EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 73
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
There is no 'actual text'. It is still negotiated in absolute secret (to us). What the public knows are leaked documents of the general aims and current positions of both sides. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'd rather wait until we have the text to review. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
Waiting with the protests until the trade agreement has been agreed upon by both sides also does not seem to be a very smart tactic. You don't wait until two sides have ended their negotiations, one side of them acting in your name, until you voice your opinion - it might be too late then (these negotiations have been going on for years already after all). You have to protest against inacceptable parts of it rather sooner than later, so that your point, the people's point, will be taken into consideration by those chosen to act on your behalf. International agreements are hard, or even nigh impossible to change after the fact and would come with a hefty price tag if any government would find the chuzpe to challenge it later on. This is all for the hope for some small economic growth (remember, trade tariffs are already almost non existant between US and EU countries, the projected gains are solely from removing regulations), which has even been put in doubt by other studies, some challenging that there would be a net GDP benefit at all. The risks involved are tying the state's power to regulate corporations, limiting consumer's rigths, changing the way we protect food, water and infrastructure from commercial interests and so on, all with the background of it being an international agreement that will be hard to change after the fact. Do the risk versus reward analyis for yourself and make your own conclusions. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On March 24 2015 00:48 zlefin wrote: Until there's an actual text, with the actual terms, it seems premature to assume it would work as philipp described. I'd rather wait until we have the text to review. This. My problem is with presenting speculation over the agreement as fact. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 23 2015 22:40 phil.ipp wrote: i try it one more time, nobody says you cant and shouldnt change rules and regulation if it benefits the people. you can change regulations in EVERY industrial sector, not one of them is perfect. but thats not what TTIP is about, you dont need a treaty for that. the US and EU could change these regulations every day if they wanted to and saw the need to. if the EU would want more US Investors, they just would have to ask US Investors what regulations are needed so it is attractive to invest. You dont need a signed treaty with the US Government for that. what TTIP is about, is agreeing on rules that are then set in stone. And to insure that they dont get changed, they introduced secret courts where companys can sue countrys for changing the rules, that are set in stone with the treaty. so for example: if the treaty says every company doesnt have to label their meat correctly, and in some years for example germany feels this doesnt benefit the people and want to change that. Then the company could go to court and get compensation for all the investment they made in germany. so naturally the government of germany would be very reluctant to change these rules, cause it would cost them. so then we would have made a society where we are punished (money), if we would raise quality levels of products. of course only companys profit from something like that. THAT is the real problem everybody has with this treaty. it has to go, and if that part of the treaty goes, its not a fucking treaty anymore, cause the whole use of the treaty is that countrys have to accept the decisions of the secret courts. without this part its just a: hey lets agree on setting the same rules for some industrial sectors, for as long as we see it benefits our people. The point is to remove for-profit trade barriers. Things like particular labeling are generally used to protect domestic industries, not consumers. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 24 2015 04:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The point is to remove for-profit trade barriers. Things like particular labeling are generally used to protect domestic industries, not consumers. domestic industries is usually where the consumers happen to work, too. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 24 2015 04:45 Nyxisto wrote: domestic industries is usually where the consumers happen to work, too. So what? Are Germans afraid of competition all of a sudden? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 24 2015 05:06 Nyxisto wrote: If competition means that people are supposed to work shitty jobs to buy mediocre products then I'm going to go with WhiteDog on this one and say that's nothing that Europe needs. Competition is fine, but it needs baseline of working and living standards. Competition does not mean that. Germans want Greeks to regain competitiveness. You really define that to mean Greeks must suffer?? | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 24 2015 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Competition does not mean that. Germans want Greeks to regain competitiveness. You really define that to mean Greeks must suffer?? No, just two pages ago I said the Greece people need to fight the inequality and corruption in their country as a means to become more productive , not lowering their working or living standards. TTIP on the other hand means exactly what I was implying. Why else would the treaty involve secret arbitration courts if not to fight regulation that would result in reduced profit for a very small amount of people while eroding regulatory standards? | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 24 2015 05:21 Nyxisto wrote: No, just two pages ago I said the Greece people need to fight the inequality and corruption in their country as a means to become more productive , not lowering their working or living standards. TTIP on the other hand means exactly what I was implying. Why else would the treaty involve secret arbitration courts if not to fight regulation that would result in reduced profit for a very small amount of people while eroding regulatory standards? 'Why else' ... that sounds like the logic of conspiracy theorists. Arbitration is just a means to resolve disputes between two parties. From the European Commission: Will including Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in TTIP prevent governments from regulating in the public interest or set up secret courts? Source+ Show Spoiler + No. In TTIP the Commission wants to introduce a system of investment protection and a way for settling disputes between private companies and governments that is a real improvement on current practice. At the United Nations, the EU has successfully pushed for the first system of global rules to make ISDS more transparent. The Commission wants to anchor these same improvements in TTIP. It wants to: guarantee governments' right to regulate make ISDS more transparent, for example by publishing proceedings introduce measures to make sure arbitrators are impartial oblige arbitrators to follow a code of conduct. clarify and limit investors' rights allow interested parties, such as non-governmental organisations, to make their views heard and for their opinions to be published as part of the proceedings set up an appeals body to review ISDS tribunals' decisions. Since the 1950s, EU member countries have signed some 1,400 bilateral trade and investment agreements, some with each other, the rest with countries outside the EU. These agreements include measures to protect investments and to settle disputes between private companies and governments (ISDS). The Commission's proposals for TTIP are for a modern system for protecting investments and solving disputes that takes into account the public's concerns. From 27 March-13 July 2014, the Commission organised an online public consultation to gather views on investment protection and ISDS in TTIP. In January 2015, the Commission published a report on the consultation. In the coming months, the Commission will discuss the results of the consultation with EU governments, the European Parliament and EU stakeholders. Why will big business be able to sue governments if they don't like new laws? + Show Spoiler + They won't. This is a myth. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission negotiates investment agreements on behalf of the EU. When instructing the Commission to enter into talks with the US on TTIP, the governments of the EU's countries told it to negotiate Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) as part of the deal. The EU wants TTIP to offer protection for EU firms when they invest abroad. ISDS is a way to do this. ISDS has existed for decades and EU countries already have some 1,400 ISDS agreements in place, including as part of their investment treaties with countries outside the EU. ISDS makes it possible for a foreign firm to apply for compensation if a government seizes its assets or passes a law which only applies to foreign firms and makes their investment worthless. For example, a law banning a product made in a foreign-owned factory whilst not banning products made by domestic companies. ISDS does not stop governments passing laws, but where new laws discriminate against foreign firms it allows them to bring a claim for compensation. The European Commission believes the existing ISDS system needs to be improved. That is why it has been very active in developing new United Nations' rules for ISDS to make ISDS more transparent. The European Commission wants ISDS provisions in EU trade agreements to be the best possible, including with a code of conduct for, and government control of, arbitrators. Will TTIP allow foreign firms to bypass national courts to sue national governments? + Show Spoiler + No. This is a myth. If a US company wanted to challenge a law or measure passed by an EU government it would have to do so in that country's local or national courts. If it were prevented from going to court it could then try to bring a claim under arbitration provided for by Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The other case where a US company could use ISDS would be where the point of law it wanted to raise was in the TTIP agreement itself rather than in a country's domestic law. International treaties are not enforceable in national courts. ISDS provides an international forum for settling points of international law. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2410188 | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
There were several cases with Vattenfall some years ago, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/vattenfall-vs-germany-nuclear-phase-out-faces-billion-euro-lawsuit-a-795466.html where they sued for billions because they didn't like our change in energy policy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
