Leaked TPP Investment Chapter Reveals Serious Threat to User Safeguards(eff.org)
eff.org
Leaked TPP Investment Chapter Reveals Serious Threat to User Safeguards
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/leaked-tpp-investment-chapter-reveals-serious-threat-user-safeguards
39 comments
The comic[1] that I posted in the previous thread has a nice overview about the situation.
The specific issue the EFF article is pointing out is how the ISDS is designed to trumps national sovereignty, so business can strong-arm countries into removing any law they don't like.
It works more or less like this:
1) pass TPP as a treaty, which by definition has the same power as a constitutional amendment. (this is probably a serious bug in the constitution). This means TPP trums congress.
2) TPP sets up an international tribunal (ISDS) that hears complaints from businesses. (i.e. "Australia is hurting our tobacco sales with their plain packaging laws"[2])
3) The tribunal, as mentioned in this article, would be staffed by, "three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate." This conflict of interest would be a serious violation of ethics requirements in most legal systems.
4) The tribunal rules that your local law violates some foreign requirement, as determined by the ISDS and their business-assigned judges, and the local legislature is forced to repeal the law. ("Australia's plain packaging laws is seizing the trademarks of Philip Moriss, in violation of a 1993 trade agreement if we carefully abuse the agreement's language")
That's the short version, and I'm leaving out some details, of course. It should work as a decent overview of ISDS is a threat to national sovereignty.
[1] http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
[2] this example is covered well by John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
edit: oops.. s/ISPS/ISDS/
The specific issue the EFF article is pointing out is how the ISDS is designed to trumps national sovereignty, so business can strong-arm countries into removing any law they don't like.
It works more or less like this:
1) pass TPP as a treaty, which by definition has the same power as a constitutional amendment. (this is probably a serious bug in the constitution). This means TPP trums congress.
2) TPP sets up an international tribunal (ISDS) that hears complaints from businesses. (i.e. "Australia is hurting our tobacco sales with their plain packaging laws"[2])
3) The tribunal, as mentioned in this article, would be staffed by, "three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate." This conflict of interest would be a serious violation of ethics requirements in most legal systems.
4) The tribunal rules that your local law violates some foreign requirement, as determined by the ISDS and their business-assigned judges, and the local legislature is forced to repeal the law. ("Australia's plain packaging laws is seizing the trademarks of Philip Moriss, in violation of a 1993 trade agreement if we carefully abuse the agreement's language")
That's the short version, and I'm leaving out some details, of course. It should work as a decent overview of ISDS is a threat to national sovereignty.
[1] http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
[2] this example is covered well by John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
edit: oops.. s/ISPS/ISDS/
Treaties do not have "the same power as a Constitutional amendment." They have the same power as ordinary laws. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases. And the Constitution takes precedence over both: Reid v. Covert. If they are not self-effectuating and Congress does not pass enabling legislation, they have no domestic effect. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas.
...because you don't see any laws that goes against the constitution being ruled everyday.
Rayiner already addressed point 1, so I'll take a swing at 3.
Most legal systems, demonstrated here by the ABA model rules of professional conduct for lawyers, would not consider this a conflict of interest, unless the lawyer were arguing for both sides in the same case. See Rule 1.7.
In these tribunals, government and corporate parties aren't two sides of every fight, they're arbitrary categories of parties. All good legal systems allow private parties to bring suit against the government. NAFTA Ch. 11 is an example of a very similar system working well to address legitimate disputes. See cases where a corporation's claim was rejected, and they were forced to pay attorney's fees to the country they sued in the tribunal. Not exactly the outcome predicted here.
Most legal systems, demonstrated here by the ABA model rules of professional conduct for lawyers, would not consider this a conflict of interest, unless the lawyer were arguing for both sides in the same case. See Rule 1.7.
In these tribunals, government and corporate parties aren't two sides of every fight, they're arbitrary categories of parties. All good legal systems allow private parties to bring suit against the government. NAFTA Ch. 11 is an example of a very similar system working well to address legitimate disputes. See cases where a corporation's claim was rejected, and they were forced to pay attorney's fees to the country they sued in the tribunal. Not exactly the outcome predicted here.
ISDS does not "trump national sovereignty" and in no conceivable way can a business "strong-arm" sovereign entities. This is complete nonsense.
The "tribunals" are arbitral tribunals and as such are manned by lawyers chosen and agreed on by BOTH sides - just like any other arbitral tribunal. They can apportion compensation for damages caused by breaches of international law. No international court can "force" a state to change a law (this is constitution 101), and it is not the case here.
Philip Morris is seeking compensation for the purported expropriation of intellectual property rights (their brand). Almost no-one believes they have any chance of winning. In fact, it seems that they are doing it solely to press for time in other jurisdictions: i.e. some countries are waiting for the result of the arbitration before introducing similar laws. They probably figured out that potential lost profits in foreign markets in that time frame are likely higher than legal fees.
Not one of your points is accurate (and you reference John Oliver and a comic).
The "tribunals" are arbitral tribunals and as such are manned by lawyers chosen and agreed on by BOTH sides - just like any other arbitral tribunal. They can apportion compensation for damages caused by breaches of international law. No international court can "force" a state to change a law (this is constitution 101), and it is not the case here.
Philip Morris is seeking compensation for the purported expropriation of intellectual property rights (their brand). Almost no-one believes they have any chance of winning. In fact, it seems that they are doing it solely to press for time in other jurisdictions: i.e. some countries are waiting for the result of the arbitration before introducing similar laws. They probably figured out that potential lost profits in foreign markets in that time frame are likely higher than legal fees.
Not one of your points is accurate (and you reference John Oliver and a comic).
What if an ISDS tribunal continually levied fines against a nation-state member for damages caused by a breach of international law?
Would that nation-state eventually feel pressured to change its laws to avoid crippling fines?
Would that nation-state eventually feel pressured to change its laws to avoid crippling fines?
If the nature of the law, is such as to continually breach international law, and companies are consistently and successfully challenging that law, a state may feel pressured to either:
1. Withdraw from the free trade agreement, or
2. change its laws to conform to the terms of the free trade agreement.
This is not a bug but a feature: the ISDS is designed to ensure that states abide by international law and respect the terms of the free trade agreement they consented to. This is fully in line with the concept of pacta sunt servanda and the relationship between international and municipal law.
Finally, if you are the United States, you can also simply ignore the arbitral tribunal and continue to be in breach of the agreement and international law, because, well, what are they gonna do?
This is not a bug but a feature: the ISDS is designed to ensure that states abide by international law and respect the terms of the free trade agreement they consented to. This is fully in line with the concept of pacta sunt servanda and the relationship between international and municipal law.
Finally, if you are the United States, you can also simply ignore the arbitral tribunal and continue to be in breach of the agreement and international law, because, well, what are they gonna do?
Wow, I'm really sorry to have to do this after your wrote such a detailed comic, but it is clear you don't have even the most basic understanding of what money is. You commit the most elementary fallacy out there, and worse, it is central to your whole argument. Worse still, you continually harp on "basic errors" and the difference between good and bad economists, while being a quintessential example of a bad economist who makes basic errors.
The most egregious, obvious, and deep-cutting error is that you equate money with wealth, which is made obvious when you contrast "investing in the economy" with "just sitting on the money" as if these were two different things. Money is not goods and services; money is a claim on goods and services. Therefore, hoarding or "just sitting on" money is not hoarding goods and services, but closer to the opposite. It is deliberately not commanding the goods and services one's money could command, freeing up those goods and services to be used by others. Hoarding money is a kind of anti-hoarding of resources; it's exactly equivalent to investing in an index fund over the entire economy.
For his reason, your whole argument is confused. Please consider the nature of money more carefully and stop misleading people.
Note: I'm opposed to the TPP, but most certainly not because it promotes "free trade."
The most egregious, obvious, and deep-cutting error is that you equate money with wealth, which is made obvious when you contrast "investing in the economy" with "just sitting on the money" as if these were two different things. Money is not goods and services; money is a claim on goods and services. Therefore, hoarding or "just sitting on" money is not hoarding goods and services, but closer to the opposite. It is deliberately not commanding the goods and services one's money could command, freeing up those goods and services to be used by others. Hoarding money is a kind of anti-hoarding of resources; it's exactly equivalent to investing in an index fund over the entire economy.
For his reason, your whole argument is confused. Please consider the nature of money more carefully and stop misleading people.
Note: I'm opposed to the TPP, but most certainly not because it promotes "free trade."
Informative comic, but it could have done without the gun control strawman.
That popped out to me too. Seems like a total non-sequitur in an otherwise very informative article.
> It's really hard to follow this. I realize they are trying to make it an explanation that normal (but interested) people can read. But it's not working.
The EFF often has this problem, IMHO, and I suspect it limits their ability to build support and awareness. I support the EFF; I'm an interested, knowledgable, well-educated person who is accustomed to reading sophisticated prose -- i.e., I'm their ideal audience -- and I gave up after a paragraph. I think they lose a large part of their potential audience.
Matthew Butternick provides the following excellent advice to writers (which applies to much more than typography): http://typographyforlawyers.com/who-is-typography-for.html
The EFF often has this problem, IMHO, and I suspect it limits their ability to build support and awareness. I support the EFF; I'm an interested, knowledgable, well-educated person who is accustomed to reading sophisticated prose -- i.e., I'm their ideal audience -- and I gave up after a paragraph. I think they lose a large part of their potential audience.
Matthew Butternick provides the following excellent advice to writers (which applies to much more than typography): http://typographyforlawyers.com/who-is-typography-for.html
If Anticorporatistan enacts a law that Big Evil Co., Inc. thinks might somehow limit its ability to make a profit, Big Evil Co., Inc. can sue Anticorporatistan for the profits it thinks, at its sole discretion, it would lose because of the new law.
With Anticorporatistan being the United States, and laws they don't like being the existing Fair Use protections. It's not a vague future hypothetical.
They don't like fair use, but it is not clear fair use protections could be legislated away without a court overturning any such clause with a first amendment argument. If that were to happen, foreign corporations could sue the US for damages, and win, but no other legal remedy would be available -- they could not stop the fair use from continuing. Maybe they could sue again the following year.
Krugman has a less dense explanation of some of these issues here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/...
> But do we really think that inadequate incentive to create new drugs or new movies is a major problem right now?
I found this line in Krugman's text surprising, because there actually are a lot of questions about incentives in both drug and entertainment markets.
In drugs, pharma companies are focusing on high-margin "lifestyle enhancing" drug categories like erectile dysfunction, blood pressure management, and various mood and mental management. Basically, the drugs that rich healthy people will pay a lot of money for. Pharma companies are not focusing on low-margin but highly useful categories like antibiotics, pests, and vaccines. Basically, the problems that affect poor people in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
In entertainment, companies are focusing on iterating well-known and well-used franchises for which they know they can drive immediate demand with marketing. Highly original hits like Inception are not nearly as common as they were in say, the 1970s or 1980s. Instead we get Furious 7 and a two remakes of 21 Jump Street.
Don't get me wrong, the drug and entertainment industries are making a lot of money. But the issue is how they are making it. Drug companies stick to first world problems because first world countries protect their IP, so that is where they'll get a return. Entertainment companies stick to movies that will pack the theater on opening weekend because the movie will be heavily pirated within a few days after that.
I'm not crying for the poor drug or movie executives. I'm saying that the rest of us have to live with the consequences of how we incentivize companies to do business.
edit: word fixes
I found this line in Krugman's text surprising, because there actually are a lot of questions about incentives in both drug and entertainment markets.
In drugs, pharma companies are focusing on high-margin "lifestyle enhancing" drug categories like erectile dysfunction, blood pressure management, and various mood and mental management. Basically, the drugs that rich healthy people will pay a lot of money for. Pharma companies are not focusing on low-margin but highly useful categories like antibiotics, pests, and vaccines. Basically, the problems that affect poor people in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
In entertainment, companies are focusing on iterating well-known and well-used franchises for which they know they can drive immediate demand with marketing. Highly original hits like Inception are not nearly as common as they were in say, the 1970s or 1980s. Instead we get Furious 7 and a two remakes of 21 Jump Street.
Don't get me wrong, the drug and entertainment industries are making a lot of money. But the issue is how they are making it. Drug companies stick to first world problems because first world countries protect their IP, so that is where they'll get a return. Entertainment companies stick to movies that will pack the theater on opening weekend because the movie will be heavily pirated within a few days after that.
I'm not crying for the poor drug or movie executives. I'm saying that the rest of us have to live with the consequences of how we incentivize companies to do business.
edit: word fixes
Hang on just a minute, everybody.
I guess I wasn't clear myself (while accusing the EFF of being unclear).
My point is, EFF needs to make this more clear.
I'm not asking for more info about it. I think the EFF should help everybody (they aren't all going to dive into this thread, but lots of people do visit eff.org) understand this, by figuring out a way to present it more concisely and clearly, even though it is admittedly a complex issue.
That being said, I am learning a lot from the comments, and maybe a few others are too; that's great.
I guess I wasn't clear myself (while accusing the EFF of being unclear).
My point is, EFF needs to make this more clear.
I'm not asking for more info about it. I think the EFF should help everybody (they aren't all going to dive into this thread, but lots of people do visit eff.org) understand this, by figuring out a way to present it more concisely and clearly, even though it is admittedly a complex issue.
That being said, I am learning a lot from the comments, and maybe a few others are too; that's great.
Why do I feel like some of the EFF articles are distinctly one-sided when it comes to certain topics? For example what about illegal government expropriation or interest-based selective-quasi-legal interference in economic affairs (i.e. Yukos) - or rampant ignorance of patent and copyright laws (various Chinese Manufacturers).
Unfortunately when an issue is presented entirely black and white as:
confer expansive powers on corporations and undermine democratic rules
we cannot let such a secretive, corporate-driven agency to pass digital regulations in secret.
etc. etc.
It's hard to come away with any real understanding of the issues at hand.
Disclaimer: I am longtime supporter and EFF member.
Unfortunately when an issue is presented entirely black and white as:
confer expansive powers on corporations and undermine democratic rules
we cannot let such a secretive, corporate-driven agency to pass digital regulations in secret.
etc. etc.
It's hard to come away with any real understanding of the issues at hand.
Disclaimer: I am longtime supporter and EFF member.
I have a similar feeling, but I think the answer is that the EFF is a one-sided organization--their mission is to form opinions on these topics and fight for what they think is right.
I think of them as an "advocacy" nonprofit, and there are plenty of those on the other side as well, trying to make their case against things like government expropriation. The balanced view, to the extent it can exist, would be somewhere between the two sides; each listener synthesizes their own balance point, I guess.
I think of them as an "advocacy" nonprofit, and there are plenty of those on the other side as well, trying to make their case against things like government expropriation. The balanced view, to the extent it can exist, would be somewhere between the two sides; each listener synthesizes their own balance point, I guess.
Laws/treaties should not be solely judged based on how they deal with excesses. The point is that the impact on ordinary countries doing ordinary things is extraordinarily large. Looking only at excesses is similar to a "think of the children" or "but TERRORISM!" argument.
Besides, Russia and China aren't going to sign the TPP anyway, so those excesses are actually completely irrelevant to the effect this treaty would actually have.
Besides, Russia and China aren't going to sign the TPP anyway, so those excesses are actually completely irrelevant to the effect this treaty would actually have.
> These tribunals are usually comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate.
Have alternate structures been considered for these extranational tribunals/courts, e.g. who represents the public interest? How would the public grant legitimacy to a secret commercial court which regulates Internet content, for example?
Have alternate structures been considered for these extranational tribunals/courts, e.g. who represents the public interest? How would the public grant legitimacy to a secret commercial court which regulates Internet content, for example?
Why would they consider such? Those who should be representing the public interest in these discussions have clearly been bought out already. And being so secretive, why would they need to even pretend to put in place any safeguards for public interest?
What will happen when international laws which defy reason start being enforced, and are not understood or supported by the national public or their national legislators?
Yes, Dutch "look-the-other-way" laws related to recreational marijuana use come to my mind (guess where I live). It's no secret that neighbouring countries are not happy with the drug policy in the Netherlands. And Europe puts pressure on the government to change the laws.
I don't know everything about all _these_ secret negotiations, but the feeling I get when I look at all the past attempts at these super-national laws and treaties is that I dislike and distrust them.
I remember that during the world cup football in South Afrika a group of Dutch women were arrested because they showed up in a stadium dressed in the 'Bavaria jurkjes' (lousely translates to 'Bavaria dresses')[0]. Fifa had super-national laws in place, some of them regarding advertisement. It was apparently illegal for companies to advertise in the stadium during the matches except for the official sponsors. The dresses were seen as advertisement and the people wearing them were arrested.
The women said they were unaware of any advertisement going on, and were just wearing their countries colours.
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7830319/...
Edit:
I don't doubt that this was a marketing stunt, still, I decide what I wear and where I do it. Not some entertainment company that should only be concerned with running the sports event and not the money grubbing.
I don't know everything about all _these_ secret negotiations, but the feeling I get when I look at all the past attempts at these super-national laws and treaties is that I dislike and distrust them.
I remember that during the world cup football in South Afrika a group of Dutch women were arrested because they showed up in a stadium dressed in the 'Bavaria jurkjes' (lousely translates to 'Bavaria dresses')[0]. Fifa had super-national laws in place, some of them regarding advertisement. It was apparently illegal for companies to advertise in the stadium during the matches except for the official sponsors. The dresses were seen as advertisement and the people wearing them were arrested.
The women said they were unaware of any advertisement going on, and were just wearing their countries colours.
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7830319/...
Edit:
I don't doubt that this was a marketing stunt, still, I decide what I wear and where I do it. Not some entertainment company that should only be concerned with running the sports event and not the money grubbing.
I don't know about that specific instance, but often the kind of shenanigans you're talking about are a separate issue: genuine, national laws are passed by the national government, because they are insisted upon by the international professional bodies as a condition of awarding a major competition to a given host nation.
As it happens, I have never understood why prospective host nations allow themselves to be bullied in this way. It is a transparent betrayal of their own populations in favour of big business. Moreover, pragmatically, a lot of these sporting events make an enjoyable spectacle for a lot of people over the few days they last for, but they rarely bring the supposed long term benefits that justify all the hoop-jumping involved in hosting them, and in plenty of cases their legacy has been serious financial and/or infrastructure problems for the host nation.
So yes, it seems long past time for organisations like the IOC and FIFA to be reminded of their place or told to take a hike and host their next international event in West Nowheria. But this is a separate issue to some of the current terms being considered for international agreements, which would reportedly allow any business that didn't like a national policy to sue the national government and recover lost profits in any signatory state.
As it happens, I have never understood why prospective host nations allow themselves to be bullied in this way. It is a transparent betrayal of their own populations in favour of big business. Moreover, pragmatically, a lot of these sporting events make an enjoyable spectacle for a lot of people over the few days they last for, but they rarely bring the supposed long term benefits that justify all the hoop-jumping involved in hosting them, and in plenty of cases their legacy has been serious financial and/or infrastructure problems for the host nation.
So yes, it seems long past time for organisations like the IOC and FIFA to be reminded of their place or told to take a hike and host their next international event in West Nowheria. But this is a separate issue to some of the current terms being considered for international agreements, which would reportedly allow any business that didn't like a national policy to sue the national government and recover lost profits in any signatory state.
Unfortunately, it will probably follow standard European practice.
Those responsible for making policy at international levels are often sufficiently removed from democratic accountability as to be effectively immune from any personal consequences whatever their actions.
National governments can argue that their hands are tied by international agreements that they cannot unilaterally violate, and therefore they are compelled to implement those international policies at home.
The same national governments may in fact have been responsible for voting on or outright appointing the relevant international policy-makers. However, media coverage and public debate rarely explore or challenge these processes.
It appears that this set-up can last indefinitely, until something very bad happens. Of course, some very bad things have happened in Europe in recent years, and national politicians are a lot more careful about expressing their support for EU and Eurozone policies than they used to be.
Those responsible for making policy at international levels are often sufficiently removed from democratic accountability as to be effectively immune from any personal consequences whatever their actions.
National governments can argue that their hands are tied by international agreements that they cannot unilaterally violate, and therefore they are compelled to implement those international policies at home.
The same national governments may in fact have been responsible for voting on or outright appointing the relevant international policy-makers. However, media coverage and public debate rarely explore or challenge these processes.
It appears that this set-up can last indefinitely, until something very bad happens. Of course, some very bad things have happened in Europe in recent years, and national politicians are a lot more careful about expressing their support for EU and Eurozone policies than they used to be.
That's when the people start responding by first ignoring the laws, and if there is an attempt to enforce these laws that defy reason, the response will turn to bricks and molitovs.
This eventuality is probably why there has been a sharp increase in domestic police militarization, and at least part of the reason the NSA has been allowed to run wild collecting domestic data. COINTELPRO was an effective progrram, and only a fool would believe that after the Curch Committee the program simply evaporated. Like "total information awareness", the names were simply changed and shuffled into different departments.
It would be helpful if a lot more people started recognizing the larger scene that has been unfolding around them instead of clinging to how everything is supposed to be. Those fantasies were bought out a long time ago. As I've mentioned in other threads, "regulatory capture is a helluva drug."
This eventuality is probably why there has been a sharp increase in domestic police militarization, and at least part of the reason the NSA has been allowed to run wild collecting domestic data. COINTELPRO was an effective progrram, and only a fool would believe that after the Curch Committee the program simply evaporated. Like "total information awareness", the names were simply changed and shuffled into different departments.
It would be helpful if a lot more people started recognizing the larger scene that has been unfolding around them instead of clinging to how everything is supposed to be. Those fantasies were bought out a long time ago. As I've mentioned in other threads, "regulatory capture is a helluva drug."
The problem here is that regular people are not involved, other than as tax payers. Corporations get to raid coffers of nation state tax rolls. Normal people not involved.
Making sure normal people were involved in the process would help a lot, which is almost certainly the reason why the TPP negotiations are secret.
Did the TPP risks to harm both Europeans and Americans, or only one side?
I think it risks to harm everyone. At least based on the EFF's analysis since IANAL.
It sounds like this will make it easier for corporations to extort signatory countries.
As I see it, it will probably promote patent trolls, draconian copyright laws that will be extremely favorable to corporations, etc.
This is really not good at all.
It sounds like this will make it easier for corporations to extort signatory countries.
As I see it, it will probably promote patent trolls, draconian copyright laws that will be extremely favorable to corporations, etc.
This is really not good at all.
If it is so bad then why is the EU signing on?
Exactly, Canada(my native country) has already signed, any Canadian citizen that is aware, is opposed. We also have a bill currently tabled in Canadian parliament called Bill C-51 which is an absolutely absurd piece of legislation, it will effectively muzzle all lawful protest in Canada because it will allow the government to deem a project "critical infrastructure" at will and anyone protesting then falls under the blanket definition of terrorist and can be detained for up to a year without access to legal counsel. At the same time they are introducing changes to informant protection laws that will allow them to literally enter evidence from completely anonymous sources i.e. completely fabricated lol. Sadly we no longer practice democracy in my country.
Same reason as America: it's all being done in secret, in Brussels, and the national governments are not being consulted, let alone (ha ha!) the public.
I think you're confusing the TPP for the TTIP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investm...
Both appear to be utterly toxic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investm...
Both appear to be utterly toxic.
From what I understand, TPP isn't about US vs. EU, it's about standardizing the global rules for business. Obviously, businesses have a disproportionate say in what gets in, and so they're asking for everything they can think of.
if by "a disproportionate say" you mean "the public only learned about it because the documents were illegally leaked, and it would have passed totally in secret with only corporations and politicians at the helm otherwise", then yeah.
I'd argue it hurts both, for the following reasons:
Reduction/removal of tariffs, tolls etc. are great. I'm strongly in favor of that! But this seems to be mostly a lobbying effort, hidden from public scrutiny.
-- What Europeans can do --
If you live in Europe, I'd suggest emailing thoughtful, well-written comments on the TTIP to the commissioner (weak or angry arguments will only hurt the case).
http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en
-- What Americans can do --
EFF suggested contacting D.C. representatives.
1. It's conducted in secret, i.e. people aren't allowed to learn the content
of the negotiations.
2. From what has leaked so far, it's under heavy influence of lobbying.
E.g. the record industry and Disney lobbying for eternal copyright,
patent-trolls and big pharma for broader patent scope, etc.
3. ISDS is a backdoor through which companies can overrule national laws.
There are lengthy arguments online on the downsides with this. Besides,
it's not like property rights are magically weak in EU/US, they are pretty
strong already.
Reduction/removal of tariffs, tolls etc. are great. I'm strongly in favor of that! But this seems to be mostly a lobbying effort, hidden from public scrutiny.
-- What Europeans can do --
If you live in Europe, I'd suggest emailing thoughtful, well-written comments on the TTIP to the commissioner (weak or angry arguments will only hurt the case).
http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en
-- What Americans can do --
EFF suggested contacting D.C. representatives.
It's really hard to follow this. I realize they are trying to make it an explanation that normal (but interested) people can read. But it's not working.
Maybe an example up front would help. Something like: If this is enacted, then ... (some common use case involving fair use and how it would be impacted).
I know it takes a lawyer to read this stuff. But they should maybe pass it through a couple of layers of translation to try to communicate what it means, so that people can get on board with opposing it, if that's the right thing to do. If EFF can't communicate this stuff, who can?