
EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal - ionised
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal
======
white-flame
The US is theoretically based on a checks and balances system, in the hopes of
preventing unchecked tyranny.

On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government
in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted.

The complaints are about how restriction will impact "global trade" of
particular pesticides. The EU's entire point is that these items should not be
traded. That statement holds regardless of the economic impact.

~~~
jnet
"On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US
government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted"

I am very skeptical that any of the founding fathers would have wanted
European countries restricting US trade. With that said, I agree that the
Europeans should make a stand and not accept what they consider dangerous
pesticides to be imported into the EU

~~~
themeek
They were pretty clear that they didn't want European countries saying saying
either 'yes' or saying 'no'.

Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself
politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all.

It's probably the case that the founding fathers would have different opinions
were they born today. Today you can travel around the world several times than
you could travel across the (extremely small) country then. Things are
different.

~~~
dragontamer
> Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself
> politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all.

Erm... Monroe Doctrine anyone? How about War of 1812? US Leaders visiting
France for support in the Revolution?

Seriously, what's with everyone not understanding basic history around here...
I do recognize this is a tech forum, but its exceedingly easy to come up with
counter-examples to so many historical statements...

~~~
themeek
Hey now. I said political involvement (other countries saying 'yes' or 'no').
Certainly the US has always engaged in trade and self defense. You've argued a
straw man.

Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-
interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. You
are the one who has mischaracterized basic history.

"She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception,
respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining
her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even
when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last
vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to
come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests
between inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she
goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to
the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only
of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her
voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."

~~~
dragontamer
> Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-
> interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars.

I do think the Native Americans would beg to differ. (Indian Removal Act of
1830). Furthermore, the American explicit foreign policy was "Stay out of
America so that we can colonize it better". That included South America and
the Central America island countries as well.

In 1878 for example, we sailed our Navy to Samosa and threatened war with
Germany.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention)

The current topic is about a trade dispute regarding the purchase of American
Pesticides in Europe. America always had foreign policy and trade disputes.

Now, I agree that during the 1850s, US Foreign Relations more or less stood
still. There was something called the Civil War, and we kind of didn't focus
on foreign affairs.

Pretending that we were always an isolationist nation is an error! Our rise as
a world power (and global politics) began almost immediately after we rebuilt
during the Civil War.

Before the Civil War, America wasn't exactly powerful enough to push other
nations around in global politics. But we definitely pushed the Native
Americans around and expanded with Manifest Destiny, and utilized the Monroe
Doctrine to keep other European Countries from settling the region. To claim
the Monroe doctrine as a "isolationist" strategy misses the point of Manifest
Destiny... American Ambitions to conquer _all the land_ from east coast to
west coast is evident even as early as the 1830s.

US-Mexico War, as well as other "threatened wars" (54/40 or fight), various
boarder disputes with Canada.... all show the ambitions of the fledgling
United States.

The concept of "Manifest Destiny" drove our foreign politics at the time. And
that was _anything_ but isolationist.

\--------------

Here's another major counterexample:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807)

And all of the other (most certainly NOT isolationist) events that pissed of
Britain enough that it led to the war of 1812.

~~~
themeek
I agree that the US was a colonialist nation leading up the 1900s. The tribal
peoples of Mexico, South America and North America were not recognized as
nations of their own. I know that isn't a very satisfying distinction, but you
can see the point.

The article on the Embargo Act itself reads: "The Embargo Act of 1807 was a
general Embargo that made illegal any and all exports from the United States.
It was sponsored by President Thomas Jefferson and enacted by Congress. The
goal was to force Britain and France to respect American rights during the
Napoleonic Wars. They were engaged in a major war; the U.S. wanted to remain
neutral and trade with both sides, but neither side wanted the other to have
the American supplies." That's exactly in line with the thesis.

Regarding Samoa and Germany/Phillipines and Spain - this is when these
policies began to change. They bubbled from the late 1800s and broke in the
early 1900s.

I think there's a narrative difference here: the US broadly did not align
themselves with other nations into treaties of peace and of war. The "founding
fathers" specifically discussed the danger of political entanglement with
other nations - the danger of allowing them to say "yes" and to say "no".

I feel like your interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, of the Embargo Act and
of Manifest Destiny are not charitable for these reasons. Of course the US was
not 'isolationist'. I termed it 'non-interventionist'. Even that is not a good
term, but what was meant I think is clear.

Yes the US engaged in colonialism and in trade. But it did not involve itself
in the spirit of the top post: allowing other nations to have a "yes" or "no"
say. It made declarations like the Monroe Doctrine. It did not make treaties
like NATO or like TTIP. Categorically these are different in kind than what
happened before the 1900s.

Part of that is due to a changing world (I say this in my top post). But the
US was also under a different international political disposition.

~~~
dragontamer
I disagree with your characterization of the TTIP.

TTIP is a trade agreement. It is the conditions under which American
legislatures will declare various trades legal or illegal.

The Embargo Act of 1807 was specifically designed to tell Great Britain: "STOP
DRAFTING OUR SAILORS!". (It failed spectacularly at doing that... but that was
clearly the intent). We saw what Great Britain was doing, we didn't like what
they were doing, and we created a trade policy (ie: stop all trade...
everywhere) in an attempt to punish Great Britain.

The difference is that TTIP is more nuanced and better reasoned. It is also
more intricate in defining what is and isn't a trade violation.

You're right, we care more about American Exports today because we have an
understanding of how American jobs will be affected by TTIP. By pushing
American Chemicals on the TTIP, we are favoring American trade.

Now European health groups will push back. But in the end, the trade dispute
will probably benefit all countries involved.

~~~
themeek
I would say the difference is one of declaration rather than deliberation.

The Embargo Act was a declaration. TTIP is a negotiation.

But let's collapse this conversation back to the top, shall we? My response
(and the arguments contained in the conversation that ensued) was to the claim
that the "founding fathers" would have liked for other nations to check-and-
balance the US; that they would have liked there to be political
interdependence, even veto power from other nations.

That commenter said "On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to
keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have
wanted"

This is not the case. It is only past century of America has been okay with
this. Before the turn, and as argued by the "founding fathers" themselves,
America was against political entanglement.

~~~
dragontamer
In the context of the original post and your original response, I can agree
with that statement. I'm thinking of situations where I don't agree in
general... but I don't think it'd be useful to bring them up.

+1

------
Zigurd
When people say "trade agreements NEED to be negotiated in secret" this is
why. It's hard to pack them with horrors like this, otherwise.

You'll be told "blah blah regulatory protectionism blah."

When was the last time a regulatory protectionism story was in the news,
compared with weakening environmental protections or ratcheting up bad IP
laws?

It's not about nationalists clinging to sovereignty. It's not about luddite
workers. It's about stuffing treaties with crap like this.

~~~
lumberjack
What's exactly wrong with nationalists clinging to sovereignty? What's wrong
with economic protectionism? I see sensible reasons for both.

~~~
jacquesm
There is nothing wrong with either if they are transacted out in the open so
they can be weighted accordingly. When done in secret you can end up with
something that you would not have chosen without protest or input but are
nevertheless bound by.

------
madez
This is not democratic.

In a democracy, the people are the sovereign. The people cannot be the
sovereign if important decisions are kept in secret.

This is a serious problem.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
The problem today is, that our democratic systems are eroding world-wide.
Since the EU has more and more influence in Germany, German politicians are
regularly using the EU to circumvent democratic decisions in our country.

When a law is not popular in Germany, they just pass it to the EU, where it is
much easier to bring them into effect. Then they pressure our own parliament:
"We have to comply to EU standards" and they just pass it on. There even was
at least one case, where such a law was passed without thinking about it and
our constitutional court had to cancel it as not constitutional.

These cases, where democratic decisions are circumvented are not single ones
any more -- they are the rule, not the exception.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Yep. This is how the Data Retention Directive came about, for example.
National politicians couldn't get it passed at home, so they did it at the EU
level.

------
PythonicAlpha
People say, that TTIP will reduce standards in the EU (and potentially also in
the US) regarding environmental and people protection.

When I see that: TTIP starts to reduce standards even _before_ it is signed.

------
Nursie
>> The TTIP is a trade deal being agreed by the EU and US to remove barriers
to commerce and promote free trade.

Free trade is only good when we respect each other's standards and don't try
to _constantly_ undermine consumer and worker protections.

~~~
sdalfakj
>> The TTIP is a trade deal being agreed by the EU and US to remove barriers
to commerce and promote free trade.

> Free trade is only good when we respect each other's standards and don't try
> to constantly undermine consumer and worker protections.

"Neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time - it
refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private
interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order
to maximize their personal profit. Associated initially with Reagan and
Thatcher, neoliberalism has for the past two decades been the dominant global
political economic trend adopted by political parties of the center, much of
the traditional left, and the right. These parties and the policies they enact
represent the immediate interests of extremely wealthy investors and less than
one thousand large corporations." ~ Noam Chomsky, 1999,
[http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19990401.htm](http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19990401.htm)

~~~
Htsthbjig
I live in Europe, and I give way over 50% of my income to the State. How is
that liberalism?

It is not. This is a socialist State. And it is broke by the way.

The European or Federal Reserve printing money is not liberalism, it is
Central planning.

That people in power try to maximize their personal profit is not liberalism,
it is the rule of power on any ideology, institution or religion in the
History of Humanity.

Look at any social animal out there and you will see them fighting for
becoming alpha males or females. The difference with humans is that they
rationalize it.

------
ensignavenger
I would like to hear some discussion on the different proposals discussed in
the article on the merits of the criteria for identifying endocrine
disruptors. I know there are some knowledgeable folks on HN, so setting aside
the main point of US interference in EU regulations, (a disturbing matter in
its own right) what about the scientific analysis of the arguments?

------
ancap
In case anyone is confused TTIP (along with NAFTA) is not a "free trade"
agreement. A free trade agreement could be written on a post-it note and would
be worded something like:

"We agree to not get in the way of our citizens engaging in commerce with one
another."

~~~
dragonwriter
That's not so much a free trade agreement but a statement of intent around
which a free trade agreement can be made.

OTOH, any "free trade agreement" that's substantially more text than the US
Constitution (which itself _is_ a free trade agreement with lots of other
things tacked on) should be looked at suspiciously -- because, whereas the US
Constitution is free trade with common rules delegated to accountable common
bodies, most bigger free trade agreements _do_ have an element of free trade,
but instead of having common rules set by a body accountable to the public of
the whole trade area, they _set all the common rules in stone at the start to
favor particular parties_ , and either leave adjustments to a body whose
members are un- (or only distantly, through multiple layers of indirection)
accountable to the public, or to the process of revising the whole agreement
typically requiring assent of all parties.

So its "free" trade -- plus baked in advantage for certain powerful actors.

------
willholloway
When the US invaded Iraq under the pretext of WMD there were some early
reports of WMDs being found. They turned out to be agricultural pesticides.
Many pesticides are nerve agents, as are chemical weapons like Sarin.

Growing a field of crops without growing competing weeds or having insect
infestation is a difficult problem. A lot of manual labor is one solution, and
chemicals are another.

I have hope that robotics can solve the problem of competing weeds. I envision
solar powered robots scouring the fields, using computer vision to identify
weeds, and cutting/uprooting them. This would let us avoid manual labor while
maintaining the great advantage of chemical herbicides.

I think that robots could also be designed to kill insects, but I think that
is a much harder problem.

------
acd
Sopa, pipa, acta, tpp is this ambigious acronyns there to confuse the public?
How about a new codes acronym f.t. which does not relate to a financial paper.

------
timwaagh
i voted for eickhout in last elections because he seemed like a wise person. i
did not like his party's skeptisism regarding ttip. but seems like he had good
reason for this and is in fact doing a good job. some things ain't worth it.

