Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

Now I understand why you think the EU is a net positive, you fail to realize the difference between laws and EU regulations.
In countries, politicians make laws for their own population, for the people that elect them. And although they are certainly not always effective or just or good, but at the very least the politician is motivated to have the citizens be happy with the law. Many laws are indeed as you describe, mostly good with only some people unjustly negatively affected or not at all. ( E.g. Don't murder people is quite a popular law).
EU regulations are not made for the people that elect you, but against other countries. There's competition and strong conflicts of interest between different counties, and the goal of the powers there are to get something they want. To stick to the original example: In large area's of the Balkan and Greece people made Feta cheese for generations, Denmark managed to make even better Feta, and because Greece had to accept the 'protections' of so many regional products they to were entitled to forbid others to do stuff and as a quid pro quo Greece is now the only country allowed to make Feta and all the Farmers in the Balkan countries suffer, as well as the consumers. This is the example of a single product, and with almost all of them you find something wrong, and instead of a few dozens of 'protected' products there are now hundreds.

The more you learn about EU procedures and regulations, the more you learn this is the norm: Perhaps sometimes the idea can be justified in a specific situation, but overall it does more harm than good.
So when the EU has a new project - one which has a powerful long term effect in overruling national laws - people are highly skeptical.

Please point me to some EU regulations that have done a lot of harm. I'm interested to know them. You keep bringing up one cheese, but I think the EU economy runs on a bit more then that.

And those other farmers can still make their cheese. They just call it something different, so it is clear for the consumer what they are getting.

Also, we elect the EU officials, either directly or through out own national parliaments.

 

[KingV]

I mean the likelihood of something like that happening is contingent on the governing party no? I mean, a hard left or right electoral sweep can make such behaviour very possible in the future.

Sure but if you're going to go that route, then why have treaties at all, because bad actors can always violate them.

The arbitration policy has no enforcement tool other than the honor system.

 

[YourMaster]

Please point me to some EU regulations that have done a lot of harm. I'm interested to know them. You keep bringing up one cheese, but I think the EU economy runs on a bit more then that.

And those other farmers can still make their cheese. They just call it something different, so it is clear for the consumer what they are getting.

Also, we elect the EU officials, either directly or through out own national parliaments.

You're still looking at it from the wrong side, almost all of their policies do harm. Some a lot, some are policies with minor impact and thus minor harm. Cheese was just a minor example, but you can take agriculture in general if you must. Or if you want small details, you mentioned wine for example. The EU has mandated - by request of France and Italy - that EU countries have to keep an exemption for wine so consumers can't know the (added) ingredients in a bottle of 'wine'. Here is an overview of bad policies.

And yes, we elect the EU officials, but not EU-wide. Somebody from Poland can't elect Farage for example. So the officials that Poland elects are there to get as big an advantage from Poland within the EU: make laws that harm all other countries. And as people want to get stuff done, their comprises are that all countries get to implement a few laws to harm all other countries.
If you find this difficult to believe, ask yourself why there are EU laws at all - if a European bureaucrat thinks of a good law he could just publish it to inspire national governments see it and can implement it themselves.

The only reason to have laws on a EU wide level would be to organize stuff that would be beneficial to be unified among all countries, where they completely fail. Trains from Sweden can't fit on train tracks from Portugal, and a tax-id number from a Greek national can't be used to work in Germany. A Belgium national can't renew his passport in France. We don't all speak the same language. You know, the kind of stuff that would make it easy for a Spanish national to make stuff in his backyard and sell it across the entire EU.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Free trade has been hugely beneficial to the human species. It does affect a minority drastically to the benefit of the drastic majority.

While I agree with the general sentiment of your post (comparative advantage and all that) that graph alone cannot be used as evidence that free trade, specifically, is the only reason for poverty falling. You could only make that argument if you assume that free trade is the only thing to have changed in the world during this period, ignoring stuff like technical advancement et cetera.

And yes, we elect the EU officials, but not EU-wide. Somebody from Poland can't elect Farage for example. So the officials that Poland elects are there to get as big an advantage from Poland within the EU: make laws that harm all other countries. And as people want to get stuff done, their comprises are that all countries get to implement a few laws to harm all other countries.

If you find this difficult to believe, ask yourself why there are EU laws at all - if a European bureaucrat thinks of a good law he could just publish it to inspire national governments see it and can implement it themselves.

And this makes perfect sense. If you make a huge free trade area, like the EU, it stands to reason that certain compromises would have to be made. The huge benefits from the increased trade in the European Union outweigh any small drawbacks from some harmful (to some, beneficial to others) regulations. If those concessions had to be made in order to get everyone on board and get the Union going, most would agree that is a good thing.

Elected members of EU parliament representing their own countries is not at all controversial. This is the case for any federal parliament, e.g. US congress

 

[ape2man]

Come on guys CETA is not a free trade agreement but a investors agreement. Remove ISDS from the agreement and i'm all for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

 

[YourMaster]

And this makes perfect sense. If you make a huge free trade area, like the EU, it stands to reason that certain compromises would have to be made. The huge benefits from the increased trade in the European Union outweigh any small drawbacks from some harmful (to some, beneficial to others) regulations. If those concessions had to be made in order to get everyone on board and get the Union going, most would agree that is a good thing.

Elected members of EU parliament representing their own countries is not at all controversial. This is the case for any federal parliament, e.g. US congress

You forget the US has a national government as well that takes care of the things that need to be handled nationally. It is a single country, and it is very easy to move from Alaska to Florida if there are jobs available there.

And you've got it flipped, there are huge drawbacks for minor benefits. Innovation, competition and a healthy economy are not just 'minor things' to sacrifice in order to get an additional layer of legislation.
There's trade between EU members despite the EU, not because of them. Free trade does not require a EU-anthem and countless laws. It does not require the destruction of - for example - the Greek economy. It needs free trade: allow anybody to sell anything to anybody, and no tariffs.

And to steer it further back on topic: They should have limited CETA to that as well; make Canada stop preventing EU companies from getting government contracts, but don't force them the rename the products they have been selling for decades.

 

[Giant Panda]

Come on guys CETA is not a free trade agreement but a investors agreement. Remove ISDS from the agreement and i'm all for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

ISDS is the enforcement system though. Both Canada and the EU have discriminated against foreign companies in the past so enforcement is definitely necessary.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Come on guys CETA is not a free trade agreement but a investors agreement. Remove ISDS from the agreement and i'm all for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

I agree with you. I don't think ISDS is really necessary in an agreement between modern democracies like Canada and EU countries.

You forget the US has a national government as well that takes care of the things that need to be handled nationally.

I agree, a federal EU government and federal economic programs that help weaker member states is definitely the direction the EU should be taken.

And you've got it flipped, there are huge drawbacks for minor benefits. Innovation, competition and a healthy economy are not just 'minor things' to sacrifice in order to get an additional layer of legislation.

The additional layer of legislation is a means towards the end of hundreds of billions in EU trade.

There's trade between EU members despite the EU, not because of them. Free trade does not require a EU-anthem and countless laws. It does not require the destruction of - for example - the Greek economy. It needs free trade: allow anybody to sell anything to anybody, and no tariffs.

The increased trade has heavily favoured the stronger countries of the union. Having certain other programs helps balance this so that the weaker countries get some benefits as well. Also, allowing anybody to sell anything would lead to a race to the bottom when it comes to things like food production. I'm glad we have certain standards.

I agree that the way the EU treated Greece was a disgrace. Especially with how the Euro so strengthened Germany at the expense of countries like Greece. See this thread for my position on Greece. Their debt is unsustainable, and they need debt relief.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

ISDS is the enforcement system though. Both Canada and the EU have discriminated against foreign companies in the past so enforcement is definitely necessary.

Sure, but that goes the other way around too.

Corporations in general have gotten away with too without paying for the consequences. Human lives will and should always matter more than legal binding agreements.

 

[YourMaster]

I agree, a federal EU government and federal economic programs that help weaker member states is definitely the direction the EU should be taken.

The additional layer of legislation is a means towards the end of hundreds of billions in EU trade.

The increased trade has heavily favoured the stronger countries of the union. Having certain other programs helps balance this so that the weaker countries get some benefits as well. Also, allowing anybody to sell anything would lead to a race to the bottom when it comes to things like food production. I'm glad we have certain standards.

You don't need legislation for trade, and most of the EU legislation has nothing to do with trade. EU policy, not last of which the single currency, is harming economies - not just exclusively Greece - and having poorer EU countries will harm EU trading.

Having standards is just as possible of course. You can have 'free trade' while still not allowing asbestos or contaminated fish to be sold. Just don't make preferential laws for your own companies and you're there. Free trade exist despite governments, not because of them, and it is such an issue because so many government stand in the way of trade.

And giving the people in the EU a single federal government should be preceded by a single European culture, not the other way around. When you force a single set of laws onto completely different people with a very different outlook on life, you don't get a single happy country but severe internal struggles. Having a single currency and thus some shared economic policies has not brought Germans and Greeks closer together.
Within a single country it makes sense to have richer areas helping development of poorer regions, as it is both an investment, and people in both area's pay the same amount of taxes. However, if you decide a country with a 42 hour workweek with a 50% tax rate needs to support a poorer country with a 34 hour workweek and a 30% tax-rate, something goes wrong. It's not fair to ask people from country A to have their taxes used for people who work less, and it's not fair to ask those people to work more then they desire.
The EU as it is designed today, stands in the way of a more federal Europe, and in the way of Europe as a world power. European people don't have a single discourse, no cultural interaction at all - there's no single newspaper or tv show which reaches people in all countries, and there's no EU election at all - just a set of completely national elections that send people to Brussels and Strasbourg. We hardly know how people in other EU nations live their lives, and often can't even talk to each other. Those that do speak English have the best chance to converse over an American platform. Making more EU regulations is not helping any of this.

 

[darkace]

Sure, but that goes the other way around too.

Corporations in general have gotten away with too without paying for the consequences. Human lives will and should always matter more than legal binding agreements.

These binding agreements make human lives better off through increasing investment in countries, as well as dissipating tensions. The world isn't in class conflict, nor is the economy zero-sum. You don't need to take from companies to give to consumers.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

These binding agreements make human lives better off through increasing investment in countries

mostly only true for developing countries (assuming we are talking about ISDS), as the papers you yourself posted showed, so not a factor between Canada/US and EU

as well as dissipating tensions.

say that to countries sued by big tobacco

The world isn't in class conflict

disagree

nor is the economy zero-sum.

agree

You don't need to take from companies to give to consumers.

sure, but this doesn’t change the fact that sometimes there may be a conflict between the public interest and a corporate interest (e.g. wanting to protect your citizens against lung cancer vs tobacco companies wanting to be able to use their branding to make money off of people getting lung cancer

 

[FreedomFighter]

Vigilant Walrus, sent me here (thanks mate).

So glad people are paying attention to this. And glad these are pretty much dead in the water at the moment. We can only hope for a similar fate for the TPP.

 

[Pedrito]

Big tobacco can sue governments, and lose like they almost always do, trade deals or not.

 

[darkace]

mostly only true for developing countries, as the papers you yourself posted showed, so not a factor between Canada/US and EU

I agree. I think the point of these agreements is to standardise language and the nature of FTA's that will be used in the future for developing countries. It's essentially signalling to other potential signatories that you are willing to be part of a system that you may not necessarily benefit from directly.

say that to countries sued by big tobacco

I believe TTIP explicitly carves out tobacco, and I'm not entirely sure about CETA (do you know?).

disagree

I don't have any evidence beyond the circumstantial, so I can't back that one up.

sure, but this doesn’t change the fact that sometimes there may be a conflict between the public interest and a corporate interest (e.g. wanting to protect your citizens against lung cancer vs tobacco companies wanting to be able to use their branding to make money off of people getting lung cancer

I agree. There clearly should be a spectrum of what's allowable. I guess what the spectrum is is up to you.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I believe TTIP explicitly carves out tobacco, and I'm not entirely sure about CETA (do you know?).

I believe you are correct about TTIP and I don't know about CETA. Still, putting in an exception for the industry that has proved to be controversial seems shortsighted. What happens if there is a similar conflict between public health and corporate interest in the future in another industry? An exception for tobacco wouldn't help

 

[darkace]

I believe you are correct about TTIP and I don't know about CETA. Still, putting in an exception for the industry that has proved to be controversial seems shortsighted. What happens if there is a similar conflict between public health and corporate interest in the future in another industry? An exception for tobacco wouldn't help

The sources I've been reading before say that ISDS mechanisms aren't really a concrete tool, but rather one that evolves over time. The first ISDS courts would essentially have been free for alls' that lawyers could have taken advantage of if the knowledge was there.

Not only do new FTA's refine the ISDS mechanism, they also update prior FTA's (for instance the Singapore-Australia FTA was updated to remove tobacco from ISDS).

That said I do think there is room for improvement pertaining to how states can legislate with regards to the environment, labour and the treatment of public goods. Essentially all it should be in these areas is enforced eminent domain and equitable treatment across state lines.

I could be convinced to support harsher ISDS restrictions if issues come to light.

 

[Giant Panda]

Sure, but that goes the other way around too.

Corporations in general have gotten away with too without paying for the consequences. Human lives will and should always matter more than legal binding agreements.

These binding agreements help to create a fair and predictable investment environment, and that is when companies invest, hire more people, raise wages, etc. One big reason why some countries' (Venezuela, Russia) economies have imploded is because the government has made investment unpredictable and unfair. I mean I agree the system isn't and can't ever be perfect, but rules like these with clear enforcement and rule of law is a major factor in economic growth.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Now I understand why you think the EU is a net positive, you fail to realize the difference between laws and EU regulations.
In countries, politicians make laws for their own population, for the people that elect them. And although they are certainly not always effective or just or good, but at the very least the politician is motivated to have the citizens be happy with the law. Many laws are indeed as you describe, mostly good with only some people unjustly negatively affected or not at all. ( E.g. Don't murder people is quite a popular law).
EU regulations are not made for the people that elect you, but against other countries. There's competition and strong conflicts of interest between different counties, and the goal of the powers there are to get something they want. To stick to the original example: In large area's of the Balkan and Greece people made Feta cheese for generations, Denmark managed to make even better Feta, and because Greece had to accept the 'protections' of so many regional products they to were entitled to forbid others to do stuff and as a quid pro quo Greece is now the only country allowed to make Feta and all the Farmers in the Balkan countries suffer, as well as the consumers. This is the example of a single product, and with almost all of them you find something wrong, and instead of a few dozens of 'protected' products there are now hundreds.

The more you learn about EU procedures and regulations, the more you learn this is the norm: Perhaps sometimes the idea can be justified in a specific situation, but overall it does more harm than good.
So when the EU has a new project - one which has a powerful long term effect in overruling national laws - people are highly skeptical.

what a load of bs. EU regulations are made by the EU Commission and parliament both institutions that are run by elected officials or officials appointed by elected governments. The scope of applicanility is just larger than just the territory of one nation

 

[hydrophilic attack]

The sources I've been reading before say that ISDS mechanisms aren't really a concrete tool, but rather one that evolves over time. The first ISDS courts would essentially have been free for alls' that lawyers could have taken advantage of if the knowledge was there.

Not only do new FTA's refine the ISDS mechanism, they also update prior FTA's (for instance the Singapore-Australia FTA was updated to remove tobacco from ISDS).

That said I do think there is room for improvement pertaining to how states can legislate with regards to the environment, labour and the treatment of public goods. Essentially all it should be in these areas is enforced eminent domain and equitable treatment across state lines.

I could be convinced to support harsher ISDS restrictions if issues come to light.

So it seems we are not so far apart as we initially thought. I could be convinced to support a CETA with some dispute settlement mechanism with clearer delineations of what issues you can sue for and/or clear general exceptions about public health, environment, labour and public goods. Hopefully, this is what the latest snag in negotiations will eventually lead to.

 

[darkace]

So it seems we are not so far apart as we initially thought. I could be convinced to support a CETA with some dispute settlement mechanism with clearer delineations of what issues you can sue for and/or clear general exceptions about public health, environment, labour and public goods. Hopefully, this is what the latest snag in negotiations will eventually lead to.

When someone takes a position and you take a position opposed to it you seem more extreme than you actually are. I imagine I'm still more pro-liberalised ISDS than you, but not to any major extent.

 

[YourMaster]

what a load of bs. EU regulations are made by the EU Commission and parliament both institutions that are run by elected officials or officials appointed by elected governments. The scope of applicanility is just larger than just the territory of one nation

Than please explain why a Swedish official should care about what Italian citizens feel about a certain law or regulation? They can neither vote him into, or out of office.
And it is evident by how almost all EU policies and regulations are detrimental to almost all member states.

Because we (Sweden) makes billions off of increased trade due to the European Union. All of Northern Europe does. It's a small price to pay. (Also, it gives us leverage to push for some policies we prefer, e.g. in regards to food safety or labour protection.)

Again with the same kind of fallacy. Trade isn't helped by regulations, trade is helped by strong economies and open access to each others markets. What did help was loading the southern European countries with debt, as they used that money to buy goods. But the crisis has killed that advantage. But that doesn't answer the question: Why wouldn't an official elected by country A, propose a policy that is detrimental to country B when the citizens of country B can't vote against this official.
The second part of your statement hits closer to home: A Swedish official is likely to vote for an Italian proposal if in return he can get support for policies they prefer(but are detrimental to other countries).

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Than please explain why a Swedish official should care about what Italian citizens feel about a certain law or regulation? They can neither vote him into, or out of office.
And it is evident by how almost all EU policies and regulations are detrimental to almost all member states.

Because we (Sweden) makes billions off of increased trade due to the European Union. All of Northern Europe does. It's a small price to pay. (Also, it gives us leverage to push for some policies we prefer, e.g. in regards to food safety or labour protection.)

 

[KDR_11k]

And yes, we elect the EU officials, but not EU-wide. Somebody from Poland can't elect Farage for example.

True but don't all democratic countries have locally elected representatives for at least one chamber? Technically they are only answerable to their district but they still keep the party's goals and the country as a whole in mind. In Germany we even have a whole party that's only electable in one state and they love trying to push rules onto the whole nation that are shit for everybody except their own state.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Seems like the Belgians have accepted it now

 

[Nicktendo86]

Waloon's have caved, deal is on.

 

[Frankfurter]

Than please explain why a Swedish official should care about what Italian citizens feel about a certain law or regulation? They can neither vote him into, or out of office.
And it is evident by how almost all EU policies and regulations are detrimental to almost all member states.

Lol what? This does make zero sense, considering that said "policies and regulations" were passed by the member states in the first place.

 

[djkimothy]

Waloon's have caved, deal is on.

They just couldn't pass on the sweet maple syrup.

 

[tolkir]

Seems like the Belgians have accepted it now

Lol, I will wait one week to believe it because they could reject tomorrow again.

Spoiler

(this isn't info, it's a joke)

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/belgium-canada-eu-trade-deal-1.3823624

Belgium reaches deal to back EU-Canada trade agreement

Justin Trudeau:

 

[orochi91]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/belgium-canada-eu-trade-deal-1.3823624



Justin Trudeau:

Ayyy~~~

Trudeau stays winning

 

[CTLance]

Heh... Man, this has been a roller coaster ride throughout. Last obstacle: didn't the Canadian delegation already say they wouldn't attend the event?

 

[KHlover]

They just couldn't pass on the sweet maple syrup.

It is the best thing to put on waffles after all. Belgian waffle fresh off the iron drowned in maple syrup... *drools*

 

[gutter_trash]

It is the best thing to put on waffles after all. Belgian waffle fresh off the iron drowned in maple syrup... *drools*

I am lifting my boycott of Belgium products when this gets signed,

more Canadians will be able to buy EU made food products, a win win .
EU will be getting maple syrop and Alberta beef

 

[Zaru]

So I've read that the EU commission was forcing the arbitration courts, not Canada.

What in the fuck.

 

[Micerider]

I am lifting my boycott of Belgium products when this gets signed,

more Canadians will be able to buy EU made food products, a win win .
EU will be getting maple syrop and Alberta beef

As long as you keep the poutine within your boarders, I'm ok. I'm even willing to have more Belgian Beers sent out to you to compensate

 

[His Majesty]

They just couldn't pass on the sweet maple syrup.

they added a clause to the agreement that specifies Wallonia receiving a 30% discount on poutine

 

[djkimothy]

they added a clause to the agreement that specifies Wallonia receiving a 30% discount on poutine

I thought they got a discount on season tickets for the Leafs?

I am lifting my boycott of Belgium products when this gets signed,

more Canadians will be able to buy EU made food products, a win win .
EU will be getting maple syrop and Alberta beef

I'm hoping the wine market opens up!

 

[chadskin]

AFP: #BREAKING EU member states approve free trade deal, 'ready to sign' with Canada: statement

itshappening.gif