Support NeoGAF

[GSG Flash]

So it looks like the European Parliament is doing their best to try to push this through. They're holding emergency talks today with Canadian and Walloon representatives.

Hopefully a deal can be reached.

None of the agreements are bad. It's just people that don't understand how international agreements work spreading baseless FUD.

Yup. I was listening to an interview yesterday with a former trade minister under Jean Chretien, he mentioned that there's a certain extreme leftist part of the European population who think they're "idealists" and oppose anything to do with free trade that's beneficial to them, much like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, even if they don't know anything about it.

 

[michaelius]

So is CETA actually that bad? I understand the US one, but don't see the issue with this one.

American corporations will be able to use this one if they have some presence in Canada so this one is just a backdoor to introduce TTIP under disguise.

I hope that Belgium stays strong and doesn't surrender.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

American corporations will be able to use this one if they have some presence in Canada so this one is just a backdoor to introduce TTIP under disguise.

I hope that Belgium stays strong and doesn't surrender.

I think the majority of Belgium is fine with CETA, just that one part is holding everything up...

 

[darkace]

American corporations will be able to use this one if they have some presence in Canada so this one is just a backdoor to introduce TTIP under disguise.

Why is this problematic, exactly?

 

[Sony]

I hope TTIP and CETA never happen. EU and US food safety is regulated differently. With TTIP/CETA, the EU can only ban a product if it's scientifically proven to be a health hazard. Sounds reasonable were it not for the fact that the food industry sponsors "scientific" research and has researchers in their pocket.

Not sure if ISDS is still part of the agreement, but this evil clause has no place in a trade agreement. Private companies suing states? Arbitration judges being appointed by the food industry? Fuck. That.

Also, the secrecy and the way Brussels communicates the negotiations and what the agreement entails is so rage inducing. Backdoor politics..

Just watch the following video;
https://youtu.be/psLJ0lECmSw

Everything is fine as it is. I hope these agreements fail and if they don't, I hope the people stand up again and nullify this agreement en masse through referenda.

 

[PdotMichael]

ha, now that is some wishful thinking.

What a crazy idea that Europe doesn't want the USA to hijack names and places for mostly inferior products.

There is a reason why the American call a cheese Parmesan and not Chicago cheese because only one of the two has brand power.

 

[KDR_11k]

Yup. I was listening to an interview yesterday with a former trade minister under Jean Chretien, he mentioned that there's a certain extreme leftist part of the European population who think they're "idealists" and oppose anything to do with free trade that's beneficial to them, much like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, even if they don't know anything about it.

I love how they just brush concerns aside as anti-globalization.

We're fine with free trade as long as it involves none of the following:

Lowering product quality or safety standards
Lowering environmental protections
Reducing information presented to consumers (e.g. food labeling standards)
Preventing the government from raising the aforementioned
Stricter IP laws

 

[PdotMichael]

Well, it's indeed funny because the EU is the largest free trade zone in the world.

 

[darkace]

I love how they just brush concerns aside as anti-globalization.

We're fine with free trade as long as it involves none of the following:

Lowering product quality or safety standards
Lowering environmental protections
Reducing information presented to consumers (e.g. food labeling standards)
Preventing the government from raising the aforementioned
Stricter IP laws

Awesome, then youll be fine with ttip and ceta.

 

[kami_sama]

Well, it's indeed funny because the EU is the largest free trade zone in the world.

The problem with CETA and TTIP, at least for me, is not free trade.
With the EU, there's some regulations and laws that control the environment, for example.
The problem I have is that those two treaties will end up giving us Europeans regulations that are not as good as those we had before.
I don't know the specifics of CETA, but the TTIP has leaked. That treaty is secret for fucks sake, that raises many red flags, at least for me.

 

[le-seb]

^ Unlike TTIP, CETA has been made public for ~2 years, now.
You can get a summary from the European Commission.

Awesome, then youll be fine with ttip and ceta.

Just talking about CETA, because what leaked of TTIP is even more one-sided.

Right now, there are 1.374 registered designations in the EU, and CETA only covers 145 names.
90% of EU procurement contracts will be open to Canadian businesses, but only 30% of Canadian procurement contracts will be open to EU businesses.

How can we be fine with this?

 

[darkace]

Just talking about CETA, because what leaked of TTIP is even more one-sided.

Right now, there are 1.374 registered designations in the EU, and CETA only covers 145 names.
90% of EU procurement contracts will be open to Canadian businesses, but only 30% of Canadian procurement contracts will be open to EU businesses.

How can we be fine with this?

Because it's better than the status quo? A Canadian-EU trade agreement will not be even.

 

[zoukka]

So sad populist ignorance is destroying deals that would result in huge gains for citizens.

And huge intrusions to our values.

 

[michaelius]

Why is this problematic, exactly?

Because it puts European relatively small scale agriculture production that needs to meet high EU norms in direct competition against massive agriculture producers from North America that barely have any quality norms so our market will be flooded with crap low quality food.

Which means that whatever extra trade income and new work places EU politicians deluded themselves into thinking this will generate will be gained at the huge cost of losing work places in agriculture.

The only winner from CETA or TTIP are huge North American Corporations

 

[Tiberius]

So sad populist ignorance is destroying deals that would result in huge gains for citizens.

Yeah giving more power to corporations a really great idea...

 

[Sony]

Because it's better than the status quo? A Canadian-EU trade agreement will not be even.

What is your opinion on the concerns people have? I'd like to see you adress those.

 

[Fiend]

Because it's better than the status quo? A Canadian-EU trade agreement will not be even.

What, why? I don't see any arguments from you, just the typical handwaving.
A large part of the european population doesn't want ceta/ttip. We've got no problems with trade agreements per se, but those two "trade" agreements shouldn't be even allowed being called like that because they are so much more.

 

[darkace]

And huge intrusions to our values.

Specifically how. Give me examples using the text, not appeals to emotion.

Because it puts European relatively small scale agriculture production that needs to meet high EU norms in direct competition against massive agriculture producers from North America that barely have any quality norms so our market will be flooded with crap low quality food.

Which means that whatever extra trade income and new work places EU politicians deluded themselves into thinking this will generate will be gained at the huge cost of losing work places in agriculture.

The only winner from CETA or TTIP are huge North American Corporations

So people can get different food, cheaper? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for them. The whole idea is people can make their own choices here.

Yeah giving more power to corporations a really great idea...

What specific powers are corporations gaining that they currently do not have?

What is your opinion on the concerns people have? I'd like to see you adress those.

Almost all issues are fundamental misunderstandings of how international negotiation and trade works. Every single EU trade agreement since 2000 has had ISDS provisions. Every single international negotiation is undertaken in secret (Geneva conventions, BASEL, UN declaration of human rights), so that domestic interests can't torpedo them through holding the negotiators hostage on their positioning.

If you any other concerns just ask and I'll answer. The only thing non-standard about these agreements are the gains. Generally they result in about 0.1% gains for the median consumer, but TTIP is 0.5% for the EU and 0.4% for the US.

What, why? I don't see any arguments from you, just the typical handwaving.
A large part of the european population doesn't want ceta/ttip. We've got no problems with trade agreements per se, but those two "trade" agreements shouldn't be even allowed being called like that because they are so much more.

How do I give detailed answers to emotional nonsense? What does 'they're so much more' even mean? How? Why? Is that bad? How is it bad?

If you want to criticise something go ahead. But at least understand what you're criticising. The petition against the TTIP received over a million signatures, but the text of the agreement has been accessed less than 10000 times since it was made available. People are fighting against something they don't understand and they don't even attempt to understand.

 

[RocknRola]

That's how it happens in the EU. Champagne can only come from the champagne area, otherwise it's called cava (spain) / prosecco (italy) etc

Can confirm. In Portugal they are officially called "Espumantes", though stores just put them in a Champagne section you won't see that terminology on the actual brands/bottles.

 

[le-seb]

Almost all issues are fundamental misunderstandings of how international negotiation and trade works. Every single EU trade agreement since 2000 has had ISDS provisions.

The fact that these provisions exist in many agreements don't make them harmless.

Philip Morris (US) sued Australia in 2012.
Lone Pine Resources (US) sued Canada in 2013.

I'm certainly not "fine" with this kind of shit, corporations should have no say in the way countries manage their health and environmental policies.

 

[Zaru]

So people can get different food, cheaper? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for them. The whole idea is people can make their own choices here.

Why even have food and production standards at all then, anywhere? Nobody's forcing anyone! Everyone can make their own choices after all!

Thanks but no. Europeans generally decided to have tighter, more restrictive and more careful standards. One might say they went overboard sometimes, but I'd rather err on the side of caution for something as fundamentally important as food.

In addition, european agriculture is already operating on a very small margin, and it's not in our interest to kill off more local production by letting them deal with even more unfair competition.

 

[Famassu]

Specifically how. Give me examples using the text, not appeals to emotion.



So people can get different food, cheaper? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for them. The whole idea is people can make their own choices here.



What specific powers are corporations gaining that they currently do not have?



Almost all issues are fundamental misunderstandings of how international negotiation and trade works. Every single EU trade agreement since 2000 has had ISDS provisions. Every single international negotiation is undertaken in secret (Geneva conventions, BASEL, UN declaration of human rights), so that domestic interests can't torpedo them through holding the negotiators hostage on their positioning.

If you any other concerns just ask and I'll answer. The only thing non-standard about these agreements are the gains. Generally they result in about 0.1% gains for the median consumer, but TTIP is 0.5% for the EU and 0.4% for the US.



How do I give detailed answers to emotional nonsense? What does 'they're so much more' even mean? How? Why? Is that bad? How is it bad?

If you want to criticise something go ahead. But at least understand what you're criticising. The petition against the TTIP received over a million signatures, but the text of the agreement has been accessed less than 10000 times since it was made available. People are fighting against something they don't understand and they don't even attempt to understand.

You handwave legitimate criticism and concerns as "emotional nonsense". CETA has some shit that absolutely should not come to pass. Environmental protection will take a hit, according to some studies both Europe and Canada will lose a lot of jobs (in the hundreds of thousands all in all), the "independent court" set to handle disputes between states and corporations is a fucking joke, the standards of quality control will veey likely become lower, fight against climate change and moving away from fossil fuels will become harder, whatever money this creates will mostly go to the already wealthy, public services are in serious danger etc. These are not some lies the "far leftists ignorants" have come up with but are concerns raised by economists, professors, lawyers, trade unions etc. who have actually read the agreement and have some kind of idea how people's lives will more or less likely be affected.

CETA gives a lot more power to big corporations, investors and lobbyists and puts local governments in a disadvantageous position that can be abused by said big corporations. We have examples of big corporations suing nations because they tried to, say, set stricter limits to coal-related pollution and under CETA investors and corporations have even stronger rights.

And who cares if the agreement has only been accessed that many times? Do you not understand how Internet works?

 

[Fiend]

How do I give detailed answers to emotional nonsense? What does 'they're so much more' even mean? How? Why? Is that bad? How is it bad?

If you want to criticise something go ahead. But at least understand what you're criticising. The petition against the TTIP received over a million signatures, but the text of the agreement has been accessed less than 10000 times since it was made available. People are fighting against something they don't understand and they don't even attempt to understand.

Emotional nonsense, so you're still handwaving and ignoring all the arguments that have been made. What so much more is, I'll repeat, we don't need indepent corporate courts who can sue governments. Get out with your corporate american bullshit.

They don't attempt to understand? You don't. It's not the job of the population to read a document which is written in juristical mumbo jumbo, several hundred pages long and was created behind closed doors. That's the job of the media, unions, etc and here in Europe they did a pretty good job to inform the population. So, stop assuming that all people who are against TTIP and CETA are uninformed.

 

[darkace]

The fact that these provisions exist in many agreements don't make them harmless.

Philip Morris (US) sued Australia in 2012.
Lone Pine Resources (US) sued Canada in 2013.

I'm certainly not "fine" with this kind of shit, corporations should have no say in the way countries manage their health and environmental policies.

They don't, provided said policies don't disproportionately impact foreign companies, or expropriate assets without compensation.

PMI is more complex than 'lost profits', it's because they feel the government expropriated their intellectual property without compensation - their trademark, brand name, brand associated goodwill, etc. They lost and had to pay Australia back, but they never intended to win - rather, while Australia was bogged down in negotiations, other countries will refrain from implementing plain packaging themselves

And Lone Pine Gap is a textbook example of how not to handle legislation as a country - introducing it without prior consultation, without scientific basis, and after the company made strategic decisions to push forward in this area that the Quebec government failed to reimburse. Essentially all ISDS provisions are is enforcing eminent domain laws.

Thanks but no. Europeans generally decided to have tighter, more restrictive and more careful standards. One might say they went overboard sometimes, but I'd rather err on the side of caution for something as fundamentally important as food.

If the regulations have scientific basis then they cannot be successfully challenged. The reason it's written like this is because otherwise you could protect literally any enterprise from foreign competition through regulations designed at 'saving the consumer'.

In addition, european agriculture is already operating on a very small margin, and it's not in our interest to kill off more local production by letting them deal with even more unfair competition.

That's not how the economy works.

according to some studies both Europe and Canada will lose a lot of jobs (in the hundreds of thousands all in all)

Trade doesn't destroy jobs. The idea it would is ludicrous. https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

the "independent court" set to handle disputes between states and corporations is a fucking joke

Specifically HOW. Stop giving me emotional bullshit. Why is it bad?

the standards of quality control will veey likely become lower, fight against climate change and moving away from fossil fuels will become harder, whatever money this creates will mostly go to the already wealthy, public services are in serious danger etc.

Multiple citations needed.

These are not some lies the "far leftists ignorants" have come up with but are concerns raised by economists, professors, lawyers, trade unions etc. who have actually read the agreement and have some kind of idea how people's lives will more or less likely be affected.

No source I've read outside bullshit like EFF and Sierraclub has come out with these concerns.

CETA gives a lot more power to big corporations, investors and lobbyists and puts local governments in a disadvantageous position that can be abused by said big corporations.

How does it differ from the dozens of agreements the EU is currently in where this is possible? Name me a single example of companies abusing ISDS provisions since they were introduced in 1957, in the 3200 trade agreements that currently have them.

We have examples of big corporations suing nations because they tried to, say, set stricter limits to coal-related pollution and under CETA investors and corporations have even stronger rights.

I assume you're talking about the Vattenfall case here. That's not at all what happened. It was clear and egregious abuse of investors rights by a green government hell-bent on hurting any and all non-renewable energy provision.

And who cares if the agreement has only been accessed that many times? Do you not understand how Internet works?

I'm talking about the internet buddy.

Emotional nonsense, so you're still handwaving and ignoring all the arguments that have been made.

Nobody has made any real arguments. There are legitimate concerns that could be raised surrounding IP provisions, but people are still on the 'hurr durr ISDS' train.

What so much more is, I'll repeat, we don't need indepent corporate courts who can sue governments.

Well then you should get to work on dismantling the more than 3000 trade agreements that have them.

They don't attempt to understand? You don't.

Lol

It's not the job of the population to read a document which is written in juristical mumbo jumbo, several hundred pages long and was created behind closed doors. That's the job of the media, unions, etc and here in Europe they did a pretty good job to inform the population. So, stop assuming that all people who are against TTIP and CETA are uninformed.

So far everyone against it in this thread, including you, is uninformed. Why would I not assume you're uninformed when it's so obvious you are?

 

[Sony]

So far everyone against it in this thread, including you, is uninformed.

.

You're really arrogant. The points you make are rediculous.

"Hey this ISDS clause has been in trade deals for a long time, that's why it's ok!"

Those ISDS clauses have been in the trade deals because no issues has been made out of it that get the attention TTIP/CETA does. If it already exists does not mean it's safe to impose.

Your choice argument doesn't make sense at all. You're saying that if crappy cheap food comes into supermarket shelves, we have the choice not to buy it. What do you think will happen to the other offerings? Don't you think they'll also lower their standards now that it's allowed in order to gain a higher margin?

You're rhethoric for why you like TTIP/CETA is that if potentially, if carried out well it might maybe be beneficial to the customer. Only problem is that the food industry has done jack shit in the past to deserve this level of trust. On the contrary.

This is just on the food aspect. The energy aspect isn't even discussed yet. Europe is doing fine as is, we don't need TTIP/CETA. The quality of your food will go down, the regulations will be looser and if anyone tries to do something about it, there is a clause that allows corps to sue. How you cannot see the problem is in this is unfathomable to me. Oh but the less than 1% gain people and corps might have, so percet, so good, ECONOMY!

 

[cebri.one]

Nationalism and protectionism on the rise. Yayyy.

We tried that in the early 1930s, it worked very well (irony).

 

[Fiend]

So far everyone against it in this thread, including you, is uninformed. Why would I not assume you're uninformed when it's so obvious you are?

Yes, I'm totally uninformed, have no idea what I'm talking about and it's totally obvious.
You're a joke, get off your high horse.

 

[darkace]

. You're really arrogant.

Yep, but I'm also right and backed by a wealth of literature.

"Hey this ISDS clause has been in trade deals for a long time, that's why it's ok!"

'Hey, these clauses have been in trade agreements for over half a century and I can't point to a single time that they have had outcomes we should disagree with. But it'll be wrong this time guys, for sure! I can't tell you how they differ from previous agreements or what specifically is wrong with them, but they just feel wrong. Ya feel?'

Those ISDS clauses have been in the trade deals because no issues has been made out of it that get the attention TTIP/CETA does. If it already exists does not mean it's safe to impose.

I honestly can't parse what you're saying here.

Your choice argument doesn't make sense at all. You're saying that if crappy cheap food comes into supermarket shelves, we have the choice not to buy it. What do you think will happen to the other offerings? Don't you think they'll also lower their standards now that it's allowed in order to gain a higher margin?

Good question. A better one is why BMW's exist in a market with Ford. Clearly the only areas consumers discriminate with is in respect to price.

You're rhethoric for why you like TTIP/CETA is that if potentially, if carried out well it might maybe be beneficial to the customer. Only problem is that the food industry has done jack shit in the past to deserve this level of trust. On the contrary.

What?

This is just on the food aspect. The energy aspect isn't even discussed yet. Europe is doing fine as is, we don't need TTIP/CETA. The quality of your food will go down, the regulations will be looser and if anyone tries to do something about it, there is a clause that allows corps to sue. How you cannot see the problem is in this is unfathomable to me. Oh but the less than 1% gain people and corps might have, so percet, so good, ECONOMY!

I honestly don't even know how to respond to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Yes, I'm totally uninformed, have no idea what I'm talking about and it's totally obvious.
You're a joke, get off your high horse.

Na there's a really good view up here.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I don't expect Americans to understand the quality of European ingredients. The typical (as in what a huge majority of people buy, I know you can find better stuff but almost no one buys it) quality of ingredients in America is so low that Americans are flummoxed by the concept of a butter and cheese sandwich. Their typical cheeses don't have sufficient quality to carry a sandwich with cheese and nothing else.

PMI is more complex than 'lost profits', it's because they feel the government expropriated their intellectual property without compensation - their trademark, brand name, brand associated goodwill, etc. They lost and had to pay Australia back, but they never intended to win - rather, while Australia was bogged down in negotiations, other countries will refrain from implementing plain packaging themselves

So Australia came up with a way to regulate cancer sticks. A product which has never ever done anyone anything good, and causes millions of deaths. And you consider the megacorporation's right to defend their ability to control their branding more important than the health of millions of Australians? If so, you are so far up the corporations' asses that I don't see why I should take anything you say seriously

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Seems like people on both sides hate it. That means that TTIP and CETA are either really fucking shitty or the politicians just did a really bad job explaining them.

 

[darkace]

So Australia came up with a way to regulate cancer sticks. A product which has never ever done anyone anything good, and causes millions of deaths. And you consider the megacorporation's right to defend their ability to control their branding more important than the health of millions of Australians? If so, you are so far up the corporations' asses that I don't see why I should take anything you say seriously

This is, far and away, the dumbest post I've ever seen.

I don't give a shit about cigarettes. What I do give a shit about is governments not having the right to arbitrarily expropriate IP and assets without due compensation. Why do you feel you have the right to steal property because you disagree with it?

And they fucking lost. They sued because they knew ignorant peeps would start railing against the proceedings because they don't understand them. Anybody in the industry would tell you PMI was going to lose from the outset, they were protecting their shareholders by exploiting the populations' ignorance on how ISDS works. They would lose less money paying Australia's expenses at the ISDS court than they would through the introduction of plain-packaging legislation around the world.

Also I like how not a single person I pressed for actual evidence responded with some. It's almost as if nobody actually has any that's worth a damn.

 

[Dre]

The biggest problem I have with CETA is that it undermines the climate goals set at the Paris Climate Change Conference.
The human race is on a clock to address and solve the climate crisis and CETA would be a major setback if gets approved.

Who would stop big corporations from shaping future environmental laws?
If they deem that a rule may threaten their business, they could according to the concept of ‘regulatory cooperation’ influence the decision-making before any proposal is discussed at the European Parliament. Which is also a problem because it is highly undemocratic.

I get that with CETA the EU hopes to reduce its dependence on Russian gas, but is allowing unlimited export of US fracked gas and the highly toxic Canadian tar sands oils really the answer?
Would U.S. citizens and Canadians be ok with increased fracking and tar sands production?

So regardless of its benefits for the economy, we as human race are in no position and just can't afford to put trade above the environment. Our generation might not feel the repercussions but what about the people in two or three generations?

 

[samn]

Good. I'm sorry guys, but I don't want US food (and its inherent lack of regulation) in the EU.

it's bad enough we're getting Hershey bars over here.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

This is, far and away, the dumbest post I've ever seen.

I don't give a shit about cigarettes. What I do give a shit about is governments not having the right to arbitrarily expropriate IP and assets without due compensation. Why do you feel you have the right to steal property because you disagree with it?

And they fucking lost. They sued because they knew ignorant peeps would start railing against the proceedings because they don't understand them. Anybody in the industry would tell you PMI was going to lose from the outset, they were protecting their shareholders by exploiting the populations' ignorance on how ISDS works. They would lose less money paying Australia's expenses at the ISDS court than they would through the introduction of plain-packaging legislation around the world.

So the death industry (tobacco) used ISDS, even though they knew they would lose, just to intimidate smaller countries, that don't have the resources to fight massive American lawyer teams from making similar legislation to protect its citizens?

And this is a good thing?

Hail Hydra?

 

[Sarek]

Anybody in the industry would tell you PMI was going to lose from the outset, they were protecting their shareholders by exploiting the populations' ignorance on how ISDS works. They would lose less money paying Australia's expenses at the ISDS court than they would through the introduction of plain-packaging legislation around the world.

I'm amazed you actually try to use that as a defence. PMI using ISDS as a tool to scare other countries to act the way PMI wants isn't actually something most people would consider to be a good thing. If anything it is worse than using it tool for solving legimate disputes.

 

[darkace]

So the death industry (tobacco) used ISDS, even though they knew they would lose, just to intimidate smaller countries, that don't have the resources to fight massive American lawyer teams from making similar legislation to protect its citizens?

Since we're going full emotional hyperbole, why do you think giant bureaucratic legislatures with representatives essentially unanswerable to citizens outside of oligarchic elections should have the capacity to rob citizens and workers with threat of jail and incontrovertible force? The people most impacted by uncompensated expropriation are the workers, why do you want to take away one of the only impartial voices from the most vulnerable in society?

Also show me a single example of a country without the capacity to fight a fucking legal battle. Honest to God the average fee for lawyers and payout is less than $10 million. What country can't spend $10 million on something they're going to win and receive their money back plus damages?

These arguments are so terrible. Can people use Google before coming up with something you can debunk in three seconds.

https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2016/04/rr13.pdf

Here's a report by an actual expert debunking everything you've said. Please read it.

I'm amazed you actually try to use that as a defence. PMI using ISDS as a tool to scare other countries to act the way PMI wants isn't actually something most people would consider to be a good thing. If anything it is worse than using it tool for solving legimate disputes.

So you want to allow countries to expropriate assets because citizens are ignorant of how the legal process works? The gains from ISDS proceedings in total are in excess of 10% of GDP for poorer nations, do you think that that is a sufficient trade-off for big mean companies posturing?

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

So far everyone against it in this thread, including you, is uninformed. Why would I not assume you're uninformed when it's so obvious you are?

So how much are you getting paid to spout lines of defense such as this?

Sarcasm aside, if you're actually serious on holding a discussion about the benefits of the TTIP or CETA or why you feel both of these deals are actually a good thing; blanketing everyone who simply doesn't agree with you as having no clue on what they're talking about isn't exactly the most compelling or respectful of arguments.

 

[cebri.one]

So how much are you getting paid to spout lines of defenses such as this?

On a less sarcastic note, if you're actually serious on holding a discussion about the benefits of the TTIP or CETA or why you feel both of these deals are actually a good thing; blanketing everyone who simply doesn't agree with you as having no clue on what they're talking about isn't exactly the most compelling or respectful of arguments.

Well , he is laying some arguments while others are recurring to the usual cliches about free trade. So he is got a point about others not really knowing that they are talking about, like free trade destroying jobs or this treaties being keep secret. Is trump/sanders bullshit rethoric.

 

[darkace]

So how much are you getting paid to spout lines of defense such as this?

Sarcasm aside, if you're actually serious on holding a discussion about the benefits of the TTIP or CETA or why you feel both of these deals are actually a good thing; blanketing everyone who simply doesn't agree with you as having no clue on what they're talking about isn't exactly the most compelling or respectful of arguments.

Literally every argument is debunk-able through basic knowledge of economics (free trade doesn't destroy jobs), or a three second Google search (ISDS procedures are one of the best tools for global stability and growth ever created, they massively decrease risk, increase investment, and stop countries invading other countries when their investors are unfairly treated, like the US did 88 times prior to WW2).

Why would I treat arguments as if they're deserving of respect when they're not? Why would I take people's claims to be informed seriously when they're fundamentally wrong at a basic level?

Not every argument is equally deserving of respect. Climate change is real. The Earth revolves around the Sun. TTIP and CETA are massive net positives for almost everyone involved. These are all rudimentary truths.

You can critique aspects of the treaties, such as the IP provisions, which the empirical basis for is weaker, but so far the arguments are fundamentally ignorant of the basics, not a nuanced critique at the margins.

 

[le-seb]

They don't, provided said policies don't disproportionately impact foreign companies, or expropriate assets without compensation.

They obviously want to, otherwise they wouldn't need such a clause.

PMI is more complex than 'lost profits', it's because they feel the government expropriated their intellectual property without compensation - their trademark, brand name, brand associated goodwill, etc.

You seriously believe this shit? lol

They lost and had to pay Australia back, but they never intended to win - rather, while Australia was bogged down in negotiations, other countries will refrain from implementing plain packaging themselves

So you're telling me that they used this action as a way to scare other countries and prevent them from managing their health policies as they wished?

Thanks for making my point.

And Lone Pine Gap is a textbook example of how not to handle legislation as a country - introducing it without prior consultation, without scientific basis, and after the company made strategic decisions to push forward in this area that the Quebec government failed to reimburse.

Such a situation couldn't happen today in the EU, due to our precautionary principle, but since TTIP tries to impose the traditional American risk based approach and to level down EU standards, it may happen in the future.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Pedrito]

You can be for or against trade deals and that's fine, but the hysteria over ISDS in this type of threads is a bit over the top.

-Corporations can already sue governments, ISDS or not.
-Arbitration clauses are standard in any commercial contract.
-Court proceedings can take over a decade, with never ending appeals, and cost a fortune in legal fees.
-Arbitrators are nominated by both parties, not by the "industry".
-And the main issue: Would a Bulgarian company trust the Canadian courts in a trial against the Canadian governement? And vice versa? It's less of an issue with CETA though because all the parties are functioning democracies, as opposed to the TPP.

 

[darkace]

They obviously want to, otherwise they wouldn't need such a clause.

I want a billion dollars. It doesn't mean it'll happen.

You seriously believe this shit? lol

I'll just write out how a company can sue and win. You clearly know already, but I'll remind everyone else:

Companies can sue and win only when; The government expropriates their assets without fair compensation or; the government acts in a discriminatory fashion to foreign companies (favouring domestic companies over foreign) or; when the government acts 'in bad faith' against a foreign company (laws that disproportionately and with prejudice target foreign companies). Regardless, that only allows them to sue for financial compensation, and not necessarily successfully given companies only win a third of ISDS disputes. It doesn't give them any power over legislation.

I don't believe anything, I just understand how it works.

So you're telling me that they used this action as a way to scare other countries and prevent them from managing their health policies as they wished?

Thanks for making my point.

Citizens ignorance of how ISDS works is not a reason to not be for it. ISDS is one of the best tools for global stability ever created.

Such a situation couldn't happen today in the EU, due to our precautionary principle, but since TTIP tries to impose the traditional American risk based approach and to level down EU standards, it may happen in the future.

Thanks, but no thanks.

What?

 

[mdubs]

^ Unlike TTIP, CETA has been made public for ~2 years, now.
You can get a summary from the European Commission.


Just talking about CETA, because what leaked of TTIP is even more one-sided.

Right now, there are 1.374 registered designations in the EU, and CETA only covers 145 names.
90% of EU procurement contracts will be open to Canadian businesses, but only 30% of Canadian procurement contracts will be open to EU businesses.

How can we be fine with this?

I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that one side to this agreement is more than 10 times the size of the other

 

[Rocked]

Clinton is a complete globalist. If America elects her you best believe TTIP will get through eventually. Trump meanwhile is against it.

 

[kami_sama]

Clinton is a complete globalist. If America elects her you best believe TTIP will get through eventually. Trump meanwhile is against it.

Sorry, while Trump has called for the stop of TTIP, can we really believe him? The man that tried to have Mexico pay for a wall, and after not getting anywhere, said the usa would pay for it and send the bill to the other side of the border?

And yes, Clinton's globalism worries me, but I still think TTIP is dead in the water, the EU has still some sort of people's representation, unlike america.

 

[PdotMichael]

Why don't you guys support TTIP? Darkace's combination of you are dumb and you should know it better posts are pretty convincing.

 

[darkace]

Why don't you guys support TTIP? Darkace's combination of you are dumb and you should know it better posts are pretty convincing.

Hey maybe I should give you citations so you can completely ignore them like last time I attempted talking with you.

I've provided citations above and I've repeatedly asked for people to bring evidence. There's not much more I can do against baseless conjecture, especially given people won't back it up.

 

[PdotMichael]

Hey maybe I should give you citations so you can completely ignore them like last time I attempted talking with you.

What happened last time?

 

[Bubba_Sparks]

I'm not heavily involved in or knowledgeable of TTIP and CETA, but reading the last page or so of this thread makes the anti-trade side seem very uninformed. I have no way of verifying what Darkace is saying, but he is making a much more reasoned and fact based argument than the anti-trade side. The people he has repeatedly asked to give explanations on specific grievances with clauses of the trade deal have repeatedly failed to do so. I don't want to pick to sides, but if you wish to criticize something you gave to put forward a reasoned argument. So far, I haven't seen that from the anti-trade side!

 

[le-seb]

What?

Lookup article 191 of the Treaty for the functioning of the European Union, and article XX of the GATT.

Regarding its application, ask Texan firm Schuepbach how much money it got from France following the passing of a law forbidding fracking on its territory.