Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

[b0g]

an effort to split the TTIP info from the TISA thread ... work in progress

I wanted to add some info about TTIP from what I have on HD, but stumbled on this: A Survey of the Size of the Financial Lobby at the EU level. Like I said, youtube is OK for obtaining general info ab TTIP.

[b0g]

TTIP factsheet ISDS

[b0g]

http://corporateeurope.org/financial...ial-regulation

What the financial lobby wants from TTIP
Some examples from financial corporations' wish-list.

Restricting "prudential measures" to be taken

The European Banking Federation (EBF) wants governmental ability to take "prudential measures" unaffected by TTIP clauses to be severely restricted and only to apply when the measures are closely related to financial stability, investor and/or client protection, and when there are “unsurmountable differences” in EU and US provisions that “cannot be bridged in the foreseeable future”. Such a restricted interpretation of governmental ability to legislate under the so-called prudential carve-out would mean that the dominant way of regulating would be the EU and US creating common rules; the two blocs would only be able to introduce financial reforms independently of one another after a long process by which it becomes clear that they cannot have common rules.31
Undermine hedge funds and derivatives transparency

Regulations for “certain transactions” should not cover foreign investors, if for instance they deal with “sophisticated investors”. That means regulation on transparency of hedge funds in the EU would not apply to US funds, and US rules on derivatives reporting would not apply to European financial firms. 32.
Drop ban on speculation

Banks in the US – including subsidiaries of European banks – are barred from making risky bets with federally insured money for their own profit (“swap desk pushout”). This has annoyed Deutsche Bank. Along with other German banks in the Association for German Banks, they complain that such a demand is discriminatory and an example of unilateral extraterritorial conduct. 33

Drop extra safety for megabanks

The US is considering extra capital requirements for foreign banks as well as national banks. This has created a stir in the European financial sector, which feels more comfortable with the lenient and slow approach of the EU. The lobby group the European Services Forum, which includes some of the biggest banks, believes it should not be possible for the US to declare a European bank so big that this extra capital is needed. 34

Drop safety rules for investment firms

Insurance Europe wants to do away with state-level rules in the US that are meant to keep insurance companies from conducting overly risky speculation (leverage rules). 35

Drop supervision of foreign banks

Deutsche Bank and Barclays are among the European banks who prefer not to operate under US rules in the US, and to be supervised by the European Central Bank, not the US authorities. However, the US has now closed the last loopholes and insists on its right to keep an eye on big foreign banks – some of which were major sources to financial instability in 2008.

As risky as Lehman Brothers

The US is on course to adopt rules on how much a big bank can borrow, compared to its capital – the so-called leverage ratio. The yardstick is to ensure that banks are not as risky as Lehman Brothers and have enough financial reserves in case of crisis. In the EU, on the other hand, at best, a similar ratio will be adopted, but most likely a ratio at the same level as Lehman Brothers had before it went under will be allowed. In the TTIP debate, the bank lobby group Eurofi, is among those who have voiced its concern over the US rules. 36 European banks continue to fight hard to stave off the challenge of a restrictive leverage ratio in Europe. 37

Other reforms that could be undermined or complicated by a TTIP agreement on financial regulation due huge differences between the EU and US include rules on banking structure to tackle too big to fail banks, rules on credit exposure to a single “counterparty”, money market reforms to tackle shadow banking, financial transaction tax, transparency on the derivatives markets, and liquidity of banks. 38

[b0g]

US-EU trade agreement will make higher education ‘more commercial’
University lecturers hear warning over ‘predatory’ for-profit colleges
A planned new trade agreement between the EU and the United States will force higher education here to go further down the route of “privatisation and commercialisation”, a conference of university lecturers has heard.

A planned new trade agreement between the EU and the United States will force higher education here to go further down the route of “privatisation and commercialisation”, a conference of university lecturers has heard.

Joe Humphreys

Topics:
News
Education
Third Level
David Robinson
Irish Federation Of University Teachers

Sat, May 10, 2014, 13:03

First published: Sat, May 10, 2014, 13:03

A planned new trade agreement between the EU and the United States will force higher education here to go further down the route of “privatisation and commercialisation”, a conference of university lecturers has heard.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), due to be agreed before the end of the year, would subject higher education “to the commercial rules of trade agreements for the first time”, said David Robinson, Canadian based senior consultant to Education International, the global federation of teachers’ associations and unions.

The trade deal, he claimed, would put at risk “a host of regulations and rules necessary to ensure quality and equity.

“The for-profit education sector in the United States, reeling from controversies about poor quality and poor student outcomes, is now seeking unfettered access to the European and Irish market.”

Mr Robinson is addressing the annual conference of the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) today.

He said: “If education is covered by the TTIP, Irish authorities would be powerless to protect students from these predatory providers entering Ireland or to defend and maintain quality of education.

“Ireland should strongly push the European Commission to demand an explicit exclusion of education from the TTIP.

“The EU Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers has already excluded the audiovisual sector from TTIP based on the public interest goal of preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity within the EU. The same reasoning would justify an exemption for education from the TTIP.

He told union delegates meeting in Dublin that a US Congressional report on for-profit colleges in 2012 highlighted a 64 per cent dropout rate, and “substandard academic offerings”. The report also highlighted a financial imbalance in US insitutions with over 22 per cent of revenue spent on marketing, and just 17% devoted to instruction.

“The government and education sector in Ireland should be alert to, and resist this increasing pressure for commercialised education,” Mr Robinson said.

Sat, May 10, 2014, 13:03

First published: Sat, May 10, 2014, 13:03

[b0g]

Read The Secret Trade Memo Calling For More Fracking and Offshore Drilling

Posted: 05/19/2014 5:59 am EDT Updated: 05/19/2014 5:59 pm EDT


WASHINGTON -- The European Union is pressing the Obama administration to expand U.S. fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration under the terms of a secret negotiation text obtained by The Huffington Post.

The controversial document is an early draft of energy policies that EU negotiators hope to see adopted under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade deal, which is currently being negotiated. The text was shared with American officials in September. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to comment on the document.

Environmental groups fear the broad language proposed for the deal would eliminate key restrictions on the export of crude oil and natural gas, fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. The document marks the first major bone of contention in the EU deal, amid an outcry from environmentalists over leaked terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a separate pact that the U.S. and 11 Pacific nations are also negotiating.

"Exports of energy goods to the other Party shall be deemed automatically to comply with any conditions and tests foreseen in the Parties’ respective legislation for the granting of export licenses," the memo reads, defining "energy goods" as "coal, crude oil, oil products, natural gas, whether liquefied or not, and electrical energy."

The U.S. government treats trade negotiation texts as classified information. Previous leaks concerning the EU deal have focused on lighter topics, including whether American cheesemakers can call their products "feta" or "parmesan."

By encouraging more crude oil and natural gas exports to the EU -- a massive economic force that uses a tremendous amount of global energy -- the proposal could spur more domestic oil and gas drilling and discourage the development of green energy in the EU, dealing a significant blow to efforts to avert climate change. Some environmental and citizens groups also object to the fracking process itself -- in which a high-pressure mixture of chemicals, water, and sand is injected into rock formations to release natural gas -- because of concerns that it might affect groundwater supplies.

"Encouraging trade in dirty fossil fuels would mean more dangerous fracking here in the U.S. and would push more climate-disrupting fuels into the European Union," Ilana Solomon, director of the Responsible Trade Program at Sierra Club, told HuffPost. "The oil and gas industry is the only winner in this situation."

The U.S. banned crude oil exports in 1975, and imposes a host of restrictions on the export of natural gas for both economic and national security reasons. But the president can issue special licenses to exempt some crude oil exports from the ban, and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this month that he wants to consider relaxing it.

There has also been an increasing push to loosen constraints on natural gas exports from the U.S. to Europe, particularly as the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine has grown, highlighting Europe's dependency on Russian energy. Although burning natural gas produces lower emissions than oil or coal, the energy-intensive storage and shipping process -- liquefying the gas and then sending it in fuel-burning vessels -- eliminates many of its advantages. And critics of gas say that increasing exports would only increase reliance on fossil fuels, rather than speeding the transition to renewables. It would also likely increase energy prices in the U.S., although the effects of the deal would not come to fruition for several years.

Free trade agreements frequently bind all of their participants to a specific regulatory regime, hindering the deployment of future regulations in response to new problems. Trade pacts are enforced by international courts, which can issue economic sanctions against countries that violate the deals. The proposed EU language would run counter to existing environmental standards that limit the development of the fossil fuel industry.

"It expands a trend in trade negotiations of removing policy decisions from national and local governments and enshrining those policy decisions in international trade laws," said Sarah Burt, an attorney with the environmentalist legal organization Earthjustice, who has seen the document. Those negotiations, said Burt, happen outside of the public eye and are an "opaque process where trade and economics are elevated above any other values."

Read the full document here.
http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...ipnonpaper.pdf

[b0g]

http://www.atlantic-community.org/ar...ot-about-tra-1

===============================
TTIP: It's Not About Trade
===============================
Dean Baker | August 12, 2014

•

This month, we're reposting noteworthy articles from 2014. In his February 12th Op-Ed, Dean Baker argues that with TTIP, not all is as it seems. EU and US officials would have citizens believe promotion of trade is the impetus behind TTIP negotiations. But slashing already-low tariffs is hardly worth the effort. The real goal is the implementation of a new regulatory structure, resulting in an international policing mechanism unlikely to have been approved via normal political processes in each country.

The most important fact to know about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is that promoting trade is not really the purpose of the deal. With few exceptions, traditional trade barriers, in the form of tariffs or quotas, between the United States and European Union (EU) are already low. No one would devote a great deal of effort to bringing them down further, there is not much to be gained.
The pursuit of free trade is just a cover for the real agenda of the TTIP. The deal is about imposing a regulatory structure to be enforced through an international policing mechanism that likely would not be approved through the normal political processes in each country. The rules that will be put in place as a result of the deal are likely to be more friendly to corporations and less friendly to the environment and consumers than current rules. And, they will likely impede economic growth.
In a wide variety of areas the EU has much stronger protections for consumers and the environment than in the United States. For example, the United States has a highly concentrated mobile phone industry that is allowed to charge consumers whatever they like. The same is true for Internet access. As a result, people in the United States pay far more for these services.
Fracking for oil and natural gas has advanced much more in the United States than in Europe is part because it is largely unregulated. In fact, the industry got a special exemption from laws on clean drinking water, so that they don't even have to disclose the chemicals they are using in the fracking process. As a result, if they end up contaminating ground water and drinking water in areas near a fracking site it will be almost impossible for the victims to prove their case.
These are the sorts of regulatory changes that industry will be seeking in the TTIP. It is unlikely the governments of individual European countries or the EU as a body would support the gutting of consumer and environmental regulations. Therefore the industry groups want to use a "free-trade" agreement to circumvent the democratic process.
However the worst part of the TTIP is likely to be in its rules on patents and copyright. The United States has a notoriously corrupt patent system. A major food manufacturer once patented a peanut butter sandwich and of course Amazon was able to get a patent on "1-click shopping." These frivolous patents, which are common in the United States, raise prices and impede competition. Europeans will likely see more of such patents as a result of the TTIP.
The deal is likely to have even more consequences for the cost and availability of prescription drugs. The United States pays roughly twice as much for its drugs as Europeans. This is due to the unchecked patent monopolies granted to our drug companies. A major goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to be able to get similar rules imposed in the EU so that they can charge higher prices.
Just to be clear, this part of the TTIP is 180 degrees at odds with free trade. The pharmaceutical industry will be seeking to make its patents stronger, longer, and more far-reaching, for example by applying protection to the data used to register drugs so that generic competitors cannot enter the market.
There is an enormous amount of money at stake in this battle. The United States spends close to $350 billion a year on drugs that would sell for around one-tenth this price in a free market. The difference is almost 2 percent of GDP or more than 25 percent of after-tax corporate profits. This amounts to a huge transfer from the public at large to the pharmaceutical industry.
The enormous gap between the patent-protected price and production costs gives drug companies an incentive to mislead the public about the safety and effectiveness of their drugs, which they do with considerably regularity. In short, an outcome of the deal can be much higher drug prices and lower quality health care.
None of the models used to project economic gains from a TTIP even try to estimate the economic losses that would result from higher drug prices or other negative consequences of stronger patent protection. For this reason these models do not provide a useful guide to the likely economic impact of a TTIP.
The notion that a TTIP will provide some quick boost to the economies of the EU and the United States is absurd on its face. The public should scrutinize whatever comes out of the negotiating process very carefully. If politicians demand a quick yes or no answer, then the obvious answer must be "no."

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.

[b0g]

France’s latest calls for TTIP transparency fall on deaf ears

Published: 23/09/2014 - 15:39 | Updated: 24/09/2014 - 07:41
CREDIT[openDemocracy/Flickr]
France's foreign trade minister is demanding greater transparency in TTIP negotiations. [openDemocracy/Flickr]

Matthias Fekl, the new French Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, has joined his predecessors in calling for the publication of the trade negotiation mandate between the EU and the United States. The continued lack of transparency in the negotiations could lead to the failure of TTIP.

At a meeting of representatives from the French parliament's Economic Affairs, Environment and Territory commissions, the Secretary of State announced that he had sent an official letter to the European Commissioner for Commerce, Karel de Gucht.

In his letter, Fekl called for the negotiation mandate for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which remains confidential after one and a half years of negotiations, to be made public.

"One of my very first decisions following my nomination was to write to the European Commission and ask them, in the name of France, to implement total transparency on trade negotiation mandates, particularly with the United States," the secretary of state said. "Secret negotiations can no longer be allowed to take place," he added.

>> Read: TTIP documents could be made public after EU court ruling

Sources close to the minister say that "having received no response from the European Commission, Matthias Fekl will renew his efforts with the new European Commissioner". As of 1 November, the Swedish Commissioner Cecilia Malmström will hold the Trade portfolio.

The European Commission has told EurActiv that the recipient of Fekl's letter, Commissioner Karel de Gucht, has also “asked member states to publish the TTIP negotiation mandate” in a joint letter with Italy, delivered in August. "The Commissioner has been pushing for the publication of the mandate for several months," the European Commission added.

Repeated requests

There is no lack of support from France or Europe for increased transparency, and the latest French demands for the publication of the mandate are nothing new. The former Minister for Foreign Trade, Nicole Bricq, tried to have them published at the start of the negotiations, but was defeated by opposition from the Council and several member states.

Fleur Pellerin, Minister for Foreign Trade in Manuel Valls' first government, also appealed to the Commission to publish a document at the end of each cycle of negotiations. Again her request was unsuccessful.

Communication operation

"The negotiation mandate was adopted in June 2013 and has circulated on all the networks," said French Green MEP Yannick Jadot, Vice-President of the International Trade Commission. "The publication of an 18 month-old mandate, while the negotiations have already progressed, is no longer an issue of transparency, but rather an operation in communication," he added.

Though the lack of transparency in the TTIP negotiation cycles and the accessibility of documentation are still broadly criticised, the negotiation mandate has been readily available on the Internet for months.

For many, however, transparency in the transatlantic negotiations remains insufficient. "The European Institutions sometimes give the impression that they do not learn from their mistakes. Greater transparency may well have stopped us blocking the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). I think the lack of transparency will also cause the TTIP negotiations to fail," Yannick Jadot warns.

>> Read: Commission opposes European Citizens' Initiative against TTIP

France undecided on Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism

"France has to clarify its position on the issue of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS)," the MEP continued. "Germany and the European Parliament have both already expressed their concerns".

This mechanism could allow companies to take action against states whose legislation negatively impacts their economic activity. An American producer of shale gas, for example, could claim damages from France for prohibiting their activity.

The French trade minister is due to take part in an informal meeting of the European Foreign Trade Ministers on 15 October, where he is expected to clarify the French stance on this controversial aspect of TTIP.

The European Commission is soon due to publish its first summary of the consultations on the TTIP Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism.
External links:
Press Articles:

Les appels à la transparence du TTIP se multiplient sans résultat

[b0g]

1. Because it is not about trade

Traditional trade agreements focus on the removal of tariffs, but as these are already so low between the EU and US, it will not be the main point of the deal. Instead, 80% of the projected ‘wins’ will come from removing ‘non-tariff barriers to trade’ (NTBs). These NTBs are trade-speak code for often hard-won standards and regulations. Greens believe the drive to remove essential standards will negatively impact both regions in a variety of ways.

2. Because the agenda has been captured by corporations

On both sides of the Atlantic, the main stakeholders consulted have been lobbyists representing some of the biggest multinational corporations in the world. In Brussels over 93% of preparatory meetings were with business groups according to documents garnered from a freedom of information request by the Corporate Europe Observatory, while in Washington, the trade advisory system is dominated by industry pressure groups, accounting for 85% of seats. Concerns regarding the risks to the environment, workers or health and safety regulation are therefore secondary.

3. Because it is highly secretive

A year into negotiations and only a select number of technocrats from the European Commission have inside knowledge of the talks, amid loud calls for greater transparency from all corners of civil society. Both the Council and the European Parliament have been left out of the negotiating process, as too has the Congress and the Senate in the US. The original EU position texts are only accessible to the Council, members of the INTA committee and handful of other committee chairs in the European Parliament. No one has seen the US proposals. To make things even less transparent, once both sides begin writing joint-proposals for a final text, it is likely that even less oversight will be granted to EU institutions. Only a dozen or so MEPs will have access to "Secured Reading Rooms" and they will be forbidden from taking notes or sharing with the public what they have read.

4. Because the people have the right to know

National and state parliaments, as well as and citizens in Europe and the US are being left in the dark too. If TTIP includes plans to change regulations which have been fought for for decades, our parliaments and our citizens need to know what is at stake. Transparent negotiations are essential, a feeling felt by many in the US too. Recently Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is quoted as saying:

“I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed."

5. Because the numbers don’t add up

Proponents have continued to use misleading figures from the Commission-funded CEPR impact assessment report on TTIP. It claims that the EU's economy could benefit by 119 billion euros a year and the US economy could gain an extra 95 billion a year - with gains of 545 euros for each EU family. However, the CEPR study goes on to reveal that such gains will only be felt after 2027, and only if a comprehensive agreement is reached, meaning that half of all ‘actionable’ NTBs are removed, which is highly unrealistic. A number of esteemed economists believe political leaders are overstating the positives, which in reality may only amount to 0.05% increase in GDP in the EU. Watch Monitor's report on 'TTIP's numbers fairytale'.

6. Because the promise of jobs is dishonest

The EU is desperate to find solutions to the ongoing job crisis. Although the effects of TTIP may not be felt for over a decade, it is being oversold as the answer to all of Europe's problems. Moreover, the deal is likely to fundamentally shift the direction of global trade, inevitably affecting existing jobs in all regions. There is no guarantee that the impact will always be positive.

In the Commission's Impact Assessment Report on the future of EU-US trade relations they admit that TTIP is likely to bring "prolonged and substantial” dislocation to European workers as a result of this shake up: "..there will be sectors that will be shedding workers and that the reemployment of these workers in the expanding sectors is not automatic..” According to the economist Dean Baker of the US based Center for Economic and Policy research:

‘Implying that a deal that raises GDP by 0.4 or 0.5 percent 13 years out means "job-creating opportunities for workers on both continents" is just dishonest. The increment to annual growth is on the order of 0.03 percentage points…In addition, there are reasons to believe the growth effect could go in the opposite direction.’

7. Because investors will be able to sue states for laws they dislike

Under the proposed investor protection chapter, the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement would allow investors to sue EU countries for loss of future profits if a country creates new regulation that could impact that investment. ISDS has been criticised as the worst judicial system in the world, and raises many concerns, including fair and equitable access to justice. Neither governments, civil society or national businesses can take a case against investors under such international tribunals. The mechanism is only open to multinational companies operating in another jurisdiction, and has already led to multinationals suing countries for regulating in a host of environmental, health and safety areas. EU-US subsidiaries operating in each other's regions amount to 75,000, leaving many to believe that such ISDS lawsuits could be come a regular fixture under TTIP, threatening government's ability to legislate.

Flagship cases:

Philip Morris sues Uruguay over proposed public health regulations

Swedish energy company Vattenfall sues Germany for phasing out nuclear

Lone Pine Resources sues Canada for its moratorium on fracking.

8. Because corporations will get a chance to screen future legislation

TTIP also envisions the establishment of a Regulatory Cooperation Council that ‘would allow early intervention by US and EU regulators in each other’s rule making processes’. In December 2013 Corporate Europe Observatory disclosed documents revealing that US and EU business groups have lobbied for such a formal structure for years. They warn that such a body could result in business lobbies imposing undue influence through privileged access at this early stage of policymaking. Businesses then may be able to influence laws that could impact our social, environmental and consumer standards before they’re even discussed at national level.

9. Because it formalises never ending negotiations

It is no secret that negotiators on both sides have found some issues “challenging” in recent months. But many of the most difficult areas could be left unaddressed until after the deal is officially signed. Commissioner for Trade Karel De Gucht wants TTIP to be “a living agreement that promotes greater compatibility of our regimes and accelerates the development of global approaches.” In essence, politically sensitive issues could be worked out at a later date, once the public focus on TTIP has dissipated. A 'living agreement' could also mean that new policy changes could be influenced on an on-going basis without the need to renegotiate the deal.

10. Because it threatens governments' right to make decisions

Whether through the threat of being sued under ISDS for legislating, early interventions by a Regulatory Cooperation Council, or continuous revision of regulations under plans for a ‘living agreement’, TTIP will have an inevitable ‘cooling effect’ on national governments ability to legislate for the public good. International trade agreements should not surpass the rights of nations to democratically make decisions.

11. Because it is already negatively impacting EU decision making

The EU has already seen the cooling effect TTIP has had on EU laws. Several proposals have been disrupted, shelved or pushed through as a consequence of the pending agreement.

The Fuel Quality Directive has mysteriously vanished from the Commission’s agenda, while in the ENVI committee of the European Parliament, a resolution against the treatment of meats with lactic acid, something that in normal circumstances would’ve clearly been supported, failed due to intense and unprecedented lobbying by the Commission. Proposals on labelling requirements for meat from cloned animals were drastically watered down in 2013, even though all three institutions had already agreed in principle in spring 2011. And recently the European Food Safety Authority issued an overall positive assessment of peroxyacetic acid solutions as a sanitary wash for poultry carcasses and meat, something which a 2004 EU regulation prohibits, but may now form the basis of allowing such processed meat to be sold here. It is understood that all of these issues would have been handled very differently if TTIP negotiations were not taking place.

In a recent TV interview, MEP D. Roth-Behrendt from the ENVI committee said:

“Why can a high public servant of the Commission’s Directorate-General on Trade come to me and urge me “please, please, please do not reject this law, let it pass because otherwise the US will not trust us and will abandon the negotiations.” What about this very weak proposed cloning legislation that has been tabled in the midst of the negotiations on free trade? That already shows how things will be run from now on.”

12. Because taxpayers will foot the bill

Under the Investor State Dispute Mechanism (ISDS) taxpayers will pay out compensation costs to multinationals who take cases against EU countries if they feel their future profits will be affected by new or existing legislation. The German government are currently being sued for billions by the Swedish company Vattenfall under an ISDS mechanism, for Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy, for example. This could become the norm under TTIP.

Moreover, there are a number of other indirect costs that are not factored into the Commission's reports as described in a recent study by ÖFSE:

'Costs of unemployment, including long term unemployment, might be substantial, especially during the 10 year transition period of TTIP. Based on projected job displacement in one of the studies of 0.4 – 1.1 million, our rough (and conservative) calculation suggests implied costs of €5 – €14 billion for unemployment benefits, excluding costs for re-training and skills-acquisition. In addition, foregone public income from taxes and social contributions from unemployment might accrue to €4 – €10 billion'

The study also writes that the removal of non-trade-barriers could have undue cost implications for countries through loss of revenue that has not been calculated by previous studies.

'Most importantly, the elimination of NTMs will result in a potential welfare loss to society, to the extent that this elimination threatens public policy goals (e.g. consumer safety, public health, environmental safety). The analysis of NTMs in the studies, particularly Ecorys, completely ignores these problems.'

13. Because industry demands are pretty scary

Whether it is the US meat industry calling for the EU to lift bans on ractopamine in pork, hormone injected beef or chlorine-washed chicken or some of the biggest financial institutions in the City of London hoping to challenge new US financial regulations, the corporate wish list of standards they want to see removed under TTIP is frightening. The chances of “levelling up” regulations is therefore highly unlikely, and Greens fear we’ll see the worst lowest-common denominator standards prevailing in the end.

14. Because addressing climate change needs to be taken seriously

In May 2014, the Huffington Post revealed a draft EU negotiating text calling for the US export of “coal, crude oil, oil products, natural gas, whether liquefied or not, and electrical energy” under TTIP. Climate activists worry the deal could lock both sides of the Atlantic into continued and intensified fossil fuel use, impeding the move to much needed renewable energy sources. To make matters worse, TTIP may prohibit state or national support for renewable programs through the elimination of ‘local content requirements’ also known as buy-local rules, further undermining efforts to transition to a low carbon economy. While according to a report by the Heinrich Böll Stiftung:

‘..greater [EU-US trade] cooperation is not predicted to result in reduced GHG emissions. On the contrary, the most ambitious TTIP scenario predicts an increase of 11.8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions: 3.9 million tonnes in the US, 3.6 million tonnes in the EU and 4.3 million tonnes in China due to carbon leakage attributable to its “less environment-friendly product techniques”’

At the same time, the most recent IPCC report on climate change tells us we ‘need to use all available tools and measures to meet the challenge of climate change’. TTIP may do more damage than good in tackling the climate crisis.

15. Because workers could bear the brunt

Since negotiations began, some of the largest trade unions in Europe and the US have raised their concerns against the deal. Many believe it could put downward pressure on wages, export jobs abroad and weaken labour rights and safety standards that are already under pressure due to the economic downturn. The EU generally has higher labour standards than the US, who have not ratified six of the core International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions. Thus the prospect of ‘levelling up’ standards for workers is again, highly unlikely.

16. Because public services are in jeopardy

The further liberalisation of public services on both sides of the Atlantic is a concern for many, with opponents believing TTIP could lock countries into deeper privatisation of essential public services. There have been calls to exclude education from the deal altogether, citing concerns that US companies are “for profit”, leaving the education sector in Europe more “exposed to increased pressures of commercialisation and privatisation” On healthcare, similar worries have been raised, particularly in the UK, that US healthcare giants could be given “irreversible" powers under planned competition rules:

“… the rules "completely undermine" the ability of the NHS to "plan and optimise" local services, adding that a treaty which made it easier for US healthcare giants to secure contracts would further "unpick the NHS fabric”.

17. Because supporting local economies is a good thing

The EU wants to prohibit US states from continuing with programs which encourage support for local economic activity at state level, including the transition to renewables or local organic farming for school nutrition programs. The Commission argues that such laws are discriminatory and act as “localisation barriers to trade.” But we believe efforts to support local businesses are essential for the creation of robust and vibrant local economies. According to Sharon Treat, a State Legislator from Maine:

‘In our state of Maine, which is a rather low-income state with limited economic opportunity (especially now that our textile and shoe factories have almost all moved offshore following NAFTA and other trade agreements), a bright spot is local food initiatives. Our land use and procurement policies are encouraging young people to take up farming, and developing new markets for farmers to sell their produce to schools, hospitals, and other institutions.’

18. Because the Precautionary Principle is one of Europe’s greatest achievements

US negotiators on behalf of industry are doing all in their power to undermine the precautionary principle, a cornerstone of EU policymaking, calling it “unscientific”. Such efforts by business are well established, as Colin Macilwain of Nature magazine has explained:

‘The term 'sound science' may sound innocuous — comforting, even. Don't be fooled. In policy circles, its use is now pretty-much confined to the determined band of brothers who make their livings trying to roll back government regulation, by fair means or foul.’

The precautionary principle is based on the idea that if a risk or danger to humans, animals or the environment cannot be ruled out in a product or process, that product or process is banned. You need to be able to demonstrate that there is absolutely no risk before you can put something on the market. In the US, the opposite is true - you need to be able to prove that something is hazardous before it is taken off the shelf. This is a fundamental difference, and explains why in the US, asbestos has yet to be banned. In the EU we expect to be protected before something happens. In the US, they expect to be able to sue when something does.

If the US successfully argues that the precautionary principle is "unscientific, ..burdensome, discriminatory, ..unwarranted and create significant barriers to U.S. exports", then we will see our hard-won standards dismantled in front of our eyes.

19. Because a “win-win” deal is flawed

Proponents of the deal talk of a “win-win” scenario for both sides, but fail to mention the global impacts of moving away from multilateral trade talks. Even conservative studies indicate that TTIP could negatively impact many of the developing nations we claim to be helping. Countries in North Africa, for instance, whose fragile economies rely on exports to Europe, are set to see a drop in real income per capita of anything between 2.8 and 4.0% according to the Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Under an ambitious agreement scenario, the majority of other nations outside the EU and US will be negatively affected by the redirection of trade, with border nations like Mexico set to see a drop of up to 7.2%. Internal trade between certain EU countries could drop as much as 40%, which could have serious implications for EU economic integration, on which the European project was based.

20. Because data rights should not be further undermined

Data privacy is not on the table, but data-flows are covered under the eCommerce chapter. Data protection regimes in the US and EU ‘are starkly different and unbalanced’, with Europe viewing them as a basic right, and the US as a barrier to trade. The recent NSA scandal and EU government surveillance have highlighted the global need for high level data protection standards. Data flows need to remain outside TTIP until both the US and the EU can deliver comprehensive data protection measures. European Digital Rights Institute (EDRi) writes:

‘Inclusion of free flows of data in TTIP will make privacy an issue to be decided by TTIP dispute settlement tribunals. The EU will lose leverage needed to protect privacy. In addition, investor-to-state dispute settlement may further undermine privacy.’

21. Because consumer groups are worried

Efforts by big business to remove non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade will negatively impact consumers, too. NTBs can be anything from more comprehensive food labelling, that identifies where and how food was made, to online privacy measures, to regulation banning certain chemicals from cosmetics, toys and other products. The erosion of such protections are not to the benefit of consumers, regardless of whether costs are reduced or not.

22. Because our food standards are at risk

One of the most prominent controversies surrounding TTIP has been the impact on our food. The EU are adamant that it will not allow hormone-injected beef, chicken washed in chlorine baths, and pork treated with ractopomine from the US, enter the EU market. The widespread use of antibiotics on US farms is also worrying. Such harmful processes could negatively impact the food industry, as such food is produced more cheaply and at a lower quality. However, US negotiators, at the behest of US corporations, continue to push for these products to be included in TTIP. The agreement could also make it much harder for EU member states to make up their own mind on accepting GMO crops, for example. Many organisations in the US do not want to export its broken food system to the EU, and are doing what they can to reverse agri-industry trends of mass production of sub-standard food.

Read 10 reasons why TTIP is bad for good food and farming (US Institute for Agriculture and Trade)

Read 'Trade Matters' TTIP and its impacts on food and farming (Center for Food Safety)

23. Because negotiation means trade-offs between grossly different things

The Commission is preparing for give-and-take concessions as part of these talks, meaning we are likely to lose some battles in order to gain wins in other chapters. So although we aim to protect our food standards, nothing is off the table in negotiations. The EU hopes to gain more in procurement, which may mean sacrifices in agriculture, according to Hiddo Houben, an EU official in the trade and agriculture section of the delegation in Washington who said in April:

"We are, I think at least in political terms, going to be giving more in agriculture than we get ... and in procurement we are hoping to get more that we give, because our market is more open today. At least that's what we would argue."

The Greens have legitimate concerns that this approach could see key EU standards pawned off for other gains in transatlantic trade.

24. Because it could freeze progress on new safety standards for harmful chemicals

Recent revelations by the Center for International Environmental Law and ClientEarth suggest that the chemical industry on both sides of the Atlantic have teamed up to ‘exploit regulatory differences between the two parties to slow regulatory developments at all levels, prevent the regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and obstruct efforts to promote substitution of all harmful substances with safer alternatives.’ They believe that such proposals could ‘freeze progress in regulating toxic chemicals, create an industry bypass around democracy, give commercial interests and trade precedence over the protection of human health and the environment, stifle innovation in safer chemicals and Impede global action on toxic chemicals.’ Not a particularly citizen-friendly list.

Read ‘Toxic partnership’ A critique of the ACC-CEFIC proposal for trans-Atlantic cooperation on chemicals (CIEL & ClientEarth)

Read NGOs fear TTIP clauses will affect EU chemicals regulation (Euractiv)

25. Because access to affordable medicine is a human right

Campaigners are concerned that the pharmaceutical industry’s wish list for TTIP will undermine public health policy and negatively impact citizen’s access to affordable medicine. Drug companies are hoping to expand periods of monopoly through patents and other intellectual property measures, while there are suggestions that it aims to undermine regulations set by European Member States to protect public health. Such moves are not in the public interest and will could increase the cost of medicines.

At a recent conference, Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General is quoted discussing TTIP and TPP saying: “If these agreements open trade yet close access to affordable medicines, we have to ask: is this really progress at all?”

26. Because corporate law firms are cashing in

The number of investor claims against states has exploded in recent years, with a few dozen in the early 90s, to nearly 600 cases in 2013 alone. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, this has been great news for some of the biggest corporate law firms in the world:

‘…as the number of investor-state disputes has grown, investment arbitration has become a money-making machine in its own right. Today, there are a number of law firms and arbitrators whose business model depends on companies suing states. Hence they are constantly encouraging their corporate clients to sue – for example, when a country adopts measures to fight an economic crisis.’

We don’t believe law firms should be profiting through corporate attempts to halt a country’s right to legislate.

27. Because we don't need more deregulation in the financial sector

The EU are pushing for the inclusion regulatory cooperation for financial services in TTIP, a move strongly resisted by the US. US negotiators believe the inclusion of financial services regulation may risk watering down new standards set by the 2010 Dodd Frank law aimed at enhancing oversight and stability of the US financial system. We Greens fully support the Dodd Frank law, and are against attempts to undermine such financial regulation. With Europe edging out of an economic crisis, we strongly oppose the inclusion of regulatory cooperation of financial services in TTIP which at present could only result in weakening regulation and oversight on both sides of the Atlantic. This is not in the best interest of citizens in Europe or the US. At a time when we should be doing all in our power to steady our financial systems, the last thing we need is to expose either side of the Atlantic to more undue risk.

28. Because our leaders are ignoring citizen concerns

Although controversy over TTIP continues to build, our political leaders remain committed to pursuing a comprehensive agreement, with David Cameron calling it a “once in a generation prize.” Hundreds of open letters from civil society remain unaddressed. Calls for transparency have largely fallen on deaf ears, as Members of the Council were unwilling to make the EU TTIP mandate public in May. Meanwhile the Commission seems adamant to suppress public-opposition, as seen with the unprecedented arrests of over 250 peaceful protestors at an anti-TTIP demonstration in Brussels recently, including a number of Green Parliamentary assistants. The Greens will continue to work to hold our leaders to account on TTIP and work to ensure these issues are not ignored.

29. Because resistance is growing and it needs our support

In recent months we’ve reported the growing grassroots campaigns in Italy, Belgium, Germany, as well as campaigns in France and the UK. With so many issues at risk under TTIP, the Greens have made it a priority to tackle these issues head on. But there’s still a lot to do to build awareness amongst citizens across Europe and the US.

30. Because if you won't take our word for it, perhaps these organisations might convince you

Hundreds of civil society organisations, NGOs, trade unions, consumer groups and watchdogs are also raising their concerns on both sides of the Atlantic. As we have showcased, TTIP raises legitimate and substantial worries on a wide variety of issues that could impact your daily life. Here are just some of the organisations actively working on TTIP.

http://www.ttip2014.eu/blog-detail/b...pose-ttip.html

[b0g]

list of helpful TTIP documents

http://www.ttip2014.eu/documents.html

[b0g]

a clear paper: "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Role of Computable General Equilibrium Modelling: An Exercise in ‘Managing Fictional Expectations’"

a G E model was used to compute some numbers of the implication of deploying TTIP  like the impact on GDP , employment...
BUT these General Equilibrium Models are infested with flaws and  unrealistic assumptions
like always full emploment

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo..._modelling.pdf

on twitter

TTIP of the Iceberg ‏@TTIPBeware

"Juncker was crystal clear against ISDS, now apparently suddenly stopped. How can citizens trust the Commission?" @yjadot asks @MalmstromEU



USTR ‏@USTradeRep

#TTIP #Round7 begins today! Follow @USTradeRep and @US2EU for updates throughout the week