
European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA - Tsiolkovsky
http://stop-ttip.org/
======
NicoJuicy
I'm from Belgium, Karel De Gucht (who tried to get ACTA through and the guy
who is obviously behind TTIP and CETA also) is also from Belgium, here are
some things i know about him or his methods:

Investigation for tax fraud and insider trading (
[http://goo.gl/wnBN95](http://goo.gl/wnBN95) ). He is never going to get
punished (the judges are his friends). If he sues me about writing this, i'm
probably fucked

These initiatives are trade agreements, that's why the EU can keep the
meetings / documents a secret. Also, votes are anonymous when it comes to
trade agreements.

As the guy of ACTA, he would simply ignore the democratic rejection of the
parlement: [http://goo.gl/ucrnNX](http://goo.gl/ucrnNX) ).

Here are some videos where he was obviously caught lying about ACTA and the
economic importance of it (an interview):
[http://goo.gl/NG6hOq](http://goo.gl/NG6hOq)

He also send a letter in the past to the European Commission to defend ACTA
and lied about ACTA: [http://goo.gl/8AOmSX](http://goo.gl/8AOmSX)

PS. He is the reason why i don't trust the EU i live in. Everyone knows about
the above (tax fraud, ...), but nothing happens. He is now getting promoted to
head of foreign policy of the EU

PS2. There is nothing you can do about Karel De Gucht... He will try again
with another agreement in the future, if this would fail. ( ACTA became CETA
became TIPP ). I'm worried that people will resist less every time a new
"trade-agreement" comes up

~~~
sentenza
I see no reason to distrust the whole of the EU just because they don't reject
Karel De Gucht. After all, if Belgium stands behind him, the EU can't do much.
If that isn't satisfying for you, I recommend distrusting the EU Commission.
That's what I do.

Our best hope is to shoot this thing down when it has to be ratified by the EU
parliament. During the last legislative period, the parliament has shown that
it can and will use its powers to protect the citizens. (I'm thinking about
its recent work on net neutrality and privacy.)

We can expect nothing from the Commision and we should expect to be betrayed
by the council (that's the national leaders), but the EU Parliament is firmly
on our side.

~~~
NicoJuicy
Nobody of the public in Belgium stands behind him, if you understand dutch go
to the reactions page of an(y) article about him of a popular Belgian
newspaper: [http://goo.gl/duj8ml](http://goo.gl/duj8ml) (can't do it with
Google Translate (the comments use Ajax), i haven't seen 1 positive reaction !
)

The citizens in a lot of EU countries have massively protested, that's why it
got rejected, in Belgium, none of the protests even came in the Belgian media
(tv, newspaper, ..) - [http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs](http://goo.gl/Esg8Bs) .

In the letter in my previous post, Karel De Gucht tried to influence the
commission, so that they would't reject the proposal solely on the fact that a
massive ammount of people emailed/contacted politicians about ACTA (it's
cleary mentioned in the letter of Karel De Gucht, asking for the politicians
not being influenced by the massive protests
[http://goo.gl/8AOmSX](http://goo.gl/8AOmSX) )

But i distrust the EU commission (not the entire EU), you corrected me on that
one

PS. The popular newspaper linked was HLN (het laatste nieuws), but feel free
to search any Belgian alternative newspaper :)

PS2. I haven't met anyone in person that thinks Karel De Gucht does a good
job. If there is someone who disagrees with me, i'm sorry. But you are
probably not from Belgium :)

~~~
sentenza
I'm in no way defending Karel De Gucht, believe me.

The situation you describe raises some questions, though. If he is this
unpopular and disliked in Belgium, how on earth did he manage to become
Belgium's representative in the Commission, holding a key post (Commissioner
for Trade)?

~~~
NicoJuicy
I've been thinking the same thing, i guess he left belgian politics on the
right time for the EU.

(He was being investigated after he went in the EU)

~~~
disgruntledphd2
At least in Ireland, an EU commission post is often a way to remove either
someone perceived as a threat, or a sinecure for an old ally who might be
better off not interfering with national politics. I imagine Belgian
politicians succumb to the same temptations.

------
morkbot
For those wondering what's wrong with TTIP, a while ago Geroge Monibot wrote a
well documented piece about it: [http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-
ban-on-left-wing-...](http://www.monbiot.com/2013/11/04/a-global-ban-on-left-
wing-politics/)

~~~
bgarbiak
...and here's a response from Ken Clarke, a politician, defending the TTIP:
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-
us-t...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-trade-
deal-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-democracy)

In short, he names the parts of the TTIP that are dangerous to democracy as
"one comparatively minor element".

~~~
contingencies
You don't have to read the details to grok the truth here.

A trade agreement, either bipartisan or regional/pact-based, fundamentally
equates to the effective surrendering of certain aspects of sovereignty,
labelled as temporary but often effectively permanent.

In almost all cases, such arrangements benefit those with greater
capital/legal expertise/spying capability, which is .. guess who?

In many cases, where the US is involved, the 'free market' being trumpeted as
some grand international mode of deliverance is not only a completely about-
face from the reality of back-home protectionist policies. They are in no way
going to benefit the little guy in the client states.

These things are signed by stupid or corrupt pollies who back-pocket the
profits in personal favors or career advancement (often lucrative do-nothing
retirement-time consulting positions) and walk off to a fat future while the
rest of the people get shafted.

For a historical look at the development of these highly successful CIA-
assisted projects in the developing world, check out _Confessions of an
Economic Hitman_. I've since discussed it with diplomats and they've validated
portions personally.

Luckily, the model is just about on its last legs though: virtually nobody is
stupid enough to believe this stuff at face value anymore.

------
NicoJuicy
For anyone who wants to know more about any form of "trade agreement" the EU
is up to. [https://www.laquadrature.net/](https://www.laquadrature.net/) is a
very good documented website. Here is everything about TTIP, also known as
TAFTA
[https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA](https://www.laquadrature.net/en/TAFTA)

TAFTA = the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement

TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

------
HSO
TTIP is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and corrupt. In other words, in the
best traditions of post-Bush America. Please don't export this shit to Europe.

~~~
happyscrappy
Pretending that EU leaders have no culpability in this is a great way to
ensure US dominance over Europe.

------
ronnyronny
ttip is an undemocratic attack on civil rights. Devised by big corps for big
corps. A destorted result of profit thinking whith forseeable devastating
inpact on citizens and environment. There is a simple logic here
...FOR...PROFIT...ONLY...

THE FUTURE I imagine them super rich counting there money on the smoking
remains of what once WAS our beautifull plannet. PROBABLY BEING DUMB ArSE
HAPPY FOR HAVING MADE SUCH A HUGE PROFIT.

ACTION: STOP THIS BUNCH OF IMBECILE F. UPS BY ANY MEANS SIMPLY BY EXPOSURE (de
gucht is a criminal)

~~~
bayesianhorse
Could you be so kind as to cite a single violation of civil rights being
proposed as part of TTIP?

------
anigbrowl
I'm disappointed to see so many people objecting to a free trade agreement
that would benefit both the US and EU tremendously. When people oppose such
things, I always ask whether they think the US would be better off as a
patchwork of 50 countries, each with their own tariffs etc., or if they think
the EU was better when you needed to go through passport control every time
you crossed a border and products needed to go through separate sets of
approvals in every country before they could be sold.

Free trade does a lot more for people than national sovereignty. I rather
doubt anyone here thinks we'd be better off with 180 national networks instead
of a global internet, but that's what most of you are arguing for where
physical goods are concerned. If it were up to me I'd like to see unrestricted
movement across borders of goods, capital and people.

~~~
HSO
Excuse me, but this is not about "free trade" per se. Trade between Europe and
America already is to a large extent free. Why do you think it has the volume
it already has today? So free trade rhetoric is misplaced here. What TTIP is
about is about regulations, for example concerning food or medicine, patent
and copyright laws, etc. And I, for one, abhor US patent laws, or their
blatant and complete disregard for the environment or animal beings, etc. I
don't want your crap food here, your GMO conglomerates, or your patent
lawyers. And for sure I don't want Germany or France to be financially liable
to some faceless big corp when it rules certain things in the interest of the
people it is supposed to protect and represent! Sure, do what you want, you
can have your "standards" at your side of the Atlantic and continue to get
reamed by your political elite and Washington lawyers. But don't export them
here, to us!

What I find particularly galling is how TTIP proponents dangle a decimal point
rise in GDP in front of us when it is not even possible to forecast accurately
the economy as it is. What is more, let's go with it and assume it came to
pass -- GDP miraculously increased by what they said it would as a result.
What about the costs incurred in terms of loss of (even more) control over our
food supply chain, increase in health care costs, more draconian imposition of
your patent and copyright laws, etc etc.

Nobody with a job and not a specialist can be reasonably expected to get to
know in detail what such agreements entails. So there needs to be a basis of
trust that the US will not fuck us over. And here you seem to forget: The US,
since Adolf Bush and his co-captain Barack Hitler, is doing its best to lose
massive amounts trust and goodwill here, even in traditionally pro-America
Germany. You don't have much credit left, both literally and figuratively,
better not squander it. We believe you less and less. Just go away. You have
already taken more than enough.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm from Ireland. Your ranting reminds me of the arguments nationalists make
against greater EU integration. However, I have no wish to see the EU revert
to being a bunch of mercantilist nations, and I don't support US-EU
mercantilism either. The best way to make the US more like the EU is to deal
with it, not lie on the ground like a child throwing a tantrum.

~~~
HSO
Perhaps you'd care to get your facts before you buy into Washington rhetoric
then, you grown-up… How big is US-EU trade at the moment? In absolute and
relative terms (ie compared to other links)? And how high exactly are the
tariff barriers at the moment? And what is the TTIP actually about?

So what exactly does opposition to TTIP in particular and trade negotiations
w/o public dialogue or debate in general have to do with mercantilism or Irish
nationalism?!

Also, you might also think that after most of the trade barriers have already
been removed, what remains probably does so for a reason. European people just
do not want GMO food, for example. Many polls in different countries always
reach the same conclusion. It doesn't matter if some trade official in the
pocket of Monsanto thinks it's okay. Europe is the last bastion of freedom and
liberalism since Bush wrecked America's soul. It should isolate and defend
itself vigorously from the US, at least until the US remembers what it once
stood for in the world.

~~~
anigbrowl
You seem to be arguing with statements I haven't made, by alleging that I
don't have my facts straight and then demanding random statistics. I am not
going to play word games with you.

~~~
HSO
US-EU trade is not the issue, it is already huge and it will grow without
TTIP. Read what the TTIP is actually about. Implying that being against TTIP,
virulently or not, is equivalent or even comparable to being nationalist or
mercantilist is beyond the pale. No word games necessary, just read before you
talk.

PS: And btw, why would anyone have an interest in making the US more like the
EU? Who cares about what the US does to itself? I just don't want the US
meddling and diluting laws and ways of life here.

~~~
anigbrowl
I have read about it. I just don't agree with your interpretation of it.

------
yeureka
Reading about TTIP reminds me of the "Estado Novo" \- the Portuguese
corporatist dictatorship that lasted for a large chunk of the 20th century.
Corporation rights above people, that is the way forward...

~~~
hjrnunes
You are wrong. The "corporations" of Estado Novo were _not_ commercial
corporations like Monsanto, or P&G.

The corporations in corporatism are understood to be representatives of the
broad professional groups.

There was an assembly - Câmara Corporativa - that was a representative and
consultive body that had no decision power but that the National Assembly -
the legislative body - had to consult for all the laws that they'd propose.

It was actually a good idea in my opinion. It's a much more transparent way of
having the economical, social, syndical, etc "interest groups" or
"corporations" participate in the political decision process. A lot better
than US style lobbying, as it was completely public and not dependent on
money. Besides, that way, there would always be technical and real-world
advice for every law passed.

From wikipedia:

 _Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political
organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such
as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific
affiliations, on the basis of common interests_

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

EDIT: added reference to Wikipedia.

------
Nanzikambe
Quite funny that in Switzerland most are apparently most concerned with
fractions of a percent of the economy by being left out other than other
issues raised.

Source: [http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-
dea...](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-face-tough-us-eu-trade-deal-
decisions/40499264)

------
DavidEHSmith
Do YOU understand how the following INFO can be used to IDENTIFY your INFO.
DEPRIVERS & to FLACIDATE "your" members of the GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY?
________* SECRET TPPartnership, CETA & C-CIT TRIBUNALS due INSIDER TRADING;
corp. Canada fears China may Blow "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists'
Clients & Parties' Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY
the arranged PENALTIES. Repatriating off-shore; profits, goods & services
contracts, financing, etc. and co-manufacturing still not on the table? LINE
UP to "PREFERRED" IPOs SHOrtens.

What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to
the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.

(CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy
provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada - China Investment
Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unravelling by
way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al.

There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution
tribunals. They are:

1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate
sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the
existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the
Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay
considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main
reasons:

A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by:

i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders
& ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost
of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost
of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be
regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development"
funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers
there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse and B) to
protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing)
political parties considerations...

...For the FULL ARTICLE, see; Google: "TPP...INSIDER TRADING; David E.H.
Smith", & Facebook; "David Smith, Sidney, BC" to the access List of RECENT
ARTICLES & CORRESPONDENCES by DEHS.

------
grondilu
It seems to me that the Wikipedia page is fairly documented and referenced,
for an article about a "secret" agreement.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
That is partly because, many information was leaked by people that where
stirred up by the process.

------
happyscrappy
If this is defeated won't individual deals between each country have to be
struck? That seems likely to have a worse outcome for Europe as countries will
be played against each other.

~~~
daenney
The goal is to stop this in its current form. It's currently being negotiated
in secret, which is never a good sign. It's also very likely to once again
include all kinds of directives greatly benefitting a few lobbying partners
without the EU citizens knowing what's going on until it's too late.

~~~
waps
EU citizens ? Why do they matter ?

The EU fought hard to get two legal precedents :

1) that international treaties preceed the constitutions of member states (and
any and all other laws).

2) that the European Commission would be allowed to agree to international
treaties on behalf of member states.

There is nobody that can stop this that isn't already in power and Volcker can
push this through without ratification by any kind of elected body. Stopping
it can only be done in the United States, where it actually has to pass
parliament ("congress").

At least now we know why there is no "democratic" in the "European Union"
name.

~~~
bayesianhorse
You seem to lack a basic understanding of the EU, or democracy in general.
Volcker can't "push TTIP through without ratification by any kind of elected
body". The elected government, eu parliament, in many cases national
parliaments will have a strong voice in ratification.

This process isn't undemocratic in the least. It's just that the decisions are
complex. I'm not strongly in favour of TTIP in its current form, but the more
I know about it, the less I believe all the fear mongering.

There seems to be a gut reflex of "I don't understand it, so it must be
undemocratic!!"

~~~
gpvos
Then a democratic entity has the duty to explain and clarify it to its voters.
I am seeing next to nothing of that.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Actually it doesn't. With negotiations that's especially murky, because they
are extremely complex and can contain proposals which don't have a chance to
go into the agreement.

Explanation/Clarification is not something a voter is entitled to. He can
demand it, and usually the media is giving it to him, if at all.

There is also a very good disincentives for politicians to explain "too much".
Essentially, when talking to an audience of millions of people, everything you
say can be used against you in a court of public opinion. Everything can and
will be understood wrongly. That is also partly why effective politicians
aren't particularly eager to "tell the truth".

------
yottah
"Public interest" is mostly an excuse for unnecessary statism and senseless
regulation of European bureaucrats. European economy is very weak compared to
that of US, and proponents of regulations under the guise of "public interest"
have zero legitimacy because the results are terrible.

Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will
benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and
choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements
are a welcome development.

~~~
leccine
"European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a
welcome development."

Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of
it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it
anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and
mass production of toxic waste.

~~~
ohitsdom
Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how
that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the
population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if
that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...

~~~
PythonicAlpha
Growth and more growth is only needed, because of our interest based money
system.

Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not
possible. But economists still believe in it.

Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and
humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and
to make billionaires from millionaires.

~~~
avz
Growth is needed to lift people out of poverty, create jobs and opportunities
and support wider range of social projects from infrastructure to space
exploration.

The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high
and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on
the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller
environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP
by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products
made of recycled materials).

~~~
PythonicAlpha
That is just capitalistic propaganda that now runs the last decades over the
world.

But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99%
into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.

Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the
existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their
ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the
environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...

All in the name of god money.

~~~
briandh
> But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go
> 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.

According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide
declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is
despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same
period. (
[http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0](http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0)
)

Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that
only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world
besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for
that amazing reduction in poverty.

But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The
'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the
millionaires and billionaires."

~~~
PythonicAlpha
I don't know, where you live. But I guess, that you live in a country, where
critics of the capitalistic system does not appear in the media.

I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do
they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything
to you.

It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the
developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.

That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the
statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really
count against the growth in income in the other countries.

Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that
are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.

The numbers from independent researchers are different. Read the book from
Piketty: [http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-
Pik...](http://www.amazon.de/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-
Piketty/dp/067443000X)

Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to
discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries
to protect capitalism from any thinking.

