PROFIT. ACTION: STOP THIS BUNCH OF IMBECILE F. UPS BY ANY MEANS SIMPLY BY EXPOSURE (de gucht is a criminal)
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Could you be so kind as to cite a single violation of civil rights being proposed as part of TTIP?
anigbrowl 12y ago
I'm disappointed to see so many people objecting to a free trade agreement that would benefit both the US and EU tremendously. When people oppose such things, I always ask whether they think the US would be better off as a patchwork of 50 countries, each with their own tariffs etc., or if they think the EU was better when you needed to go through passport control every time you crossed a border and products needed to go through separate sets of approvals in every country before they could be sold. Free trade does a lot more for people than national sovereignty. I rather doubt anyone here thinks we'd be better off with 180 national networks instead of a global internet, but that's what most of you are arguing for where physical goods are concerned. If it were up to me I'd like to see unrestricted movement across borders of goods, capital and people.
- HSO 12y ago
  Excuse me, but this is not about "free trade" per se. Trade between Europe and America already is to a large extent free. Why do you think it has the volume it already has today? So free trade rhetoric is misplaced here. What TTIP is about is about regulations, for example concerning food or medicine, patent and copyright laws, etc. And I, for one, abhor US patent laws, or their blatant and complete disregard for the environment or animal beings, etc. I don't want your crap food here, your GMO conglomerates, or your patent lawyers. And for sure I don't want Germany or France to be financially liable to some faceless big corp when it rules certain things in the interest of the people it is supposed to protect and represent! Sure, do what you want, you can have your "standards" at your side of the Atlantic and continue to get reamed by your political elite and Washington lawyers. But don't export them here, to us! What I find particularly galling is how TTIP proponents dangle a decimal point rise in GDP in front of us when it is not even possible to forecast accurately the economy as it is. What is more, let's go with it and assume it came to pass -- GDP miraculously increased by what they said it would as a result. What about the costs incurred in terms of loss of (even more) control over our food supply chain, increase in health care costs, more draconian imposition of your patent and copyright laws, etc etc. Nobody with a job and not a specialist can be reasonably expected to get to know in detail what such agreements entails. So there needs to be a basis of trust that the US will not fuck us over. And here you seem to forget: The US, since Adolf Bush and his co-captain Barack Hitler, is doing its best to lose massive amounts trust and goodwill here, even in traditionally pro-America Germany. You don't have much credit left, both literally and figuratively, better not squander it. We believe you less and less. Just go away. You have already taken more than enough.
yeureka 12y ago
Reading about TTIP reminds me of the "Estado Novo" - the Portuguese corporatist dictatorship that lasted for a large chunk of the 20th century. Corporation rights above people, that is the way forward...
- hjrnunes 12y ago
  You are wrong. The "corporations" of Estado Novo were not commercial corporations like Monsanto, or P&G. The corporations in corporatism are understood to be representatives of the broad professional groups. There was an assembly - Câmara Corporativa - that was a representative and consultive body that had no decision power but that the National Assembly - the legislative body - had to consult for all the laws that they'd propose. It was actually a good idea in my opinion. It's a much more transparent way of having the economical, social, syndical, etc "interest groups" or "corporations" participate in the political decision process. A lot better than US style lobbying, as it was completely public and not dependent on money. Besides, that way, there would always be technical and real-world advice for every law passed. From wikipedia: Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism EDIT: added reference to Wikipedia.
DavidEHSmith 12y ago
Do YOU understand how the following INFO can be used to IDENTIFY your INFO. DEPRIVERS & to FLACIDATE "your" members of the GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY? * SECRET TPPartnership, CETA & C-CIT TRIBUNALS due INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists' Clients & Parties' Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES. Repatriating off-shore; profits, goods & services contracts, financing, etc. and co-manufacturing still not on the table? LINE UP to "PREFERRED" IPOs SHOrtens. What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st. (CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada - China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unravelling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al. There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are: 1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons: A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by: i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders & ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse and B) to protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations... ...For the FULL ARTICLE, see; Google: "TPP...INSIDER TRADING; David E.H. Smith", & Facebook; "David Smith, Sidney, BC" to the access List of RECENT ARTICLES & CORRESPONDENCES by DEHS.

188 points by Tsiolkovsky 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

If this is defeated won't individual deals between each country have to be struck? That seems likely to have a worse outcome for Europe as countries will be played against each other.

daenney 12y ago
The goal is to stop this in its current form. It's currently being negotiated in secret, which is never a good sign. It's also very likely to once again include all kinds of directives greatly benefitting a few lobbying partners without the EU citizens knowing what's going on until it's too late.
- waps 12y ago
  EU citizens ? Why do they matter ? The EU fought hard to get two legal precedents : 1) that international treaties preceed the constitutions of member states (and any and all other laws). 2) that the European Commission would be allowed to agree to international treaties on behalf of member states. There is nobody that can stop this that isn't already in power and Volcker can push this through without ratification by any kind of elected body. Stopping it can only be done in the United States, where it actually has to pass parliament ("congress"). At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name.
  - daenney 12y ago
    Sure, it can be pushed through, as could have previous tech-related secret bills. However, they weren't, because so many people and organisations took up arms and fought against it. Just because something might not be a democratic process doesn't mean we can't fight against it and book a win against it.
    - bayesianhorse 12y ago
      This "process" can't be democratic or undemocratic. The only question can be how far the decision making process is removed from the public. I can understand the rationale for keeping the negotiations largely secret. This is a very big negotiation, and in general, all sorts of demands or proposals are put on the table in the beginning. Many of these proposals have no chance of getting ratified, but they would still be lethal ammunition for any EU-hating party.
  - phtrivier 12y ago
    I beg to differ : as far as I know, the European Commission has been granted a mandate to negociate, but the European Parlement (which represents the EU citizens, however badly/poorly elected it is) will have to ratify it ; then depending on the exact content of the treaty, national parlements might have to ratify it, too. Which does not change the fact that the current way the treaty is negociated is probably too secret.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    You seem to lack a basic understanding of the EU, or democracy in general. Volcker can't "push TTIP through without ratification by any kind of elected body". The elected government, eu parliament, in many cases national parliaments will have a strong voice in ratification. This process isn't undemocratic in the least. It's just that the decisions are complex. I'm not strongly in favour of TTIP in its current form, but the more I know about it, the less I believe all the fear mongering. There seems to be a gut reflex of "I don't understand it, so it must be undemocratic!!"
    - gpvos 12y ago
      Then a democratic entity has the duty to explain and clarify it to its voters. I am seeing next to nothing of that.
      - bayesianhorse 12y ago
        Actually it doesn't. With negotiations that's especially murky, because they are extremely complex and can contain proposals which don't have a chance to go into the agreement. Explanation/Clarification is not something a voter is entitled to. He can demand it, and usually the media is giving it to him, if at all. There is also a very good disincentives for politicians to explain "too much". Essentially, when talking to an audience of millions of people, everything you say can be used against you in a court of public opinion. Everything can and will be understood wrongly. That is also partly why effective politicians aren't particularly eager to "tell the truth".
  - jcfrei 12y ago
    A fundamental critique stems from the following effects of the policy: Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company’s “expected future profits”. taken from: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . From my understanding this is basically an incentive for national governments to make their (consumer) laws as accordant with each other as possible. One problem I see with this implementation is that this will result in an accordance (of national laws) on the lowest common denominator, ie. the weakest form of consumer protection. In this specific case this would mostly mean levels of consumer protection as seen in the USA and this is in my opinion not in the interest of the general consumer (but that's a discussion of its own).
  - ginko 12y ago
    TTIP would still have to pass the directly elected EP. Juncker, the new head of the commission was also nominated due to his fraction winning the most seats in parliament.
    - waps 12y ago
      Some more discussion about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Europ... And yes it passes the parliament, however 1) treaties can be adopted without a parliamentary "yes" (has happened many times in the past, because it didn't even used to be asked at all) 2) parliament can say yes or no, but cannot change anything. 3) looking at the contents of previous treaties, it is blatantly obvious that the rules introduced using this instrument would never have passed parliament using other means. An example of this would be, well, and example of this would be TTIP itself, if the contents are what they're rumored to be, which seems like. Other examples include, for example, the copyright directive [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
  - rmc 12y ago
    > At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name. Because any country with "Democratic" in the name is usually a totalitarian undemocratic communist dictatorship? :P
  - patrickg 12y ago
    (Germany only, don't know about other states) 1) The national constition is the highest part of the German law, not EU law. The courts cooperate in many ways and co-exist, but EU law is not above the Constition / Grundgesetz. (See for example http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und-eu-recht http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und...) 2) The TTIP has to be ratified by the member states. (See for example http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html)
- danielweber 12y ago
  "Negotiated in secret" is totally normal in representative democracies. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take, taking positions that you don't actually want in hopes of getting something else, brinkmanship, and trying to come to a meeting of the minds with the other side. Now, the full text should be understood when it's time for things to actually be ratified or signed into law.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Secrecy and trust, like hands-off management, are earned.
  - sentenza 12y ago
    If a treaty of this extent is negotiated in secret and then made public for ratification it _can_ _only_ _fail_ to be accepted. (At least if the democratically elected EU parliament is involved in the acceptance process) This thing changes so many parts of European law that we took decades to agree on, that the effort to make it "fly under the radar" seems comical.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Most EU countries do not have a US-style ratification process. And local legislation implementing EU directives is usually passed with near-zero scrutiny.
throwaway28974 12y ago
Why? There have been no such deals for the last 20 years and things are working just fine.
- peterclary 12y ago
  Please define "fine", throwaway28974. And for whom?
  - throwaway28974 12y ago
    For everyone, by default. Please give a pair of two EU countries, one of which is better of because it has struck a deal concerning free trade with the United States in the last two decades that was denied to the other country. I'm curious.
    - leccine 12y ago
      You are right. In US there is no good healthcare and this is the most expensive system that provides the least value for an _average_ individual. Education, same. This is what should be exported to the rest of the world? Who are you kidding? The only thing USA could export is guns and dirt bikes.
      - sirkneeland 12y ago
        And in all likelihood the software that powers your smartphone (to say nothing of heavy industry, biotech, higher education... ). If you wanted to mention something that sounds "dumb" you could have at least gone with agriculture and hydrocarbons or something more accurate. I'd say this post is deliberately offensive. More importantly for HN it is simply inaccurate.
Orinocco 12y ago
I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press conference.
- touristtam 12y ago
  There is a nicely explained article about the potential threat to democracy that is TTIP: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta. Incidently techdirt just ran an article on how Bolivia broke their own trade agreement with similar clauses: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/bolivia-shows-how-to-dismantle-corporate-sovereignty-provisions-treaties-without-losing-foreign-investment.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/boliv...
  - Orinocco 12y ago
    Thanks, very informative - I see why this is a problem now!
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- pizza234 12y ago
  One of the major concerns of the TTIP is the Investor State Dispute Settlements, which allows US investors to be able to sue EU Member States in cases where their investment has been diminished due to regulatory changes made in the public interest (1). This is corporatocracy at its finest. Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article. The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy. The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products. I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions. (1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-investor-state-dispute-settlement-and-the-future-of-international-investment-law-in http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...
walterbell 12y ago
There are many moving parts. One open issue is lawsuits from foreign corporations against national governments. There's a running log here: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/ttip-updates-the-glyn-moody-blogs/index.htm http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/tti...
pjc50 12y ago
EU countries cannot make their own bilateral trade agreements.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  And they shouldn't. For one thing this would be an anticompetitive move against the other members, and for another, once you import something into one EU country it's really hard to stop it from going into the other countries. So the EU has to approve the regulation of such an agreements... Otherwise, even without malicious intent on part of a member state, a country like china would just go shopping around the 26 member states and ask who's giving them the best conditions and then do all their trade through them...

danger-freak 12y ago

Very appreciated, but what about TISA??? http://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/ http://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wgicDEvSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wgicDEvSM

morkbot 12y ago

For those wondering what's wrong with TTIP, a while ago Geroge Monibot wrote a well documented piece about it: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-wing-politics/ http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-wing-...

bgarbiak 12y ago
...and here's a response from Ken Clarke, a politician, defending the TTIP: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-trade-deal-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-democracy http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-t... In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as "one comparatively minor element".
- Marazan 12y ago
  The rhetorical question is that if it's so minor why is so much effort being expended to try and get it in? The answer is that it's not minor and a corner stone of the corporatism agenda. EDIT: And his dismissing of the gutting of safety standards by using the lowest common denominator is disingenuous at best and nakedly corrupt at worst.
- contingencies 12y ago
  You don't have to read the details to grok the truth here. A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent. In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who? In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states. These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted. For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally. Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.

NicoJuicy 12y ago

I'm from Belgium, Karel De Gucht (who tried to get ACTA through and the guy who is obviously behind TTIP and CETA also) is also from Belgium, here are some things i know about him or his methods: Investigation for tax fraud and insider trading ( http://goo.gl/wnBN95 http://goo.gl/wnBN95 ). He is never going to get punished (the judges are his friends). If he sues me about writing this, i'm probably fucked These initiatives are trade agreements, that's why the EU can keep the meetings / documents a secret. Also, votes are anonymous when it comes to trade agreements. As the guy of ACTA, he would simply ignore the democratic rejection of the parlement: http://goo.gl/ucrnNX http://goo.gl/ucrnNX ). Here are some videos where he was obviously caught lying about ACTA and the economic importance of it (an interview): http://goo.gl/NG6hOq http://goo.gl/NG6hOq He also send a letter in the past to the European Commission to defend ACTA and lied about ACTA: http://goo.gl/8AOmSX http://goo.gl/8AOmSX PS. He is the reason why i don't trust the EU i live in. Everyone knows about the above (tax fraud, ...), but nothing happens. He is now getting promoted to head of foreign policy of the EU PS2. There is nothing you can do about Karel De Gucht... He will try again with another agreement in the future, if this would fail. ( ACTA became CETA became TIPP ). I'm worried that people will resist less every time a new "trade-agreement" comes up

sentenza 12y ago
I see no reason to distrust the whole of the EU just because they don't reject Karel De Gucht. After all, if Belgium stands behind him, the EU can't do much. If that isn't satisfying for you, I recommend distrusting the EU Commission. That's what I do. Our best hope is to shoot this thing down when it has to be ratified by the EU parliament. During the last legislative period, the parliament has shown that it can and will use its powers to protect the citizens. (I'm thinking about its recent work on net neutrality and privacy.) We can expect nothing from the Commision and we should expect to be betrayed by the council (that's the national leaders), but the EU Parliament is firmly on our side.
- NicoJuicy 12y ago
  Nobody of the public in Belgium stands behind him, if you understand dutch go to the reactions page of an(y) article about him of a popular Belgian newspaper: http://goo.gl/duj8ml http://goo.gl/duj8ml (can't do it with Google Translate (the comments use Ajax), i haven't seen 1 positive reaction ! ) The citizens in a lot of EU countries have massively protested, that's why it got rejected, in Belgium, none of the protests even came in the Belgian media (tv, newspaper, ..) - http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs . In the letter in my previous post, Karel De Gucht tried to influence the commission, so that they would't reject the proposal solely on the fact that a massive ammount of people emailed/contacted politicians about ACTA (it's cleary mentioned in the letter of Karel De Gucht, asking for the politicians not being influenced by the massive protests http://goo.gl/8AOmSX http://goo.gl/8AOmSX ) But i distrust the EU commission (not the entire EU), you corrected me on that one PS. The popular newspaper linked was HLN (het laatste nieuws), but feel free to search any Belgian alternative newspaper :) PS2. I haven't met anyone in person that thinks Karel De Gucht does a good job. If there is someone who disagrees with me, i'm sorry. But you are probably not from Belgium :)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lilsunnybee 12y ago
Trade negotiations are more likely to be free from backlash if they are at least open. The secrecy is the biggest hindrance here.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Where has this retroactive approach worked? Maybe the W3C should try using it for defining web standards.
vfclists 12y ago
Where is the substance to your claims? The last few years has seen a constant erosion of income both in the USA and Europe. In any case why should trade agreements cede arbitration and disputes to tribunals and panels which are not subject to public scrutiny and proper judicial and democratic oversight?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - moritz 12y ago
    “Economists estimate that the introduction of the fifth version of Apple’s iPhone delivered a GDP increase up to eight times higher than the projected effect of the TTIP/TAFTA.” http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta
    - mschuster91 12y ago
      Yeah, the GDP may have increased due to the iPhone - but loads of the profits Apple did ended up in Apple's coffers and not back in circulation...

Nanzikambe 12y ago

Quite funny that in Switzerland most are apparently most concerned with fractions of a percent of the economy by being left out other than other issues raised. Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-deal-decisions/40499264 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-dea...

grondilu 12y ago

It seems to me that the Wikipedia page is fairly documented and referenced, for an article about a "secret" agreement.

PythonicAlpha 12y ago
That is partly because, many information was leaked by people that where stirred up by the process.

yottah 12y ago

"Public interest" is mostly an excuse for unnecessary statism and senseless regulation of European bureaucrats. European economy is very weak compared to that of US, and proponents of regulations under the guise of "public interest" have zero legitimacy because the results are terrible. Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development.

leccine 12y ago
"European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development." Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
- ohitsdom 12y ago
  Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...
  - leccine 12y ago
    I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.
    - avz 12y ago
      Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth: Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing. Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services. Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.

HSO 12y ago

TTIP is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and corrupt. In other words, in the best traditions of post-Bush America. Please don't export this shit to Europe.

happyscrappy 12y ago
Pretending that EU leaders have no culpability in this is a great way to ensure US dominance over Europe.

NicoJuicy 12y ago

For anyone who wants to know more about any form of "trade agreement" the EU is up to. https://www.laquadrature.net/ https://www.laquadrature.net/ is a very good documented website. Here is everything about TTIP, also known as TAFTA https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

ronnyronny 12y ago

ttip is an undemocratic attack on civil rights. Devised by big corps for big corps. A destorted result of profit thinking whith forseeable devastating inpact on citizens and environment. There is a simple logic here ...FOR...PROFIT...ONLY... THE FUTURE I imagine them super rich counting there money on the smoking remains of what once WAS our beautifull plannet. PROBABLY BEING DUMB ArSE HAPPY FOR HAVING MADE SUCH A HUGE PROFIT. ACTION: STOP THIS BUNCH OF IMBECILE F. UPS BY ANY MEANS SIMPLY BY EXPOSURE (de gucht is a criminal)

bayesianhorse 12y ago
Could you be so kind as to cite a single violation of civil rights being proposed as part of TTIP?

anigbrowl 12y ago

I'm disappointed to see so many people objecting to a free trade agreement that would benefit both the US and EU tremendously. When people oppose such things, I always ask whether they think the US would be better off as a patchwork of 50 countries, each with their own tariffs etc., or if they think the EU was better when you needed to go through passport control every time you crossed a border and products needed to go through separate sets of approvals in every country before they could be sold. Free trade does a lot more for people than national sovereignty. I rather doubt anyone here thinks we'd be better off with 180 national networks instead of a global internet, but that's what most of you are arguing for where physical goods are concerned. If it were up to me I'd like to see unrestricted movement across borders of goods, capital and people.

HSO 12y ago
Excuse me, but this is not about "free trade" per se. Trade between Europe and America already is to a large extent free. Why do you think it has the volume it already has today? So free trade rhetoric is misplaced here. What TTIP is about is about regulations, for example concerning food or medicine, patent and copyright laws, etc. And I, for one, abhor US patent laws, or their blatant and complete disregard for the environment or animal beings, etc. I don't want your crap food here, your GMO conglomerates, or your patent lawyers. And for sure I don't want Germany or France to be financially liable to some faceless big corp when it rules certain things in the interest of the people it is supposed to protect and represent! Sure, do what you want, you can have your "standards" at your side of the Atlantic and continue to get reamed by your political elite and Washington lawyers. But don't export them here, to us! What I find particularly galling is how TTIP proponents dangle a decimal point rise in GDP in front of us when it is not even possible to forecast accurately the economy as it is. What is more, let's go with it and assume it came to pass -- GDP miraculously increased by what they said it would as a result. What about the costs incurred in terms of loss of (even more) control over our food supply chain, increase in health care costs, more draconian imposition of your patent and copyright laws, etc etc. Nobody with a job and not a specialist can be reasonably expected to get to know in detail what such agreements entails. So there needs to be a basis of trust that the US will not fuck us over. And here you seem to forget: The US, since Adolf Bush and his co-captain Barack Hitler, is doing its best to lose massive amounts trust and goodwill here, even in traditionally pro-America Germany. You don't have much credit left, both literally and figuratively, better not squander it. We believe you less and less. Just go away. You have already taken more than enough.

yeureka 12y ago

Reading about TTIP reminds me of the "Estado Novo" - the Portuguese corporatist dictatorship that lasted for a large chunk of the 20th century. Corporation rights above people, that is the way forward...

hjrnunes 12y ago
You are wrong. The "corporations" of Estado Novo were not commercial corporations like Monsanto, or P&G. The corporations in corporatism are understood to be representatives of the broad professional groups. There was an assembly - Câmara Corporativa - that was a representative and consultive body that had no decision power but that the National Assembly - the legislative body - had to consult for all the laws that they'd propose. It was actually a good idea in my opinion. It's a much more transparent way of having the economical, social, syndical, etc "interest groups" or "corporations" participate in the political decision process. A lot better than US style lobbying, as it was completely public and not dependent on money. Besides, that way, there would always be technical and real-world advice for every law passed. From wikipedia: Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism EDIT: added reference to Wikipedia.

DavidEHSmith 12y ago

Do YOU understand how the following INFO can be used to IDENTIFY your INFO. DEPRIVERS & to FLACIDATE "your" members of the GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY? * SECRET TPPartnership, CETA & C-CIT TRIBUNALS due INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists' Clients & Parties' Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES. Repatriating off-shore; profits, goods & services contracts, financing, etc. and co-manufacturing still not on the table? LINE UP to "PREFERRED" IPOs SHOrtens. What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st. (CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada - China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unravelling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al. There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are: 1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons: A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by: i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders & ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse and B) to protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations... ...For the FULL ARTICLE, see; Google: "TPP...INSIDER TRADING; David E.H. Smith", & Facebook; "David Smith, Sidney, BC" to the access List of RECENT ARTICLES & CORRESPONDENCES by DEHS.