European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA(stop-ttip.org)
stop-ttip.org
European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA
http://stop-ttip.org/
99 comments
I see no reason to distrust the whole of the EU just because they don't reject Karel De Gucht. After all, if Belgium stands behind him, the EU can't do much. If that isn't satisfying for you, I recommend distrusting the EU Commission. That's what I do.
Our best hope is to shoot this thing down when it has to be ratified by the EU parliament. During the last legislative period, the parliament has shown that it can and will use its powers to protect the citizens. (I'm thinking about its recent work on net neutrality and privacy.)
We can expect nothing from the Commision and we should expect to be betrayed by the council (that's the national leaders), but the EU Parliament is firmly on our side.
Our best hope is to shoot this thing down when it has to be ratified by the EU parliament. During the last legislative period, the parliament has shown that it can and will use its powers to protect the citizens. (I'm thinking about its recent work on net neutrality and privacy.)
We can expect nothing from the Commision and we should expect to be betrayed by the council (that's the national leaders), but the EU Parliament is firmly on our side.
I can think of plenty of other reasons to distrust the EU.
The EU parliament is the only aspect that is partially on the side of the people. But on the other end there's the EU Commission, the council of ministers and the entire corrupt EU bureaucracy that is beyond any form of oversight.
Parliament is the least powerful element of the EU, and any positive news that reaches HN from the EU is usually about parliament managing to pull off a rare victory over all of those other forces. (For instance Net Neutrality or defeating ACTA.)
And this only after massive popular lobbying of said parliament. EU parliament certainly isn't "firmly" on our side, but since their the only part of the EU that is actually democratically elected we can occasionally get a small majority to interrupt lining their pockets and take a stand.
The EU itself is a backdoor for treaties like TTIP and CETA. Without it, such treaties would have to go through the democratic processes of sovereign nations, which, although far from perfect, are most certainly more transparent and democratic than the EU. (At least, that was the case until the EU started including blatantly corrupt nations.)
If we can stop this, it's despite the EU, certainly not because of it.
The EU parliament is the only aspect that is partially on the side of the people. But on the other end there's the EU Commission, the council of ministers and the entire corrupt EU bureaucracy that is beyond any form of oversight.
Parliament is the least powerful element of the EU, and any positive news that reaches HN from the EU is usually about parliament managing to pull off a rare victory over all of those other forces. (For instance Net Neutrality or defeating ACTA.)
And this only after massive popular lobbying of said parliament. EU parliament certainly isn't "firmly" on our side, but since their the only part of the EU that is actually democratically elected we can occasionally get a small majority to interrupt lining their pockets and take a stand.
The EU itself is a backdoor for treaties like TTIP and CETA. Without it, such treaties would have to go through the democratic processes of sovereign nations, which, although far from perfect, are most certainly more transparent and democratic than the EU. (At least, that was the case until the EU started including blatantly corrupt nations.)
If we can stop this, it's despite the EU, certainly not because of it.
> The EU itself is a backdoor for treaties like TTIP and CETA. Without it, such treaties would have to go through the democratic processes of sovereign nations, which, although far from perfect, are most certainly more transparent and democratic than the EU. (At least, that was the case until the EU started including blatantly corrupt nations.)
Uhm... no? If there was no EU, we'd now have a lot of bilateral agreements between the US and single European states, with each individual agreement consisting of 90% what the US policy makers want and 10% what the country's policy makers want.
The only reason that this takes so long is because the EU is actually large enough to put up some resistance. Every individual country, including my native Germany, would have been steamrollered by the US.
Just look at the bilateral treaties that EUropean countries have with the US. They are always really lopsided, like that one where the UK extradites its own citizens to the US, but the US doesn't reciprocate.
Uhm... no? If there was no EU, we'd now have a lot of bilateral agreements between the US and single European states, with each individual agreement consisting of 90% what the US policy makers want and 10% what the country's policy makers want.
The only reason that this takes so long is because the EU is actually large enough to put up some resistance. Every individual country, including my native Germany, would have been steamrollered by the US.
Just look at the bilateral treaties that EUropean countries have with the US. They are always really lopsided, like that one where the UK extradites its own citizens to the US, but the US doesn't reciprocate.
what about the democratic process? The UK politicians are being punished over the UK/US extradition policy. Who in the EU are you going to punish if one day we wake up with TTIP on our backs? Nobody, because there is no democratic process in the EU. Are you going to vote EU Commission out?
The lack of democracy is no.1 problem with the EU. Any person who believes in democracy really can't say I believe in EU at the same time.
The lack of democracy is no.1 problem with the EU. Any person who believes in democracy really can't say I believe in EU at the same time.
Hu? The European Parliament is elected directly by the people (a bit too directly for my taste, in fact, I would have much preferred if the 5% minimum had been kept…). The commission is approved by parliament and suggested by the governments of the individual member states. The “corrupt bureaucracy” is put in place by the various offices (commission, council, parliament, CoJ etc.), just as in any other country.
What sort of democratic process would you prefer?
What sort of democratic process would you prefer?
> The commission is approved by parliament and suggested by the governments of the individual member states.
The EU parliament approval is done in secret. So you can't hold responsible your elected official for supporting someone you wouldn't support. What is the point of having EU Commisars selected in secrecy? What is the point of having EU Commissars elections where there is only one candidate?
Why they can't simply follow standard democratic procedures? Why all the secrecy and elections over one-candidate? What is it? An USSR polit-biuro?
The EU parliament approval is done in secret. So you can't hold responsible your elected official for supporting someone you wouldn't support. What is the point of having EU Commisars selected in secrecy? What is the point of having EU Commissars elections where there is only one candidate?
Why they can't simply follow standard democratic procedures? Why all the secrecy and elections over one-candidate? What is it? An USSR polit-biuro?
The secrecy is a fair point, but both secret votes and one-candidate votes are fairly common e.g. in Germany: both the chancellor and the prime ministers of individual states are voted on in secret in their respective parliaments (Bundes- resp. Landtag). There is also always only one candidate which either receives 50%+1 approval (and then becomes the new chancellor/prime minister) or fails and can either try again or make way for someone else.
I did not perceive this system as particularly non-democratic, especially since the actual MPs are elected in a decent way (not FPTP nor that strange electoral college used in US president elections).
I did not perceive this system as particularly non-democratic, especially since the actual MPs are elected in a decent way (not FPTP nor that strange electoral college used in US president elections).
Nobody of the public in Belgium stands behind him, if you understand dutch go to the reactions page of an(y) article about him of a popular Belgian newspaper: http://goo.gl/duj8ml (can't do it with Google Translate (the comments use Ajax), i haven't seen 1 positive reaction ! )
The citizens in a lot of EU countries have massively protested, that's why it got rejected, in Belgium, none of the protests even came in the Belgian media (tv, newspaper, ..) - http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs .
In the letter in my previous post, Karel De Gucht tried to influence the commission, so that they would't reject the proposal solely on the fact that a massive ammount of people emailed/contacted politicians about ACTA (it's cleary mentioned in the letter of Karel De Gucht, asking for the politicians not being influenced by the massive protests http://goo.gl/8AOmSX )
But i distrust the EU commission (not the entire EU), you corrected me on that one
PS. The popular newspaper linked was HLN (het laatste nieuws), but feel free to search any Belgian alternative newspaper :)
PS2. I haven't met anyone in person that thinks Karel De Gucht does a good job. If there is someone who disagrees with me, i'm sorry. But you are probably not from Belgium :)
The citizens in a lot of EU countries have massively protested, that's why it got rejected, in Belgium, none of the protests even came in the Belgian media (tv, newspaper, ..) - http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs .
In the letter in my previous post, Karel De Gucht tried to influence the commission, so that they would't reject the proposal solely on the fact that a massive ammount of people emailed/contacted politicians about ACTA (it's cleary mentioned in the letter of Karel De Gucht, asking for the politicians not being influenced by the massive protests http://goo.gl/8AOmSX )
But i distrust the EU commission (not the entire EU), you corrected me on that one
PS. The popular newspaper linked was HLN (het laatste nieuws), but feel free to search any Belgian alternative newspaper :)
PS2. I haven't met anyone in person that thinks Karel De Gucht does a good job. If there is someone who disagrees with me, i'm sorry. But you are probably not from Belgium :)
"reaction pages" are usually more frequented by haters of whatever the content of the article is about.
Also, it has been shown that the Russians are astroturfing in favor of right and left wing extremists in Europe...
Also, it has been shown that the Russians are astroturfing in favor of right and left wing extremists in Europe...
I'm in no way defending Karel De Gucht, believe me.
The situation you describe raises some questions, though. If he is this unpopular and disliked in Belgium, how on earth did he manage to become Belgium's representative in the Commission, holding a key post (Commissioner for Trade)?
The situation you describe raises some questions, though. If he is this unpopular and disliked in Belgium, how on earth did he manage to become Belgium's representative in the Commission, holding a key post (Commissioner for Trade)?
I've been thinking the same thing, i guess he left belgian politics on the right time for the EU.
(He was being investigated after he went in the EU)
(He was being investigated after he went in the EU)
At least in Ireland, an EU commission post is often a way to remove either someone perceived as a threat, or a sinecure for an old ally who might be better off not interfering with national politics. I imagine Belgian politicians succumb to the same temptations.
This is one very good argument against the EU in its entirety. We don't need crooked politicians from a random country making decisions for the rest of the EU. It seems like things are going terribly wrong since this project started. The only gain we got is a higher dose of cocaine in the urine of the EU parliament members.
For those wondering what's wrong with TTIP, a while ago Geroge Monibot wrote a well documented piece about it: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-wing-...
...and here's a response from Ken Clarke, a politician, defending the TTIP: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-t...
In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as "one comparatively minor element".
In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as "one comparatively minor element".
You don't have to read the details to grok the truth here.
A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent.
In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who?
In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states.
These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted.
For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally.
Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.
A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty, labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent.
In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who?
In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way going to benefit the little guy in the client states.
These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the rest of the people get shafted.
For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-assisted projects in the developing world, check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated portions personally.
Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.
The rhetorical question is that if it's so minor why is so much effort being expended to try and get it in?
The answer is that it's not minor and a corner stone of the corporatism agenda.
EDIT: And his dismissing of the gutting of safety standards by using the lowest common denominator is disingenuous at best and nakedly corrupt at worst.
The answer is that it's not minor and a corner stone of the corporatism agenda.
EDIT: And his dismissing of the gutting of safety standards by using the lowest common denominator is disingenuous at best and nakedly corrupt at worst.
For anyone who wants to know more about any form of "trade agreement" the EU is up to. https://www.laquadrature.net/ is a very good documented website. Here is everything about TTIP, also known as TAFTA https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA
TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement
TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement
TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
TTIP is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and corrupt. In other words, in the best traditions of post-Bush America. Please don't export this shit to Europe.
Pretending that EU leaders have no culpability in this is a great way to ensure US dominance over Europe.
ttip is an undemocratic attack on civil rights.
Devised by big corps for big corps.
A destorted result of profit thinking whith forseeable devastating inpact on citizens and environment.
There is a simple logic here ...FOR...PROFIT...ONLY...
THE FUTURE I imagine them super rich counting there money on the smoking remains of what once WAS our beautifull plannet. PROBABLY BEING DUMB ArSE HAPPY FOR HAVING MADE SUCH A HUGE PROFIT.
ACTION: STOP THIS BUNCH OF IMBECILE F. UPS BY ANY MEANS SIMPLY BY EXPOSURE (de gucht is a criminal)
THE FUTURE I imagine them super rich counting there money on the smoking remains of what once WAS our beautifull plannet. PROBABLY BEING DUMB ArSE HAPPY FOR HAVING MADE SUCH A HUGE PROFIT.
ACTION: STOP THIS BUNCH OF IMBECILE F. UPS BY ANY MEANS SIMPLY BY EXPOSURE (de gucht is a criminal)
Could you be so kind as to cite a single violation of civil rights being proposed as part of TTIP?
I'm disappointed to see so many people objecting to a free trade agreement that would benefit both the US and EU tremendously. When people oppose such things, I always ask whether they think the US would be better off as a patchwork of 50 countries, each with their own tariffs etc., or if they think the EU was better when you needed to go through passport control every time you crossed a border and products needed to go through separate sets of approvals in every country before they could be sold.
Free trade does a lot more for people than national sovereignty. I rather doubt anyone here thinks we'd be better off with 180 national networks instead of a global internet, but that's what most of you are arguing for where physical goods are concerned. If it were up to me I'd like to see unrestricted movement across borders of goods, capital and people.
Free trade does a lot more for people than national sovereignty. I rather doubt anyone here thinks we'd be better off with 180 national networks instead of a global internet, but that's what most of you are arguing for where physical goods are concerned. If it were up to me I'd like to see unrestricted movement across borders of goods, capital and people.
Excuse me, but this is not about "free trade" per se. Trade between Europe and America already is to a large extent free. Why do you think it has the volume it already has today? So free trade rhetoric is misplaced here. What TTIP is about is about regulations, for example concerning food or medicine, patent and copyright laws, etc. And I, for one, abhor US patent laws, or their blatant and complete disregard for the environment or animal beings, etc. I don't want your crap food here, your GMO conglomerates, or your patent lawyers. And for sure I don't want Germany or France to be financially liable to some faceless big corp when it rules certain things in the interest of the people it is supposed to protect and represent! Sure, do what you want, you can have your "standards" at your side of the Atlantic and continue to get reamed by your political elite and Washington lawyers. But don't export them here, to us!
What I find particularly galling is how TTIP proponents dangle a decimal point rise in GDP in front of us when it is not even possible to forecast accurately the economy as it is. What is more, let's go with it and assume it came to pass -- GDP miraculously increased by what they said it would as a result. What about the costs incurred in terms of loss of (even more) control over our food supply chain, increase in health care costs, more draconian imposition of your patent and copyright laws, etc etc.
Nobody with a job and not a specialist can be reasonably expected to get to know in detail what such agreements entails. So there needs to be a basis of trust that the US will not fuck us over. And here you seem to forget: The US, since Adolf Bush and his co-captain Barack Hitler, is doing its best to lose massive amounts trust and goodwill here, even in traditionally pro-America Germany. You don't have much credit left, both literally and figuratively, better not squander it. We believe you less and less. Just go away. You have already taken more than enough.
What I find particularly galling is how TTIP proponents dangle a decimal point rise in GDP in front of us when it is not even possible to forecast accurately the economy as it is. What is more, let's go with it and assume it came to pass -- GDP miraculously increased by what they said it would as a result. What about the costs incurred in terms of loss of (even more) control over our food supply chain, increase in health care costs, more draconian imposition of your patent and copyright laws, etc etc.
Nobody with a job and not a specialist can be reasonably expected to get to know in detail what such agreements entails. So there needs to be a basis of trust that the US will not fuck us over. And here you seem to forget: The US, since Adolf Bush and his co-captain Barack Hitler, is doing its best to lose massive amounts trust and goodwill here, even in traditionally pro-America Germany. You don't have much credit left, both literally and figuratively, better not squander it. We believe you less and less. Just go away. You have already taken more than enough.
I'm from Ireland. Your ranting reminds me of the arguments nationalists make against greater EU integration. However, I have no wish to see the EU revert to being a bunch of mercantilist nations, and I don't support US-EU mercantilism either. The best way to make the US more like the EU is to deal with it, not lie on the ground like a child throwing a tantrum.
Perhaps you'd care to get your facts before you buy into Washington rhetoric then, you grown-up… How big is US-EU trade at the moment? In absolute and relative terms (ie compared to other links)? And how high exactly are the tariff barriers at the moment? And what is the TTIP actually about?
So what exactly does opposition to TTIP in particular and trade negotiations w/o public dialogue or debate in general have to do with mercantilism or Irish nationalism?!
Also, you might also think that after most of the trade barriers have already been removed, what remains probably does so for a reason. European people just do not want GMO food, for example. Many polls in different countries always reach the same conclusion. It doesn't matter if some trade official in the pocket of Monsanto thinks it's okay. Europe is the last bastion of freedom and liberalism since Bush wrecked America's soul. It should isolate and defend itself vigorously from the US, at least until the US remembers what it once stood for in the world.
So what exactly does opposition to TTIP in particular and trade negotiations w/o public dialogue or debate in general have to do with mercantilism or Irish nationalism?!
Also, you might also think that after most of the trade barriers have already been removed, what remains probably does so for a reason. European people just do not want GMO food, for example. Many polls in different countries always reach the same conclusion. It doesn't matter if some trade official in the pocket of Monsanto thinks it's okay. Europe is the last bastion of freedom and liberalism since Bush wrecked America's soul. It should isolate and defend itself vigorously from the US, at least until the US remembers what it once stood for in the world.
You seem to be arguing with statements I haven't made, by alleging that I don't have my facts straight and then demanding random statistics. I am not going to play word games with you.
US-EU trade is not the issue, it is already huge and it will grow without TTIP. Read what the TTIP is actually about. Implying that being against TTIP, virulently or not, is equivalent or even comparable to being nationalist or mercantilist is beyond the pale. No word games necessary, just read before you talk.
PS: And btw, why would anyone have an interest in making the US more like the EU? Who cares about what the US does to itself? I just don't want the US meddling and diluting laws and ways of life here.
PS: And btw, why would anyone have an interest in making the US more like the EU? Who cares about what the US does to itself? I just don't want the US meddling and diluting laws and ways of life here.
I have read about it. I just don't agree with your interpretation of it.
Reading about TTIP reminds me of the "Estado Novo" - the Portuguese corporatist dictatorship that lasted for a large chunk of the 20th century.
Corporation rights above people, that is the way forward...
You are wrong. The "corporations" of Estado Novo were not commercial corporations like Monsanto, or P&G.
The corporations in corporatism are understood to be representatives of the broad professional groups.
There was an assembly - Câmara Corporativa - that was a representative and consultive body that had no decision power but that the National Assembly - the legislative body - had to consult for all the laws that they'd propose.
It was actually a good idea in my opinion. It's a much more transparent way of having the economical, social, syndical, etc "interest groups" or "corporations" participate in the political decision process. A lot better than US style lobbying, as it was completely public and not dependent on money. Besides, that way, there would always be technical and real-world advice for every law passed.
From wikipedia:
Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
EDIT: added reference to Wikipedia.
The corporations in corporatism are understood to be representatives of the broad professional groups.
There was an assembly - Câmara Corporativa - that was a representative and consultive body that had no decision power but that the National Assembly - the legislative body - had to consult for all the laws that they'd propose.
It was actually a good idea in my opinion. It's a much more transparent way of having the economical, social, syndical, etc "interest groups" or "corporations" participate in the political decision process. A lot better than US style lobbying, as it was completely public and not dependent on money. Besides, that way, there would always be technical and real-world advice for every law passed.
From wikipedia:
Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
EDIT: added reference to Wikipedia.
Quite funny that in Switzerland most are apparently most concerned with fractions of a percent of the economy by being left out other than other issues raised.
Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-dea...
Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-dea...
Do YOU understand how the following INFO can be used to IDENTIFY your INFO. DEPRIVERS & to FLACIDATE "your" members of the GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY?
*
SECRET TPPartnership, CETA & C-CIT TRIBUNALS due INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists' Clients & Parties' Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES. Repatriating off-shore; profits, goods & services contracts, financing, etc. and co-manufacturing still not on the table? LINE UP to "PREFERRED" IPOs SHOrtens.
What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.
(CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada - China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unravelling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al.
There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are:
1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:
A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by:
i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders & ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse and B) to protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations...
...For the FULL ARTICLE, see; Google: "TPP...INSIDER TRADING; David E.H. Smith", & Facebook; "David Smith, Sidney, BC" to the access List of RECENT ARTICLES & CORRESPONDENCES by DEHS.
What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.
(CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada - China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unravelling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al.
There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are:
1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:
A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by:
i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders & ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse and B) to protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations...
...For the FULL ARTICLE, see; Google: "TPP...INSIDER TRADING; David E.H. Smith", & Facebook; "David Smith, Sidney, BC" to the access List of RECENT ARTICLES & CORRESPONDENCES by DEHS.
[deleted]
It seems to me that the Wikipedia page is fairly documented and referenced, for an article about a "secret" agreement.
That is partly because, many information was leaked by people that where stirred up by the process.
If this is defeated won't individual deals between each country have to be struck? That seems likely to have a worse outcome for Europe as countries will be played against each other.
The goal is to stop this in its current form. It's currently being negotiated in secret, which is never a good sign. It's also very likely to once again include all kinds of directives greatly benefitting a few lobbying partners without the EU citizens knowing what's going on until it's too late.
"Negotiated in secret" is totally normal in representative democracies. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take, taking positions that you don't actually want in hopes of getting something else, brinkmanship, and trying to come to a meeting of the minds with the other side.
Now, the full text should be understood when it's time for things to actually be ratified or signed into law.
Now, the full text should be understood when it's time for things to actually be ratified or signed into law.
If a treaty of this extent is negotiated in secret and then made public for ratification it _can_ _only_ _fail_ to be accepted. (At least if the democratically elected EU parliament is involved in the acceptance process)
This thing changes so many parts of European law that we took decades to agree on, that the effort to make it "fly under the radar" seems comical.
This thing changes so many parts of European law that we took decades to agree on, that the effort to make it "fly under the radar" seems comical.
Secrecy and trust, like hands-off management, are earned.
Most EU countries do not have a US-style ratification process. And local legislation implementing EU directives is usually passed with near-zero scrutiny.
EU citizens ? Why do they matter ?
The EU fought hard to get two legal precedents :
1) that international treaties preceed the constitutions of member states (and any and all other laws).
2) that the European Commission would be allowed to agree to international treaties on behalf of member states.
There is nobody that can stop this that isn't already in power and Volcker can push this through without ratification by any kind of elected body. Stopping it can only be done in the United States, where it actually has to pass parliament ("congress").
At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name.
The EU fought hard to get two legal precedents :
1) that international treaties preceed the constitutions of member states (and any and all other laws).
2) that the European Commission would be allowed to agree to international treaties on behalf of member states.
There is nobody that can stop this that isn't already in power and Volcker can push this through without ratification by any kind of elected body. Stopping it can only be done in the United States, where it actually has to pass parliament ("congress").
At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name.
A fundamental critique stems from the following effects of the policy:
Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company’s “expected future profits”.
taken from: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . From my understanding this is basically an incentive for national governments to make their (consumer) laws as accordant with each other as possible. One problem I see with this implementation is that this will result in an accordance (of national laws) on the lowest common denominator, ie. the weakest form of consumer protection. In this specific case this would mostly mean levels of consumer protection as seen in the USA and this is in my opinion not in the interest of the general consumer (but that's a discussion of its own).
Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company’s “expected future profits”.
taken from: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . From my understanding this is basically an incentive for national governments to make their (consumer) laws as accordant with each other as possible. One problem I see with this implementation is that this will result in an accordance (of national laws) on the lowest common denominator, ie. the weakest form of consumer protection. In this specific case this would mostly mean levels of consumer protection as seen in the USA and this is in my opinion not in the interest of the general consumer (but that's a discussion of its own).
I beg to differ : as far as I know, the European Commission has been granted a mandate to negociate, but the European Parlement (which represents the EU citizens, however badly/poorly elected it is) will have to ratify it ; then depending on the exact content of the treaty, national parlements might have to ratify it, too.
Which does not change the fact that the current way the treaty is negociated is probably too secret.
Which does not change the fact that the current way the treaty is negociated is probably too secret.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of the EU, or democracy in general. Volcker can't "push TTIP through without ratification by any kind of elected body". The elected government, eu parliament, in many cases national parliaments will have a strong voice in ratification.
This process isn't undemocratic in the least. It's just that the decisions are complex. I'm not strongly in favour of TTIP in its current form, but the more I know about it, the less I believe all the fear mongering.
There seems to be a gut reflex of "I don't understand it, so it must be undemocratic!!"
This process isn't undemocratic in the least. It's just that the decisions are complex. I'm not strongly in favour of TTIP in its current form, but the more I know about it, the less I believe all the fear mongering.
There seems to be a gut reflex of "I don't understand it, so it must be undemocratic!!"
Then a democratic entity has the duty to explain and clarify it to its voters. I am seeing next to nothing of that.
Actually it doesn't. With negotiations that's especially murky, because they are extremely complex and can contain proposals which don't have a chance to go into the agreement.
Explanation/Clarification is not something a voter is entitled to. He can demand it, and usually the media is giving it to him, if at all.
There is also a very good disincentives for politicians to explain "too much". Essentially, when talking to an audience of millions of people, everything you say can be used against you in a court of public opinion. Everything can and will be understood wrongly. That is also partly why effective politicians aren't particularly eager to "tell the truth".
Explanation/Clarification is not something a voter is entitled to. He can demand it, and usually the media is giving it to him, if at all.
There is also a very good disincentives for politicians to explain "too much". Essentially, when talking to an audience of millions of people, everything you say can be used against you in a court of public opinion. Everything can and will be understood wrongly. That is also partly why effective politicians aren't particularly eager to "tell the truth".
Sure, it can be pushed through, as could have previous tech-related secret bills. However, they weren't, because so many people and organisations took up arms and fought against it.
Just because something might not be a democratic process doesn't mean we can't fight against it and book a win against it.
Just because something might not be a democratic process doesn't mean we can't fight against it and book a win against it.
This "process" can't be democratic or undemocratic. The only question can be how far the decision making process is removed from the public.
I can understand the rationale for keeping the negotiations largely secret. This is a very big negotiation, and in general, all sorts of demands or proposals are put on the table in the beginning. Many of these proposals have no chance of getting ratified, but they would still be lethal ammunition for any EU-hating party.
I can understand the rationale for keeping the negotiations largely secret. This is a very big negotiation, and in general, all sorts of demands or proposals are put on the table in the beginning. Many of these proposals have no chance of getting ratified, but they would still be lethal ammunition for any EU-hating party.
(Germany only, don't know about other states)
1) The national constition is the highest part of the German law, not EU law. The courts cooperate in many ways and co-exist, but EU law is not above the Constition / Grundgesetz. (See for example http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und...)
2) The TTIP has to be ratified by the member states. (See for example http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html)
1) The national constition is the highest part of the German law, not EU law. The courts cooperate in many ways and co-exist, but EU law is not above the Constition / Grundgesetz. (See for example http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/177026/grundgesetz-und...)
2) The TTIP has to be ratified by the member states. (See for example http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Service/suche,did=630990.html)
> At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union" name.
Because any country with "Democratic" in the name is usually a totalitarian undemocratic communist dictatorship? :P
Because any country with "Democratic" in the name is usually a totalitarian undemocratic communist dictatorship? :P
TTIP would still have to pass the directly elected EP. Juncker, the new head of the commission was also nominated due to his fraction winning the most seats in parliament.
Some more discussion about this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Europ...
And yes it passes the parliament, however
1) treaties can be adopted without a parliamentary "yes" (has happened many times in the past, because it didn't even used to be asked at all)
2) parliament can say yes or no, but cannot change anything.
3) looking at the contents of previous treaties, it is blatantly obvious that the rules introduced using this instrument would never have passed parliament using other means.
An example of this would be, well, and example of this would be TTIP itself, if the contents are what they're rumored to be, which seems like. Other examples include, for example, the copyright directive [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Europ...
And yes it passes the parliament, however
1) treaties can be adopted without a parliamentary "yes" (has happened many times in the past, because it didn't even used to be asked at all)
2) parliament can say yes or no, but cannot change anything.
3) looking at the contents of previous treaties, it is blatantly obvious that the rules introduced using this instrument would never have passed parliament using other means.
An example of this would be, well, and example of this would be TTIP itself, if the contents are what they're rumored to be, which seems like. Other examples include, for example, the copyright directive [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
There are many moving parts. One open issue is lawsuits from foreign corporations against national governments. There's a running log here:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/tti...
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/tti...
I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press conference.
One of the major concerns of the TTIP is the Investor State Dispute Settlements, which allows US investors to be able to sue EU Member States in cases where their investment has been diminished due to regulatory changes made in the public interest (1). This is corporatocracy at its finest.
Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article.
The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy.
The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products.
I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions.
(1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...
Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article.
The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy.
The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products.
I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions.
(1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...
>The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy.
Vattenfall suing the German state makes sense considering the business impact the change had. Add to that, Vattenfall is wholly owned by the Swedish state so the TTIP should have no impact what so ever on their dealings.
Vattenfall suing the German state makes sense considering the business impact the change had. Add to that, Vattenfall is wholly owned by the Swedish state so the TTIP should have no impact what so ever on their dealings.
Thanks! I'm signed up. Philip Morris vs. Australia sounds like it should be satire :(
There is a nicely explained article about the potential threat to democracy that is TTIP: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta. Incidently techdirt just ran an article on how Bolivia broke their own trade agreement with similar clauses: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/boliv...
Thanks, very informative - I see why this is a problem now!
[deleted]
Why? There have been no such deals for the last 20 years and things are working just fine.
Please define "fine", throwaway28974. And for whom?
For everyone, by default.
Please give a pair of two EU countries, one of which is better of because it has struck a deal concerning free trade with the United States in the last two decades that was denied to the other country. I'm curious.
Please give a pair of two EU countries, one of which is better of because it has struck a deal concerning free trade with the United States in the last two decades that was denied to the other country. I'm curious.
You are right. In US there is no good healthcare and this is the most expensive system that provides the least value for an _average_ individual.
Education, same.
This is what should be exported to the rest of the world? Who are you kidding? The only thing USA could export is guns and dirt bikes.
Education, same.
This is what should be exported to the rest of the world? Who are you kidding? The only thing USA could export is guns and dirt bikes.
And in all likelihood the software that powers your smartphone (to say nothing of heavy industry, biotech, higher education... ). If you wanted to mention something that sounds "dumb" you could have at least gone with agriculture and hydrocarbons or something more accurate.
I'd say this post is deliberately offensive. More importantly for HN it is simply inaccurate.
I'd say this post is deliberately offensive. More importantly for HN it is simply inaccurate.
EU countries cannot make their own bilateral trade agreements.
And they shouldn't. For one thing this would be an anticompetitive move against the other members, and for another, once you import something into one EU country it's really hard to stop it from going into the other countries. So the EU has to approve the regulation of such an agreements...
Otherwise, even without malicious intent on part of a member state, a country like china would just go shopping around the 26 member states and ask who's giving them the best conditions and then do all their trade through them...
Otherwise, even without malicious intent on part of a member state, a country like china would just go shopping around the 26 member states and ask who's giving them the best conditions and then do all their trade through them...
[deleted](3)
"Public interest" is mostly an excuse for unnecessary statism and senseless regulation of European bureaucrats. European economy is very weak compared to that of US, and proponents of regulations under the guise of "public interest" have zero legitimacy because the results are terrible.
Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development.
Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development.
"European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development."
Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...
Growth and more growth is only needed, because of our interest based money system.
Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.
Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.
Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.
Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.
Growth is needed to lift people out of poverty, create jobs and opportunities and support wider range of social projects from infrastructure to space exploration.
The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).
The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).
That is just capitalistic propaganda that now runs the last decades over the world.
But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...
All in the name of god money.
But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...
All in the name of god money.
> But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )
Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.
But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."
According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )
Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.
But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."
I don't know, where you live. But I guess, that you live in a country, where critics of the capitalistic system does not appear in the media.
I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.
It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.
That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.
Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.
The numbers from independent researchers are different. Read the book from Piketty: http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pik...
Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.
I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.
It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.
That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.
Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.
The numbers from independent researchers are different. Read the book from Piketty: http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pik...
Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.
I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.
Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth:
Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.
Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.
Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.
Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.
Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.
Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.
That is just a theory. What do we have in practice:
- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).
- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.
What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".
- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).
- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.
What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".
It's actually more likely that your battery will be properly disposed of today than it was a decade ago. Its being integrated into the phone means it is handled in the entire "decommissioning" of the phone (when you recycle it, trade it in or even throw it away where it is fished out by garbage processing companies who make money by salvaging electronics out of garbage and preventing it from going to landfills.
Just theories.
The reality is, that very much (if not most) of our electronics garbage goes to Africa, where it goes to wild garbage dumps and young children are destroying their health by burning the valuable materials out of the garbage without any health or environmental measures.
Even when the phones are decomposed and parts are recycled, we are very far from recycling 100% of electronic gadgets. Maybe you could (with much effort, that is not cost effective) recycle 40% of the materials. The idiotic method of glueing all together makes things even more difficult!
What you tell here, is just science fiction, that is presented as facts from the media to give us better feelings.
I live in a country with very high standards for garbage recycling -- but even here, most of the stuff is either just dumped or burnt, since that is the most cost effective thing -- that is done, of course after the private households took much effort into waste separation -- it is just dumped/burnt together. I know that, because I brought my things separated to official recycling and was advised to dump it together into one big hole.
Don't believe, what media and press tells you, because governments want to shine a bright light on our industries! You are being just brain-washed.
The reality is, that very much (if not most) of our electronics garbage goes to Africa, where it goes to wild garbage dumps and young children are destroying their health by burning the valuable materials out of the garbage without any health or environmental measures.
Even when the phones are decomposed and parts are recycled, we are very far from recycling 100% of electronic gadgets. Maybe you could (with much effort, that is not cost effective) recycle 40% of the materials. The idiotic method of glueing all together makes things even more difficult!
What you tell here, is just science fiction, that is presented as facts from the media to give us better feelings.
I live in a country with very high standards for garbage recycling -- but even here, most of the stuff is either just dumped or burnt, since that is the most cost effective thing -- that is done, of course after the private households took much effort into waste separation -- it is just dumped/burnt together. I know that, because I brought my things separated to official recycling and was advised to dump it together into one big hole.
Don't believe, what media and press tells you, because governments want to shine a bright light on our industries! You are being just brain-washed.
Sorry, but no. I worked for a very large phone company. These are not theories, they are policies and practices.
Telling me the work of me and my colleagues that I witness with my own eyes is "the media" reflects poorly on you.
Telling me the work of me and my colleagues that I witness with my own eyes is "the media" reflects poorly on you.
You are welcome to move to Venezuela, Belarus or some other unlivable place. I'd prefer Europe to be economically free and in growing prosperity much like Singapore. Sadly most of EU citizens are overly brainwashed with statist propaganda from birth, and promoting degenerate policies which cause economic weakness.
Crony capitalism is bad, and so is Marxist claptrap.
Yes, youth unemployment riots in Paris are great; let's keep things just the way they are.
Investigation for tax fraud and insider trading ( http://goo.gl/wnBN95 ). He is never going to get punished (the judges are his friends). If he sues me about writing this, i'm probably fucked
These initiatives are trade agreements, that's why the EU can keep the meetings / documents a secret. Also, votes are anonymous when it comes to trade agreements.
As the guy of ACTA, he would simply ignore the democratic rejection of the parlement: http://goo.gl/ucrnNX ).
Here are some videos where he was obviously caught lying about ACTA and the economic importance of it (an interview): http://goo.gl/NG6hOq
He also send a letter in the past to the European Commission to defend ACTA and lied about ACTA: http://goo.gl/8AOmSX
PS. He is the reason why i don't trust the EU i live in. Everyone knows about the above (tax fraud, ...), but nothing happens. He is now getting promoted to head of foreign policy of the EU
PS2. There is nothing you can do about Karel De Gucht... He will try again with another agreement in the future, if this would fail. ( ACTA became CETA became TIPP ). I'm worried that people will resist less every time a new "trade-agreement" comes up