Advertise On EU-Digest

Annual Advertising Rates
Showing posts with label EU-US Trade Talks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU-US Trade Talks. Show all posts

5/2/16

TTIP trade talks: Greenpeace leak 'shows risks of EU-US deal'

EU standards on the environment and public health risk being undermined by compromises with the US, Greenpeace has warned, citing leaked documents.

The environmental group obtained 248 pages of classified documents from the TTIP trade talks, aimed at clinching a far-reaching EU-US free trade deal.

Secrecy surrounding the talks has fuelled fears that US corporations may erode Europe's consumer protections.

But the EU's top trade official denied any agenda to lower EU standards.
"I am simply not in the business of lowering standards," said EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem in her blog, after the Greenpeace leak was published.

TTIP's supporters say a deal would create many new business opportunities.

TTIP stands for Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It would harmonise regulations across a huge range of business sectors, providing a boost to exporters on both sides of the Atlantic.

The 13th TTIP negotiating round took place last week and the European Commission says it hopes to achieve a deal later this year. That could avoid any political risk posed by the US presidential election in November.

The EU's chief negotiator, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, said some of Greenpeace's points were "flatly wrong", and stressed that the leaked text "is not a reflection of the outcome of the negotiation".

Read more: TTIP trade talks: Greenpeace leak 'shows risks of EU-US deal' - BBC News

11/28/15

EU-USA: Transatlantic trading deal

The guns of the long transatlantic beef war are silenced. Last year the European Union more than doubled its quota of American beef imports (so long as it is not treated with hormones) and America removed punitive duties on imports of Roquefort cheese. The Americans should soon ease a ban on beef imports imposed in 1997 to prevent the spread of mad cow disease. In November the EU accepted the American practice of decontaminating meat with lactic acid. A final skirmish, over American beef fat, could soon be settled through plans to allow imports of tallow for biodiesel (but not for cosmetics).

After decades of trade rows and lawsuits, the truce is meant to clear the air for an ambitious transatlantic free-trade deal. EU officials speak of creating “something approaching a transatlantic single market in goods”. Even a less grand pact could help to re-energise struggling economies on both sides of the Atlantic. It could also help America and Europe to set international trade rules in the face of a fast-rising China.

Big business wants a deal. Trade unions and greens are no longer so worried about a race to the bottom. The ever-protectionist French and Italians are on board. And yet there is genuine wariness, particularly on the American side.

The report of a high-level group that is expected to recommend the start of talks has been delayed. Perhaps, think some, President Barack Obama is trying to squeeze concessions out of the Europeans; or, Europeans worry, he cares more about a transpacific deal; or he is busy setting up his second-term administration; or is he waiting for the right moment for an announcement, for instance in his state-of-the-union message on February 12th?

American officials say they want to ensure that any negotiation is both unusually ambitious and unusually fast. The deal, they say, has to be done “on one tank of gas”, by which they mean in the next two years. Neither side wants a repeat of the moribund Doha round, now in its 12th year.

America and the EU make up the world’s biggest and richest trading partnership, accounting for about half of global GDP and one-third of trade. They are the biggest investors in each others’ economies. But this very closeness makes progress harder. Easy deals have mostly been done; what is left is complicated. Tariffs are low (below 3% on average, though higher on farm products) but non-tariff barriers abound. Many have to do with consumers, public health, the environment or national security. Governments are not usually elected to compromise on such matters.

One European aim is to open up America’s public-procurement market, which is more protected than Europe’s; one reason is that the federal government cannot force states to open tenders to foreign bidders.

Another is to dismantle restrictions on services, which represent the lion’s share of output but a relatively small part of exports. European airlines cannot take over American carriers or carry passengers between American cities. Similar restrictions apply to coastal shipping under the 1920 Jones Act. Yet the EU market in services also remains fragmented. A transatlantic deal could spur further integration.

Other difficulties include France’s insistence on the “cultural exception” to protect French-language audio-visual products, and the EU’s wish for America to respect hundreds of “geographical indications” on everything from Parmesan cheese to French wines.

Read more: Transatlantic trading | The Economist

11/6/14

EU-US Trade Negotiations - lack of transparency: A brief history of the TTIP: Stop this corporate plunder - by Colin Todhunterr

No-TTIPThe corporate jargon surrounding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal is about ‘protecting’ investment’, reducing ‘unnecessary’ barriers and ‘harmonising’ regulations that supposedly deter free trade between the US and the EU.

In principle, the notion of trade that is free and fair sounds ideal. But, across the world, the dominant ideological paradigm allows little scope for neither. Markets are rigged , commodity prices subject to manipulation  and nations are coerced , destabilised  or attacked  in order that powerful players gain access to resources and markets.

On 11 October, over 400 groups across Europe took to the streets to demonstrate against the TTIP, which has just ended its seventh round of talks in Washington. While some groups are accused by supporters of the TTIP of being ideologically driven in their opposition, it is not ideology that drives this opposition.

It is sceptism and suspicion fuelled by the prevailing pactices and actions of powerful corporations and their ideological brand of neoliberalism and rampant privatisation. The secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding the TTIP fuels this suspicion. The public has not been allowed to know who set the agenda for the negotiations or what specifically is being negotiated supposedly its our behalf?

The public is expected to put up and shut up and leave it all to those who know best: EU officials with their deep-seated conflicts of interest and big business. It has been mainly through leaked documents and recourse to freedom of information legislation that the public has gained insight into the nature of the negotiations.

When questioned about the nature of the group, the European Commission (EC) said it had no identifiable members and stated that “several departments” contributed to the discussion and the reports of the (memberless) group. It even stated that there was no document containing the list of authors of the reports. A request by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) to disclose membership/report authors was met with the response: “Unfortunately we (the EC) are not in a position to provide you with the information requested.” 

CEO argued that the group should be subject to the transparency requirements set up in EC’s rules on ‘expert groups’, including transparency about who participated.

The US wants all so-called barriers to trade, including highly controversial regulations such as those protecting agriculture, food or data privacy, to be removed. Even the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, made it clear that any agreement must also reduce EU restrictions on genetically modified crops, chlorinated chickens and hormone-treated beef .

Read more: A brief history of the TTIP: Stop this corporate plunder

7/29/14

EU-US Trade Negotiations: EU worries over U.S. investor rights is also stalling Harper's EU trade deal - by S. Chase and B. McKenna

T
Does EU need a lopsided trade deal with US ?
he Globe and mail reports that Stephen Harper’s efforts to clinch a massive trade pact with the European Union have got caught up in growing public anxiety among Germans over what rights U.S. investors would get in a similar deal – the latest bump in the road for the Prime Minister’s long-sought agreement.

Berlin’s concerns most recently came to light on Saturday when a Munich newspaper quoted unnamed German officials saying they could not sign the Canada-EU deal in its current form. At issue, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported, are rights granted to foreign investors to challenge Berlin policy makers’ decisions, with the final say going to an independent arbitration panel rather than German courts.

Nine months have elapsed since Mr. Harper and European Union officials held a mission-accomplished press event to herald a tentative deal, but what were supposed to be merely followup technical discussions have dragged on longer than expected.

Germany’s ambassador to Canada said he does not believe investor rights will be a deal-breaker.
“This is a very important but small part of a very comprehensive agreement which will benefit both sides. So this will certainly not bring the process to a halt,” Werner Wnendt said in an interview.

But, the envoy added, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung article reflects concerns in Germany that need to be taken seriously. “It reflects a debate that is ongoing,” he said.

The real worry for Germans and most of the EU is mainly the separate trade agreement the EU is presently negotiating with the United States.

The majority of EU politicians in Europe say that the potential EU-US deal which has a lot of similarities to the Canadian trade deal  provides far too many liberties to US investors and corporations, thereby becoming "untouchable" in terms of EU legal standards and also even able  to sue EU governments whenever it suits them.

EU-Digest

6/25/14

EU-US Trade Talks: Thorny Issues Revealed in US-EU Trade Talks

US & EU - US Agriculture Secretary was in the European Union last week, emphasising the importance of agricultural trade in negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). Stumbling blocks to progress appear to include GM crops, hormones in beef and food processing technology.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was in Europe last week meeting with agricultural trade officials and stakeholders to expand US agricultural trade and to emphasise the importance of agriculture’s role in the T-TIP currently being negotiated, according to the US National Chicken Council in its Washington Report.

Mr Vilsack met with officials in Brussels, Luxembourg, Paris and Dublin to make the US case on disputed issues in farm trade, as the Obama administration and European Union work on negotiations in T-TIP.

The US Agriculture Secretary stressed the benefits that the trade agreement could have on both the US and EU economies.

However, grounds for disagreement on agricultural issues are numerous including issues regarding genetically modified (GM) crops and food processing techniques.

Meeting with reporters, Mr Vilsack said that if “sound science” shows such products and practices to be safe, European consumers should have the option of purchasing the food that results.

He said: “If we are truly interested in feeding the world, truly interested in doing so with less pesticides and chemicals and truly interested in doing so with more inclement weather and more intense weather patterns because of climate change, we are going to have to adopt science.”

Read more: Thorny Issues Revealed in US-EU Trade Talks - The Pig Site

1/11/14

NSA Spying: White House says President Obama will reveal NSA review, reforms January 17 - by Katie Long

Hold onto your hats, the White House has announced that it will…announce reforms to the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs.

President Obama will address the issue in a speech next Friday. Though no final decisions have been released, Obama may move to curtail the collection of U.S. citizens’ phone records and restrict surveillance of friendly foreign leaders, according to the Associated Press.

The hotly anticipated speech comes after months of meetings with top lawmakers, privacy advocates and tech executives, as well as a broad review of the NSA commissioned by the president. That review panel recommended dozens of changes to the country’s surveillance practices, including banning the government from undermining data encryption and stripping the NSA of its power to collect bulk phone data.

In case you missed it, you can read the full digest of recommendations, which came out in December, over at The Guardian.

Note EU-Digest: don't hold your breath on this one EU, apart from lots of talk probably very little action, with Republicans controlling the Congress and Democrats the Senate. Only direct  action by EU,  like putting the EU-US trade talks and Open Border agreement on ice will make something happening.

Read more: White House says President Obama will reveal NSA review, reforms January 17

11/11/13

EU-US Free Trade Talks: NSA spying scandal clouds second round of EU-US free trade talks

Originally, the second round of talks on the so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP) between the European Union and the United States was scheduled to be held in October. However, the US government shutdown postponed negotiations.

Moreover, allegations that the US intelligence agency NSAspied on EU leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, sparked bitter recriminations and calls in Europe to halt TTIP talks.

Issues of trust had been raised, an EU official close to negotiations told the German DPA news agency on Friday, adding that the matter would not be a subject on the agenda of the talks.

Nevertheless, the EU's personal data protection standards would not be compromised in the discussions as the transfer of data in general was a key component of a modern economy, the official said.

The current round of talks, which began Monday, covers services, investment, energy, raw materials and focuses on regulatory issues. Negotiations were still in an exploratory phase, the EU official said, adding that it would take a further round to identify more clearly where the talks might need a political impulse.

Tariffs between the EU and the United States are already rather low, meaning that the free trade talks need to focus on reducing regulations and bureaucratic hurdles. Controversial sectors are said to be agriculture, including food safety, as well as the auto industry. Harmonizing regulatory standards in the car industry, for example, might cut costs by 20 percent, the EU estimated.

Note EU-Digest: several members of the EU parliament have voiced the suggestion that if these talks ever come to an agreement it, not only the national parliaments would have to agree but that the agreement  should also be subject to an EU- referendum  with all member countries participating.

Read moreNSA spying scandal clouds second round of EU-US free trade talks | Business News | DW.DE | 11.11.2013

9/27/13

US - EU Trade Negotians:"will the EU have to give up the store to create 740.000 extra US Jobs?

A second and more intense round of US-EU negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is slated for next month. Those talks are likely to elicit greater scrutiny on the contours of a potential agreement and its impact on the American and European economies broadly. But there will also be a focus on regional and industrial-sector consequences. For the US, that means states, local businesses and American households will all be affected.

With this in mind, the Bertelsmann Foundation, in partnership with the Atlantic Council and the British Embassy in Washington, DC has released “TTIP and the Fifty States: Jobs and Growth from Coast to Coast”, a landmark study that assesses the economic benefits of a fully implemented US-EU free-trade agreement on the economies of all 50 US states.

The report, which can be found here, finds that an ambitious TTIP agreement—one that eliminates trans-Atlantic tariffs, reduces costs of non-tariff regulatory barriers by 25 percent and halves public-procurement barriers—could lead to more than 740,000 TTIP-related US jobs, the equivalent of the entire workforce of New Hampshire.  Additionally, states such as California (75,340), Texas (67,780), New York (50,520) and Florida (47,540) could see significant TTIP-related job gains. Nationally, nearly 1 in every 160 US jobs in existence could be attributed to the TTIP agreement.

Among the reports other findings:
  • US states would see annual exports to Europe increase at an average of 33-percent.
  • The motor-vehicle sector would see substantial growth, serving as the top sector for export growth in 19 states. 
  • States well integrated into the supply chain of the trans-Atlantic automobile market (particularly Alabama, South Carolina and Michigan) would experience significant export boosts in this sector. Michigan alone would see an increase by 95-percent under an ambitious TTIP agreement while Alabama and South Carolina would see increases of 187 and 138-percent, respectively.
  • Chemical exports would also increase substantially, accounting for top sectorial export increases in 13 states. Pennsylvania alone is estimated to increase its chemical exports by $2.3 billion, a 34-percent increase. 

The report was officially released on September 24th at an event with UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and US Senators Christopher Murphy (D-CT) and Ron Johnson (R-WI). Deputy Prime Minister Clegg called the report “a compelling read”, adding that despite the existing large trans-Atlantic trade relationship, Europeans and Americans can do better and create more prosperity. The senators echoed this sentiment, with Johnson hailing free trade as a “win-win proposition” and Murphy arguing that TTIP offered an “unassailable case” for benefits to the US economy. 

EU-Digest

9/18/13

EU-US Trade Talks: EU Negotiators Should Wake Up and Engage the Public in TTIP

As Brussels awakes from its 2-month summer hibernation, policymakers, parliamentarians and business representatives alike may discover that their US counterparts have continued outreach efforts to US stakeholders for consultation and support. With the second negotiation round of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) coming up, the EU's negotiating team risks looking like a paper tiger with a negotiating mandate that merely exists in theory and lacks input and public support from Member States, businesses and civil society organizations as well as trade unions and the public. This seriously undermines the EU's negotiation position and the European Commission should step up its game to consult, involve and mobilize the European side to work towards the best possible deal.

Where the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Mr. Michael Froman, has actively engaged with the US business community in public discussions over the summer, the United States International Trade Committee (USITC) carries out several new sector-specific studies on the effects of TTIP and will soon embark on a small and medium enterprises (SME) road show throughout the country. The Commission seems less proactive. Yes, it has launched an informative website with orderly summarized widely available information and it has set up a twitter account (@EU_TTIP_TEAM). It diligently organized a debriefing session in the European Parliament and a civil society dialogue. I welcome all these efforts, but they look more like courtesy calls (to prevent another ACTA setback) and lack a sense of urgency and the enthusiasm to make the TTIP negotiations process a true European joint effort and success.

The opportunities are manifold. Just as the Eurozone is climbing its way out of the recession and growth seems to pick up slowly, the Commission should use TTIP to provide those struggling businesses, whether multinationals, SME's or self-employed professionals, with a perspective of new growth and jobs. Surveys show citizens expect more growth to come from the global economy than from EU policies. TTIP is where the two meet. Why not have the Commission representations in all EU Member States, who for the last years have been associated with bookkeepers enforcing the EU 3% deficit rule, reach out to businesses to ask them which challenges and interests they have in transatlantic trade relations (or the EU's common commercial policy in general). The Commission should also use the expertise at universities in developing cutting-edge proposals on regulatory cooperation. Independent research should help inform the public and stakeholders alike.

TTIP could be a true joint effort between citizens, businesses, politicians and the European institutions. This is a time where the EU has to deliver by cutting red tape through reaching a comprehensive, future proof trade deal with our largest trading partner. Such a deal should boost economic growth and employment. But instead, the Commission seems to lay low, avoiding public debates on issues that will be controversial. But that will come back as a boomerang. TTIP, like any trade agreement requires give and take, something Commissioner De Gucht has been telling the White House from the beginning. But that notion requires appreciation beyond technocrats as well.

So instead of focussing on the process, which Brussels policymakers too often do, it is time to shift the discussion to substantial issues. Inviting businesses to come up with input, joint submissions with their US counterparts on technical regulatory issues or involving European researchers, start-ups and engineers to make sure we have an answer to the American machinery that will undoubtedly put its mark on the final deal. I will contribute to this process by hosting dedicated stakeholder meetings in the Parliament and also in the Member State I know best, The Netherlands. These meetings will tackle one issue at a time instead of framing the TTIP negotiations as one big fairy tale with only winners. We must be realistic. These are going to be increasingly tough negotiations in which the Commission's negotiators need all the input they can get to be ambitious in representing the EU´s common interest. Currently they risk taking public awareness and support for granted.

For more go to Atlantic Community

8/15/13

The US-EU trade deal: don't buy the hype - by Dean Baker

There has been a big push out of Washington to convince the public that an economic bonanza awaits us if we can just complete a trade deal with the European Union. This is complete nonsense, unless we define down bonanza to mean finding a quarter on the street.

The first point to recognize is that the promised pot of gold from this trade deal is illusory. Last week, the media held out the promise of an increase in US GDP of $122bn from the trade agreement. The facts that this referred to GDP in 2027, and that the $122bn would be in 2027 dollars, were absent from the discussion.

It also might have been worth mentioning that this $122bn was a best-case scenario in the study that was cited (pdf).

This figure assumed that the trade agreement included all plausible reductions in tariff barriers.
The study also gave numbers for a deal that it described as "less ambitious" and, presumably, more realistic. Its projection of the increase in 2027 GDP in this scenario is 0.21% of GDP. That is roughly equal to a normal month's growth. Since it will take 14 years to achieve this gain, the boost to growth would be just 0.015 percentage points annually.

If that sounds too small to notice, you've got the picture. And just to be clear, this study was produced by an organization in the United Kingdom, the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR),* that is for the most part very supportive of the trade deal.

As growth policy, this trade deal doesn't pass the laugh test, but that doesn't mean that it may not be very important to a number of special interests and, for this reason, bad news for most of the public. Since conventional barriers to trade between the US and EU are already very low, the focus of the deal will be on non-conventional barriers, meaning various regulatory practices.

Each industry group has a list of regulations that it finds troublesome, which it has been unable to eliminate or weaken at the national or sub-national level. An EU-US trade agreement provides these industry groups with an opportunity to do an end-run around such regulation.

For example, several countries in Europe and many state and county governments in the United States impose restrictions that make fracking difficult or impossible. In their dream agreement, the oil and gas industries will have a set of minimal restrictions on fracking. The deal will then define anything more stringent as a restraint on trade subject to penalties.

There are likely to be similar effects on food regulation. Europe has far more restrictions on genetically modified foods and crops than the United States. Since it is not possible, given current European politics, for the industry to get these restrictions eliminated, it will be looking to include provisions in a trade deal that define limits on genetically modified foods and crops as trade barriers.

Millions of people took part in the efforts last year to defeat Sopa and Pipa, two bills that would require individuals and internet intermediaries to proactively work to stop the transmission of unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material. The entertainment industry would very much like to include comparable provisions in a trade agreement, so that it can avoid having to have another fight over this issue in Congress.

The financial industry will also be at the table trying to include language that limits the ability of governments to impose regulations. It is likely that it will try to include wording that would make it impossible to enforce a financial transactions tax like the one now being considered by the European Union. Although the industry may not be able to sway enough votes in European parliaments to prevent them from supporting a tax, they can use an EU-US trade deal to make that fact irrelevant.

And just as has been the case with every other trade agreement over the past quarter century, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to this trade deal as an opportunity to enhance its patent monopolies. It will likely push for restrictions on price controls and probably also ways to extend the length and scope of their patent monopolies. The CEPR study does not include any projection of the economic losses that would result if the pharmaceutical industry is successful in increasing protection and pushing up drug prices.

The list of industry special interest groups that hope to gain from this deal could be extended at some length, but the point should be clear. This deal is first and foremost about providing powerful industry lobbies with an opportunity to circumvent the normal political process.

As far as the projected gains to the economy from the deal, finding a quarter on the street is the right comparison. If we apply the projected income gain of 0.21% to the projected median personal income in 2027, it comes to a bit more than $50 a year. That's a little less than 15 cents a day. Don't spend it all in one place.
Read more: The US-EU trade deal: don't buy the hype | Dean Baker | Comment is free | theguardian.com

7/17/13

EU-US Trade Talks: Privacy issues loom over EU-U.S. trade talks - by Jessica Meyers

Disclosures about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of European diplomats shrouded opening talks last week on a massive agreement between the European Union and United States that would redefine digital trade. While the revelations’ effects remain unclear, they have magnified privacy concerns and further politicized an already tense debate over information access and ownership.

Negotiators now face an even knottier battle to reconcile the tech industry’s push for digital freedom with European desires for individual protections.

“Right now, the Europeans have a much better hand to play,” said Danny O’Brien, international director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It looks a lot worse to say we should let this data flow in and out of the U.S. when everybody knows the government is tapping these ins and outs.”

Spying protocols don’t factor into the talks as much as commercial privacy regulations. But the regions differ widely in their views on privacy and data protection, and the scandal hands Europeans a negotiating tool in one of the deal’s most contentious issues.

Read more: Privacy issues loom over EU-U.S. trade talks - Jessica Meyers - POLITICO.com

7/9/13

U.S.- E.U. trade talks open amid new criticism from labor, environmental groups - by Howard Schneider

U.S. labor and environmental groups, largely silent in the run-up to the U.S.-Europe free-trade talks, now say they worry that the negotiations could be used to weaken consumer, health and other standards on both sides of the Atlantic.

Talks over what could become the world’s largest free-trade zone officially began Monday in Washington, with U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman telling negotiators from the United States and Europe that they were poised “to complement one of the greatest alliances of all time with an equally compelling economic relationship.”

As the U.S. and E.U. economies struggle to boost growth, activist groups said Monday that they worry that the compulsion on both sides will be to push toward lower regulation — with the United States trying to undercut generally more restrictive food and chemical rules in Europe, and the Europeans trying to tear down government procurement restrictions that favor U.S. companies and to weaken U.S. financial rules that impose new restrictions on European banks.

“We caution against unwarranted optimism. There are significant risks” in the negotiations, said Celeste Drake, a trade analyst with the AFL-CIO, including demands by Europe for U.S. states and cities to drop “buy America” or other local purchase provisions.

Rather than see the United States become more restrictive in the rules governing genetically modified foods, the regulation of chemicals and other safety issues, the activist groups see the nation pressing Europe for looser standards. Environmental groups said in a conference call Monday that they also worried that the terms of an agreement could give Europe unlimited access to U.S. natural gas supplies and thus increase the use of “fracking” to meet the demand for exports.

Note EU-Digest: "As one undisclosed European negotiator remarked after the first meeting:" when you make a deal with the devil someone will get hurt and it won't be the devil".


Read morer: U.S.-E.U. trade talks open amid new criticism from labor, environmental groups - The Washington Post

7/1/13

EU-US relations: "Hit me once; shame on you. Hit me twice; shame on me".

Even before the PRISM revelations the EU had basically already sold out its citizens privacy rights to the US when it signed the data-sharing deals on air transport passengers and banking transactions..

Whoever reads these two security agreements will quickly come to the conclusion that there is nothing bilateral about them and that the "privacy protected" information going from Europe to the US is not matched in detail by the material coming from the US to Europe.

In the meantime the security issues between the two power blocks have only been getting worse.

On Sunday, the online edition of the British newspaper The Guardian reported additional details about the surveillance program. The newspaper said that one document it had obtained listed 38 embassies and diplomatic missions in Washington and New York, describing them as “targets.” It detailed a broad range of spying methods used against one, including bugs implanted in electronic communications gear and the collection of transmissions using specialized antennas.

The list of targets included the European Union’s missions and the French, Italian and Greek Embassies, as well as those of several other American allies, including India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Turkey, The Guardian reported.

In an interview published in full last night on "Davies' blog", former NSA director General Michael Hayden said: "The changes made to Fisa in 2008 were far more dramatic – far more far-reaching than anything President Bush authorized me to do."

Davies told the Observer that confirmation of the secret agreements showed there was a need for the EU to investigate. "It's clear that the European parliament must intervene at this point through a public inquiry," Davies said.

"MEPs should put the interests of their citizens above party politics and create meaningful reforms."

Its been going on for quite awhile - this covert data-sharing relationship between leading European countries and the US was first outlined in a 2001 report by the European parliament.

In Germany, where criticism of the NSA’s surveillance programs has been particularly vocal, a senior government official accused the United States on Sunday of using Cold War methods against its allies by targeting EU offices in Washington, New York and Brussels.

German federal prosecutors said they were examining whether the reported U.S. electronic surveillance programs broke German laws. In a statement, the Federal Prosecutors’ Office said it was probing the claims so as to “achieve a reliable factual basis” before considering whether a formal investigation was warranted.

It said private citizens were likely to file criminal complaints on the matter, but didn’t comment on the possible legal merits of such complaints.

Meanwhile, it has also emerged that at least six European member states have shared personal communications data with the NSA, according to declassified US intelligence reports and EU parliamentary documents.

The documents, seen by the Observer, show that – in addition to the UK – Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy have all had formal agreements to provide communications data to the US. They state that the EU countries have had "second and third party status" under decades-old signal intelligence (Sigint) agreements that compel them to hand over data which, in later years, experts believe, has come to include mobile phone and internet data.

Under the international intelligence agreements, nations are categorized by the US according to their trust level. The US is defined as 'first party' while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy 'second party' trusted relationships. Countries such as Germany and France have 'third party', or less trusted, relationships.

Investigations on security breaches by the EU Parliament and other European agencies should, however, not only focus just on the US. 

There are lots of security issues which deserve attention  One of them concerns the Chinese, who not only have proven to be A1 cyber spies but also have shown to be able to infiltrate into a country's economic structure quite legally.

During the past 5 years Europe has had a large influx of Chinese immigrants, many of the highly qualified University trained computer analysts, who were given "fast track" immigrant status by local EU Governments. This mainly because of their excellent educational qualifications. Today we find many of them employed in strategically and economically important companies ( some even in Government) all across Europe.

With the latest security allegations it should be quite clear to EU parliamentarians and politicians around Europe that the time to play "footsy" with the Americans, or any other nation for that matter, on issues of security is over. As the saying goes, "Hit me once; shame on you. Hit me twice; shame on me".

EU-Digest ©

3/18/13

EU wants to include financial services in U.S. trade talks

The European Union's top trade official said on Saturday he wants financial services to be included in negotiations on an ambitious EU-U.S. free trade pact.

The United States and the 27-nation EU agreed last month to launch negotiations on a wide-ranging Transatlantic free trade agreement, but details of what the talks will cover have been limited.

The EU's executive Commission approved a proposed European negotiating mandate last Tuesday but kept its contents secret.

The negotiating mandate must be approved by EU governments before the launch of negotiations, which the EU and the United States hope to start by June.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said on Saturday that financial services are among the sectors that he proposes to include in the negotiations.

"On financial services, you have two aspects - you have on the one hand the regulatory (aspect) and then you have the market access," he told a conference organized by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a group which aims to strengthen transatlantic cooperation.

He said the question of regulating financial services should not be part of the trade negotiation, although he said it was obvious that transatlantic discussions on this matter would continue independently.

Read more: EU wants to include financial services in U.S. trade talks - Yahoo! News