TTIP:EU-US Trade Negotiations - "EU beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing” - Why the Rush? - by Stephan Richter

Long before the term “transatlantic” became fashionable on the global stage, from 1984 onward I started and chaired the TransAtlantic Futures Forum, a Washington-based discussion forum that convened well over 150 times.

And yet, it is precisely my more than three decades’ worth of living and working experience in the U.S. capital that tells me that Europe should resist the rush-cum-charm-offensive currently laid on by the Obama Administration.

Against ever longer odds, it still wants to get a deal over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) done over the next few months.

As a European, I have the distinct feeling that I have seen this movie before. Remember the disastrous Iraq invasion which supposedly could not wait for another day?

The German and the French governments at the time were very smart and courageous to counsel against the headlong rush into what everybody now recognizes has indeed turned out to be a mega-calamity.

Therefore, a good rule of thumb is this: Whenever the U.S. government is keen to rush the political calendar, be extra careful.

What about the argument raised by TTIP advocates that the world economy is very brittle – and urgently needs a boost? And that such a boost can be delivered via the TTIP?

That certainly sounds very compelling – until you look at the actual numbers. The presumed benefits resulting from a deal, measured in terms of their contribution to U.S., European or global GDP, are much smaller than often advertised.

Moreover, the impression the public is deliberately left with is that the deal would produce economic growth of the stated GDP range each year upon taking effect.

In reality, the projected growth impact would materialize, like a trickle, only over time, and even then probably not for at least another decade.

This is no real surprise. After more than six decades of ever more intense cooperation, the transatlantic trade and investment relationship is already very deep. Any further progress, by definition, must be quite marginal.

As the current legal troubles of two of today’s foremost U.S. corporate icons underscore, U.S. corporations have very little appreciation of the customs of the European market and of European societies.

All these titans of American business actually care about is to take the money they can milk out of European consumers – and run.

Forget all the silly recitations about chickens etc. with which TTIP’s faithful boosters try to belittle European citizens’ very legitimate concerns. The ruthless and callously selfish stance of Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon speak clear enough a language.

In the United States, the privacy rights of citizens, despite all the advertising and grand speechifying on that subject matter, count for very little.

The opposite is the case in Europe, largely due to the twin experiences of Nazism and Communism. Privacy matters a great deal there.

When Mark Zuckerberg wants it to be known that he truly, deeply cares about human relationships, you know you are in deep trouble. Let’s not forget that he founded Facebook because he couldn’t get a date.

These are not companies that care about Europe. What they care about is to carry a big stick – and swing it against anybody who dares to stand in their way.

That is hardly an enticement for any clear-headed European to make common cause with a corporatist democracy à la the United States where corporations, due to the inner workings of the campaign finance system, have the upper hand on all political matters.

Simply put, it is not credible for Europeans to sign a far-reaching transatlantic trade deal until these corporate issues are ironed out.

At this stage, and with the quite sad and disappointing track record the dominant U.S. corporations of our time have built up in Europe, it is a matter of confidence building, not of trusting.

Getting that confidence rebuilt will take a lot of effort – and hence time.

In short, Europeans would be well-advised to take certain actions when true goodwill has been established and when the evidence is in, but not before.

Read more: TTIP: Why the Rush? - The Globali

EU-US Trade Negotiations: The TTIP trade deal is lost at sea "and has no Public support"

The future of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and European Union seems bleak. Beset by doubts and stumbling alongside the UK’s referendum on EU membership, the TTIP is starting to look like an awful lot of effort for unremarkable gains.

US president Barack Obama may have given the negotiation process a shot in the arm in recent weeks, but there is a good possibility that a deal will not be struck during his administration. After that, all bets are off.

So why has such a major piece of international deal-making found it so hard to make headway, and what are the chances of a deal ever being done?

Well, the first reason for the impasse is that no one can agree on what it should cover. It is deeply complex, but there are essentially two choices: should TTIP only apply to the tariffs that countries place on imports, or should it also address other barriers to business, mostly technical regulations on things like car safety, or the procedures for testing new chemicals?

Estimates for the economic benefit to the EU from a tariffs-only deal come out at just 0.3% of GDP for the EU as a whole. If we abolish all non-tariff barriers, then we get a 4% boost.

That makes it seems like an easy decision from an economic point of view, but it’s highly contested.

The reason for the logjam is clear. Going far enough to make it economically valuable drags into play all sorts of political and social issues. Our reading of the draft texts is that it won’t, in fact, lead to significant harmonisation or even mutual recognition of existing rules.

There are procedures to make sure future regulations are as compatible as possible, but there is nothing explicit to say that regulatory decision making powers will be transferred. Indeed, it is hard to see the US Congress accepting anything else.

That might seem like an effective compromise, but of course, any weakening of the approach to non-tariff barriers may in turn dampen the economic advantages.

The less complicated route – a TTIP which only removes tariffs – would bring very limited gains. Both EU and US tariffs are generally very low, except for cars, chemicals and agriculture. Their removal would have only a small effect.

At its heart, the far more valuable non-tariff route drags up fears, founded or unfounded, of a regulatory race to the bottom on things like food safety, and objections from NGOs about the loss of domestic policy power on things like health or government procurement. Crucially, TTIP has also raised the (contested) possibility of major corporations suing states.

There is another obstacle. In short, governments love handing out contracts for public works to domestic companies; it keeps local industries happy, and maybe a few political donors too. No huge surprise then that after 13 rounds of negotiations the TTIP impasse on public procurement remains.

Both the EU and US are parties to the World Trade Organisation’s plurilateral agreement on government procurement but the EU’s big picture was for TTIP to trade access to European state agriculture spending for inroads into highly protected US procurement markets, particularly at the state level. But the US steadfastly refuses to concede to market access demands, due to its traditional and entrenched domestic lobby groups – the steel industry, small and medium-sized firms, and disadvantaged communities.

It’s a missed opportunity. We could have increased transparency with a standardised e-procurement system and tender forms. Much more could be gained through harmonising definitions of integrity and conflict of interest concepts, along with strengthening corruption control measures. It’s a win-win for improving the governance of public procurement markets – but negotiations have been dominated by intractable trade issues and the fears of ISDS.

In such a confrontational atmosphere, it is doubtful that a meaningful TTIP can be concluded. Sceptics’ doubts may be exaggerated, but they still reflect genuine public alarm.

The general confusion is highlighted by supporters of a UK exit from the EU, who argue both that the UK could sign a TTIP deal very quickly after Brexit, and that that leaving the EU is the only way to stop it. In any case, unless a deal is rushed through before the end of 2016, prospects for a deal are bleak.

Of the likely presidential candidates, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are likely to make TTIP a top priority in a future US administration.

Meanwhile, public opinion – and crucially the German government – move closer to outright opposition.

Read more: The TTIP trade deal is lost at sea

GMO Propaganda: Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, US Report Says - by Maggie Fox

Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday.

But the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are not just asking people to take their word for it. They're putting the evidence up on a website so skeptics — and they know there are plenty of them — can check for themselves.

"You can't just continue to have an opinion without backing it up with data," said Fred Gould, distinguished professor of entomology and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.

"Part of our approach here was to make this not just a report," added Gould, who chaired the expert committee that released the report. "This is all on a website. We hope that this report will open a conversation, not make some kind of a proclamation."

"They really want somebody to say this is good or this is bad, we came to the conclusion that making any sweeping generalizations about genetically engineered crops is not appropriate," Gould told NBC News.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the huge debate over GMOs, only two types of genetically engineered crops are in wide use - one engineered to carry genes from a common bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt for short) that kills insects that eat it, and one that makes crops resistant to weedkillers.

But more than 90 percent of corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. 

Note EU-Digest: funding  for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine also includes a variety of donors from the Private Sector, including chemical companies involved in GMO development and the sale of GMO treated products.

Read mpre: Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says - NBC News

TTIP: Rome protesters march against planned EU-US free trade deal

Protesters took to the streets of Rome on Saturday to say ‘No’ to TTIP, the sweeping free trade deal being negotiated between the European Union and the United States.

Critics claim it will lower food safety and environmental standards. In Europe, there is widespread opposition to allowing more imports of US agricultural products due to concerns about genetically modified foods.

Read more: TTIP: Rome protesters march against planned EU-US free trade deal | euronews, world news

EU - US Trade Negotiiations: Greenpeace Netherlands releases TTIP documents

TTIP: ggiving multi-national corporations more power

Today (May 2, 2016) Greenpeace Netherlands releases secret documents of the EU-US TTIP negotiations. On www.ttip-leaks.org the documents will be made available for everyone to read, because democracy needs transparency.

Sylvia Borren, Executive Director Greenpeace Netherlands noted:.
  
“These documents make clear the scale and scope of the trade citizens of the United States and the European Union are being asked to make in pursuit of corporate profits. It is time for the negotiations to stop, and the debate to begin.

Should we be able to act when we have reasonable grounds to believe our health and wellbeing is at risk, or must we wait until the damage is done?

Were our governments serious in Paris when they said they would do what was necessary to protect the planet, and keep climate change under 1.5 degrees?

Environmental protection should not be seen as a barrier to trade, but as a safeguard for our health, and the health of future generations.

We call on citizens, civil society, politicians and businesses to engage in this debate openly and without fear. We call on the negotiators to release the latest, complete text to facilitate that discussion, and we ask that the negotiations be stopped until these questions, and many more have been answered. Until we can fully engage in a debate about the standards we and our planet need and want”

The documents that Greenpeace Netherlands has released comprise about half of the draft text as of April 2016, prior to the start of the 13th round of TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US (New York, 25-29 April 2016).

As far as we know the final document will consist of 25 to 30 chapters and many extensive annexes. The EU Commission published an overview stating that they have now 17 consolidated texts. This means the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands encompass 3/4 of the existing consolidated texts.[1]
Consolidated texts are those where the EU and US positions on issues are shown side by side.

This step in the negotiation process allows us to see the areas where the EU and US are close to agreement, and where compromises and concessions would still need to be made. Of the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands, in total 248 pages, 13 chapters offer for the first time the position of the US.

To make sure the documents were not fake, the documents were studied by both Greenpeace Netherlands and Rechercheverbund NDR, WDR und Süddeutsche Zeitung, a renowned German investigative research partnership which analysed them and compared them to existing documents.

The Rechercheverbund, which consists of different German media outlets, has covered, amongst other big stories, the Snowden leaks and the recent Volkswagen emissions scandals.

First conclusions made following review of the report reveal that there are four aspects are of serious concern.

1) Long standing environmental protections appear to be dropped
2) Climate protection will be harder under TTIP 
3) The end of the precautionary principle
4) Opening the door for corporate takeover 

TTIP is really only about giving multi-national corporations more power and to slowly but surely dismantle European laws on Privacy, Pollution, GMO, Pesticides , Food additives, Healthcare, Insurance, Finance and the list goes on and on. 

Let us keep in mind the EU is a market of more than 500 million people with the worlds no one GNP.  Obviously a juicy fruit to pick, and eventually destro,y by our "treasured corporate friends" across the "big pond" .

 Read more Greenpeace Netherlands releases TTIP documents | Greenpeace International

EU-Digest

International Trade: De Blasio Rips Trans Pacific Partnership, Calls NAFTA a ‘Disaster’

Free Trade : Not Always Benefiting Everyone

Mayor Bill de Blasio of New Yorktoday joined a slew of city politicians to decry President Barack Obama’s proposed Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal—comparing it to North American Free Trade Agreement, which he deemed a “disaster.”

“There’s such passion on this issue because we’ve already been to this movie,” Mr. de Blasio said at an anti-TPP rally in front of City Hall this morning. “We saw it with NAFTA. We saw what a disaster NAFTA was, and we’re not going to repeat that mistake in our time.”

Mr. de Blasio’s opposition to the TPP is not surprising: almost all of the city’s Congressional delegation is opposed to the deal, which is hated by unions. The pact would ease trade barriers and a host of regulations between the United States, Australia and several Asian and Latin American nations.

But the mayor’s comments come at a time when free trade has become a major issue in the presidential race, and not one that has been particularly good for Mr. de Blasio’s chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. As President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, Ms. Clinton was instrumental in creating the free trade accord, though she has since disavowed it.

Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has emphasized his long-time opposition to free trade deals like the TPP, and to NAFTA—which was passed by President Bill Clinton. And while Mr. de Blasio and Republican front-runner Donald Trump have little in common, they’ve now shared language on NAFTA: Mr. Trump, too, has called that free trade deal a “disaster.”

Mr. de Blasio framed his opposition to the president’s trade deal in familiar terms—as part of his crusade against income inequality.

“It’s a fight we have to win because this goes to the heart of the matter—if we’re going to fight income inequality in this country, we have to fight TPP because it will take us backwards, it will take us in the wrong direction,” Mr. de Blasio said. “And there is such a powerful coalition that has come forward to make sure that our trade deals actually don’t hurt our own people. That’s what this comes down to.”

He said the country could not “sacrifice the American middle class to the all mighty dollar.”

“And NAFTA was that. NAFTA took away almost a million jobs in this country—tens of thousands of them here in New York State. We saw places all over this country—towns and cities devastated. We saw people who had solid middle class lives have the rug pulled out from under them,” Mr. de Blasio said. “People who had done everything right, who had played by the rules, who had worked hard, suddenly were left with nothing—that’s what NAFTA did, and we have every reason to believe that TPP will do the same. And that’s why we have to stand up and fight against it.”

The president, with the help of the GOP House majority, obtained “fast track authority” last summer— meaning he has the power to negotiate the act himself, and Congress will get only an up and down vote on the deal.

Read more: De Blasio Rips Trans Pacific Partnership, Calls NAFTA a ‘Disaster’ | | Observer

EU - TTIP : Big business and US to have major say in EU trade deals, leak reveals - by Paul Gallagher

Say No To TTIP

The European Commission will be obliged to consult with US authorities before adopting new legislative proposals following passage of a controversial series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret.

A leaked document obtained by campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the
Independent from the ongoing EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations reveals the unelected Commission will have authority to decide in which areas there should be cooperation with the US – leaving EU member states and the European Parliament further sidelined.

The main objective of TTIP is to harmonise transatlantic rules in a range of areas – including food and consumer product safety, environmental protection, financial services and banking.

The leaked document concerns the “regulatory cooperation” chapter of the talks, which the European Union says will result in “cutting red tape for EU firms without cutting corners”. It shows a labyrinth of procedures that could tie up any EU proposals that go against US interests, according to analysis by CEO.

The campaign group said the document also reveals the extent to which major corporations and industry groups will be able to influence the development of regulatory cooperation by making what is referred to as a “substantial proposal” to the working agenda of the Commission and US agencies.

The plans revealed by the document will give the US regulatory authorities a “questionable role” in Brussels lawmaking and weaken the European Parliament, CEO argues.

Read more: TTIP: Big business and US to have major say in EU trade deals, leak reveals | Business News | News | The Independent

Brexit: Leaving the E.U. Would Hurt Britain’s Economy

To be or not to be?

Would Britain be better off economically outside the European Union? The answer is most likely no, which is why Britons need to weigh the evidence carefully when they go to the polls in June to vote on leaving the E.U.

Proponents of an exit criticize the union for taking too much power away from member nations and for issuing unnecessary and excessive regulations. This, the argument goes, has hurt Britain’s economy. But the data does not back that up. It is far from clear that leaving would lead to faster growth and better living standards. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.

If E.U. regulations were as onerous as British critics say, those rules would hurt all 28 member countries. Yet the economies of other members like Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland have been more productive than Britain. Those countries had a gross domestic product per hour worked that was nearly the same as the United States in 2014, while Britain’s comparable figure was much lower, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

If Britain left the E.U. it would have to replace the union’s rules with its own regulations in areas like the environment, banking and social services. It is improbable that when it came down to specific rules, the British public would want the risks that come with a more laissez-faire approach. In some areas like policies to reduce greenhouse gases, British regulations are already tougher than those of the E.U., according to an analysis by Open Europe, a London-based research group.

Supporters of an exit argue that Britain would be able to maintain an open market with the union, its biggest trading partner. But that seems like wishful thinking. The E.U. would have no obligation to continue giving Britain tariff-free access to its market without securing big concessions in return. For example, Norway, which is not a member, pays the E.U. a fee and abides by most of its regulations to get access to its market.

As far as trading with the rest of the world, Britain would most likely be worse off on its own. The European Union has trade agreements with countries that account for 60 percent of Britain’s trade, according to Open Europe. 

Britain would probably have to negotiate new pacts with those countries, and the terms would very likely be less favorable than those secured by the E.U. The union, after all, is the world’s largest economy with a G.D.P. of $18.5 trillion in 2014; Britain’s G.D.P. was $3 trillion. For the United States, which is negotiating a trade agreement with the E.U., a pact with Britain would no doubt be a lower priority.

 
Read more: Leaving the E.U. Would Hurt Britain’s Economy - The New York Times

The EU and TTIP: Secret document reveals EU offer to drop 97 percent of tariffs - Justus von Daniels and Marta Orosz

We now know that the TTIP negotiations entered a decisive phase on October 15, 2015. That’s when US and EU representatives laid their cards on the table, exchanging offers to cut taxes on imports from each other. Up until then, the US had only broached hypothetical reductions; now they were openly offering to remove 87.5 percent of tariffs completely.

That was more than the EU expected. European negotiators had to agree a better offer, or risk derailing the deal. A week later, they did came up with a new proposal: reductions in 97 percent of tariff categories.

The EU’s secret offer, which CORRECTIV has seen in its entirety, is made up of 181 pages of densely-printed text and can be found here. It’s got almost 8,000 categories: Every species of fish, every chemical has its own tariff category. Importing a parka? Wool, or polyester?

Trade deals are like poker games. Europe’s big offer comes with a big hope: That the US will open up its public bidding process to European firms. That way, European construction companies could bid on contracts to build US highways, or BMW could sell cop cars to American sheriffs.

For the first time, the tariff offer makes clear what TTIP might do for consumers: remove duties, and prices tend to drop. With tariffs on parts gone, cars could get cheaper. Per part, tariffs add just a few cents on the euro, but altogether European car manufacturers could save a billion Euros each year, according to German Association of the Automotive Industry calculations. Manufacturers could then pass the savings on to consumers.

The EU is now waiting for the US to offer a substantial deal on public procurement. In a September 15 report obtained by CORRECTIV, the European Commission says “it definitely expects that the US will offer to open public procurement at a future point in time, in exchange for the revised tariff offer.”

That report also indicated that the US “promised to make a proposal regarding public procurement for the first time” when the EU and US put forth their symmetrical tariff reductions, eliminating 97 percent of all tariffs.
Public bids are a major TTIP sticking point. The EU wants the US to finally open its markets to allow firms like Balfour Beattie or BMW to compete when cities put out a call for bids on a new building or fleet of cars. The US is less than eager, because that would subject domestic companies – which are already allowed to bid on projects in the EU – to increased competition.

Four days before the next negotiation round starts, the European Commission has now indicated that they don’t expect a comprehensive offer. Sources said that the US haven’t sent their proposal yet and that public procurement will be discussed right after the official negotiation round. The 12th round of negotiations started this Monday in Brussels.

Read more: TTIP: Secret document reveals EU offer to drop 97 percent of tariffs | openDemocracy

GMO Labeling Endorsed by US Physicians but blocked by Chemical Industry Lobby - Ten Reason to avoid them

Is the Industry Lobby Bamboozling you about GMO's?

Even as the federal government pursues H.R. 1599, aka the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” (DARK) act, mainstream medicine is urging the government to abandon its resistance to GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling. 

They are bolstered by a recent announcement by the World Health Organization that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer) is probably carcinogenic in humans. The genetic engineering ends up making crops resistant to the herbicide so more must be applied.

According to contributing doctors from Harvard, Mt. Sinai Medical Center and the University of Wisconsin reporting in the New England Journal of Medicine, “GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides, and two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.”

A recent notice in the same journal, “GMOs, Herbicides and Public Health,” reports: “The application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the soy and [feed] corn grown in the United States are now genetically engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous.”

Sixty-four countries, including Russia and China, have already adopted transparency in labeling laws, but U.S. Big Food and Big Ag lobbyists have stonewalled efforts domestically.\

EU representatives at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) hopefully will not let this issue be swiped off the table by the American delegation.  As it is well known that the political establishment in the US Congress is very much influenced by the US Chemical and food Industry Lobby, which includes corporate giants like Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, Syngenta, Tyson, ADM and Cargill..

To put this in an order of magnitude: ADM and Cargill now control 65% of the world's trade in grain. Monsanto and Syngenta control 20% of the $60-billion market in bio-engineered seeds.

The EU better be aware that this US corporate lobby campaign to "patent nature" and control the world's food supply has been very successful,  Today, 85% of US corn is genetically engineered.

And if you need more convincing: Ten Reasons to avoid  GMO's  - Europe does not need GMO's

EU-Digest 

Greece and TTIP: Athens says TTIP should be ratified by national parliaments - by Sarantis Michalopoulo

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) should be a “mixed” agreement and, therefore, be ratified by national institutions, according to Greece’s economy minister. EurActiv Greece reports.

Speaking at a conference on Wednesday (13 January) co-organized by VouliWatch and The Press Project, Greek Minister of Economy, Infrastructure, Shipping and Tourism, Giorgos Stathakis, explained his government's position on TTIP.

Before being in government in January 2015, the leftist Syriza party had been suspicious of TTIP.

Georgios Katrougkalos, the then-deputy minister for administrative reform, had told EurActiv Greece that “Athens will use its veto to kill the proposed trade pact.”

But in August 2015, the Syriza party was split, as far-left rebels who opposed Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s bailout deal with Europe decided to form a new movement.

Since then, the Syriza-led government has adopted a more moderate tone on the TTIP agreement.

Stathakis noted that at the beginning, the trade agreement “was unimaginable, not transparent and inaccessible”.

He added that there was also the “shock” idea, according to which the deal should be sealed in record time “before any discussion took place”.

But the framework of TTIP negotiations has changed.  He said that now, the negotiations are more accessible.
“The right of states to legislate and to change the law for the protection of public health, safety or the environment, and consumer protection, is ensured,” Stathakis underlined.

The Greek minister also stressed that the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), which has triggered strong reactions across Europe, was replaced by a normal court of international authority, with “permanent features and function codes”.

Read more: Athens says TTIP should be ratified by national parliaments | EurActiv

TTIP meetings - secrecy: WikiLeaks raises reward for details on TTIP

WikiLeaks has launched a campaign to collect reward funds to be given to people, who can provide insider information on the planned EU-US trade deal, also known as TTIP. Donations are already pouring in.

By early afternoon, the whistleblowing website had already collected about a fifth of the target sum, with contributions coming from former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, British fashion designer Vivienne Westwood and many others.

Critics of the planned trade deal have been worrying it may water down consumer protection provisions and allow companies to block undesirable regulation. But relevant details of the draft agreement have not been made available to the public.

TTIP "remains secret almost in its entirety, closely guarded by the negotiators," WikiLeaks wrote in an online post. "WikiLeaks is taking steps to ensure that Europeans can finally read the monster trade deal."

Read more: WikiLeaks raises reward for details on TTIP | Business | DW.COM | 11.08.2015

The Trans-Pacific Partnership / EU-US Trade negotiations : the Totalitarian End-game of the Global Elite

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a global corporate noose around U.S. local, state, and national sovereignty – narrowly passed a major procedural hurdle in the Congress by gaining “fast track” status. … “fast track” is a euphemism for your members of Congress … handcuffing themselves, so as to prevent any amendments or adequate debate before the final vote … TPP is another euphemism that is used to avoid the word “treaty”, which would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.

The corporate-indentured politicians keep calling this gigantic treaty with thirty chapters, of which only five relate to traditional trade issues…. The other twenty-five chapters, if passed as they are, will have serious impacts on peoples livelihoods as workers and consumers, as well as your air, water, food, and medicines.

"Only corporations … are entitled to sue the U.S. and other governments for any alleged harm to their profits from health, safety or other regulations in secret tribunals that operate as offshore kangaroo courts, not in open courts. – Ralph Nader"

Read more: The Trans-Pacific Partnership: the Totalitarian End-game of the Global Elite | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

TTIP: US House of Reps says: "Europe Can't Boycott Israel"

The United States House of Representatives has fast-tracked a bill regarding a free trade agreement between the US and Europe which would include a section barring EU countries from any form of commercial boycott against Israel and Israeli goods.

According to the PNN, Israel’s Ynetnews indicated that two versions of the law had been presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate, clarifying that both versions included the section obligating EU countries to refrain from the boycott of Israeli products.

This section states that any affiliation and cooperation with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on the part of EU countries is in violation of the “principle of non-discrimination’ statute in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

According to Ynetnews, the second law did not pass at this stage due to disputes with respect to compensation for businesses in Europe. There was also severe opposition from Obama’s own Democrats, but it is expected that an agreement will be reached between the House of Representatives and the Senate during the coming days.

From the moment that an agreement is reached, a unified document will be presented to the American President, Barack Obama, for a review of the trade agreement as soon as possible. He will then sign the document and it will be put to the vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Note EU-Digest: This is a "pipe dream" - US House of Representatives can't tell the EU what to do.

Read more: US House of Reps: Europe Can't Boycott Israel - International Middle East Media Center

TTIP EU-US: Consumer protection at heart of US-EU trade plan says Pascal Lamy

The former head of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, said Thursday that improved consumer protection was at the heart of the controversial US-European Union free-trade pact under negotiation.

Lamy insisted that 80 percent of the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal with harmonization of consumer protection standards, while only 20 percent focus on such typical trade issues as tariffs and market access.

He said that political leaders` failure to explain that to the public had created a vacuum that allowed anti-TTIP movements to grow, he told the Worldwide Symposium of the Foreign Trade Advisors of France in Miami.

Political leaders "up to now have not been handling it well," Lamy said. "Everyone in Europe thinks they`re going to be forced to eat chlorine-rinsed chicken, or in the United States, cheese rotting with bacteria."

read more: Consumer protection at heart of US-EU trade plan: Lamy | Zee News

Europeans Fight U.S. Trade Deal With Fear of McHospitals, Fracking Under Eiffel Tower (and they should)-by Leo Cendrowicz

It will afflict Europe with American abominations on an almost Biblical scale: cheap and dirty food, toxic waste, mind-numbing movies and television, gas-guzzling cars, all while scrapping healthcare and erasing labour rights.

That, at least, is how angry European activists are painting a planned trade deal between the European Union and the United States. A legion of horrors has been evoked about an agreement known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, which is currently under negotiation.

Dozens of groups have sprung up to oppose the planned pact, like Stop TTIP (whose website describes the deal as “a corporate coup that will put power and money into the hands of corporations and away from the elected government.”) and No TTIP (“TTIP would lock in the privatization of our public services, erode government protection for people and the environment and threaten a new round of unjust economic reforms forced on the poor”).

U.S. and E.U. officials are currently in New York this week for their ninth round of talks to hammer out the details of deal. But on Sunday, tens of thousands of protesters marched through the streets of Berlin, Brussels, Vienna, Madrid, Helsinki, Warsaw, Prague and other cities in simultaneous colorful demonstrations against TTIP.

Europe’s anti-TTIP campaigners characterize the plans as a diabolical plot to allow the likes of McDonalds to take over hospitals, Exxon to frack under the Eiffel Tower, and Google to take over parliaments. “It’s the most contested acronym in Europe,” admits Cecilia Malmström, the E.U. trade commissioner, who is in charge of the European side of the negotiations.

Work on TTIP will continue for the moment. Planned for over a decade before its formal launch in 2013, the negotiations are expected to last at least another two years. But the real test will come when the ratification process begins in European and American legislatures – some 898 amendments have so far been proposed in the European Parliament’s TTIP wish list.

 If anger continues to swell, it could dilute TTIP or derail it completely. If that happens, TTIP’s many opponents would celebrate. Whether their interests would be served by the trade pact’s demise is another matter. But even TTIP’s supporters accept that in its current form, the agreement has become a lightning rod for almost every European discontent.

Read more: Europeans Fight U.S. Trade Deal With Fear of McHospitals, Fracking Under Eiffel Tower - The Daily Beast

GM Foods: EU Commission proposes GM opt-out for member states "why not total ban?"

The European Commission has proposed a new law which would allow individual EU countries to restrict or prohibit imported genetically modified (GM) crops – even if they have been approved by the bloc as a whole. The US says the move is "not constructive."

According to EU Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, the plan would "grant member states a greater say as regards the use of EU-authorized GMOs in food and feed on their respective territories."

It will now go to the European Parliament and member states for further consideration. There is concern that giving nations the opportunity to opt out from EU laws goes counter to many EU initiatives which traditionally seek a common stance on EU policies.

The proposal – which covers human food and animal feed – comes as a knock to the US, which wants Europe to fully accept its GM crops as part of an EU-US free trade deal.

Note EU-Digest: This EU Commission proposal is not a solution - the EU must ban the use of genetically modified foods throughout the EU period.

Read more: EU Commission proposes GM opt-out for member states — RT News

EU-US Trade Agreement:Reiner Hoffmann and Richard Trumpka On TTIP

The German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Washington organised an event on TTIP with the President of the German trade union confederation DGB, Reiner Hoffmann, and his US counterpart, Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO.

The event was moderated by Shawn Donnan, the World Trade Editor of the Financial Times.
With TTIP controversies frequently in the news there is an urgent need to better understand the issues at hand. You can watch the full discussion bu clicking on the link below.

To hear the discussion click on the link below: Reiner Hoffmann And Richard Trumpka On TTIP

EU Say No To TTIP: The world’s largest free trade zone is coming – what will it mean?

Say no to EU-US Trade Deal

The EU and US are in talks to create the world’s biggest free trade zone, claiming it will make both regions richer than ever.

But critics question the alleged economic benefits of the deal – called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – and say the inclusion of investor-state settlement dispute clauses will undermine democracy.

Activists will take to the streets on Saturday (April 18) in what is expected to be one of the biggest protests against the EU-US trade deal.

A huge alliance of groups have come together to organise a global day of action (#A18DoA) against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Negotiations began in 2013. The ninth round of talks is set to begin in New York on Monday, April 20, 2015.

Karel De Gucht, former EU commissioner for trade, said last year there was a “window of opportunity” to tie up the deal in 2015, or early 2016.

One key area where the US and EU differ is genetically modified foods.

The production of GM foods sees DNA from another organism added to them to create a perceived advantage. For example, proponents of GM crops argue they can be made to be more resistant to pests, thereby increasing productivity.

The EU has some of the strictest GM regulations in the world (each case is subject to a science-based evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority before going before the European Commission) and has authorised just 52 to date.

The US, on the other hand, is the largest commercial grower of GM crops in the world. It wants the EU’s regulatory process to be harmonized.
 
The EC says the trade deal will not see laws changing on GMOs: “Basic laws, like those relating to GMOs or which are there to protect human life and health, animal health and welfare, or environment and consumer interests will not be part of the negotiations.”

Friends of the Earth in Europe said: “US negotiators at the talks have been clear that one of their main aims is to increase market access for US agri-business and hormone and anti-biotic treated meat and poultry  products.

Note EU-Digest: This agreement known as TTIP would be a disaster for the EU similar to what NAFTA turned out to be for Mexico and Canada, and give US multi-nationals an even greater influence over our lives than they already have. The prosperity TTIP claims it will be creating is total nonsense. We can only hope the EU parliament does not fall for it.

Read More: The world’s largest free trade zone is coming – what will it mean? | euronews, world news

UN cancer agency sees a cancer risk in Roundup and other pesticides

The UN's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said Friday that three pesticides, including the popular weedkiller Roundup, were "probably" carcinogenic and two others, which have already been outlawed or restricted, were "possibly" so. IARC classified the herbicide glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Roundup -- and the insecticides malathion and diazinon as "probably carcinogenic" on the basis of "limited evidence" of cancer among humans.

The insecticides tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as "possibly carcinogenic" in the light of "convincing evidence" from lab animals, it said.

The classification, made by an expert panel, is not binding, said IARC, an agency based in Lyon, southeastern France, that comes under the aegis of the World Health Organization (WHO). "It remains the responsibility of individual governments and other international organisations to recommend regulations, legislation or public health intervention," it said.

Glyphosate -- introduced in the 1970s under the brand Roundup but now manufactured generically -- is the most-produced weedkiller in the world, the IARC said.

Agricultural use of it has surged since the introduction of crops genetically modified to be resistant to the chemical, enabling farmers to douse a field in one go to kill weeds.

"The general population is exposed (to glyphosate) primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low," the IARC statement said.

The evaluation of glyphosate saw "limited evidence" of a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as seen in studies in the United States, Sweden and Canada conducted among farm workers since 2001.

In 1985, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified glyphosate as "possibly carcinogenic for humans" on the basis of experiments on lab mice.

UN cancer agency sees a risk in Roundup and other pesticides - Yahoo News