
TTIP Enters New and Dangerous Stage as Democracy Is Dismantled in Secret - walterbell
http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/ttip-enters-new-and-dangerous-stage-as-democracy-is-dismantled-in-secret/
======
abpavel
It's especially frightening for us Europeans, that TTIP can overrule existing
local legislature, and that officials representing EU states only have access
to the full text of 600 pages for 2 hours every thursday, accompanied by two
security guards beside you at all times, behind closed doors, after the metal
detector where you have leave all your electronics and recording devices
behind. Oh, and you're not allowed to take any notes, not even with a pencil.
Good luck with booking a slot! If another representative is interested in
reading a couple more pages this week, you'll need to wait till next week.

~~~
germanier
Just to make one thing clear: Before the treaty comes into force it needs to
be voted on by the Euroepan parliament and national parliaments. Before the
votes the treaty will be published. What is a highly guarded secret are the
current _drafts_ , not the final agreement.

It's actually not really different from how most laws are written, especially
those proposed by the government. While those are in the drafting phase MPs
usally don't have access at all.

~~~
witty_username
If the deal is done in secret, people'll complain that its secret.

If the deal is not done in secret, people'll complain about the draft terms
before it is finalized.

~~~
imglorp
> If the deal is not done in secret, people'll complain about the draft terms
> before it is finalized.

That little bit there is called democracy. Without transparency, it's called
fascism.

------
deif
Note that TTIP still has to be agreed upon by the EU Parliament. Personally I
don't really care what the lobbyists are writing in secret. At some point they
have to present to the EUP (where we actually have representation) and they
have been very consistent at shutting down the crap that the corporations try
to get through.

It's not that secret. It's secret while they work on it, sure, but I've
watched countless debates with the Commission vs. EUP. I still have faith that
Parliament can protect us (and if not then there's still public outrage and
protest if TTIP is ridiculous).

~~~
izacus
Well, we just found out that 6/7 of our countries MEP's in Parliament voted
for TTIP without even reading it. With no consultation or anything else.

I have very low hopes that reason will prevail in this case.

~~~
IanCal
> Well, we just found out that 6/7 of our countries MEP's in Parliament voted
> for TTIP without even reading it.

Voted for a not-yet negotiated trade agreement? Are you sure you've not
misunderstood this?

[http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-
ttip/pr...](http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-
ttip/process/index_en.htm#_main-stages)

~~~
izacus
I was talking about the preliminary resolution on 9. Jul. 2015. While that
indeed wasn't a final voting, I have still little hope that the result will be
any different.

~~~
jandrese
What hope do you really have? All of the corporate interests are aligned on
this and they are the ones that own the representatives.

------
wickedlogic
Seems a fitting, though unrelated, clip from Snowden at NH Liberty Forum:
[https://youtu.be/M94ZO6jYU6c?t=19m28s](https://youtu.be/M94ZO6jYU6c?t=19m28s)

People who plan your future in secret, do so exactly because they fear you
stopping them.

Stopping all of this is a matter of getting involved in your
local/state/nation-state politics now... today. It is disingenuous to suggest
that you will get `a chance` to object later. Perhaps that is the case
technically, but it will be pushed through unless you have a community, and a
local/state government willing to oppose it, and stay opposed to it. The
offensiveness of TTIP is lost on most people outside of the technical
community. Or, if you give up on your current governance... you can come join
those of us in NH who are generally very opposed to such things:
[https://freestateproject.org/](https://freestateproject.org/)

------
jsaigle
The site seems to be down. I know most people here are tech-savvy enough to
find this on their own, but here's a cached version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://truepublica.org.uk/united-
kingdom/ttip-enters-new-and-dangerous-stage-as-democracy-is-dismantled-in-
secret/)

------
auggierose
Interesting how a whole article can be written without defining what they are
writing about. What the fuck is TTIP?

~~~
Silhouette
To add to the other replies, there are two areas where TTIP is particularly
controversial.

One such area is that the TTIP _might_ include provisions that are broadly
worded and have unintended (or "actually intended but they'd never admit to
it") side effects. For example, if businesses in foreign countries gained new
rights to sue national governments if the governments act in a way that costs
those businesses revenue, would that mean a government can no longer ban
smoking in public places by law without paying compensation to the cigarette
firms? Or if we extended patent rights in the pharmaceutical industry, would
that limit the access of patients in poor countries to generic medicines they
can afford, and force them to buy branded versions at much higher cost or go
without?

The other area of controversy is the secrecy of the negotiations. It seems
likely that significant parts of the proposed agreement have been influenced
or even written by lobbyists representing special interest groups. However,
pushing these kinds of changes via a trade agreement means the exact wording
is kept between a small number of officials from the EU and US and isn't
subject to wider scrutiny. Even elected representatives in European and more
recently national governments only have access to documents under tightly
controlled conditions. Thus there is concern that what will be presented for
more democratically accountable consideration will effectively be a _fait
accompli_ , one big take-it-or-leave-it bundle of new rules backed by heavy
political pressure to take it even if some of the details aren't wanted.

For a more detailed criticism, there are a few articles like this one around:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-
and...](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-
reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html)

~~~
mason240
>For example, if businesses in foreign countries gained new rights to sue
national governments if the governments act in a way that costs those
businesses revenue,

That is completely untrue.

~~~
Silhouette
Maybe it is. The trouble is, we know that there is a credible threat of
international agreements being used to subvert previous national positions in
general, but we don't know what the real proposed wording says in specific
areas of this particular agreement. It's impossible to have a rational debate
on the subject under these conditions.

~~~
mason240
It is untrue.

A businesses in foreign countries CAN sue a national governments if pass
protectionist regulations that favor domestic businesses.

For example: The US can pass environmental regulations blocking all logging on
Federally owned land. They can not pass regulations that only allow US-based
companies to log on Federally owned land. If they did, then foreign companies
could sue for being excluded.

>It's impossible to have a rational debate on the subject

With all the FUD being spread around, I completely agree.

~~~
Silhouette
_It is untrue._

As I have consistently said, that may be the case.

But the fact is that I don't know that for sure, and unless you're both one of
a very select group and violating an explicit confidentiality agreement by
posting here, neither do you.

~~~
mason240
>As I have consistently said, that may be the case.

Just like it may be the case that the moon landings were faked.

>unless you're both one of a very select group and violating an explicit
confidentiality agreement by posting here, neither do you.

The full text of TIPP has been released for months now. I know because I have
read factual reporting from journalists who have actually read the text, not
from ignorant FUD spreaders in website comment sections.

------
AnAfrican
It seems like many people don't really understand how lobbies work.

Corporations' interests aren't identical so they cannot be defended by one
lobby. And there are lobbies defending non-corporate interests. And those can
be a. quite powerful b. quite nefarious.

The secrecy during negotiation is necessary because "someone soemwhere has a
good reason to oppose something".

The fact that there are many somewheres, someones and somethings involved make
it impossible to do it in public.

~~~
542458
> "someone soemwhere has a good reason to oppose something"

Especially since TPP is (in large part) designed to prevent China steamrolling
entire industries and crushing foreign economies through shear size and
sketchy economic measures. If the negotiations are public China has way more
time to react to the measures, either by working around them or by threatening
countries until they drop out.

TPP may or may not be a bad thing, but "negotiated in secret" doesn't make it
bad.

~~~
AnAfrican
I actually had internal constituencies in mind..

Goat Cheese farmers or Cab drivers have and will make hell if there's even one
line that they deem unacceptable even if the whole thing could (not
necessarily will) be beneficial for the whole country.

And given the populist tendencies of the media on some topics, the people will
probably agree.

------
kabdib
Knowing _how_ the negotiations happened is quite interesting, and should not
be kept secret now.

For instance, discussions about late, seemingly small changes can reveal
agendas. Commas, minor word substitutions and other small-distance edits can
have _major_ alterations in meaning.

To the extent that minutes and logs of meetings were kept, they should now be
published.

To the extend that minutes and logs were burnt or destroyed or avoided, the
TTIP should be treated similarly.

------
vmorgulis
"Representative democracy is often presented as the only form of democracy
possible in mass societies. It arguably allows for efficient ruling by a
sufficiently small number of people on behalf of the larger number."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)

Democracy is more a form of elitism than "power to the people". It has always
been like that.

Another system is possible (like Futarchy or a form of Anarchism) but the
transition is risky.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy)

~~~
cubano
Well don't forget the idea of direct democracy where we leverage modern IT and
allow the people to vote directly on issues, eliminating the need for
representatives whom are, of course, often corrupted by monied interests.

Many movements and initiatives currently exist promoting this method of
government[1]

[1][http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/direct-
democracy/citizen-...](http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/direct-
democracy/citizen-initiatives)

~~~
Loughla
The idea of open citizen voting directly on all issues terrifies me. I see
democratic representation as a way to pay someone to read and understand all
of the legal jargon most people won't take the time to bother with.

People don't take time to read their medicine bottle warnings, let alone the
contents of the new Higher Education Act. I'm honestly afraid that righteous
attitudes fueled by ignorance would rule.

It would put an incredible amount of power in the hands of mass-media as well
(more than they already have). Well-designed and well-timed stories can sway
public opinion waaaay too easily.

Combine that with how the government seems to handle IT security issues in
these type of large-scale projects, and you have a recipe for disaster.

~~~
cubano
_The idea of open citizen voting directly on all issues terrifies me. I see
democratic representation as a way to pay someone to read and understand all
of the legal jargon most people won 't take the time to bother with._

Except they don't really either.

They typically have a rather large staff to do that for them, and paid
lobbyists fill in the rest, along with large contributions of course.

To be honest, I find this lack of faith in the intelligence and integrity of
your fellow man/woman rather disturbing, especially in this current social-
justice warrior environment where we are _all_ depending more on each other to
get things right.

------
kevindeasis
Hey smart folks,

How does TTIP affect small business, and startups in Australia-Canda-America-
Asia?

How does TTIP affect small business, and startups in the Pacifics?

~~~
Aoyagi
I don't think it has any direct affect on those areas. Australasia has TPP,
Canada has NAFTA.

~~~
ZenoArrow
There's also a similar deal to the TTIP called CETA that Canada are involved
in:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Tra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement)

As far as I know there are roughly 5 multinational trade deals in the works at
the moment... TPP, TTIP, TISA, CETA and one more I forgot the name of that
involves China.

EDIT: The multinational trade deal currently being negotiated that involves
China is the RCEP:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership)

------
WhoBeI
There's so much mistrust and doubt that it's hard to see a solution that would
satisfy all when it comes to communicating political processes with the
public. Sure, we all might prefer for the process to be open, to have edits
and additions recorded together with the "who" in some kind of revision
system, but would we then trust those who maintain the repository?

If we do; who would then be trusted to read through the 600 page document and
give an objective report on it's content? Because it has to be viewed in
context, right? Not just a single paragraph used as click bait to up the
advertising revenue. Who would we agree on should be considered a "real
journalist"?

It's tricky. We fear what we don't know and distrust those who do.

A dreamy solution would be a system that allows politicians to comment on laws
and voters to assign and re-assign points to those they agree with. Voters
wouldn't decide laws but be able to show their support for different view
points which we could graph over time and match against politicians votes.

But, yeah, internet voting is equally tricky.

------
alanwatts
>Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central
institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under
capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in
which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic
control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in
political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict
obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining,
a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly
straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to
economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under
the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk
about democracy.

-Noam Chomsky, Business Today, May 1973

------
jokoon
Sometimes I just want to think those treaties' function is to curtail
multinationals, so that countries can be able to effectively organize
themselves against those corporations who have become hard to regulate in a
context of globalization.

So if you want to successfully do it, you have to keep as many people in the
dark, since I also believe those big companies have a tremendous influence on
politicians. Maybe it's just to let people negotiate in peace, without having
to deal with noise you can see on meetings like the G20 or G8, and all the
special interests knocking on your door. Maybe this deal is pure international
politics, which is going beyond the scope of democracy (the world is not a
democracy, last I checked).

We already have separation of church and state, maybe it's time to have
separation of business and state? That's why I think it's easy to paint those
treaties as A Bad Thing(tm), but I think it's more difficult to grasp the
complexity of international politics intertwined with international trade.

Although I could be completely wrong, but I always tend to take things with a
bigger grain of salt when it involves activists who can't really give me a
clear reason on what X thing is bad.

~~~
RobertoG
It's very difficult to give you a clear reason on why X thing is bad because..
well, nobody have seen X.

But, if you are not very naive, you should be asking yourself why a free trade
treaty is so important when we already have free trade. And if it's only a few
changes to the current situation, why all the secret?

Anyway, the things that have been leaked don't sound very well.

~~~
witty_username
> you should be asking yourself why a free trade treaty is so important when
> we already have free trade

Depends on your definition of "free trade", but we don't have completely free
trade; many countries have high tarrifs, for example Japan's rice tarrif.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/10/06/tpp-deal-
expec...](http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/10/06/tpp-deal-expected-to-
shake-up-japans-agriculture-sector/)

(OK, this is TPP, but I'm sure the same point applies).

------
lhnz
Is this a reason to vote Brexit?

I would like to be able to vote out any political party that is entering into
such an agreement, but if it's the EU's bureaucracy itself I have no
democratic way to do so.

(I'm asking this sincerely. I don't yet know enough to be able to be for or
against Brexit.)

~~~
awjr
Believe TTIP is being pushed by the UK government and resisted by countries in
Europe.

~~~
deif
Wrong. UKIP and Labour hold the majority seats for the UK in the EUP and
they're both against TTIP.

~~~
mcv
How would that stop the UK government from pushing this? The EUP does not
control the UK government or the House of Commons.

~~~
j_jochem
@deif TTIP will have to be ratified by the individual national governments,
either by voting on it in parliament or through direct popular vote.

------
onetimePete
Assuming we could stop this- the next 'Trade Alliance Agreement' coupe would
then be named HHKQ ? The only way this repetition can be broken, is by the
world agreeing on taxing the hell out of every organization that can try to
usurp legitimate democratic structures..

------
vinay427
All I wanted out of this deal were unified automotive safety standards
(hopefully choosing the more proven standards of the two for each case).
Instead, we seem to have ended up with another slew of controversial elements
that apparently serve someone's interests.

------
magicmu
It looks like this site got hugged to death, does anyone have a mirror link?

~~~
japaget
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftruepublica.org.uk%2Funited-
kingdom%2Fttip-enters-new-and-dangerous-stage-as-democracy-is-dismantled-in-
secret%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftruepublica.org.uk%2Funited-kingdom%2Fttip-
enters-new-and-dangerous-stage-as-democracy-is-dismantled-in-
secret%2F&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.6590j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)

------
pgnas
Welcome to the New World Order, you didn't think it was gong to be a
democratic order. Did you?

These sweeping treaties (they are not agreements) lay the foundation of world
government. yiu can be certain that nothing good will come from politicians
secretly meeting to talk about a plan that no one is sharing. These treaties
provide for unprecedented power to corporations to determine the goods and
services to be traded. They are stripping away the boarders and soon the beast
will be revealed.

The word of the decade is transparency, you assumed it was the government
being transparent when in fact it is you and me that are transparent to the
governments and corporations.

~~~
jdimov10
At what time and place exactly was the "old" world order democratic?

~~~
ionised
Athens had Sortition.

It's pretty much as democratic as you can get.

~~~
gnud
Except for those pesky women and slaves.

~~~
ionised
True.

------
alvarosm
hmmm I love the smell of marxism in the morning

------
ck2
democracy was dismantled a long time ago by corporate manipulation

remember how Obama was going to ban lobbyists? ha

~~~
Nr7
>democracy was dismantled a long time ago by corporate manipulation

In the US, yes. Now they are spreading it to Europe with TTIP.

Edit: Not that Europe is some sort of magical haven of democracy currently,
but this surely won't improve the situation.

~~~
RobertoG
In the Euro-area, for the important economic decisions, there is not
democratic control by design.

I recommend this lecture by Varoufakis
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCA68U3P_Z8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCA68U3P_Z8))
where he explains his experience.

In fact, I think that the situation is worse in Europe that in the States. The
members of the Euro have very limited capacity of action because they have
lost control of monetary policy to "higher" authorities.

TTIP will have a similar effect, democratic governments constrained by rules
sets in treaties almost impossible to change.

My personal opinion is that this is the real goal of TTIP.

