The real problems with TTIP

[JohnBrown1917]

All threads about TTIP here seem to devolve into threads about GMO, so I decided to start one to hopefully get some discussion about the real problems with TTIP(or bigger problems).


For example, big corps being allowed to sue a country if said country creates laws that lower the profit those companies make.

[Noradin]

All threads about TTIP here seem to devolve into threads about GMO, so I decided to start one to hopefully get some discussion about the real problems with TTIP(or bigger problems).


For example, big corps being allowed to sue a country if said country creates laws that lower the profit those companies make.

Worse it is "if said country has or creates laws that lower the projected profit those companies could potentially make or if the profits turn out not to be as high as exspected".
Fortunately that is just something one side wishes to put in, not something that is already agreed upon, as far as I know.

[klogaroth]

The distribution of music royalties from radio play seems to be quite the sticking point.

With the US currently giving none of the royalty money to performers, and many EU nations including them in the cut.

They wanted to standardise this as part of their vision for the future of international copyright.
Trouble is working on the future of international copyright law probably shouldn't be a behind closed doors with heavy media industry involvement kind of deal.

[Wildtree]

protective trademarks on products like foods for example, because they're iconic to certain regions/cities.
That's where I am worried about, that they get circumvented.

[Daedius]

What about Qtip? I hear they're bad for the ears.

[klogaroth]

protective trademarks on products like foods for example, because they're iconic to certain regions/cities.
That's where I am worried about, that they get circumvented.

Aye.

I want my Wensleydale to actually be Wensleydale.

[Karamaru]

Worse it is "if said country has or creates laws that lower the projected profit those companies could potentially make or if the profits turn out not to be as high as exspected".
Fortunately that is just something one side wishes to put in, not something that is already agreed upon, as far as I know.

indeed what that rule in place any yahoo can make up a phony profit goal yea and suing nations also needs to go.

[Stacyrect]

All threads about TTIP here seem to devolve into threads about GMO, so I decided to start one to hopefully get some discussion about the real problems with TTIP(or bigger problems).


For example, big corps being allowed to sue a country if said country creates laws that lower the profit those companies make.

GMO's aint shit when you pair it up next to corporate sovereignty, which is really what the spirit of TTIP is all about.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...e-simple.shtml

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ernments.shtml

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Corpo...38/38/Y/M.html

[ItachiZaku]

What about Qtip? I hear they're bad for the ears.

I dunno, I've always like ATCQ

[Heladys]

All threads about TTIP here seem to devolve into threads about GMO, so I decided to start one to hopefully get some discussion about the real problems with TTIP(or bigger problems).

So let's get this clear, you want us to take just the ttip?

[JohnBrown1917]

So let's get this clear, you want us to take just the ttip?

A discussion about TTIP, yes. Without any of the GMO discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

GMO's aint shit when you pair it up next to corporate sovereignty, which is really what the spirit of TTIP is all about.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...e-simple.shtml

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ernments.shtml

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Corpo...38/38/Y/M.html

Pretty much, thankfully a lot of euro countries already seem to be against the TTIP. can't be certain though, but we could always get a referendum in the worst case scenario.

[Annoying]

I updated this thread's title to
1. Avoid the Qtip jokes that we've already seen a few of, and
2. To comply with the "no one-word subjects" rule.

[Unionoob]

I think biggest problem is secrecy with this pact. People who can read full pact are only few from parliament and everyone has to sign papers that they won't disclose any information about that. While public doesn't know anything lobbyists can fully roll and lobby that pact to everyone in government and get no real objection from mass because not many knows about this deal.

[Ripster42]

What about Qtip? I hear they're bad for the ears.

I dunno, as far as rap goes, he's okay.

- - - Updated - - -

I updated this thread's title to
1. Avoid the Qtip jokes that we've already seen a few of, and
2. To comply with the "no one-word subjects" rule.

FINE. I'll avoid qtip jokes.

[Deleted]

The mainproblem is that the terms of that "contract" have been kept secret for so long.

[Damajin]

The mainproblem is that the terms of that "contract" have been kept secret for so long.

Not really, everyone has known that in essence it was going to be corporate friendly and very destructive of regional and cultural barriers to profit. Once you know the essence of a thing the form it takes doesn't matter much. These negotiations are suicide for sovereign nations and thankfully a good percentage of people know it and are sticking to their guns.

[Noradin]

The mainproblem is that the terms of that "contract" have been kept secret for so long.

That is simply due to the English tactic of running negotiations (which the USA adopted, naturally, their main problem with Britain was about taxes, after all):
Everyone (well two parties normally, it doesn't really work with more than that) makes up outrageous positions no one expect to get, then they start haggeling.
The problem: If you do it in public no one can concede anything without losing face in front of those watching, or at least losing their ability to posture effectively.

The other tactic is for everyone to propose something they think is in their favour but somewhere in the ballpark of a realistic and fair deal (everyone might still be off because everyone has different priorities). Then they compare and try and find a compromise. Normally it is done in public because it is impossible to keep secret with how many people you have to involve to create the proposals and because if there are more than two parties nobody can be sure who might have told unless they openly admit it.
The problem here: You cannot make out the other party as a convenient scapegoat and there is less opportunity for posturing.

And now comes the real problem: These two systems obviously clash and when that happens the ones used to the first see those proposals those using the second approach discuss and think "they must be week if they try for that little", thus expecting a very favourable outcome. The other side sees all those secrecy the other side employs, who desperately trying to hide the proceedings and not understanding why those of the second approach break etiquette and talk about what ("how untrustworthy", "such backstabbing"). They automatically assume if they hide something they must have something to hide. ("Obviously they plan to get the better of us, maybe they keep it secret because they believe they can trick our representatives. Better make sure they aren't right. Let's try and get a hold of those documents.")

Then when the proposals are revealed, those of the first approach come accross as arrogant and outrageous to those used to the second, while the fact that those of the second approach refuse to meet in the middle are seen as unresonable by those used to the first approach. ("First they are aren't confident enough to state what they want, but later they just refuse to deal?")



So in the end it is not so much that no deal that is both fair and satisfactory to both sides is possible, but that both sides use a different approach to find it and the watching public misunderstands what is happening while the ones negotiating flounder around unfamiliar with the approach the other side uses.



One approach is to propose something that would only ever come to pass in their ideal world, the other proposes something that favours them just slightly but the other side could live with in their opinion. One expects confidentality to avoid losing face, the other expects transparency to avoid losing face.
One expects huge concessions to be made from both sides (the initial proposals are thought to be outrageous on both sides after all), the other expected realistic posibilities for proposals and cannot meet the other side in the middle, they could not have made such outrageous claims to match the other side to begin with however, since they are required to be transparent about their proposals and thus would lose all credibility for thinking up totally unrealistic proposals.



Maybe a documentary about different negotiation approaches and who uses which would help the populations of all parties involved in this to get rid of some of those misunderstandings.

We need the same thing about the EU anyway, maybe there should be a series, we do have the money after all.