TTIP is back on the table.

[alhoon]

Before Joe Biden has even claimed victory, Manfred Weber said on Twitter that EU should offer a new TTIP to Biden.

Now, if you want to read about TTIP you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transa...nt_Partnership
The short version is that it is far-globalism. What people accuse globalism off? That's represented in the TTIP. I am a moderate nationalist (in the globalist-nationalist axis) and I am very wary of the TTIP and similar treaties. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, mind you.

If you want to read a decent article that defends CETA and TTIP while not shying away from the issues, I suggest you read this one: https://www.politico.eu/article/its-...sit-to-europe/
The short version is that the article tells us these supernational trade deals are not that bad as long as there's democratic control over them. (Yeah, right... I totally believe that is possible with the stupidity displayed by large parts of the electorates in EU, let alone the divided USA).

And who the heck is Weber? Well, he's a globalist EU-parliamentarian with a busy title and little power. Him proposing a new version of the TTIP was a surprise to me because Weber was not that Globalist in the past. He was a globalist, but moderate one that realized national interests should not be subjected to multinational companies that act like the Iron Bank of Westeros. I guess money talks. Screw you Weber.


Now, why I am very wary of the TTIP:
- I want less integration of world economies, not more. If USA's economy or Germany's economy coughs, we should not all be pulled down as a result. USA and Germany would jump back up while we gather the pieces on the ground.
NOTE: Still I want us to try and contain the move-to-China. Work together even at a cost to keep the factories in the Western World instead of having China and India become the world's manufactures. I don't think a world where the West is mainly services and research and the East is mainly manufacture while Africa/South America are mainly mining/agriculture.

- More importantly, I don't want ####ing multinationals having powers over the world countries. We don't elect the shareholders of a company. I am rightwing. I want separation of business and state! I don't want multinationals dragging the countries to court because X regulation costs them money.
It has been kinda-removed, but it may be back and I am certain the multinationals are working to put some back channels that allow them to strong-arm national governments against the interests of the electorate.

- As important to me is the shady, classified form of this piece of poop. No Transparency in what would be the biggest trade deal in history? With long-lasting effects? Hell no. We don't even know what clauses are there to LEAVE the TTIP.

- Another big issue for me is that TTIP goes over national standards. USA has few regulations on businesses and allows anything on their shelves unless it is proven to be bad. Most countries of the EU have more regulations and don't allow something on the shelves unless it is proven to be safe.
Both approaches (including variations of the above in different countries) work for them. TTIP would go right over them and enforce the standards they want. That hurts both EU and USA and has been debated and protested against.

_______________________________________________________________________________

That said, with Bidet as a PotUS and Merkel/Macron on the wheel of the EU while Italy and Spain (a lot of resistance towards the TTIP) are locked down it is expected some new form of TTIP will show up.

My questions are more or less along the lines of:
- What avenues are there to stop new-TTIP or at least limit it? Vote for nationalists or far-leftwings? Does it HAVE to go there? As an anti-globalist are my only options far right or far left extremists? REALLY???
- Can the Republican senate do something to block Biden from doing that historical trade crime? Can the Republican Representatives along with the few socialist democrat representatives block the new TTIP? Do the anti-globalists have the numbers in the USA legal branch?


If there is one thing that I would agree with Sanders and AOC is their fierce resistance to the TTIP. Socialists in Europe don't have any power and the nationalists are losing power and influence.
The socialists in USA are an important, rebellious and influential part of the Democrats. And since the democrats have gained a sliiight upper hand, perhaps they cannot afford to ignore the "Rebellious teenagers that want to piss off their parents and think they know everything at 16 years old" = leftwings in their midst.

It has come to a time that I look forward to ANTIFA and Proud Boys working together to stop TTIP from the other side of the Atlantic.
I strongly dislike BOTH of these groups. I consider them very very bad for democracy.
And now they're democracy's gatekeepers. Smelly, stupid and irrational gatekeepers. But here we are.

[Cyclops]

Those agreements hurt the non-US party moe than they hurt the US...well they are brilliant for US billionaires. The TTIP (like the TPP) were not foreign plots to impoverish the US, they were US plots to impoverish everybody except the Koch class.

I think Biden has a pretty centrist agenda, Kamala Harris is a moderate Republican in all but name. They are both leaders who can reach across the aisle to ignore their own party's protectionist fringe. Them and the majority of Red and Blue reps and senators will get something through to pay for their election.

FWIW we were pretty happy when Trump junked the Pacific version of this deal, it would have imposed US IP law on our domestic markets and given Disney, Amazon etc even more dominance in our markets, backed by US court decisions. We cobbled our own regional agreement (without hookers or blackjack) in absence of the US which is nice (and hopefully fair) but the lack of US attention in the region has been telling. Trump made some nice fireworks and put up some tarrifs that China can't really challenge directly so they've been taking it out on us and India and others.

Gone are the days when US presidents knew Australia well (Democrat presidents have been pretty ignorant of Foreign policy issues and it showed, Republican presidents only want one thing and its ****ing disgusting), not since Bush Snr has there been a president I can imagine actually taking a non-scheduled call from our PM and listening.

Either we get abandoned to China, or stitched up for Bezos, we're in a narrowing bind with the increasingly naked face of US oligarchism.

[Knight of Heaven]

Before Joe Biden has even claimed victory, Manfred Weber said on Twitter that EU should offer a new TTIP to Biden.

Now, if you want to read about TTIP you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transa...nt_Partnership
The short version is that it is far-globalism. What people accuse globalism off? That's represented in the TTIP. I am a moderate nationalist (in the globalist-nationalist axis) and I am very wary of the TTIP and similar treaties. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, mind you.

Yeah im wary as well, the previous deal didn't had the best interests of the economic tissue of EU, which is composed by small and medium business and enterprises, specially on the Agriculture.
It would only benefit the big corp.

Im not surprised this to be in the agenda once again. As Biden and Harris are neoliberals as they come.

France and Germany should say no. But they didn't before. They even conjured the previous deal, with out everyone knowing about it, and thus underlining the electorate wishes. I doubt they would do something different now. Economic globalism was a mistake, even Krugman acknowledged that, admitting he was wrong in several aspects.
And its the middle classes who are paying for it right now. As big corp, move their production and jobs to Asia where they can find cheaper labor, that the west cant compete with.

[Genava]

Im not surprised this to be in the agenda once again. As Biden and Harris are neoliberals as they come.

Trump was in favor of a TTIP. He simply wanted to renegotiate it, to make it more favorable to the US which means even less regulation to swarm EU market with US products.
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_t..._ttip_chalice/

[Gromovnik]

Ah, fascists and anti-fascists are equally bad for democracy. Wink wink, nudge nudge...

[Knight of Heaven]

Trump was in favor of a TTIP. He simply wanted to renegotiate it, to make it more favorable to the US which means even less regulation to swarm EU market with US products.
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_t..._ttip_chalice/

Which only means a trade deal with trump would be less likely to happen. And from an EU perspective is far easier to say no to Trump then to Biden. As he is not unpopular here as Trump seems to be.


With Trump they were cautious towards this, and they backtracked, and thus delayed the deal, now they might be more willing to go for it, which is even worse.

I wished the EU had someone who looked after their population best interests. Would we see protests again, and Anti EU sentiment rise again because of this?

And i dare remind this was all done by the European commission, which is an institution that doesn't have legitimacy from universal suffrage. Unlike the EU parliament.

[alhoon]

Well, if they try to move for TTIP then yes, I expect anti-EU sentiments. I will be anti-EU too.

[Gromovnik]

EU should be abolished.

[AqD]

You're afraid of fair competition.

25 years after NAFTA was signed, did you see any Mexicans taking American jobs because of their lesser labor rights or weaker regulations? Nope, they are ruined and people are busy crossing the border.

It can't be all that bad. There is no doubt the stronger would prevail.

[Love Mountain]

You're afraid of fair competition.

25 years after NAFTA was signed, did you see any Mexicans taking American jobs because of their lesser labor rights or weaker regulations? Nope, they are ruined and people are busy crossing the border.

It can't be all that bad. There is no doubt the stronger would prevail.

In the early 90s and 80s, their economy was teetering on the brink of collapse. It was an authoritarian state that relied on patronage and crony capitalism with limited trade, far from an ideal place to live. The 90s saw the collapse of PRI, the destruction of the Guadalajara cartel, which had a monopoly on drug trade and violence, and the consequences of a mismanaged monetary policy that was decades in the making. To this day, NAFTA didn't create the corruption, the drug war, or the house of cards that was the Mexican economy. Every time we have a thread about free trade, people don't actually look at the countries that sign these deals.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Please not. Besides the power it gives huge companies over states we really don't need to export food from america. No to the infamous chlorine-chicken.

[alhoon]

You're afraid of fair competition.

I am afraid of multinationals dictating terms to my government. Nobody elects CEOs while we elect our government.

[Gaidin]

To this day, NAFTA didn't create the corruption, the drug war, or the house of cards that was the Mexican economy. Every time we have a thread about free trade, people don't actually look at the countries that sign these deals.

Well, your sort of mixing up the Mexicans that cross the border for work with the Mexicans that benefited from NAFTA and the Americans that benefited from NAFTA. You need to ask yourself why the really nice cars are down to 25k pricetags when the Mexicans that cross the borders are picking crops. It's because the manufacturing car parts for the American car manufacturing plants to use. The Mexicans that cross the border for temp work are doing jobs that by and large, Americans aren't doing. And we aren't losing jobs for it. Good propaganda for Trump though.

What Trump's remix of NAFTA will do with this? Well, who the hell knows. We'll find out in 20 years, just like NAFTA gave both parties their own version of their pricetags once things had 25 years to play out economically and politically.

[Love Mountain]

In terms of cars, people don't see a reduction in nominal prices. The only thing Boomers and Gen X really sees, is that a Honda Accord cost (mid-trim) cost around 20,000$ in the year 2000, but the same model will run you closer to 30,000$ in the year 2020. This, while factories are either automating themselves or moving to Mexico. (Though ironically, the Accord is one of the most American cars you can buy).

NAFTA devastated small-time farmers in Mexico, but it is important to keep in mind that agriculture in Mexico was always controlled by the government and therefore, special interests. The fact that Mexico's food production couldn't keep up with its population is a testament to the inefficiency and failure of protectionist policies. NAFTA saved Mexico from starvation by speeding up commercialization and efficiency of Mexican farms, as well as gradually lowering trade barriers which gave access to cheap food. And yes, NAFTA did lead to mass unemployment in the same sense that the collapse of the Soviet-style "full employment" system led to mass unemployment in post-Soviet Russia. Could this have been done better and with a more delicate hand? Yes. But was pre-NAFTA Mexico a good system? No. Mexico was one economic crisis away from total collapse, in my opinion, and signing NAFTA gave them access to cheap US imports and US assistance with rebuilding their economy. The structural problems of the Mexican economy, which massively contribute to its unemployment, are not the fault of NAFTA, but rather its chickens coming home to roost.

It is also dangerous to have "re-negotiations" or "negotiations" of free trade deals to be under public scrutiny. No offense to the general public, but expecting them to understand the complexities of trade negotiation is like expecting Sukiyama (dummy who is thankfully no longer on this Forum) to meaningfully contribute towards a discussion of nuclear physics. There is absolutely no benefit from doing so.

[Cope]

It is also dangerous to have "re-negotiations" or "negotiations" of free trade deals to be under public scrutiny. No offense to the general public, but expecting them to understand the complexities of trade negotiation is like expecting Sukiyama (dummy who is thankfully no longer on this Forum) to meaningfully contribute towards a discussion of nuclear physics. There is absolutely no benefit from doing so.

If the general public lacks the competence to scrutinize trade negotiations, then you certainly lack the competence to determine what should be under public scrutiny.

[alhoon]

It is also dangerous to have "re-negotiations" or "negotiations" of free trade deals to be under public scrutiny. No offense to the general public, but expecting them to understand the complexities of trade negotiation is like expecting Sukiyama (dummy who is thankfully no longer on this Forum) to meaningfully contribute towards a discussion of nuclear physics. There is absolutely no benefit from doing so.

Transparency does not mean the public is supposed to get the finer parts of the deal. Transparency means that economists that are now sitting outside would be able to check what is in there.
Transparency would also mean that the multinationals that are looking by design to maximize their own profits and serve the interests of their shareholders won't be given even more power to dictate terms to governments that are (supposed to be) looking for the interests of their own electorates.

My problem with TTIP is not clause_33 which I would never understand. My problem with TTIP is that if my government decides to ban products that contain sugar above X, then Coca Cola would be able to drug my government to their own kind of court. If my country decides that until we know more, Genetically Modified food will not be allowed on the shelves, I don't want greedy multinationals to have the means to arm-twist my country to allow them on the shelves.
Do I think GMF is dangerous? Nah. I kinda think they're the future as we're too late to stop climate change from threatening food security without GMF. But I want my government to hold the reigns whether I agree with the decisions of the government or not.

[Love Mountain]

Transparency does not mean the public is supposed to get the finer parts of the deal. Transparency means that economists that are now sitting outside would be able to check what is in there.
Transparency would also mean that the multinationals that are looking by design to maximize their own profits and serve the interests of their shareholders won't be given even more power to dictate terms to governments that are (supposed to be) looking for the interests of their own electorates.

Trade deals like TTIP are hundreds of pages long, touch upon dozens of industries, and involve the work of hundreds if not thousands lawyers, industry experts, and economists. In addition to that, politicians are deeply involved in the process, who very well know the "projected" consequences of any trade deal and which parts of their constituency stand to gain or lose.

Transparency, means that the electorate, the media, and reactionaries, get to pick and choose which parts of the trade deal they do not like. Without understand the process of why such concessions were made, in exchange for what, and how that will personally impact them.

My problem with TTIP is not clause_33 which I would never understand. My problem with TTIP is that if my government decides to ban products that contain sugar above X, then Coca Cola would be able to drug my government to their own kind of court. If my country decides that until we know more, Genetically Modified food will not be allowed on the shelves, I don't want greedy multinationals to have the means to arm-twist my country to allow them on the shelves.
Do I think GMF is dangerous? Nah. I kinda think they're the future as we're too late to stop climate change from threatening food security without GMF. But I want my government to hold the reigns whether I agree with the decisions of the government or not.

"Your country", whatever country that is, stands to gain a great deal from the arrangement which is why they agreed to such terms to begin with. As a sovereign power, the final say on whether such trade deals are signed or not, is with the executive of that coutnry. Now if you think your leaders are selling you out, that's a domestic problem. And if you think the public can competently reason on trade deals, may I remind you, that the same people who bemoaned TPP for its supposed anti-labor, anti-american properties, are the same people who voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. While my opinion on Democracy has changed in the last two years, my opinion on the general intelligence of the electorate, has not. Letting the public weigh in won't produce a better and fairer trade deal. It'll probably do exactly what it did in 2016, which is kill trade deals.

[alhoon]

Transparency, means that the electorate, the media, and reactionaries, get to pick and choose which parts of the trade deal they do not like. Without understand the process of why such concessions were made, in exchange for what, and how that will personally impact them.

And the problem with that is... ? Those nice hundreds of lawyers would not be affected by the deal being transparent, would they?

"Your country", whatever country that is, stands to gain a great deal from the arrangement which is why they agreed to such terms to begin with.

The EU will decide and since the EU didn't agree with it the last time the TTIP was kicked back. But the globalists push again.

As a sovereign power, the final say on whether such trade deals are signed or not, is with the executive of that coutnry.

At huge fines if said decisions harm the multinationals. Fines that would push "moderately against" politicians to vote FOR the change. Fines and penalties that will give even more power to the multinationals to dictate terms.

While my opinion on Democracy has changed in the last two years, my opinion on the general intelligence of the electorate, has not. Letting the public weigh in won't produce a better and fairer trade deal. It'll probably do exactly what it did in 2016, which is kill trade deals.

I would take democracy with its flaws over corpocracy.
If the price to pay is slightly less trade that's fine by me. The governments should look out for the interests of their own electorates. If the population of country A decide they don't want GMF and prefer to lose food security, that's up to them and they will live with the consequences.

Fairer and better trade deals are not the goal here. The goal is to safeguard the powers of the state against the corporations.
Stupid and uninformed electorates should still be the ones putting the politicians in place. And the politicians, elected by the public should have little interference from corporations.

The answer to uninformed electorate is education. That way the public can at least make better decisions on which politicians will be tasked to make the decisions. And I don't want corporations having more power than they already do on which decisions will be taken.
Keep in mind that my position on corporate power on politicians is that Lobbying should be illegal. It is illegal where I am from, BTW. Rich people can still influence politics but they can't make huge official lobbies that push for this or that policy. They have no more rights than the average Joe. They have their votes and they can own channels and newspapers. They cannot give money to politicians and form Superpacs etc.

[Love Mountain]

And the problem with that is... ? Those nice hundreds of lawyers would not be affected by the deal being transparent, would they?

There is no problem. That is how it's supposed to work. The lawyers, experts, and economists carry out the President's agenda and the President is ultimately the one who passes the deal on to Congress for approval. The President, who is elected, and who is very well aware of any backlash once the trade deal is unveiled, as do the Congressmen, who are also elected and who also vote on it.

The EU will decide and since the EU didn't agree with it the last time the TTIP was kicked back. But the globalists push again.

Ah yes, "The Globalists". Lmao.

At huge fines if said decisions harm the multinationals. Fines that would push "moderately against" politicians to vote FOR the change. Fines and penalties that will give even more power to the multinationals to dictate terms.

Multinationals are harmed. There are winners and losers in every deal. You think H&M and Sephora liked increased competition from South Korean companies when US-Korea FTA was signed? You think Hyundai enjoyed the prospect of competition in South Korea's domestic car market due to elimination of tarriffs? Don't be silly. All multinational companies routinely win and lose during trade negotiations.

I would take democracy with its flaws over corpocracy.
If the price to pay is slightly less trade that's fine by me. The governments should look out for the interests of their own electorates. If the population of country A decide they don't want GMF and prefer to lose food security, that's up to them and they will live with the consequences.

You're not losing food security by denying yourself access to worldwide markets. All you're doing is paying more tariffs and propping up inefficient farming. But again, that's entirely your prerogative, and I have no issue with that. As for your comments about corporatism over democracy, it's nonsense. In your particular case, Greece is more than welcome to hold a referendum and leave the EU, leave the monetary union, and to tear down every single treaty that "violates" Greek sovereignty as if Greeks didn't vote for the government that got them to join the EU in the first place.

Fairer and better trade deals are not the goal here. The goal is to safeguard the powers of the state against the corporations.
Stupid and uninformed electorates should still be the ones putting the politicians in place. And the politicians, elected by the public should have little interference from corporations.

Stupid and uninformed electorate is the one putting the politicians in place. The entire point of representative democracy is to elect leaders who will decide things in your best interest, because the electorate is not educated or informed enough to know how to deal with intricacies of parliamentary procedure, or in this case, trade policy.

The answer to uninformed electorate is education. That way the public can at least make better decisions on which politicians will be tasked to make the decisions. And I don't want corporations having more power than they already do on which decisions will be taken.
Keep in mind that my position on corporate power on politicians is that Lobbying should be illegal. It is illegal where I am from, BTW. Rich people can still influence politics but they can't make huge official lobbies that push for this or that policy. They have no more rights than the average Joe. They have their votes and they can own channels and newspapers. They cannot give money to politicians and form Superpacs etc.

I don't consult Facebook when I'm choosing a medical procedure. I give my doctor a blank check and tell him to do what's necessary, and the answer to me being more informed about my medical care isn't for me to go medical school for 6 years. The answer is trusting my doctor and the politicians I elected to manage the healthcare system. If we were to publicly debate even the general points of any particular free trade agreement, such agreements would never get signed, because there are always cleavages of the electorate that get hurt in any trade deal. Putting thousands of Mexican farmers out of work means that the rest of Mexico enjoys cheap beef and grain. Getting rid of thousands of car manufacturing jobs in America, means I either get a cheaper, or a better car for the same amount of money. And allowing "Globalist" bankers to move their money freely around the globe means I can afford 72 month financing instead of 36 month financing.

You're also wrong about lobbying, and don't understand the vital role they play in government. If you don't have industry experts advising the government, you're not going to get a more ideal government, you're going to get a broken government. We didn't build the Interstate without the construction lobby, the commerce lobby, and the car lobby. While campaign finance needs a reform, extremist views like banning lobbying, is not the answer. Nor is the answer to consistently vote in conservatives, who consistently turn out to be grifters eager to have their turn to be bribed by corporations. As any statistics students will tell you, garbage in, garbage out.

[Sir Adrian]

American food should be banned globally as a helath hazard, not imported to other countries.