Restreint UE / EU Restricted
May 2, 2016 11:59 AM   Subscribe

Greenpeace Netherlands have released for download what they claim to be the secret TTIP negotiation documents, which reveal that many of the worst fears of the trade agreement's opponents may be real. Activists are claiming it's a significant nail in the coffin for the controversial agreement.
posted by Grangousier (15 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite
 
The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower.

Congratulations, USA! Our jobs are now approaching third-world "ship 'em overseas to the US where they don't have to treat their employees well" levels.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:10 PM on May 2, 2016 [43 favorites]


Is there anything in these leaks that would cause TTIP to unravel independently of Greenpeace saying it will? It's hard to find any info about this that doesn't come with Greenpeace spin. The NYT, for one, says that "Monday’s revelations . . . could further complicate efforts to finalize the sensitive trade talks, even if there did not appear to be big bombshells within the documents." Frankly, I'm skeptical these will be any kind of deciding factor.
posted by Dr. Send at 12:23 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


On the contrary; I think the most likely occurrence is that these revelations will splash against the side of the TTIP juggernaut, washing off immediately, and not impeding its progress in the slightest. There's nothing compelling our masters to acknowledge these revelations as in any way true, or as in any way relevant; it is not for us little people to know these things, but to be grateful for the shower of crumbs trickling down from the high tables that such mysterious agreements serve.
posted by acb at 12:40 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh, I think this will have an effect. TTIP has finally made the MSM news agendas, and the general tone abroad is of deep suspicion. I read - but cannot confirm - that both main candidates in the Austrian election have said they do not support and will veto TTIP, and as far as I know that would be enough to do it.

In the UK, Cameron has said he will not apply for exemption for the NHS from the TTIP, while all the other major parties are pushing him to do so. As awareness of TTIP grows, so does public disapproval, and this really does have an effect when applied at an EU-wide scale.
posted by Devonian at 12:49 PM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Unfortunately, I have no doubts stopping the TTIP would mean a bunch of different treaties with the same end results instead.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:32 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I note that in the recent NYT apologetic on his economic legacy, Obama was quoted as saying:
“It’s one of the reasons that I pursued the Trans-Pacific Partnership... not because I’m not aware of all the failures of some past trade agreements and the disruptions to our economy that occurred as a consequence of globalization, but rather my assessment that most trends are irreversible given the nature of global supply chains, and so we better be out there shaping the rules in ways that allow for higher labor standards overseas, or try to export our environmental standards overseas so that we have more of a level playing field.”
After these revelations it's kinda difficult to maintain that the TTIP was pursued in the context of an assessment that it would improve (rather than hit hard) labor standards, but one could make the case that "exporting our environmental standards" is indeed a major goal of the Obama administration, but in the sense of actually reducing everybody else's.
posted by talos at 2:02 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm reasonably okay with our EU jobs going to the USA rather than China, assuming as I do that they will go abroad.
posted by alasdair at 2:17 PM on May 2, 2016


As a Dutch voter, I voted against the EU constitution. So they called it a treaty and we got it anyway. Just a few short weeks ago, I voted no on the Ukrainian trade agreement. There's talk they'll figure out a few symbolic opt-outs in Brussels and ratify it anyway.

So I hope you don't mind I'm being a bit cynical about all the news reports stating that TTIP is "in trouble" now.
posted by DreamerFi at 2:22 PM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't agree. Things change - things are changing - and if you can throw enough spanners in the works to repeatedly delay bad things, then other factors can kick in. Playing for time can be an excellent tactic. It may not work, of course, but sometimes it does.

But if you go 'oh, fuck it, we can't win', then you are absolutely guaranteed to be right.
posted by Devonian at 2:30 PM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Cameron has said he will not apply for exemption for the NHS from the TTIP

It's already exempt, so it's not clear why it would need a super-double-plus exemption.
posted by jpe at 3:44 PM on May 2, 2016


I'm reasonably okay with our EU jobs going to the USA rather than China, assuming as I do that they will go abroad.

Once in the US, though, they will most likely end up in China anyway.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:12 PM on May 2, 2016


Activists have killed trade deals with narrower focuses, like ACTA. It's necessary that TTIP dies so hopefully it'll die too. I mean, "restriction of public access to pharmaceutical companies’ clinical trials" is a recipe for disaster.

There is a cute mathematical argument that laws, including trade deals, must never be negotiated in secret : Assume the political-legislation spectrum is a vector space of dimensions at least two with voters positioned throughout. If you control the process of proposing legislation, then you can pass absolutely any legislation you want.

It's exactly these arguments like "we should export environmental legislation to improve it in poorer countries, if only Europe will give us control over their environmental legislation" or "we'll enact tougher labor standards if only you relax banking regulations" that allow the proposal process to pass anything they want.

Anytime anyone wants secrecy to "negotiate" legislation, treaties, etc. they actually mean to bypass the voting process.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:32 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]








« Older Wall Street Journal Guide to Parenting   |   Today, we're going to get WEIRD. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments