• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For or against TTIP

For or against TTIP

  • I'm an American and for TTIP

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • I'm an American and against TTIP

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • I'm a citizen of a EU country and for TTIP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a citizen of a EU country and againt TTIP

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Another nationality and for TTIP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Another nationality and against TTIP

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,954
Reaction score
1,551
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Increasing trade between the EU and USA can be a good idea. But the planned trade agreement between EU and USA, TTIP seems to be all about giving big business what they want. That in EU we have for example more regulation then it comes to the enviroment, food safety, consumer rights and TTIP seems to be an excuse to decrease who's regulation. That at the same time decrease democracy to increase the power of big business. The intersting thing is that it's not only enviroment groups like FoEE and other NGO:s that have objection to the deal but also conservative papers like the Economist.

Plans to create more compatible rules between the EU and the US on chemicals, food, public services, workplace health and safety, and financial regulation as part of EU-US trade talks (TTIP) are a threat to democracy and an attempt to put the interests of big business before the protection of citizens, workers, and the environment, according to over 100 civil society groups.

Existing and future protections threatened by EU-US trade talks | Friends of the Earth Europe

IF YOU wanted to convince the public that international trade agreements are a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people, this is what you would do: give foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever a government passes a law to, say, discourage smoking, protect the environment or prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Yet that is precisely what thousands of trade and investment treaties over the past half century have done, through a process known as “investor-state dispute settlement”, or ISDS.

http://www.economist.com/news/finan...reaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration
 
Last edited:
I'm in complete support. It may not be perfect, but I see no reason to continue to segregate ourselves economically.
 
100% against it. Its been described as "NAFTA on steroids", and NAFTA was probably one of the worst things to happen to American jobs, and our manufacturing sector since the 1980's.
 
I'm in complete support. It may not be perfect, but I see no reason to continue to segregate ourselves economically.

If you belive a trade agreement between EU and USA is important you have to gain the acceptance of both Americans and Europeans. It is then a big problem that the deal seems solely be about complying big business demand for deregulation. For example EU have stronger regulation of food safety and when big business is succesfully lobbying for weakining who's rules as part of TTIP. In some areas USA have stronger regulation like for example in the banking sector and then EU stand on big business side and want to abolish who's regulations. That it seems not at all be about finding common ground between citizen and big business demands but instead just get the best deal possible for big business.

These moves would expose the public to more food scandals and pollution by making the EU and US increasingly accept international food safety standards – which are generally accepted as weaker. They would also undermine local or regional powers to set higher standards, such as banning GM crops or restricting antibiotic use in factory farming.

http://www.foeeurope.org/EU-US-trade-deal-threatens-food-safety-030215

But the US is not willing to accept EU calls for regulatory cooperation in financial services. It is firmly against the EU’s attempt to work together in overseeing the US’ financial sector.

It argues that, in financial services, such cooperation could weaken American rules.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/in...vided-over-ttip-regulatory-cooperation-308861

Take also for example ISDS, the right for foreign companies to sue local goverments in international courts if they believe their profits from investments is threatened . That bouth EU and USA have rule of law and perfectly good legal system for the companies to use, so it's no real need of ISDS. That it's seems just a way for big business to increase their power. Something they don't need because they already have tons of money to spend on PR, lawyers and lobbyists. It is also gives foreign companies favored treatment compared to local companies, because only foreign countries can use ISDS.

Special rights for investors | Friends of the Earth Europe

http://corporateeurope.org/internat...easons-oppose-investors-super-rights-eu-trade

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/hidden_cost_of_eu_trade_deals_0.pdf
 
Last edited:
If you believe a trade agreement between EU and USA is important you have to gain the acceptance of both Americans and Europeans. It is then a big problem that the deal seems solely be about complying with USA:s and big business demand for deregulation of the EU instead of finding a common ground between EU and USA and between citizens and big business.
I don't think it's important at all. I'm perfectly fine with the deal forging ahead without getting complete acceptance of both Americans and Europeans. We'll never be able to accomplish 100% approval between our respective publics for the trade deal; as we are separate cultures with different priorities and cultural values. To demand that the TTIP is not agreed upon until we have complete public approval both sides means that we'll forever remain a fractured and nationalistic world.

Regardless I don't think there is mass disapproval for the TTIP. I don't know if there's been in-depth public polling. However I think that many Americans and Europeans would be okay with the deal going forward and being revised and corrected as the need arises once it is in place.
 
I update my latest post with some more fact I find and you had time to respond before that. It seems like the deal is not only about deregulation of EU but also USA. That of course you can't find perfect unity but why not listen more to the concerns of the citizens instead of it seems only listen to big business demand? Like for example is it a real use for ISDS that only business can use?
 
Back
Top Bottom