US Government Study Predicts TPP Trade Agreement Will Produce Practically No Extra Growth For Anyone

from the just-like-TAFTA/TTIP dept

As their name suggests, free trade agreements are designed to help trade flourish between the countries involved. The hope is that when trade increases, society as a whole benefits. One of the key metrics for assessing that outcome is to look at changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which provides one index of economic activity in a country. It does not, of course, measure other things that may be important to people, such as public services or quality of life, but it's widely used.

GDP growth is one of the main benefits that will flow from US-EU TAFTA/TTIP, according to its supporters. They point to a study from the CEPR group in London, which was conducted on behalf of the European Commission as part of the preparations for negotiating a trade agreement with the US. Here are the headline figures from the study, as reported on Commission's TTIP Web pages:

Independent research shows that TTIP could boost:

the EU's economy by €120 billion;

the US economy by €90 billion;

the rest of the world by €100 billion

CEPR's detailed report (pdf) explains that those figures would be the uplift in 2027 if an "ambitious" agreement were reached, as compared to the economies in 2027 without TTIP. So the predicted extra 0.5% GDP growth for both the EU and US is actually cumulative growth after ten years, and represents around 0.05% extra GDP per year, in the best possible case -- hardly impressive.

Another way of looking at TAFTA/TTIP is in terms of its effects on the trade flows between the EU and US. According to the CEPR study, in the most ambitious (that is, most optimistic) case, imports to the US from the EU would increase by about €187 billion in 2027, while exports from the US to the EU would increase by €159 billion in the same year. But again, looking more closely at CEPR's figures shows that 47% of those increased imports would be cars, which would also represents 41% of the increased exports. In other words, nearly a half of the increased trade that TTIP might bring according to this forecast would consist of swapping cars across the Atlantic.

What about the economic impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? Figures for this have been harder to come by, which makes a new publication from the US Department of Agriculture particularly valuable, since it gives official estimates of what benefits might flow from TPP. Here's the basic result:

Agricultural output in the United States will increase in most sectors due to increased market access within the TPP region, especially in cereals (1 percent), dairy products (0.5 percent), and meat (0.4 percent). Among TPP members, the largest percentage gains in agricultural output will be in meats in Australia, dairy in New Zealand, and "other agriculture" in Singapore. Agricultural output quantities will decline in most sectors in Japan and Vietnam in 2025 relative to the baseline.

As you can see, this details increases in agricultural production in 2025. But what about the increases in overall economic activity -- GDP?

The largest macroeconomic impact of the TPP, in percentage terms, takes place in Vietnam, where real GDP would be 0.10 percent higher in 2025 with the implementation of the TPP than it would be under the baseline. Small gains in real GDP will also accrue to Japan (0.02 percent), and to New Zealand, Malaysia, and Mexico (all 0.01 percent). The TPP is projected to have no measurable impacts on real GDP in any other TPP member countries.

So according to the US Department of Agriculture's model, the country whose GDP receives the biggest boost from TPP would be Vietnam, which would see a gain of 0.1% in 2025. Most countries would see considerably less than that, with both the US and Australia experiencing "no measurable impacts on real GDP" as a result of TPP. Now, it's important to note that this study concentrated on the agricultural products. As it points out:

The scope of the TPP negotiations goes well beyond cutting tariffs; they also cover other areas that could impact agricultural trade, including investment, trade in services, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary barriers, etc. This analysis does not account for the gains that might be achieved in these other areas of the negotiations.

In other words, there could be more significant gains for the US and other nations in these areas. But many countries are banking on TPP giving a considerable boost to their agricultural sectors, whereas the new US study predicts no extra growth as a result, anywhere. That's important, because the governments of both Australia and New Zealand have indicated that it will be necessary to make concessions in other areas in order to obtain those hoped-for positive results for their key farming sectors. But if the prediction is that these concessions will only result in increased agricultural trade, but not increased GDP overall, the question has be asked: is it really worth accepting things like longer copyright terms and stronger pharma patents if the payback in terms of real growth is small or non-existent?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: agriculture department, economic growth, gdp, growth, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, ttip

Corporate Sovereignty's Chilling Effects

from the brrrr dept

As we've noted before, corporate sovereignty -- known more formally as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) -- has emerged as the most contentious element of the transatlantic trade deal TAFTA/TTIP, currently being negotiated. Not only has the ISDS chapter been put on hold pending the analysis of 150,000 submissions to a consultation held on the subject, but top EU politicians continue to flip-flop nervously on the subject.

Many of the worries have been about foreign investors being able to sue governments for bringing in policies that are claimed to be an indirect "expropriation". The sums awarded under corporate sovereignty provisions can be considerable, but monetary losses are not the only threat that ISDS chapters pose. Arguably even more serious is the chilling effect they can have on a country's ability to frame and bring in future legislation. This is not a new phenomenon. The North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, is 20 years old, and its Chapter 11 provides guarantees of corporate sovereignty for investors. Here's what happened in Canada as a result, according to a 2001 article in The Nation:

Carla Hills, the US Trade Representative who oversaw the NAFTA negotiations for Bush I and now heads her own trade-consulting firm, was among the very first to play this game of bump-and-run intimidation. Her corporate clients include big tobacco -- R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris. Sixteen months after leaving office, Hills dispatched Julius Katz, her former chief deputy at USTR, to warn Ottawa to back off its proposed law to require plain packaging for cigarettes. If it didn't, Katz said, Canada would have to compensate his clients under NAFTA and the new legal doctrine [of corporate sovereignty] he and Hills had helped create. "No US multinational tobacco manufacturer or its lobbyists are going to dictate health policy in this country," the Canadian health minister vowed. Canada backed off, nevertheless.

A former government official in Ottawa told me: "I've seen the letters from the New York and DC law firms coming up to the Canadian government on virtually every new environmental regulation and proposition in the last five years. They involved dry-cleaning chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, patent law.Virtually all of the new initiatives were targeted and most of them never saw the light of day."

Canada continued to find its room for democratic action constrained by threats of ISDS action over the next decade. In 2013, Elizabeth May, a member of the Canadian Parliament, and leader of the Green Party of Canada, wrote:

I am aware of a letter warning Alan Rock when he was Health Minister that removing the registration of pesticides for use in lawns for cosmetic purposes could give rise to Chapter 11 suits, so the move was not made. We have no way of assessing the "chilling effect" of the Chapter 11 cases that Canada has lost. In my opinion, there is a compelling case that the Ethyl and S.D. Myers case [relating to attempts by Canada to introduce tougher environmental laws] have resulted in failures of the Canadian government to regulate and/or ban toxic substances that they would have in the pre-Chapter 11 era.

Here's a more recent example of ISDS's chilling effects on democratic law-making. It concerns Indonesia, which has recently decided to terminate all 67 of its bilateral investment treaties. A long and fascinating post on the Transnational Institute Web site explains what happened:

In July 2014, Newmont Mining Corporation brought a case against Indonesia using the Indonesia-Netherlands [Bilateral Investment Treaty] at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). In making the legal claim, the mining giant argued that the Indonesian Government's plans to implement a ban on unprocessed mineral exports would violate the investment agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The case at ICSID was presented four months after Indonesia announced it would not renew its Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands when it expires in July 2015. After one month, Newmont withdrew its case against Indonesia but only after it had reached an agreement with the Indonesian government, giving the mining company special exemptions from the new mining law.

Although the Newmont Mining Corporation may not have liked Indonesia's decision to require mineral processing to take place domestically, rather than abroad, that policy seems a legitimate one for a government to adopt in order to stimulate its local economy and provide employment for its population. As the Transnational Institute's post notes, what's troubling here is that the mere threat of of a corporate sovereignty case was enough to extract special treatment from the Indonesian government, and the lack of transparency of how that was agreed:

It has long been argued that the impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties is not just shown in the cases brought to tribunals that rule against states' rights to regulate and protect citizens, but also in the many cases that do not make it to ICSID because states backtrack on regulation for fear of lawsuits. This is called the 'chilling' effect or regulatory chill of investment arbitration. However it is very difficult to show how the chilling effect works, because governments that backtrack in face of threats often do so without public knowledge and because agreements with corporations are made between closed doors. The case of Newmont against Indonesia however, shows the consequences that arise from a mere threat of a billion dollar claim in response to a (proposed) new policy.

The fear has to be that the more such threats are successful in "chilling" governmental plans, the more they will be made. As with threats from patent and copyright trolls, governments may well decide that it is simpler to acquiesce to demands, rather than go to the expense and trouble of fighting them in ISDS tribunals, which are a law unto themselves, with the result that their outcomes are far from predictable and potentially very costly.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: chilling effects, corporate sovereignty, isds, nafta, tafta, ttip

Lawsuit Filed Against European Commission In EU's Highest Court For Refusing To Allow Official TAFTA/TTIP Petition

from the almost-worthless dept

A couple of months ago, we reported on an extraordinary refusal by the European Commission to allow an official EU-wide petition, called a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), to proceed. It was to have been on the topic of TAFTA/TTIP, and the Commission claimed it couldn't go ahead for the following reasons:

The negotiating mandate for TTIP is an internal preparatory act, and not a legal act affecting EU citizens. The act affects institutions only; not EU law directly. An ECI can only be directed at a concluded act, and not already at its preparatory stage.

An ECI proposing not to enforce a legal act is not possible. An ECI may be formulated only positively, i.e. work towards the enactment of a legal act.

That summary comes from a background document from 300 European civil society groups that have just filed a lawsuit against the European Commission in the EU's highest court, seeking to overturn this refusal. The document goes on to explain why the European Commission's reasoning is flawed (pdf):

Through its legal interpretation, the Commission is attempting to completely exclude its citizens from the development of international contracts: they should have no influence on their preparation. However, if international contracts are already in force, it is then almost impossible to challenge them -- it is practically impossible to terminate them.

The Commission wants to push through that an ECI can be used by citizens only to applaud decisions and schemes of EU bodies. Criticism or rejection should not be permitted, at least through official channels.

And what is more: From the justification of the rejection, it follows that an ECI on international contracts should not be possible, even if it were formulated positively ( "...the preparatory Council decisions authorising the opening of international negotiations or repealing such authorisation do not fall within the scope of the Regulation"). The citizens want to initiate a Europe-wide agreement on the determination of occupational safety standards? Impossible -- says the Commission.

If citizens are to be active through an ECI only if the EU institutions have already made all the important advance decisions, then the instrument of the European Citizens' Initiative is almost worthless.

Challenging the refusal therefore has another, more general, aim:

"We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens. While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements."

This really goes to the heart of the problem not just with TAFTA/TTIP, but also with TPP and the new TISA. The public is told that it cannot comment while the negotiations are being conducted, but that it should wait to see the final document. At that point, it is then told that there is no point in commenting, since nothing can be changed, and so the agreement must simply be accepted.

Fortunately, the groups behind the original ECI petition that was turned down have gone ahead and organized a petition quite separate from the ECI system. At the time of writing, it has attracted nearly 900,000 signatories from within the EU (the petition is limited to EU citizens, as the ECI would have been.) That makes it anti-democratic in the extreme for the European Commission to stymie an ECI on TAFTA/TTIP. The hope is that the legal action at the European Union's Court of Justice will compel the Commission to accept that fact and act on it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, european commission, petitions, public, tafta, transparency, ttip

Now In Charge Of Congress, GOP Plans To Give Up Its Own Constitutional Powers To The Obama Administration

from the say-what-now? dept

As you've probably heard, the Republicans decisively took control over Congress in the election on Tuesday, and are now strategizing on exactly what plan they'll choose to try not to mess things up too badly by the time the 2016 elections come around. The Washington Post has a short segment on the "quick votes" the GOP is planning for January to show that rather than blocking everything, it can actually pass some stuff -- including "fast track" legislation on trade agreements:

With the 2016 presidential campaign already looming large, McConnell (Ky.) and Boehner (Ohio) are both eager to shed the party’s image as an unruly collection of obstructionists and far-right ideologues.

The remedy, they have decided: Act quickly to send President Obama bills with bipartisan support to fast-track international trade agreements, repeal an unpopular tax on medical devices and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

We've talked about this "Fast Track" authority for years (it's also referred to as "Trade Promotion Authority"). The issue is that, under the Constitution, Congress and not the executive branch, has the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." The executive branch has always been able to negotiate agreements, but it's Congress that has the power to regulate. "Fast Track" authority or Trade Promotion Authority is effectively Congress handing that right over to the executive branch, by saying that the only thing it can do when brought a trade agreement is vote up or down on the whole thing, rather than actually look at the details of the agreement and send the USTR back to fix the problematic parts.

You can understand why the USTR and the administration want the fast track to go, because it means they can actually promise things during negotiations that are more difficult to promise without that power. But it does seem very, very odd that a Republican Congress that seems to constantly complain about too much power in the executive branch, seems to have no problem whatsoever abdicating its Constitutional powers to that very same executive branch on major trade agreements that could reshape regulations worldwide.

Part of the problem, of course, is that people have been told that this is about "free trade" agreements -- and Republicans claim to be in support of free trade. But that's wrong. The big agreements, like the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA are not about "free trade" for the most part. Most tariff barriers have been chipped away for years. These agreements are about regulations and locking in certain regulations to limit the sovereignty of various nations to pass their own regulations. It's just protectionism in a different colored coat, dressed up to look like free trade -- complete with a dollop of extra sovereignty for corporations. Thus, it seems very odd that a Republican controlled Congress -- one that insists it's all about the Constitution -- has decided that it's first order of business is to give up one of Congress' main constitutional powers to an administration controlled by the opposing party.

Filed Under: congress, fast track, fast track authority, gop, republicans, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, trade promotion authority, ttip

Swedish Company Uses Corporate Sovereignty Clause To Demand 4.7 Billion Euros From German Public

from the are-you-sure-that's-enough? dept

A couple of months ago we mentioned the long-running legal battle involving the Swedish energy company, Vattenfall, which is suing Germany using corporate sovereignty provisions in the Energy Charter Treaty after the German state decided to phase out nuclear power stations. The rumored figure we mentioned then was the already-generous €3.7 billion; but it has just been revealed that Vattenfall is actually demanding even more -- €4.7 billion, to be precise. We know this is the real figure, because it was mentioned by Germany's Minister of the Economy, Sigmar Gabriel (original in German.)

This fact may help to explain persistent reports that Germany will not agree to the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter in either TAFTA/TTIP or CETA (the Canada-EU trade agreement). Germany is already experiencing first-hand the dangers of such corporate sovereignty provisions, and clearly wants to avoid suffering any more on this front.

The latest information, reported by the German news magazine Der Spiegel, points out that two other energy companies, RWE and E.on, are unable to sue in the same way as Vattenfall, because they are German companies, and the ISDS option is only available to foreign investors. This underlines the fact that, far from creating a level playing-field, corporate sovereignty is biased against local companies. For this reason, RWE and E.on are also trying to sue in Germany's national courts in order to obtain compensation, as Vattenfall is doing with the ISDS tribunals; whether they can depends on a ruling from Germany's constitutional court, due early next year. Interestingly, Vattenfall is also suing the German government through these courts -- which shows how ISDS gives foreign investors extra ways of claiming compensation.

Finally, the Der Spiegel article points out that the original estimate of the potential costs to the German government (and thus to the German taxpayer, who has to pick up the bill) from the action in the national courts, which were put at between €15 billion to €20 billion, are probably too high. That's because the price offered for supplying electricity has now dropped, bringing down potential profits too. That demonstrates the danger of granting corporate sovereignty tribunals unchecked power to make awards in favor of companies based purely on the latter's probably exaggerated claims about uncertain "losses" far into the future.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, germany, investments, isds, lawsuits, tafta, ttip
Companies: vattenfall

Street Demonstrations In 21 European Countries Held To Protest Against TAFTA/TTIP; Another ACTA Revolt Brewing?

from the unprecedented-alliance dept

Last month, the European Commission refused to accept a request to allow an official EU-wide petition called a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to take place. This was a curiously maladroit move by the Commission: it would have been easy to allow the petition against TAFTA/TTIP and CETA to proceed, thank the organizers once it was completed, file it away somewhere and then ignore it. Instead, by refusing to allow it to take place, the European Commission has highlighted in a dramatic manner the deeply undemocratic way in which so-called trade agreements are conducted.

Moreover, those making the request have simply gone ahead anyway, launching what they call the "Self-organised European Citizens' initiative Against TTIP and CETA". Even though this was only launched last week, it has already collected over 600,000 signatures from European citizens at the time of writing, and there is every indication that it will go well past the nominal one million signatures that the ECI would have required. The European Commission's refusal to allow the official petition was doubly stupid, since it came shortly before a Europe-wide day of action against TAFTA/TTIP that took place last Saturday, and doubtless encouraged people to take to the streets in order to make their views felt:

On October 11, 2014, tens of thousands of people and hundreds of organisations in 21 countries are organising actions to reclaim democracy, and stop the negotiations on three far-reaching trade agreements: the EU-US deal (TTIP), the EU-Canada deal (CETA) and the trade in services deal (TiSA).

This decentralised European Day of Action -- consisting of over 300 actions, marches, meetings and flash mobs -- is being organised by an unprecedented alliance of civil society groups and individuals, social movements, trade unions, rights defenders, farmers and grassroots activist groups.

Reporting on the event, Euractiv.com wrote:

Some 400 activist groups marched all over Europe on Saturday (11 October) in protest against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), as the EU-US trade deal crystallises opposition to a wide variety of issues -- from shale gas to corporate finance.

That last point is important. Euractiv.com goes on to explain:

The opposition to TTIP has many faces however, and seems to embody a wide variety of concerns. In France, many small demonstrations focused on opposition to shale gas, especially in the South of France, while in Berlin protesters were worried that TTIP would weaken the powers of the German regions, or Länders.

Potentially, that could make the European opposition to TAFTA/TTIP even broader-based than it was to ACTA, where people were largely concerned about a single issue -- digital rights. And just as the ACTA demonstrations started off small scale, but grew to hundreds of thousands of people before ACTA was rejected by the European Parliament, so the anti-TTIP movement in Europe could easily swell larger still. Especially if the European Commission continues to conduct the negotiations in secret and without any input from its citizens.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: acta, ceta, demonstrations, eu, europe, european commission, public participation, tafta, transparency, ttip

EU Ombudsman Slaps Down European Commission For Lack Of Transparency -- Again

from the no-messing-around dept

Back in February, we wrote about the European Union office of Ombudsman, whose job is to hold the EU administration to account, telling the European Parliament to try harder in its efforts to bring some transparency to the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations. A few months later, the Ombudsman took on the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, urging them to publish more TTIP documents:

The European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, has called on the Council of the European Union to publish the EU negotiating directives for the on-going Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the US. She has also proposed to the European Commission a range of practical measures to enable timely public access to TTIP documents, and to details of meetings with stakeholders. She has opened investigations involving both institutions.

Emily O'Reilly explained: "The EU institutions have made a considerable effort to promote transparency and public participation concerning TTIP. I agree that not all negotiating documents can be published at this stage, there needs to be room to negotiate. However, concerns have been raised about key documents not being disclosed, about delays, and about the alleged granting of privileged access to TTIP documents to certain stakeholders. Given the significant public interest and the potential impact of TTIP on the lives of citizens, I am urging both these EU institutions to step up their proactive transparency policy."

Now she's at it again, calling out the European Commission for refusing to share some requested documents relating to GCHQ spying. Here's the background, as explained by the Ombudsman's draft recommendations for the case:

On 25 June 2013, the complainant, a German journalist, asked the Commission for access to documents in its possession in connection with the surveillance of the internet by UK state agencies (mainly the intelligence service 'Government Communications Headquarters', otherwise known as 'GCHQ'), in accordance with EU rules on access to documents.

It's a fairly involved story, well explained by the Ombudsman in her recommendation. One element concerns a letter written by the UK Foreign Secretary. Here's what happened:

The Commission's position is, in essence, that disclosure could negatively impact on the atmosphere of confidence between itself and the Member state concerned, as the EU courts acknowledged in the Petrie and Technische Glaswerke cases. However, the Commission itself admitted that the Member State concerned, that is to say, the United Kingdom, agreed to the disclosure of the said letter. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman is at a loss to understand how the disclosure of this letter could have the negative consequences to which the Commission has referred. In the Ombudsman's view, it is thus clear that the Commission cannot invoke the above-mentioned general presumption in order to refuse to grant access to this letter.

That is, the Commission persisted in claiming that releasing the letter in question would affect the relations with the UK, even though the UK had said that it wouldn't. Here, the Ombudsman rightly calls out the ridiculous position that the Commission has taken. Perhaps more important for the future is the second element of her recommendations:

The Commission should grant access to all the other documents requested by the complainant concerning the mass surveillance of the internet by UK state agencies, or properly justify why, in its view, disclosure has to be refused.

That's a fine slap on the wrist for the Commission, which is being told to follow the rules here -- either by releasing the documents, or by giving a proper reason why not. The details of the case don't really matter; what's important is that O'Reilly is emerging as a powerful force for transparency within the European Union, seriously trying to hold the powerful to account. As one of the few people daring to do that, she deserves the thanks of not just the European public but also of all those elsewhere affected by EU policies.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, eu obudsman, gchq, negotiations, surveillance, tafta, transparency, ttip

European Commission Denies EU Public Right To Express Views On TAFTA/TTIP And CETA

from the something-rotten-in-the-state-of-Europe dept

One of the most glaring problems with TAFTA/TTIP is the lack of input from the public in whose name it is being negotiated. The great interest in providing feedback on the agreement can be seen from the one occasion when it was possible to voice an opinion -- the European Commission's consultation on the inclusion of a corporate sovereignty chapter. And yet, even though an unprecedented 150,000 responses were received -- the vast majority of which were against any kind of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) measures -- a top European politician recently announced that there are no plans to take ISDS out of CETA, the almost-finished trade agreement between the EU and Canada that represents a kind of warm-up for TAFTA/TTIP.

Since the European Commission refuses to take into account the public's views directly, people have turned to another mechanism to make their voices heard: a special kind of EU-wide petition called a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI). If sufficient signatures are obtained from around the EU, the European Commission is obliged to respond, but the bar to make that happen is set quite high:

One million signatures must be gathered within one year. Additionally, in seven EU states a specific minimum of supporters must be achieved, e.g. 72,000 signatures in Germany, 55,500 in France, or 54,750 in the United Kingdom. If the initiative succeeds in doing this, then the EU Commission organises a hearing in the EU Parliament, and concerns itself with the matter. The ECI citizen's committee then finally receives a written response from the Commission. If the Commission decides to present a legal act, then this is is passed on to the European Council and to the European Parliament.

That information comes from a new site set up by the Stop TTIP Alliance, a pan-EU coalition that aims to seek support for the following petition:

We invite the European Commission to recommend to the Council to repeal the negotiating mandate for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and not to conclude the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

Before signatures can be solicited, an ECI must first be registered with the European Commission. As a precaution, the Stop TTIP Alliance took legal advice to ensure that its petition met the requirements of the ECI. Despite that, the European Commission has just refused the registration request, which means the petition cannot go ahead as planned. Although that came as a complete surprise, the organizers of the ECI certainly aren't giving up -- on the contrary:

"Now the battle really begins," said Michael Efler, contact person of the ECI, which currently represents almost 230 organizations from 21 EU countries. "The rejection of the ECI only confirms the Commission's strategy to exclude citizens and parliaments from the TTIP and CETA negotiations. Instead of paying attention to citizens, it is just lobbyists that are being listened to."

The group offered some comments on the contrived legalistic justification offered by the European Commission for refusing to allow the petition to proceed. For example, the Commission claimed that the negotiating mandates for both TTIP and CETA were not "legal acts", as required for a petition, but "internal preparatory acts". Efler says:

"If the Commission’s legal opinion had any substance, then in plain English this would mean that Europe's population is excluded from participation in the development of any kind of international agreements -- information that is as frightening as it is scandalous."

The European Commission also tried to claim that it couldn't make "negative ratification proposals", but the Stop TTIP group points out:

"this means that citizens can only applaud international negotiations carried out by the Commission, but not criticize them,” said Efler.

Against this background, the Stop TTIP group is considering whether to begin legal action against the European Commission, including taking its case to the EU Court of Justice. After, all, this is not just about a European petition, but about European democracy, as one of the main organizers of the Stop TTIP ECI, John Hillary, writes:

There is something rotten in the state of Europe when an unelected, unaccountable EU body can glibly inform millions of us that we no longer have the right to question its most dangerous and unpopular policies.

...

The ruling is a slap in the face for the 230 civil society organisations from across Europe that have lined up behind the initiative, and the millions of European citizens they represent. The ECI is the only vehicle available to us to challenge the shadowy bureaucrats of the European Commission. Now even this seems to be too much scrutiny for them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: ceta, eci, eu, eu commission, european citizens initiative, petition, public, public comment, tafta, trade agreements, ttip

TAFTA/TTIP In Trouble? EU Suggests Settling For Less-Ambitious 'Interim Agreement'

from the or-is-it-a-trick? dept

The extreme secrecy surrounding the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations means that it is very hard to tell what the negotiators on both sides are really thinking about the current state of play -- as opposed to what they say in public. That means a new kremlinology is emerging that tries to tease out the deeper meanings of the information we have. For example, a meeting of the European Parliament's INTA committee, which is responsible for formulating policy on international trade -- and thus on TTIP -- has given an extremely strong hint that, on the European Commission side at least, people are beginning to panic about the lack of progress achieved during the talks.

That's what emerges from a blog post by Yannick Jadot, vice-chair of the INTA committee, who describes an extraordinary suggestion from Italy, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Council (one of the three main EU bodies):

In one of Italy's first appearances in the European Parliament since it assumed the Council Presidency in July, Carlo Calenda, the minister charged with overseeing TTIP for the Council, announced to the INTA committee the possibility of concluding an "interim agreement" for TTIP in light of lack of progress to date.

This is the first time such a thing has been suggested, and hugely significant, as Jadot notes:

It is both a clear indication that a thorough TTIP reevaluation is underway at the highest levels in Brussels, and that a comprehensive agreement may be too controversial and substantial to swallow in one go. The minister noted that a "profound reflection on the negotiation strategy" was now needed and that a decision to go for an interim agreement could take place after the US mid-term elections in November, with an aim to conclude it in 2015.

As well as the imminent US mid-term elections, another major factor affecting the evolution of the TTIP/TAFTA talks is the fact that there is a new group of European Commissioners taking over later this year. That's a clear opportunity for expectations to be re-set without worrying too much about what the current commissioner responsible for TTIP, Karel De Gucht, said or promised on this score. However, as Jadot rightly notes, this lowering of expectations might also be a ploy to lull people into a false sense of security:

By concluding a scaled down TTIP, or 'TTIP-lite', controversial items such as the investor-state dispute settlement, non-tariff barriers and mutual recognition of standards could be kicked to touch, and be dealt with later when public interest subsides. Problematic sectors like agriculture or public procurement could be isolated out and tackled individually. In many ways an interim agreement holds true to original intentions to create a 'living agreement', a structure that formalises never-ending negotiations, which do not need return to any parliament for ratification.

That would certainly be a clever way of presenting a TTIP to the public that appeared relatively benign, but which merely set the stage for the really unpopular elements to be eased in piecemeal in the coming years. Adopting this approach would ensure that the European Parliament did not reject TTIP outright -- a distinct possibility if it contains corporate sovereignty provisions, or undermines EU regulations on chlorine chickens and hormone beef, for example -- but would be unable to stop further changes later on. However, there's a problem with implementing this cunning plan:

Anthony Gardner, the new US Ambassador to the EU, immediately refuted Italy's interim suggestion at the same INTA meeting, aggressively defending a comprehensive deal:

"There are many geopolitical and economic reasons to conclude an ambitious agreement, and I say ambitious because we continue to believe, like our Commission colleagues, that only a comprehensive agreement would yield the significant results our leaders want. Yes I know our friend Carlo Calenda believes an interim agreement should be considered but we continue to believe that only a comprehensive agreement will work."

While Mr. Gardner said he would look forward to "a regular, open and honest dialogue”, he went on to attack those who have raised issues of concern, such as chlorine washed chicken. Such issues he claimed were "peripheral" and amounted to "scaremongering".

So, we are left with contradictory messages, with the European side apparently pushing for an interim agreement, and the US side refusing even to consider it. Along the way, though, there's some useful fodder for those TTIP kremlinologists to get working on.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, interim agreement, negotiations, tafta, trade agreements, ttip, us

Leak Of Complete CETA Text Shows Canada Fought Off EU Demands For More Extreme Copyright Rules

from the bad-news-for-TTIP dept

As we wrote back in July, it seems that the trade agreement between Canada and the EU, generally known as CETA, is finally nearing completion, after premature claims to that effect. One reason why we might believe so is that thanks to some public-spirited whistleblower(s), we now have both CETA's main text (pdf) and the annexes (zip). This has permitted Michael Geist to perform an analysis of how the copyright provisions in CETA have evolved since the first leak of the chapter covering intellectual monopolies, posted by Wikileaks back in 2009. At that time, the European Union was pushing for some serious beefing-up of Canadian law in this area:

the starting point for copyright in CETA as reflected in 2009 leaked document was typical of European demands in its trade agreements. It wanted Canada to extend the term of copyright to life of the author plus 70 years (Canada is currently at the international standard of life plus 50 years), adopt tough new rules for Internet provider liability, create criminal sanctions for some copyright infringement, implement new rights for broadcasters and visual artists, introduce strict digital lock rules with minimal exceptions, and beef up enforcement powers. In other words, it was looking for Canada to mirror its approach on copyright.

Geist's post explores how that gradually changed, as reflected in subsequent leaks, culminating in the latest one, of the full text. Rather remarkably, he finds:

The major European copyright demands were ultimately dropped and remaining issues were crafted in a manner consistent with Canadian law.

He sees four main reasons for this:

First, the domestic policy situation in both Canada and the EU surely had a significant impact as ACTA protests in Europe and consumer interest in copyright in Canada led to the elimination of the criminal provisions and the adoption of better-balanced, consumer-oriented rules.

...

Second, while there is much bluster about "strong" European rules or "weak" Canadian laws, the reality is that both are compliant with international standards that offer considerable flexibility in implementation.

...

Third, the "made-in-Canada" approach is gradually garnering increased attention around the world as a creative, viable alternative.

...

Four, when the European Union was pressed to prioritize its top intellectual property issues during the negotiations, copyright ultimately took a back seat to pharmaceutical patents and protection for geographical indications.

While it's great that the copyright provisions of CETA are not nearly as bad as we had feared, there's a worrying implication here for TTIP/TAFTA. The EU's maximalist approach to copyright was only dropped in CETA because Canada fought back. In TTIP, there is zero chance the US will do that -- on the contrary, it may well want the EU to become even more extreme. That means we can probably expect some really awful copyright measures in TTIP, confirming earlier fears about what backroom discussions may be preparing for us.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: canada, ceta, copyright, eu, tafta, trade agreements, ttip, us