Corporate democracy?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I guess they're getting worked up because they've been surprised. Do you think it's right that these far-reaching agreements are implemented without the public being informed and without any public discussion?

To be fair, the Commission put a hold on negotiations in January this year in order to start a public consultation on ISDS, to which they got 150,000 replies - and the Irish Commission Representation has a TTIP consultation on its front page: http://www.euireland.ie

So the Commission aren't exactly hiding TTIP's light under a bushel. It's more that the press haven't really bothered with it (meh, trade agreement, boooring) up to now. Now it's got a bit of popular traction (following an anti-TTIP day in October) it's worth covering, but the press get to say "oh, they've been keeping this one secret". New Scientist, which also covered it recently, at least avoided that angle to some extent.

(Pardon my cynicism about the virtues of the press).

As to the secrecy surrounding the actual negotiations - yes, it's always disturbing to have things negotiated behind closed doors, but unfortunately there are extremely strong practical reasons for doing so. Think back to the NSA/PRISM revelations, one part of which was that the US spied on other nations' negotiators at the Copenhagen Climate Conference (and will probably do so again at Lima) in order to learn the details of their negotiating positions.

The US then knew the minimum the other negotiating countries would accept, and simply held out until that's what they had to accept, knowing it was safe to do so.

So while we, as European citizens, are right in principle to demand to know in advance what minimum the EU will accept, in practice us knowing it means the US knows it, and it becomes automatically the minimum we can actually get.

And while the process may be secretive, the outcome must be voted on by the European Parliament, EU Council, and all the national parliaments before it can come into effect. So it's not the case that the secrecy surrounding the negotiations themselves leads to sign-off - TTIP's final form must be publicly visible, at least at the parliamentary level.

Having said all that, I personally don't see the point. I doubt it will be either the danger some people think it will be, or the benefit others claim it will be. I don't like ISDS, but it's already a standard mechanism in bilateral trade arrangements - yes, there will be some egregious examples people can point to, but every court produces such examples, and picking the bad without any indication of whether they're the usual outcome is simply cherry-picking.

The point that TTIP is mostly concerned with "non-tariff barriers" is the bit which produces the claims of great benefit, and the alarm at a "race to the bottom" in regulatory standards. But TTIP isn't retrospective, so it doesn't affect existing legislation, only future legislation - and why would two markets with regulatory cooperation in mind engage in a race to the bottom? Those races result from competition to attract FDI, not cooperation - EU regulations are similarly produced through cooperation between previously competing countries, and it's kind of hard to claim that the outcome there has been a regulatory race to the bottom.

And regulatory cooperation isn't a carte blanche to bypass everything people care about, either - the legislative process of producing regulations is already fixed (at the EU level, by treaty), so even if the EU seeks harmonisation with the US, it still has to produce the resulting regulations by the existing process of Commission initiative and Parliament and Council amendment/approval. So TTIP isn't going to produce the sweeping away of all environmental and health regulations opponents claim for it.

Which also tells you that TTIP probably won't produce the huge gains from regulatory harmonisation that proponents claim for it, either, because the eurocentric thinking that goes into producing EU regulation isn't changing, nor is the US-centric thinking that goes into producing US regulation. TTIP might mandate that the two parties consider harmony, but it cannot mandate it, because it does not change the way regulation is created in either jurisdiction. Another corollary of that is that there's nothing stopping such cooperation for harmonisation from taking place without TTIP.

Finally, of course, as a Green, I have to ask whether any of this is really of value overall. This is two of the wealthiest markets in the world aiming for something that makes them a little bit wealthier, on top of all the other things that are already doing so, on a finite planet which is already creaking under the numbers and wealth of global civilisation. Even if it's all it's cracked up to be, do we really need it?

And having said that, one coda, which is that TTIP looks to me very like an attempt to make sure the world's current big two markets don't get overtaken as the standard-setter by China and India. Oddly enough, I'd accept that as a good raison d'etre for TTIP in preference to the vaunted claims of economic benefit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha wrote: »

I know the Commission has made steps to be more transparent but that's after a lot of complaints. Moreover, the European Ombudsman launched a public consultation during the summer over transparency and public participation in the TTIP negotiations.

That's true, but there's still a practical limit to transparency in this case.

Macha wrote: »

I also wouldn't be so sure it doesn't have an impact on co-decision, if only through a sort of 'chilling effect' on strong environmental and health legislation. It's not about changes in the procedure of co-decision but rather increasing the leverage of companies in their lobbying efforts.

There I would agree with you, and particularly so for transnationals. That the scare stories of how a race to the bottom will come about doesn't mean there will be no impact at all, and I can't see how the impact could realistically be other than in a pro-business direction - after all, that's the point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha wrote: »

Indeed. My guess is this will become another ACTA.

Probably not for the right reasons, but there we go.

cordially,
Scofflaw