TTIP

[magicjuan]

Isn't that what is going on though? People are complaining that they don'tat's being negotiated, but that they've heard rumours that it's going to be awful. Then when the EU come out and say, "well actually, it isn't going to be like that at U are accuselegislationing dishonest/corrupt.

If that isn't being predisposed to a point of view I'm not sure what is This may well turn out to be an absolute turkey of a dl, but I'm really not sure quite what evidence we have of that being the case, or indised of the peopl negotiating this of being as corrupt as is alleged.

I mean in practically every political debate on here, the majority have fallen broadly into line behind the notion that the private sector can't be trusted because it's blinded by profit. Now it seems that most of those are also saying the public sector can't be trusted because they're also blinded by something or other.

It's all a bit tinfoil hat to me.

I think I mentioned previously that the Mulitilateral Agreement on Investment, the first attempt at this sort of deal, was blocked a good few years ago, corporations want this legislation, they are desperate for it to be enshrined as it releases a raft of blockages for them. It does actually supercede soverign legislation as it overarches boundaries within the agreement and it aligns approaches singularly thereby removing national cultural preferences. It is putting everone in the same bracket as an identikit consumer.
By doing this the concept of choice is reduced and the fabric and necessities of all societies dtart to become identical.

This is as much a cultural attack as economic. The intent as I see it is to singularise the consumer to bypass competition and lose the ideal that that competition would drive down prices. The same happened with the minimum wage, it is actually the reverse of what it was sold as and has become a general de facto 'maximum' wage for certain industries, especially servide industries and tied to zero hours contracts creates a 21st century workhouse industry.

History has shown these types of pacts are smoke and mirrors and sold on the benefits to consumers when the reality is they wouldnt get near the legislative process unless there was a lot to gain and benefit the corporate puppetmasters

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Exactly, you shouldn't doubt anyone's integrity here (by your own standards), attend to the facts.

Sorry Bruce, have you read that preface yet ?

I had a quick scan over it just now. I'm still not sure I see anything in it that warrants the fuss being made.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think I mentioned previously that the Mulitilateral Agreement on Investment, the first attempt at this sort of deal, was blocked a good few years ago, corporations want this legislation, they are desperate for it to be enshrined as it releases a raft of blockages for them. It does actually supercede soverign legislation as it overarches boundaries within the agreement and it aligns approaches singularly thereby removing national cultural preferences. It is putting everone in the same bracket as an identikit consumer.
By doing this the concept of choice is reduced and the fabric and necessities of all societies dtart to become identical.

Can you give me an example of what you mean here?

 

[orchard]

Can you give me an example of what you mean here?

This, is an example from earlier, on my understanding of what Juan's written:

[...]
For example: It's commonly accepted that the EU have agreed to drop the precautionary principle it abides by regarding food safety, viz., rather than the EU demand that food and chemicals be proven safe before introduction, we'll abide by US standards which permit there introduction until proven unsafe.

 

[magicjuan]

Can you give me an example of what you mean here?

Standardisation, on the face of it. It's quite difficult to highlight the specifics when the intent is the crux.

The breakdown is less regulation and the freedom to trade with the ability to claim compensation from non compliant nation legislature or the impedance of profit making as a result.

As I highlighted you have to go into the MAI and do a comparison to see the intent, the specifics are fluff and theatre.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This, is an example from earlier, on my understanding of what Juan's written:

That's the very first item listed in http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153266.pdf

"Fact: EU standards simply aren't up for negotiation. TTIP would uphold them all."

Now they could be lying of course, but to go to the effort of creating a document effectively saying that they're really, really, really not lying, to then go and do so would be pretty brazen, wouldn't it?

They put it in black and white that TTIP wouldn't require the import of GM crops or hormone treated meat or anything else that the EU has decided should be banned.

 

[magicjuan]

This, is an example from earlier, on my understanding of what Juan's written:

That's true you have to go down the rabbit hole and follow the Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21 to see how the combined processes work, like a pincer movement, the permissible gaps are plugged by previous and subsequent legislation. It's a game of chess in effect, blindsiding the democratic process and the publics

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Standardisation, on the face of it. It's quite difficult to highlight the specifics when the intent is the crux.

The breakdown is less regulation and the freedom to trade with the ability to claim compensation from non compliant nation legislature or the impedance of profit making as a result.

As I highlighted you have to go into the MAI and do a comparison to see the intent, the specifics are fluff and theatre.

Surely the specifics are all that matter? Without that we're just talking generalisations and platitudes about this, that and other happening and it being really bad. Well what will be bad and how will it be so?

I'm not really getting why standardisation is an issue or how it's caused by TTIP so was hoping an example might clarify matters a little.

 

[orchard]

That's the very first item listed in http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153266.pdf

"Fact: EU standards simply aren't up for negotiation. TTIP would uphold them all."

Now they could be lying of course, but to go to the effort of creating a document effectively saying that they're really, really, really not lying, to then go and do so would be pretty brazen, wouldn't it?
They put it in black and white that TTIP wouldn't require the import of GM crops or hormone treated meat or anything else that the EU has decided should be banned.

Not a lot of effort to produce propaganda really, considering what's at stake Bruce. The EU have already started lowering standards to conform, like with GMO's for instance.

Just ask yourself what we have to gain from a trade deal. I import, personally, from the US, and the duty's only Circa 5% if it is a US product, compared to something like 50% from China.

 

[magicjuan]

That's the very first item listed in http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153266.pdf

"Fact: EU standards simply aren't up for negotiation. TTIP would uphold them all."

Now they could be lying of course, but to go to the effort of creating a document effectively saying that they're really, really, really not lying, to then go and do so would be pretty brazen, wouldn't it?

They put it in black and white that TTIP wouldn't require the import of GM crops or hormone treated meat or anything else that the EU has decided should be banned.

But it wouldn't disallow them either, so, the corporations push GMOs by sheer weight, pricing, edging non GMOs to a small sub section, it's what I was getting at with eradicating and reducing choice for the consumers. The US are pushing through legislature enabling GMO label sleight of hand, the mass media portrays it as a non story and because tgere are no longer any blocks to overcome the stuff is on the market and pushed to the front

 

[magicjuan]

Surely the specifics are all that matter? Without that we're just talking generalisations and platitudes about this, that and other happening and it being really bad. Well what will be bad and how will it be so?

I'm not really getting why standardisation is an issue or how it's caused by TTIP so was hoping an example might clarify matters a little.

No, the specifics are illusory. Specify a single benefit other than profiteering? It is, as I say, a chess move.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not a lot of effort to produce propaganda really, considering what's at stake Bruce. The EU have already started lowering standards to conform, like with GMO's for instance.

Just ask yourself what we have to gain from a trade deal. I import, personally, from the US, and the duty's only Circa 5% if it is a US product, compared to something like 50% from China.

The World Health Organisation have said that GMO poses no health risk, the Royal Society of Medicine say the same, as do all of the studies into their safety. I'm sure there are many valid concerns around food safety in the world, but use of GMOs isn't one of them. I mean how many million more people need to have consumed it over how many more years before it's regarded as safe?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But it wouldn't disallow them either, so, the corporations push GMOs by sheer weight, pricing, edging non GMOs to a small sub section, it's what I was getting at with eradicating and reducing choice for the consumers. The US are pushing through legislature enabling GMO label sleight of hand, the mass media portrays it as a non story and because tgere are no longer any blocks to overcome the stuff is on the market and pushed to the front

With GMO, it's probably portrayed as a non-story because it is a non-story. I worked extensively within the environmental NGO community for several years, and whilst they have done some fine work, they made a clanger by their insistence on GMO being the work of the devil and unsafe. It isn't, and that's been proven by the vast numbers of people that have safely consumed it over the past 15 years.

The European Commission may be coming around to that point of view not because of coercion but because it's the scientific consensus.

Regarding the choice matter though, it probably depends. Within the UK grocery market there is a huge amount of choice already, and even in America you have companies like Whole Foods carving out a very large niche for themselves.

I can't imagine there being a scenario where every bit of food on our shelves is genetically modified, unless that is the overwhelmingly sensible thing for it to be, which given the continued growth of the human population that may well be the case in our lifetimes.

 

[magicjuan]

It isn't just GMOs, it's hormones, steroids etc which are linked to cancer increases. To say GMOs are safe is taking us into getting your children to eat it and let's see what happens.

The World Health Organisation have said that GMO poses no health risk, the Royal Society of Medicine say the same, as do all of the studies into their safety. I'm sure there are many valid concerns around food safety in the world, but use of GMOs isn't one of them. I mean how many million more people need to have consumed it over how many more years before it's regarded as safe?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It isn't just GMOs, it's hormones, steroids etc which are linked to cancer increases. To say GMOs are safe is taking us into getting your children to eat it and let's see what happens.

With you on the steroids and all that, but I'd happily feed my little sods GMO food