European Commission's Clever Ruse To Introduce Corporate Sovereignty Regardless Of Ratification Votes In EU

from the whatever-happened-to-democracy? dept

Because of the complicated nature of power-sharing in the European Union, some international agreements require the approval of both the European Parliament and of every Member State -- so-called "mixed agreements." It is generally accepted that both the Canada-EU trade agreement (CETA) and TAFTA/TTIP are mixed agreements, and will therefore require a double ratification: by the full European Parliament, and all the EU governments. Indeed, the European Commission has frequently cited this fact to bolster its assertion that both CETA and TAFTA/TTIP are being negotiated democratically, since the European public -- through their representatives -- will have their say in these final votes.

But a disturbing analysis published by Greenpeace on its Austrian pages (original in German), suggests that built into the CETA agreement, which is currently going through a "legal scrub" before being presented for ratification (pdf), are a couple of sections that will allow the European Commission to introduce the corporate sovereignty provisions anyway. According to Article X.06 3(a):

This Agreement shall be provisionally applied from the first day of the month following the date on which the parties have notified each other that their respective relevant procedures have been completed.

This means that CETA would enter into force provisionally as soon as the European Commission and the Canadian government have notified each other that "relevant procedures have been completed." There's no explicit requirement there for those "relevant procedures" to include ratification by the European Parliament or the EU Member States: the European Commission might claim that the "relevant procedures" simply meant things like the legal scrub. One of the provisions of CETA is a deeply-problematic corporate sovereignty chapter, so this too would enter into force at this point, regardless of what national governments might want.

Now suppose that the European Parliament, or one of those Member States, does not ratify CETA, perhaps because of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, in which case the entire agreement would fail. But here's what Article X.07 4 says happens in this case:

If the provisional application of this Agreement is terminated and it does not enter into force, a claim may be submitted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, regarding any matter arising during the period of the provisional application of this Agreement, pursuant to the rules and procedures established in this Agreement, and provided no more than three (3) years have elapsed since the date of termination of the provisional application.

In other words, even if CETA is rejected in Europe, thus causing the provisional application to be terminated, claims under the ISDS chapter would still be possible up to three years afterwards for investments made during the provisional period. This is no mere theoretical possibility: it is exactly what happened to Russia with the Energy Charter Treaty, which it never ratified, but where an ISDS tribunal made an award of $50 billion against the country because of the treaty's provisional application. What's even more troubling is that the European Commission proposes to add similar clauses to TAFTA/TTIP, as the Greenpeace article notes:

A representative of the European Commission at a press briefing session in Vienna on Tuesday confirmed to Greenpeace that the Commission intends to propose a "provisional application" for TTIP too.

This would be even worse than putting such sections in CETA, because ISDS in TAFTA/TTIP will apply retrospectively to all existing investments, as the negotiating mandate specifies (pdf):

The investment protection chapter of the Agreement should cover a broad range of investors and their investments, intellectual property rights included, whether the investment is made before or after the entry into force of the Agreement.

This would allow corporate sovereignty provisions applying to huge numbers of existing investments to enter into force and remain there for some years even if TTIP were rejected by the European Parliament or one of the national governments. So much for the European Commission's much-vaunted "democracy" -- and another compelling reason to take the ISDS chapter out of both CETA and TAFTA/TTIP.

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

Filed Under: ceta, corporate sovereignty, eu commission, eu parliament, isds, ratification, tafta, trade agreements, ttip

Latest Trade Agreements Are About The Opposite Of Free Trade: Protectionism For Big Business

from the this-is-not-free-trade dept

We've been talking a lot about the various big "trade agreements" that are being worked on around the globe -- with a major focus on the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) and the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact). These are frequently referred to as "free trade agreements." But an important point that gets lost in the various debates is that, generally speaking these are not free trade agreements at all. In many ways, they're the opposite. Free trade is about removing barriers to trade -- which are, generally speaking, a good thing. But the simple fact is that for the most part we already have pretty low trade barriers with most of the countries involved in these negotiations. Instead, this is almost entirely about a combination of regulatory arbitrage, and the ability to better move money around by giant multinational companies. The economics comic artist Michael Goodwin did a nice job demonstrating all this in a comic about the TPP a while back. Here's just two panels, though I highly recommend the whole thing: Economist Dean Baker has a good article describing this in more detail as well, showing that these agreements aren't about "free trade" at all. As he notes, basic free trade generally makes sense. But, that's not what's really being discussed in these agreements:

In TPP and TTIP we are not talking about the textbook trade story. The actual trade barriers between the United States and the countries in these deals, with few exceptions, are already quite low. This means that there is little to be gained by lowering them still further.

Instead, he notes -- as we have in the past -- that these "trade agreements" are really just the opposite. They're about gifts for certain big businesses that they couldn't get through legislation:

TPP and TTIP are about getting special deals for businesses that they would have difficulty getting through the normal political process.

He lists out a bunch of examples, but here are a couple we've been focused on:

The pharmaceutical industry and entertainment industries will get longer and stronger patent and copyright protection.

Note how this is the opposite of true free trade. Longer and stronger copyrights and patents are actually barriers to trade. They're putting up regulatory barriers to the free flow of information, protecting certain legacy businesses at the expense of innovative firms. And, it's all done in secret, with basically only input from businesses. The only time voters actually get to see what's in it is when it's a done deal, and fully negotiated. At that point, the parties are too committed to actually allow any fixes that protect consumers or innovation.

So, when you hear people talking about these agreements as if they're "free trade" agreements, just recognize that calling them free trade agreements is a lie -- and it's a lie that's used to convince the gullible that these agreements must be good for the economy. And it appears to work on some people:

As Thomas Friedman once famously said in reference to his support of CAFTA, "I didn't even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade." Others in the media may be too sophisticated to express themselves so bluntly, but undoubtedly most share Friedman's view. Under such circumstances, there will be few politicians prepared to stand up for principle or their constituents and vote against the pacts regardless of what it is in them.

In short: people (correctly) believe that free trade is generally a good thing. Businesses recognize this -- and even though we generally have an awful lot of free trade around the globe these days, with fewer and fewer tariffs and trade barriers, governments are working on "free trade deals" because they know by calling them that, people will often support them, believing blindly that they're good things. Instead, there's very little that's actually about free trade, and an awful lot that's about propping up and protecting legacy business models, while stifling the important free flow of information.

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, dean baker, economix, free trade, investment, isds, michael goodwin, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, ttip

EU-Canada Trade Agreement May Be Incompatible With EU Law

from the too-ambitious dept

Just as it did with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Germany is leading the fight against both TAFTA/TTIP and the recently-concluded trade agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). That's clear from the fact that of the 1,115,000 European citizens who have signed an online petition calling for both TTIP and CETA to be dropped, 673,000 come from Germany. The most powerful anti-TTIP organisation, Campact, is also based in Germany, and points us to this legal analysis of CETA, and the extent to which it may be incompatible with EU and German law (pdf):

The following opinion assesses whether this "CETA Consolidated Text" of August 5th, 2014 complies with EU and [German] constitutional law. The opinion is limited to some selected regulatory fields of CETA. It does not claim to be exhaustive, but focuses on those provisions that dominate public discussion.

It's rigorous stuff and pretty dry, but the conclusions are clear enough. For example, it confirms that CETA is a "mixed agreement." That means it must be ratified by the EU and every one of the 28 Member States -- a much higher hurdle to clear than just EU approval. It identifies the corporate sovereignty provisions -- "investor-state dispute settlement" -- as a problem:

The establishment of investor-state arbitration tribunals in CETA violates the judicial monopoly of jurisdiction laid down in EU law (Article 19 TEU [Treaty on European Union] in conjunction with Articles 263ff TFEU [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]) and [German] constitutional law (Article 92 BL). Furthermore, the EU does not have the competence to extend such a procedure to portfolio investments and to the field of financial services.

This has been a common criticism of ISDS -- that it creates a parallel legal system only available to corporations, and which can overrule national courts. It's a consequence of the fact that CETA is not just a trade agreement, but affects many areas of daily life that are normally determined by politicians, not unaccountable negotiators working in secret, as is the case with the EU-Canadian agreement.

Of course, this is just one legal opinion, and doubtless the European Commission would beg to differ. But it does indicate that the very ambition of CETA -- and therefore also TAFTA/TTIP, which is very similar in this respect -- may be its downfall. By seeking to move "behind the borders", tackling "non-tariff barriers" that are actually regulations protecting health, safety, the environment, etc., these agreements may interfere with too many core functions of how a democracy works, and be struck down by the courts as a result.

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

Filed Under: acta, ceta, eu, regulatory laundering, tafta, trade agreements, ttip

Canada's Strict New Anti-Corruption Rules Might Lead To Yet More Corporate Sovereignty Lawsuits Against It

from the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished dept

Recently, we wrote about the extraordinary free trade agreement between Canada and China that places itself above the Canadian constitution. Here's another development where Canada can serve as a warning to the rest of the world about the dangers of giving too much power to corporations in free trade agreements, as reported by the The Globe and Mail:

Canada risks being hit with a World Trade Organization challenge and NAFTA investor lawsuits over its threat to bar some companies from selling to the government for up to 10 years, warns a report commissioned by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and delivered to federal officials.

And a number of foreign multinationals are already exploring possible trade action, according to an industry source, who declined to be named.

The problem is that Canada has introduced new anti-corruption rules:

Under the newly revised federal regime, companies seeking to bid on federal contracts must certify that neither they nor their affiliates have been charged with a long list of criminal offences anywhere in the world, including bribery and fraud, dating back 10 years.

Apparently, the inclusion of affiliates is much stricter than anti-corruption laws elsewhere, and that might open up Canada to claims that it is unreasonable for Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies to be held responsible for the actions of other affiliates over which they have no control. No lawsuits have yet been filed, so it's too early to say how serious this threat is. But it certainly emphasizes how signing up to corporate sovereignty chapters in free trade agreements -- in this case, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement -- increases the risk that companies will use them in unexpected ways to attack governments when they introduce new policies, however praiseworthy those may be.

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

Filed Under: anti-corruption, canada, china, corporate sovereignty, free trade, isds, trade agreements

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

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

China Turns From 'Pirate' Nation To Giant Patent Troll

from the what-goes-around,-comes-around dept

The West's constant push for stronger patent protection in agreements like TPP and ACTA is based on the belief that they will then be able to deploy their supercharged patents against the rising economic might of China. What this completely overlooks is the fact that China will be able to turn the self-same strengthened patent regime against the West by acquiring patents and suing Western companies. Techdirt has already reported on how China is providing financial incentives for its companies to file huge numbers of patents overseas. Now it has taken another step in bolstering its patents strategy against the West by setting up a company called Ruichuan IPR Funds. Here's a press release that the site Citizen Outreach has issued on this move:

With China's creation of Ruichuan IPR Funds, imagine the assault that U.S. companies will face. Reports are that this government-sponsored troll has been seeded with $50 billion to acquire patents that will be used in actions against U.S. companies. Inasmuch as trolls aren't sticklers for the quality of the patents they purchase, Ruichuan IPR Funds will be able to build a massive arsenal for use in harassment litigation.

China will now be in a better position to manipulate markets, handicap the overseas competition, and push itself to the head of the pack in the global patent wars.

A little hyperbolic perhaps, but essentially correct -- and completely foreseeable. The Chinese government's move is part of a larger story that recapitulates America's own evolution from a "pirate" nation that fuelled its industrial revolution by ignoring the law and appropriating Western Europe's patented ideas, to one using the same legal instruments against European companies.

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

Filed Under: china, competition, innovation, patent troll, patents, trade agreements, trolling

Newly Released Emails Raise Questions Of Whether EU Politicians Sold Out To US On Privacy

from the that's-awkward dept

As we've noted, the EU Data Protection Regulation has seen some of the fiercest lobbying in the history of the European Union. That's because key US Internet companies are worried that stricter controls on taking personal data out of the EU might adversely affect their business models, which are largely based on using that data quite freely.

The human rights organization Access has been following this closely, and has made several freedom of information requests to both the US and EU authorities in an attempt to find out who exactly has been trying to weaken the Regulation and how. A recent Access blog post revealed that as well as many heavily-redacted documents, one interesting email was provided in its entirety:

The email is between staff working at the [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] of the [US] Department of Commerce. The email makes reference to the drafting of one of the lobby documents the Obama administration produced to influence the outcome of the data protection reform package (read EDRi’s analysis on the paper here). This is one of the many documents which likely contributed to a diluting of the Data Protection Regulation even before the proposal had been made public.

The email indicates that Commissioner Malmström and/or her cabinet had been sharing information with the U.S. Mission in the E.U., including appropriate times to publish the lobby document, information about internal politics within the Commission, and concerns about how the proposal for a Data Protection Directive could conflict with E.U. and U.S. Law Enforcement interests.

That's pretty shocking since, if true, it means that one of the most important departments of the European Commission, headed by the senior politician Cecilia Malmström, was actively working to weaken the proposed Regulation. According to Access:

For many who have been following the E.U. privacy reform debate closely, this trans-Atlantic cooperation was an open secret. However, until now, it has not been possible to demonstrate DG [Directorate-General] Home's maneuvers. Beyond the implications for the Data Protection Reform, the contents of the acquired document give cause for concern about Ms. Malmström’s suitability for leading EU negotiations with the USA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), given that she has recently been chosen E.U. Commissioner-designate for Trade.

That last comment refers to the fact that Malmström, the current head of the department involved, DG Home, and thus with ultimate responsibility for her staff's actions, has been proposed as the new EU commissioner for trade, who would therefore take over the negotiation of TAFTA/TTIP from Karel De Gucht. Naturally, the possibility that her department was colluding with the US side to undermine data protection in the EU would not inspire confidence in her for this new role.

As part of her appointment process as trade commissioner, Malmström was questioned by Members of the European Parliament during a three-hour session on Monday. As well as being asked about key issues like corporate sovereignty -- she said that she won't take it out of CETA, but doesn't exclude the possibility of removing ISDS from TTIP -- she was also challenged on the allegations from Access, and replied as follows:

I have read those allegations; I totally reject them. I have always defended the European data protection proposals internally and externally. These are based on misconception or on lies and I think I have shown to this Parliament and other committees that I can negotiate with the United States tough agreements, where we stand up for European values, and I will certainly continue to do so. So I totally reject false allegations based on alleged leaked emails. I have always stood up for this formally, publicly and in all informal discussions.

Access has now replied to her statements (pdf), pointing out:

You have systematically refused to comment on "these allegations" from "a leaked email". The document in question, referenced as "JN 656", is neither an allegation nor a leak. It was legally acquired by Access on July 14, 2014, through a freedom of information request.

Access then went on:

The clear implication of your statement is that the email in question is not genuine. We therefore demand an immediate clarification: Are you accusing Access or the US Department of Commerce of having falsified a document?

Although it seems likely that Malmström will be confirmed as the new trade commissioner, it also looks like this story will rumble on for a while yet (pdf).

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

Filed Under: cecilia malmstrom, compromises, data protection regulation, eu, privacy, trade agreements, us

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