EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal
10 comments
"On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted"
I am very skeptical that any of the founding fathers would have wanted European countries restricting US trade. With that said, I agree that the Europeans should make a stand and not accept what they consider dangerous pesticides to be imported into the EU
I am very skeptical that any of the founding fathers would have wanted European countries restricting US trade. With that said, I agree that the Europeans should make a stand and not accept what they consider dangerous pesticides to be imported into the EU
They were pretty clear that they didn't want European countries saying saying either 'yes' or saying 'no'.
Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all.
It's probably the case that the founding fathers would have different opinions were they born today. Today you can travel around the world several times than you could travel across the (extremely small) country then. Things are different.
Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all.
It's probably the case that the founding fathers would have different opinions were they born today. Today you can travel around the world several times than you could travel across the (extremely small) country then. Things are different.
> Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all.
Erm... Monroe Doctrine anyone? How about War of 1812? US Leaders visiting France for support in the Revolution?
Seriously, what's with everyone not understanding basic history around here... I do recognize this is a tech forum, but its exceedingly easy to come up with counter-examples to so many historical statements...
Erm... Monroe Doctrine anyone? How about War of 1812? US Leaders visiting France for support in the Revolution?
Seriously, what's with everyone not understanding basic history around here... I do recognize this is a tech forum, but its exceedingly easy to come up with counter-examples to so many historical statements...
Hey now. I said political involvement (other countries saying 'yes' or 'no'). Certainly the US has always engaged in trade and self defense. You've argued a straw man.
Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. You are the one who has mischaracterized basic history.
"She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."
Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. You are the one who has mischaracterized basic history.
"She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."
> Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars.
I do think the Native Americans would beg to differ. (Indian Removal Act of 1830). Furthermore, the American explicit foreign policy was "Stay out of America so that we can colonize it better". That included South America and the Central America island countries as well.
In 1878 for example, we sailed our Navy to Samosa and threatened war with Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention
The current topic is about a trade dispute regarding the purchase of American Pesticides in Europe. America always had foreign policy and trade disputes.
Now, I agree that during the 1850s, US Foreign Relations more or less stood still. There was something called the Civil War, and we kind of didn't focus on foreign affairs.
Pretending that we were always an isolationist nation is an error! Our rise as a world power (and global politics) began almost immediately after we rebuilt during the Civil War.
Before the Civil War, America wasn't exactly powerful enough to push other nations around in global politics. But we definitely pushed the Native Americans around and expanded with Manifest Destiny, and utilized the Monroe Doctrine to keep other European Countries from settling the region. To claim the Monroe doctrine as a "isolationist" strategy misses the point of Manifest Destiny... American Ambitions to conquer all the land from east coast to west coast is evident even as early as the 1830s.
US-Mexico War, as well as other "threatened wars" (54/40 or fight), various boarder disputes with Canada.... all show the ambitions of the fledgling United States.
The concept of "Manifest Destiny" drove our foreign politics at the time. And that was _anything_ but isolationist.
--------------
Here's another major counterexample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807
And all of the other (most certainly NOT isolationist) events that pissed of Britain enough that it led to the war of 1812.
I do think the Native Americans would beg to differ. (Indian Removal Act of 1830). Furthermore, the American explicit foreign policy was "Stay out of America so that we can colonize it better". That included South America and the Central America island countries as well.
In 1878 for example, we sailed our Navy to Samosa and threatened war with Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention
The current topic is about a trade dispute regarding the purchase of American Pesticides in Europe. America always had foreign policy and trade disputes.
Now, I agree that during the 1850s, US Foreign Relations more or less stood still. There was something called the Civil War, and we kind of didn't focus on foreign affairs.
Pretending that we were always an isolationist nation is an error! Our rise as a world power (and global politics) began almost immediately after we rebuilt during the Civil War.
Before the Civil War, America wasn't exactly powerful enough to push other nations around in global politics. But we definitely pushed the Native Americans around and expanded with Manifest Destiny, and utilized the Monroe Doctrine to keep other European Countries from settling the region. To claim the Monroe doctrine as a "isolationist" strategy misses the point of Manifest Destiny... American Ambitions to conquer all the land from east coast to west coast is evident even as early as the 1830s.
US-Mexico War, as well as other "threatened wars" (54/40 or fight), various boarder disputes with Canada.... all show the ambitions of the fledgling United States.
The concept of "Manifest Destiny" drove our foreign politics at the time. And that was _anything_ but isolationist.
--------------
Here's another major counterexample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807
And all of the other (most certainly NOT isolationist) events that pissed of Britain enough that it led to the war of 1812.
I agree that the US was a colonialist nation leading up the 1900s. The tribal peoples of Mexico, South America and North America were not recognized as nations of their own. I know that isn't a very satisfying distinction, but you can see the point.
The article on the Embargo Act itself reads: "The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general Embargo that made illegal any and all exports from the United States. It was sponsored by President Thomas Jefferson and enacted by Congress. The goal was to force Britain and France to respect American rights during the Napoleonic Wars. They were engaged in a major war; the U.S. wanted to remain neutral and trade with both sides, but neither side wanted the other to have the American supplies." That's exactly in line with the thesis.
Regarding Samoa and Germany/Phillipines and Spain - this is when these policies began to change. They bubbled from the late 1800s and broke in the early 1900s.
I think there's a narrative difference here: the US broadly did not align themselves with other nations into treaties of peace and of war. The "founding fathers" specifically discussed the danger of political entanglement with other nations - the danger of allowing them to say "yes" and to say "no".
I feel like your interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, of the Embargo Act and of Manifest Destiny are not charitable for these reasons. Of course the US was not 'isolationist'. I termed it 'non-interventionist'. Even that is not a good term, but what was meant I think is clear.
Yes the US engaged in colonialism and in trade. But it did not involve itself in the spirit of the top post: allowing other nations to have a "yes" or "no" say. It made declarations like the Monroe Doctrine. It did not make treaties like NATO or like TTIP. Categorically these are different in kind than what happened before the 1900s.
Part of that is due to a changing world (I say this in my top post). But the US was also under a different international political disposition.
The article on the Embargo Act itself reads: "The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general Embargo that made illegal any and all exports from the United States. It was sponsored by President Thomas Jefferson and enacted by Congress. The goal was to force Britain and France to respect American rights during the Napoleonic Wars. They were engaged in a major war; the U.S. wanted to remain neutral and trade with both sides, but neither side wanted the other to have the American supplies." That's exactly in line with the thesis.
Regarding Samoa and Germany/Phillipines and Spain - this is when these policies began to change. They bubbled from the late 1800s and broke in the early 1900s.
I think there's a narrative difference here: the US broadly did not align themselves with other nations into treaties of peace and of war. The "founding fathers" specifically discussed the danger of political entanglement with other nations - the danger of allowing them to say "yes" and to say "no".
I feel like your interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, of the Embargo Act and of Manifest Destiny are not charitable for these reasons. Of course the US was not 'isolationist'. I termed it 'non-interventionist'. Even that is not a good term, but what was meant I think is clear.
Yes the US engaged in colonialism and in trade. But it did not involve itself in the spirit of the top post: allowing other nations to have a "yes" or "no" say. It made declarations like the Monroe Doctrine. It did not make treaties like NATO or like TTIP. Categorically these are different in kind than what happened before the 1900s.
Part of that is due to a changing world (I say this in my top post). But the US was also under a different international political disposition.
I disagree with your characterization of the TTIP.
TTIP is a trade agreement. It is the conditions under which American legislatures will declare various trades legal or illegal.
The Embargo Act of 1807 was specifically designed to tell Great Britain: "STOP DRAFTING OUR SAILORS!". (It failed spectacularly at doing that... but that was clearly the intent). We saw what Great Britain was doing, we didn't like what they were doing, and we created a trade policy (ie: stop all trade... everywhere) in an attempt to punish Great Britain.
The difference is that TTIP is more nuanced and better reasoned. It is also more intricate in defining what is and isn't a trade violation.
You're right, we care more about American Exports today because we have an understanding of how American jobs will be affected by TTIP. By pushing American Chemicals on the TTIP, we are favoring American trade.
Now European health groups will push back. But in the end, the trade dispute will probably benefit all countries involved.
TTIP is a trade agreement. It is the conditions under which American legislatures will declare various trades legal or illegal.
The Embargo Act of 1807 was specifically designed to tell Great Britain: "STOP DRAFTING OUR SAILORS!". (It failed spectacularly at doing that... but that was clearly the intent). We saw what Great Britain was doing, we didn't like what they were doing, and we created a trade policy (ie: stop all trade... everywhere) in an attempt to punish Great Britain.
The difference is that TTIP is more nuanced and better reasoned. It is also more intricate in defining what is and isn't a trade violation.
You're right, we care more about American Exports today because we have an understanding of how American jobs will be affected by TTIP. By pushing American Chemicals on the TTIP, we are favoring American trade.
Now European health groups will push back. But in the end, the trade dispute will probably benefit all countries involved.
I would say the difference is one of declaration rather than deliberation.
The Embargo Act was a declaration. TTIP is a negotiation.
But let's collapse this conversation back to the top, shall we? My response (and the arguments contained in the conversation that ensued) was to the claim that the "founding fathers" would have liked for other nations to check-and-balance the US; that they would have liked there to be political interdependence, even veto power from other nations.
That commenter said "On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted"
This is not the case. It is only past century of America has been okay with this. Before the turn, and as argued by the "founding fathers" themselves, America was against political entanglement.
The Embargo Act was a declaration. TTIP is a negotiation.
But let's collapse this conversation back to the top, shall we? My response (and the arguments contained in the conversation that ensued) was to the claim that the "founding fathers" would have liked for other nations to check-and-balance the US; that they would have liked there to be political interdependence, even veto power from other nations.
That commenter said "On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted"
This is not the case. It is only past century of America has been okay with this. Before the turn, and as argued by the "founding fathers" themselves, America was against political entanglement.
In the context of the original post and your original response, I can agree with that statement. I'm thinking of situations where I don't agree in general... but I don't think it'd be useful to bring them up.
+1
+1
[deleted]
I know the Monroe doctrine primarily focused on keeping the Europeans out of the Americas, but according to the wiki entry: The doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.
I argue the opposite.
Remember that "The United States of America" looked like this in the 1830s:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1823_Melish_Map_of_th...
A good chunk of land west of the Mississippi River was unsettled. Calling out to the Europeans and saying "Stay out of America" was really Americans preemptively claiming all land West of the Mississippi River as US Territory.
Keeping Europeans out of "The Americas" was a major land grab opportunity. Which was then followed by decades of American conquest (and Native American genocide). The Monroe Doctrine, together with "Manifest Destiny" demonstrates American ambition to form the largest country the world had ever seen at that point.
Our war with Mexico (which allowed us to grab and annex Texas, New Mexico, and California), and British Politics (54/40 or Fight + Various other disputes) led to the establishment of the US North and South borders. The East and West boarders expanded with basically infinite ambition, in part because of the Monroe Doctrine.
In any case, when we ran out of land to conquer, that's when we started looking overseas. I think it is clear that America has always been a rather ambitious nation. Ret-conning the concept of isolationism is a mistake IMO.
-------------------
In fact, why don't you take a look at what Mexico looked like in 1840.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralist_Republic_of_Mexico
And tell me, do you think the US was "isolationist" and "didn't mettle in other nation's affairs"? The US invaded and conquered a _huge_ swath of Mexico! Our policies were anything _BUT_ isolationist. We were imperialists as early as 1840, and the Monroe Doctrine is just a sign of our early ambition.
Remember that "The United States of America" looked like this in the 1830s:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1823_Melish_Map_of_th...
A good chunk of land west of the Mississippi River was unsettled. Calling out to the Europeans and saying "Stay out of America" was really Americans preemptively claiming all land West of the Mississippi River as US Territory.
Keeping Europeans out of "The Americas" was a major land grab opportunity. Which was then followed by decades of American conquest (and Native American genocide). The Monroe Doctrine, together with "Manifest Destiny" demonstrates American ambition to form the largest country the world had ever seen at that point.
Our war with Mexico (which allowed us to grab and annex Texas, New Mexico, and California), and British Politics (54/40 or Fight + Various other disputes) led to the establishment of the US North and South borders. The East and West boarders expanded with basically infinite ambition, in part because of the Monroe Doctrine.
In any case, when we ran out of land to conquer, that's when we started looking overseas. I think it is clear that America has always been a rather ambitious nation. Ret-conning the concept of isolationism is a mistake IMO.
-------------------
In fact, why don't you take a look at what Mexico looked like in 1840.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralist_Republic_of_Mexico
And tell me, do you think the US was "isolationist" and "didn't mettle in other nation's affairs"? The US invaded and conquered a _huge_ swath of Mexico! Our policies were anything _BUT_ isolationist. We were imperialists as early as 1840, and the Monroe Doctrine is just a sign of our early ambition.
For those interested in reading something like this in historical treatise form: Howard Zinn's A People's History.
I'll be sure to check it out. Thx for the recommendation.
Yeah thats how its supposed to be designed, but you know what if money was just transferred to everyone that worked in the system? Does that allow it to be balanced, or bought through the highest bidder.
Do countries that say 'No' get rolled over through economic warfare?
shit man this is depressing.
Do countries that say 'No' get rolled over through economic warfare?
shit man this is depressing.
When people say "trade agreements NEED to be negotiated in secret" this is why. It's hard to pack them with horrors like this, otherwise.
You'll be told "blah blah regulatory protectionism blah."
When was the last time a regulatory protectionism story was in the news, compared with weakening environmental protections or ratcheting up bad IP laws?
It's not about nationalists clinging to sovereignty. It's not about luddite workers. It's about stuffing treaties with crap like this.
You'll be told "blah blah regulatory protectionism blah."
When was the last time a regulatory protectionism story was in the news, compared with weakening environmental protections or ratcheting up bad IP laws?
It's not about nationalists clinging to sovereignty. It's not about luddite workers. It's about stuffing treaties with crap like this.
What's exactly wrong with nationalists clinging to sovereignty? What's wrong with economic protectionism? I see sensible reasons for both.
There is nothing wrong with either if they are transacted out in the open so they can be weighted accordingly. When done in secret you can end up with something that you would not have chosen without protest or input but are nevertheless bound by.
The comparative advantage arguments are not even that great, in my opinion. https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/argumen...
>Ricardo took the example of trade between England and Portugal. He argued that England, by allowing imports of wine from Portugal, would expand the production and export of cloth to pay for it. Ricardo, of course, was thinking of the English side of the exchange but the analysis is perfectly symmetrical; it implies that Portugal will gain from specialising on wine and importing cloth. In reality, the imposition of free trade on Portugal killed off a promising textile industry and left her with a slow-growing export market for wine, while for England, exports of cotton cloth led to accumulation, mechanisation and the whole spiraling growth of the industrial revolution.
>Ricardo took the example of trade between England and Portugal. He argued that England, by allowing imports of wine from Portugal, would expand the production and export of cloth to pay for it. Ricardo, of course, was thinking of the English side of the exchange but the analysis is perfectly symmetrical; it implies that Portugal will gain from specialising on wine and importing cloth. In reality, the imposition of free trade on Portugal killed off a promising textile industry and left her with a slow-growing export market for wine, while for England, exports of cotton cloth led to accumulation, mechanisation and the whole spiraling growth of the industrial revolution.
This is not democratic.
In a democracy, the people are the sovereign. The people cannot be the sovereign if important decisions are kept in secret.
This is a serious problem.
In a democracy, the people are the sovereign. The people cannot be the sovereign if important decisions are kept in secret.
This is a serious problem.
The problem today is, that our democratic systems are eroding world-wide. Since the EU has more and more influence in Germany, German politicians are regularly using the EU to circumvent democratic decisions in our country.
When a law is not popular in Germany, they just pass it to the EU, where it is much easier to bring them into effect. Then they pressure our own parliament: "We have to comply to EU standards" and they just pass it on. There even was at least one case, where such a law was passed without thinking about it and our constitutional court had to cancel it as not constitutional.
These cases, where democratic decisions are circumvented are not single ones any more -- they are the rule, not the exception.
When a law is not popular in Germany, they just pass it to the EU, where it is much easier to bring them into effect. Then they pressure our own parliament: "We have to comply to EU standards" and they just pass it on. There even was at least one case, where such a law was passed without thinking about it and our constitutional court had to cancel it as not constitutional.
These cases, where democratic decisions are circumvented are not single ones any more -- they are the rule, not the exception.
Yep. This is how the Data Retention Directive came about, for example. National politicians couldn't get it passed at home, so they did it at the EU level.
It works both ways. Laws or litigations brought on European level may be good or bad depending on their content. It could be useful to work around national systems sometimes.
> In a democracy, the people are the sovereign.
The US isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. Big difference.
Your only power is voting for elected officials (modulo jury nullification, rioting, and overthrowing the government itself). If your elected representatives fail to represent the viewpoints of the actual public, the system has failed. Right now, the system has been gerrymandered to an extent that it qualifies as failed (plus the introduction of mass media populist manipulation plus the reduction in popular education levels allowing such easy manipulation).
The US isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. Big difference.
Your only power is voting for elected officials (modulo jury nullification, rioting, and overthrowing the government itself). If your elected representatives fail to represent the viewpoints of the actual public, the system has failed. Right now, the system has been gerrymandered to an extent that it qualifies as failed (plus the introduction of mass media populist manipulation plus the reduction in popular education levels allowing such easy manipulation).
> The US isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic.
Please stop this silly meme. "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. Under the usual modern interpretation of those terms, the US is a republic and a democracy.
Please stop this silly meme. "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. Under the usual modern interpretation of those terms, the US is a republic and a democracy.
It's not a silly meme. One better describes the system.
Yeah, but the EU was supposed to be democratic, and it's the EU that folded like wet newspaper in this case!
They setup the EP (European Parliament) to give us the illusion of democracy but the EP is just a Goebbels piece, theater. The MEP (elected members of parliament) are toothless.
Good consequence of this is that they are more reachable than any other sort of politician in Europe, except for city governments, but that of course will change if they actually get any teeth.
If they manage to pass anything at all it only happens because the big heads do not understand the issue and once they do it will get reverted or annulled.
However as it stands the EU has huge issues with lack of democracy, lack of accountability, and lack of transparency. And it is not looking good in that department.
Good consequence of this is that they are more reachable than any other sort of politician in Europe, except for city governments, but that of course will change if they actually get any teeth.
If they manage to pass anything at all it only happens because the big heads do not understand the issue and once they do it will get reverted or annulled.
However as it stands the EU has huge issues with lack of democracy, lack of accountability, and lack of transparency. And it is not looking good in that department.
Corporations and capital have become very powerful people, almost modern day kings. When you work at a corporation, it is more like a dictatorship than a democracy. Capital + companies are just really big people with all the pull and just doing what they do all day.
There is a way to win though, just get lots of capital and you have the ability to change things. Until then, we can watch the wheels go round.
There is a way to win though, just get lots of capital and you have the ability to change things. Until then, we can watch the wheels go round.
This is because many people buckle to their boss. They are afraid of losing their job, so they better don't argue.
This has dire consequences, as we can already see.
I made my boss clear that he's not doing me a faviour by employing me, but instead we've made a fair deal: I work in the companies interest, they give me money.
My leader in the company can help to organize and represent my work, however, he can not treat me like a resource nor give me orders.
I fared very well by being clear on this in the beginning. Now I am basically free to work on what I think what needs to be done.
It's a decision to accept authority over you. You do not have to. Often, you shouldn't.
This has dire consequences, as we can already see.
I made my boss clear that he's not doing me a faviour by employing me, but instead we've made a fair deal: I work in the companies interest, they give me money.
My leader in the company can help to organize and represent my work, however, he can not treat me like a resource nor give me orders.
I fared very well by being clear on this in the beginning. Now I am basically free to work on what I think what needs to be done.
It's a decision to accept authority over you. You do not have to. Often, you shouldn't.
The reason people buckle is because they are victims of their desires/wants or in other words, they are attached or identified with physical possessions (want a big house, SUV, latest phone etc). As long as this is the case, people will eventually succumb and this is what the people at the top are counting on.
Once you get out of the hold of your desires/wants, nobody can have any power over you.
People buckle because they are victims of NEEDS. If I didn't have marketable skills, or if I existed in a market which was oversaturated with people as skilled as myself, sure, I could argue with my boss or exercise my powers, but that means risking a job loss. I'd be replaced by someone as capable, but with less inclination to argue. My 'wants' might include such things as, "being able to eat," and, "not sleeping on the street." Sure, it's possible to get overzealous with one's aspirations for physical goods, but I think that overlooks the authentic fear that many people have over being in a precarious financial situation.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a society with too-free capitalism and non-self-confident citizens.
The government should apply regulation to not let this prophecy become reality, for else money will steer the people, not rational thought.
I'd rather plant my own food than to buckle for money. The more people think like that, the better we all will be off. This is not binary.
Do not forget that the company needs you, too.
The government should apply regulation to not let this prophecy become reality, for else money will steer the people, not rational thought.
I'd rather plant my own food than to buckle for money. The more people think like that, the better we all will be off. This is not binary.
Do not forget that the company needs you, too.
But if the public don't care about something nor will the politicans. And people do not care about these kind of environmental issues. Just look at how relaxed people are about vehicle exhaust. Diesel emissions alone can have several carcinogenic chemicals.
We treat the environment as somnething passive that we have no control over. Environmentalists should personalise the argument instead of relying on cold scientific fact. The headline should be "politicians cause cancer".
We treat the environment as somnething passive that we have no control over. Environmentalists should personalise the argument instead of relying on cold scientific fact. The headline should be "politicians cause cancer".
> And people do not care about these kind of environmental issues. Just look at how relaxed people are about vehicle exhaust.
People do care, but maybe not most of the general public. You could argue public apathy is only because they are not well-informed, however.
People do care, but maybe not most of the general public. You could argue public apathy is only because they are not well-informed, however.
What percentage of the general public is apathetic because it doesn't coincide with many of the their daily concerns/struggles?
The general public care enough that Diesel engines have improved considerably for the engines they are routinely around. Low sulphur fuels and technological advances have made diesel engines on public roads more efficient than petrol.
We still have horrible things like cargo ships burning bunker diesel, but out of sight out of mind.
We still have horrible things like cargo ships burning bunker diesel, but out of sight out of mind.
People say, that TTIP will reduce standards in the EU (and potentially also in the US) regarding environmental and people protection.
When I see that: TTIP starts to reduce standards even before it is signed.
When I see that: TTIP starts to reduce standards even before it is signed.
>> The TTIP is a trade deal being agreed by the EU and US to remove barriers to commerce and promote free trade.
Free trade is only good when we respect each other's standards and don't try to constantly undermine consumer and worker protections.
Free trade is only good when we respect each other's standards and don't try to constantly undermine consumer and worker protections.
>> The TTIP is a trade deal being agreed by the EU and US to remove barriers to commerce and promote free trade.
> Free trade is only good when we respect each other's standards and don't try to constantly undermine consumer and worker protections.
"Neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time - it refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit. Associated initially with Reagan and Thatcher, neoliberalism has for the past two decades been the dominant global political economic trend adopted by political parties of the center, much of the traditional left, and the right. These parties and the policies they enact represent the immediate interests of extremely wealthy investors and less than one thousand large corporations." ~ Noam Chomsky, 1999, http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19990401.htm
> Free trade is only good when we respect each other's standards and don't try to constantly undermine consumer and worker protections.
"Neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time - it refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit. Associated initially with Reagan and Thatcher, neoliberalism has for the past two decades been the dominant global political economic trend adopted by political parties of the center, much of the traditional left, and the right. These parties and the policies they enact represent the immediate interests of extremely wealthy investors and less than one thousand large corporations." ~ Noam Chomsky, 1999, http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19990401.htm
I live in Europe, and I give way over 50% of my income to the State. How is that liberalism?
It is not. This is a socialist State. And it is broke by the way.
The European or Federal Reserve printing money is not liberalism, it is Central planning.
That people in power try to maximize their personal profit is not liberalism, it is the rule of power on any ideology, institution or religion in the History of Humanity.
Look at any social animal out there and you will see them fighting for becoming alpha males or females. The difference with humans is that they rationalize it.
It is not. This is a socialist State. And it is broke by the way.
The European or Federal Reserve printing money is not liberalism, it is Central planning.
That people in power try to maximize their personal profit is not liberalism, it is the rule of power on any ideology, institution or religion in the History of Humanity.
Look at any social animal out there and you will see them fighting for becoming alpha males or females. The difference with humans is that they rationalize it.
Why was this downvoted?
I would like to hear some discussion on the different proposals discussed in the article on the merits of the criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors. I know there are some knowledgeable folks on HN, so setting aside the main point of US interference in EU regulations, (a disturbing matter in its own right) what about the scientific analysis of the arguments?
In case anyone is confused TTIP (along with NAFTA) is not a "free trade" agreement. A free trade agreement could be written on a post-it note and would be worded something like:
"We agree to not get in the way of our citizens engaging in commerce with one another."
"We agree to not get in the way of our citizens engaging in commerce with one another."
That's not so much a free trade agreement but a statement of intent around which a free trade agreement can be made.
OTOH, any "free trade agreement" that's substantially more text than the US Constitution (which itself is a free trade agreement with lots of other things tacked on) should be looked at suspiciously -- because, whereas the US Constitution is free trade with common rules delegated to accountable common bodies, most bigger free trade agreements do have an element of free trade, but instead of having common rules set by a body accountable to the public of the whole trade area, they set all the common rules in stone at the start to favor particular parties, and either leave adjustments to a body whose members are un- (or only distantly, through multiple layers of indirection) accountable to the public, or to the process of revising the whole agreement typically requiring assent of all parties.
So its "free" trade -- plus baked in advantage for certain powerful actors.
OTOH, any "free trade agreement" that's substantially more text than the US Constitution (which itself is a free trade agreement with lots of other things tacked on) should be looked at suspiciously -- because, whereas the US Constitution is free trade with common rules delegated to accountable common bodies, most bigger free trade agreements do have an element of free trade, but instead of having common rules set by a body accountable to the public of the whole trade area, they set all the common rules in stone at the start to favor particular parties, and either leave adjustments to a body whose members are un- (or only distantly, through multiple layers of indirection) accountable to the public, or to the process of revising the whole agreement typically requiring assent of all parties.
So its "free" trade -- plus baked in advantage for certain powerful actors.
Countries differ in how they regulate commerce. Reconciling those differences can be very complicated. You may disagree with TTIP or NAFTA, but it doesn't make sense to say that they're not free trade agreements because of their length.
When the US invaded Iraq under the pretext of WMD there were some early reports of WMDs being found. They turned out to be agricultural pesticides. Many pesticides are nerve agents, as are chemical weapons like Sarin.
Growing a field of crops without growing competing weeds or having insect infestation is a difficult problem. A lot of manual labor is one solution, and chemicals are another.
I have hope that robotics can solve the problem of competing weeds. I envision solar powered robots scouring the fields, using computer vision to identify weeds, and cutting/uprooting them. This would let us avoid manual labor while maintaining the great advantage of chemical herbicides.
I think that robots could also be designed to kill insects, but I think that is a much harder problem.
Growing a field of crops without growing competing weeds or having insect infestation is a difficult problem. A lot of manual labor is one solution, and chemicals are another.
I have hope that robotics can solve the problem of competing weeds. I envision solar powered robots scouring the fields, using computer vision to identify weeds, and cutting/uprooting them. This would let us avoid manual labor while maintaining the great advantage of chemical herbicides.
I think that robots could also be designed to kill insects, but I think that is a much harder problem.
Sopa, pipa, acta, tpp is this ambigious acronyns there to confuse the public? How about a new codes acronym f.t. which does not relate to a financial paper.
i voted for eickhout in last elections because he seemed like a wise person. i did not like his party's skeptisism regarding ttip. but seems like he had good reason for this and is in fact doing a good job. some things ain't worth it.
On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted.
The complaints are about how restriction will impact "global trade" of particular pesticides. The EU's entire point is that these items should not be traded. That statement holds regardless of the economic impact.