Slashdot Mirror


Greenpeace Leaks Big Part Of Secret TTIP Documents (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The environmental group Greenpeace has obtained 248 pages of classified documents from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade talks. The group warns EU standards on the environment and public health risk being undermined by compromises with the US, specifically that US corporations may erode Europe's consumer protections. The TTIP would "harmonize regulations across a huge range of business sectors, providing a boost to exporters on both sides of the Atlantic," writes the BBC. After the Greenpeace leak was published, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said in her blog, "I am simply not in the business of lowering standards." Meanwhile, Greenpeace EU director Jorgo Riss said, "These leaked documents confirm what we have been saying for a long time: TTIP would put corporations at the center of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health." You can be the judge for yourself. The leaked documents are available for download here.

136 comments

  1. Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned togethr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EFF has a great write up on how the TPP (the trans pacific partnership, another one of these shitpile laws) will affect anyone even remotely interested in technology. It's a great link to send around to anyone who's thinking "I'm not in manufacturing, why should I care?"

    It's bad, folks. And even worse because in summer 2015, before the election, before both the GOP (!) and Dem candidate came out against the TPP, Obama fought and beat back his own party to get fast track authority for approval, meaning now it's way easier for it to get approved, with no ability to strip out the bad parts or filibuster against it.

  2. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And there are people like yourself that see conspiracies everywhere. Sorry to tell you that the information leaked is probably accurate and most likely doesn't tell the entire story of how awful TTIP will be for the average consumer.

  3. tyranny by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "harmonization" is a deadly form of tyranny. It was used to disappear inexpensive things like cheaper and more advanced supplements that can be used succesfully to help deal with serious illnesses.

    Imagine if vitamin D were only available at 1000 iu, more like 20 years ago, and everyone in your family needs 10,000 iu per day to be normal to stay alive. 2-5 cents per day in one system, perhaps $2-5 per day in the other, or your shorter, miserable life.

    1. Re:tyranny by plopez · · Score: 1

      A tryanny of the few upon the many.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:tyranny by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      tyranny originally rose to a 2 or higher as "interesting" before some dangerous idiots cut it down. Not sure whether they were totally ignorant on the medical side or simply fascist on political economy.

  4. Well by liqu1d · · Score: 1

    Imagine what the rest of it will bring. I am not expecting any of it to be benificial to the public.

  5. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Global Elitists conspiring behind closed curtains. And Obama is one of them. GOP and DNC are both equally in bed on this one. There is NO functional difference on anything that really matters. The only thing that keeps people divided are bathrooms and sexuality. I guess that's enough of a circus to keep the people distracted while both parties are conspiring against us.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  6. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dunno about that, but I passed some some very angry packets that looked
    like they was up to no good on the GreenPeace server farm... That site ain't
    goin' be up for long, I reckon...

    CAP === 'doctor'

  7. Environmental damage is fungible by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's a tough ask really, when you consider that much of the West's industrial competitiveness is bartered away when the Europeans and Americans and Australians legislate high domestic standards for emissions and environmental minimums; and then, pretend those industries aren't poisoning the earth making shiny stuff at Chinese factories that follow less rigorous environmental guidelines.

    Greater effort toward universal compliance should be the objective.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Environmental damage is fungible by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the harmonization were UP, then that would be true. But it's more like lowering the rest of us back toward Chinese levels.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Environmental damage is fungible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some slight regression but don't distort reality, it is basically an aberration, the global trend is quite the opposite and has been for years. China is not even staying toward Chinese levels.

      In another generation or two they will have similar environmental standards as we currently do and they will be raising hell about Bangladesh or Burundi and Chad having cheap labor and a lack of environmental protections.

    3. Re:Environmental damage is fungible by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You seem to know nothing about EU rules on pollution and emissions. We require products made in China to meet all our standards for hazardous materials, and companies that outsource manufacturing to China have the pollution generated there counted towards their domestic liability. Stuff that is made by Chinese companies and imported is subject to tariffs if it creates excessive pollution in China.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Environmental damage is fungible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be great if that were true. Unfortunately, most of it is not. Products imported from China are indeed required to meet European safety and environmental standards. However, pollution produced in China while making the product, its components and raw materials are not accounted for in any way.

  8. Cecilia Malmström by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is in the business of pushing the TTIP through. At any price. There's a lot of talk about how it would increase exports in both directions, but when the single directed economic force that the U.S is meets the EU's myriad of smaller economic forces pushing in their own direction, then the outcome will only favor the U.S and its corporations.

    The inevitable and intended outcome of the TTIP is a single US-EU economy dictated by U.S corporations, wholly favoring the U.S. The EU is in control of its own economies today, but the TTIP would change that. The EU MUST reject the TTIP to remain in control of its own economies.

    1. Re: Cecilia Malmström by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... They're doing an amazing job.

    2. Re: Cecilia Malmström by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im going to go out on a limb here and say theyre still ahead on education.

    3. Re:Cecilia Malmström by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Your tone is that of an expert (well I guess it's Slashdot) but you put "EU" in scarequotes as if you disagree with that acronym on some level. Harms your credibility. A lot.

      But then, you did seem to suggest that the UK is the only reason the germans and the french aren't killing each other, which is really fucking stupid.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  9. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much. TPP is shit. TTIP is shit. There's one that's missing here. Ah! Here we are. TISA.

    Although it is the least well-known of those agreements, it is the broadest in terms of membership. As far as we know, it presently includes twenty countries plus Europe (but notably excluding the major emerging world economies of the BRICS bloc), who, with disdainful levity, have adopted the mantle “the Really Good Friends of Services”. Like its sister agreements, TISA will enact global rules that impact the Internet, bypassing the transparency and accountability of national parliaments. The only difference is that its focus is on services, not goods.

    As that blurb sort of indicates, BRICS is mysteriously missing from all of those backroom deals. I'm guessing there's some kind of internet censorship (as in governments being forced to enforce it, not just so-and-so got banned from Twitter "censorship") in TISA as well. Dangerous stuff. I'm fully expecting Clinton to do an about-face and... er... devolve? back to Secretary Clinton's positions once she's in the oval office.

  10. Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Serious question: Why is any part of a multi national trade deal classified information ? Why is this even a thing? No one has mentioned one single sound reason at any level of discourse why any of this is classified. I do not live under a rock but maybe I should.

    1. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is even more sad is we have to find out not from law enforcement or our gov officials doing the right thing. We are finding out thru leaks.

      If you are hiding something like this behind 'classified' criteria then you probably are doing something you shouldnt be.

    2. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want a serious answer I can give you one. If you want the real answer, wait 200 years or so.

      A serious answer is multi-anything deals require compromise. In most compromises, most people aren't thrilled, but can be persuaded that its a good trade to get what they want. If you are only fed the bad and not the good by your (faction/country/religion) leader, what do you think will be the mob reaction will be? Supposedly if you keep it secret til all the issues are worked out, you get a wholly useful instrument. If you are nitpicked every letter, you get nothing done.

      Now as for the real reason: We don't make anything, we just come up with ideas. If you prevent anyone else from coming up with ideas or make anything without giving you money first, you win....

    3. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Why is any part of a multi national trade deal classified information ?

      The answer to that is classified. :-)

      You mean you don't trust a government where the FBI director wants expanded law enforcement access to encrypted data but yet still has the gall to make laws in secret?

      What are you? A commie for pointing out the government officials are hypocrites? :-)

      --
      First Contact is coming ~2022. Are you ready for a larger perspective?

    4. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... any of this is classified ...

      Harmonizing "regulations across a huge range of business sectors" does not mean regulations across countries are harmonized. In other words, someone's getting screwed and secrecy is enforced so you keep thinking it isn't you. Note how the war on privacy/encryption doesn't extend to corporations and government departments?

    5. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same reason as most deals, everywhere in the world, are negotiated in private: because nobody wants 600 million stakeholders looking over their shoulders, all yelling their own two cents' worth of "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!"

    6. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is any part of a multi national trade deal classified information ?

      The deal is not a secret. The negotiations are. The "talks" are a secret. The deal that comes out of the talks is published.

      Why are talks secret? The justification is that people won't be able to come to a deal if they have to negotiate in public.

      However they let some groups in on the negotiation and other groups are closed out. The second group often ends up screwed by final deal.

    7. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trade negotiations are like a game of poker. TTIP is still being negotiated, so nobody wants to show their cards to the other players. That's why the information is classified. Every player in the negotiation is trying to get the most, while giving up the least. If the information is released to the public, other players would use it to their own advantage.

    8. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Because otherwise, people who don't understand how something as complex as a multinational trade agreement is negotiated and written, let alone actual international trade, will start screaming about nothing.

    9. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a crock. Do you really believe these lies the proponents of these treaties tell you?

      If it were on the up-and-up, you'd get regular feedback on the talks, much like a union negotiation: "Country B wants X from us, but we want Y in return". Later: "Update, we've had to compromise, we'll give them 3X and they'll give us 2Y in exchange, but they'll also give us Z".

      No, it's secret because it is absolutely full of shit that will screw the peoples of all nations involved and if they found out they'd have time to get together and scuttle it. You don't need 6000 pages for a trade deal. These aren't trade deals, they're punch-holes through sovereign laws, siphons into taxpayers pockets, and rewriting the rules so that the big corporate writers of this treaty get more and everyone else gets less.

    10. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      ...but yet still has the gall to make laws in secret?

      On a side note: the whole idea of secret laws is a bit scary. Not only do they enable governments to abuse their powers, it seems that the entire concept is specifically designed to allow just that. "We find you threatening, and we don't need no stinking reasons. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."

      What am I missing here? Where is Cold Fjord when I need him to enlighten me?

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    11. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Because otherwise, people who don't understand how something as complex as a multinational trade agreement is negotiated and written, let alone actual international trade, will start screaming about nothing.

      Your "nothing" certainly means something to at least one party in the negotiations, or it wouldn't be a part of them. It might be "nothing" they decide to sacrifice on behalf of unknowing third parties, which the third party would see as a problem had they known about it.

      I certainly am not competent enough to understand multinational trade agreements, nor do I have to be. I'm very good at designing and querying databases, but for understanding multinational trade agreements I would rather rely on a pletora of experts to sort out these matters for me and present the ramifications in laymans terms, after which democratic input could determine what is acceptable and what's not. All experts will have biases, but I also get to evaluate which experts to trust based on their public discourse. A primary condition for this is of course that complete information about the process is available, which it isn't.

      Public negotiations would naturally also be a faulty process, as it ultimately depends on the opinion of lay people assuming a democratic input. As it stands it depends solely on the interests of the economic elite (through political pressure from corporations), which often doesn't coincide with the interests of most of us. Whether you find this problematic or not depends on your affiliation.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    12. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      My sibling post

      After posting the previous post I've seen some of your other contributions to this discussion. Don't bother replying to mine, you won't get a response from me, as I already regret the wasted energy of replying to you in the first place.
      Thank you.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    13. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by sabbede · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter if the negotiations are held in secret, in fact all negotiations are. The outcome of the negotiations is entirely public, as is the debate over whether to ratify the final document, culminating (in the US) in a very public vote in the Senate.

      The negotiators are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. Ratification is decided by elected representatives of the people, with input from their constituents. There's no point in getting worked up over any particular draft provision because by the time you know about it, it may have already changed.

    14. Re:Why is no one asking the obvious question by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Then I suppose I'll be showing you more respect than you are willing to show me. I'm disappointed, but I'll manage.

  11. Not saying there isn't a problem... by kuzb · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...but Greenpeace has been repeatedly shown to be a horrible organization of eco-terrorists who often don't understand the science behind the things they protest. It got so bad even some of the founders left and renounced all ties to the organization. Patrick Moore in particular left them when they decided it was a good idea to try to push a universal ban of chlorine in drinking water. Moore is also known to have done a complete 180 on nuclear power issues once he educated himself on the matter. He has spoken at length about how the organization has very little in the way of scientific direction.

    So, there very well may be a problem here - but I'd be entirely sceptical of anything Greenpeace has to say about it.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, what you're saying is if any other organization but Greenpeace had leaked the [b]exact same documents[/b], the implications and conséquences of said document would be different ?

    2. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by PRMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was just happy that Greenpeace did something useful for once...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      He wasn't a cofounder. That was a Republican lie in order to make Greenpeace look violent when they've never done anything violent. It's just a damn lie from a bunch of damn liars. Those people hate so much. Hate so much. Greenpeace has done so much for us. So much for us.

    4. Re: Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Republicans hate us and want us to die.

    5. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      I never seem to have mod points when they are deserved, but my thoughts exactly +1.

    6. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thoughts, too: "Holy shit, Greenpeace did something useful!"

      We don't have to listen to anything they say about it, because we can read it ourselves. So, even if they say stupid shit, I thank them anyway.

    7. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Focusing on the messenger and ignoring the message doesn't make it any less valid.

      i.e.

      Why the fucks was TPP signed in secret in the first place??

    8. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >That was a Republican lie in order to make Greenpeace look violent when they've never done anything violent

      Speaking of lies, ramming ships is a violent act that Greenpeace commits:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjlCGR_ggbw

      Active trespassing against others while your co-terrorists are being thrown off a ship is a violent act that Greenpeace commits:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_G_9hsxxuA

      Spray painting animals is violent. Here's Greenpeace being violent towards animals:

      http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/a-greenpeace-activist-sprays/

      The sea shepherd sinks ships and is captained by a founder of Greenpeace, and his organization likes to sink ships a lot. I bet that is where Greenpeace's violent history started. You can kick the man out of Greenpeace, but you sure can't kick his violence out!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Change_the_World_%28film%29

      Whatever caused these people to react with physical force is not what is important here, before you defend them as reacting against violence. To defend them this way is to suggest that there was no violence from the allies in WWII because they were responding to the violence of the Axis. Everyone from both sides would tell you that's bullshit. So don't even try that worthless argument, please.

      But what you can expect from a group harboring fugitives who destroy the environment (The irony is delicious, wouldn't you agree)?

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/20/greenpeace-lima-nazca-lines-protest-suspects

    9. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No Mod Points (AC from the Commander Taco days), but I agree. Greenpeace rarely does anything useful - usually they do stuff like destroy the Nazca lines, use the Willamette River as a toilet while hanging from the bridge - but for once, Greenpeace did something right. But I still consider most of them to be terrorists.

    10. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by ADRA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Greenpeace is a group of eco-terrorists? Even by America's stretch of 'terrorism', that much seems a stretch. I'm all about the attirbution though, so if they've commited acts of terror and somehow slipping through the bungling fingers of the FBI, I'd be glad for the clarification.

      --
      Bye!
    11. Re: Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the violence and the threat of violence against the population is the standard green peace tactic. They are terrorists.

    12. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      I'm not willing to concede that there's no catch in this...

    13. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot your meds again?

    14. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by servies · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about that fraude named Patrick Moore?

    15. Re: Not saying there isn't a problem... by servies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I see violence and Greenpeace in one sentence, it's always used against them...

    16. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by kuzb · · Score: 2

      You're right. We should take everything a group of people who are known to use violence, lies, and junk science to achieve their ends at face value. Excuse me if I prefer to get this sort of information from people who are more reputable.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    17. Re: Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Using the violence and the threat of violence against the corporation is the standard greenpeace tactic.

      FTFY. I know corporation are people in the US, but still...

      By the way, never forget the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by the French authority. So tell me again, who are the terrorists?

    18. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by guises · · Score: 2

      Like the AC said, Patrick Moore wasn't a founder - he was the president of Greenpeace Canada for some years. That's all. Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace has a statement about him.

      It's also worth noting that Greenpeace isn't a monolithic organization. Greenpeace USA is different from Greenpeace Canada and Greenpeace International, etc. GP USA, for example, has a rather poor reputation as a rubber stamp for corporate interests.

    19. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We should take everything a group of people who are known to use violence, lies, and junk science to achieve their ends at face value.

      I agree. Trust the government.

    20. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Greenpeace doing the leaking taints it. That much is true. They may be in the right on TTIP, but it's a fluke.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Maritz · · Score: 2

      We should take everything a group of people who are known to use violence, lies, and junk science to achieve their ends at face value.

      The person you're replying to didn't say that. I realise you know that, but I wanna point it out.

      FWIW, Greenpeace are dickheads. I haven't looked at the leak, but I strongly suspect the leak is legitimate.

      You, on the other hand, wanna chuck everything because you don't like Greenpeace, and you're willing to use lame strawman arguments to that effect. Shame.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    22. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by epine · · Score: 1

      Excuse me if I prefer to get this sort of information from people who are more reputable.

      What's with the small box? Based on one damn thing after another, our entire species has been shown to be disreputable. Excuse me if I prefer to get this sort of information from a species with a better track record.

      Reputation is a fractal all the way down. Who can be trusted based on reputation? Well, how long is a beach?

    23. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by bheading · · Score: 1

      When was TPP signed ?

    24. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought the 'Sky at night' was particularly violent.

    25. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      You're misreading what I'm saying. I want verification from someone who is: 1) not greenpeace, and 2) reputable, which greenpeace isn't.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    26. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France sent their operatives to sunk the Rainbow Warrior 1985. That proves the Greenpeace is a terrorist group. ;)

    27. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace has a statementabout him.

      "Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters."

      It's quite cool that he's actually a real life former good guy turned aspiring supervillain :)
      (I know, he's probably a jerk. But that's a requirement for being a supervillain, so who can blame him)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    28. Re:Not saying there isn't a problem... by guises · · Score: 1

      True. You can't realistically ask for a nice-guy supervillain.

  12. The only possible interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    My God, the US is going to implement all of the consumer standards and protections of the EU market and significantly tighten its environmental and job market regulations! It's going to be Heaven/Hell for the American Democrat/Republican!

  13. Re:Could be anything by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, but so far, almost all such leaks have turned out to be genuine. So one must ask, why would someone question them without evidence?

  14. china is not part of this and there environment by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    china is not part of this and there environment is not even up to the level of this.

    1. Re:china is not part of this and there environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

  15. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    TPP is shit. TTIP is shit.

    It is funny to see Americans complain about the shit in these agreements, when the worst shit was put there by their own government.

    These trade agreements could be a force for good in the world, raising environmental standards and labor rights, while spreading prosperity. But instead, America uses them to push the worst aspects of our capitalist system onto other countries, like draconian IP laws and disregard for consumer privacy.

  16. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    We are easily distracted.

    TTIP would put corporations at the center of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health."

    Yes. The trade partnership agreement will see corporations at the center of policy making... not like what we have now.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  17. One thing seems to be true by no-body · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the US, questionable items, like GMO, fracking, meds, hormons of various kinds etc. are allowed until proven harmful by scientific methods. In EU, questionable items are generally not allowed unless proven harmless by scientific methods (probably not quite true looking at the radioactive waste disposal issue - surely harmful to some extent - has not been resolved there).

    So, who is the test animal?

    Can be gotten from there: https://www.ttip-leaks.org/

    Seems to be only a small part - couple of 100 pages of several thousand, as the whole secrete pile apparently is.
    Why is it secret? Because it is dirty!

       

    1. Re:One thing seems to be true by sabbede · · Score: 1
      No, it's secret because trade negotiations are always secret until finalized and sent to whichever bodies ratify them. ALWAYS.

      There's no point in getting people worked up over an early draft that's going to change. It also keeps outside parties from manipulating the process, excluded parties from starting wars, and profiteers from engaging in insider trading.

      Oh, and the so-called "Precautionary Principle" is utter nonsense rooted in a logical absurdity - proving non-existence.

      "This causes harm" is an easily proven and verified statement. "This does not cause harm" is unprovable, and more often than not, un-verifiable.

    2. Re:One thing seems to be true by no-body · · Score: 1

      It also keeps outside parties from manipulating the process, excluded parties from starting wars, and profiteers from engaging in insider trading.

      Wow, you are just great! Who do you think the "insiders" with the TIPP were and which interests they were pursuing?
      Sure the folks running after the democratic principle "by the people, for the people" and representing the interest of the majority of simple folks.

      The secrecy about this thing and the procedures implemented with it was and still is nauseating - nevertheless, your statements about this topic is very entertaining, causing amusement.

      Oh, and the so-called "Precautionary Principle" is utter nonsense rooted in a logical absurdity - proving non-existence.

      Another hogwash here, well known toxins and tests for it harming people and animals exist and if followed through, harmful agents can be detected, endocrine disruptors neonicotines, antibiotics to animals not to prevent disease but to make them grow faster etc.
      Looks to me that those "influences" raising sound arguments against practices causing harm are undesired in certain committees.

      "This causes harm" is an easily proven and verified statement. "This does not cause harm" is unprovable, and more often than not, un-verifiable.

      Well, mind-fuck here again... that's a total non-issue.

    3. Re:One thing seems to be true by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      ...the whole secrete pile...

      That's actually pretty good.

    4. Re:One thing seems to be true by sabbede · · Score: 1
      A total non issue? You face a very high bar if you want to justify that claim. I don't see how the logical impossibility of your position is anything but an issue.

      And yes, you're right that well known toxins, etc., can be tested for. Which is why they are tested for. The issue isn't known risks, it's unknown and unpredictable effects that aren't (and won't/can't be) revealed during tests.

      Back to the matter at hand, the negotiators are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. The process of negotiations are held in secret, but when they finish, the final document is entirely public and must be ratified by the elected representatives of the people. In the US, that's 2/3rds of the Senate.

      Negotiations are always held in secret. Be they between corporations, individuals, nations, unions and employers, unions and governments, etc. Your garbage collector's pay was negotiated in secret, then voted on by him, his coworkers, and your municipal government. Depending on local rules, you may have voted on it yourself. Why do these negotiations make you sick, but Delta's negotiations with their pilot's union do not?

  18. Re: Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like so.eo e is getting paid to troll

  19. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by hguorbray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and once again, like with User Privacy and 'Safe Harbors' for Personal Data it may be up to the EU to save us from the 'Land of the Free' (tm)

    -I'm just sayin'

  20. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

    This just makes it official rather than implied.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  21. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemme see, the same jerks who scared everybody away from nuclear power ,and thereby killed us with global warming want to tell us more bull crap

  22. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't need to be a conspiracy ,greed will suffice
    Was there a conspiracy making the tobacco industry to lie for decades,and expending millions in political lobbying, propaganda, and misinformation?
    what about the oil companies with the leaded fuel?
    we can add dozens of examples that we know
    Large corporations carry a lot of cloth this day and only serve to their shareholders, it that means going above national laws, they won't lose any sleep over it

  23. Re:Could be anything by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There actually is a conspiracy, corporations vs. humans.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  24. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it funny? Is it funny when your government is corrupt and works against you?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  25. President Trump will....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .......fix all these matters.

    Trust in Him.

  26. Completely on-point and useful comment by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    ...but Greenpeace has been repeatedly shown to be a horrible organization of eco-terrorists who often don't understand the science behind the things they protest.

    That's a very important distinction to make, it's completely on-point and relevant to the current discussion.

    We simply *cannot* judge the validity of the TTIP documents without taking their provenance and history of Greenpeace into account!

    Amiright?

  27. Basic problem by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreement let's corporation sue governments for doing their job and win every time. Makes corporations sovereign and governments unable to act on behalf of their citizens.

    1. Re:Basic problem by sabbede · · Score: 1

      What, you mean "applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances"? As a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe you have the right to say such things. However, you may want to reconsider your position as it violates a key tenet of modern Liberal democracy, as enshrined in said Amendment.

  28. Translation, please by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTA:
    The TTIP would "harmonize regulations across a huge range of business sectors, providing a boost to exporters on both sides of the Atlantic"...

    Translation:
    The TTIP would "gut governmental control and oversight in as many business sectors as we can get away with, putting even more power in the hands of corporations and further screwing over average citizens on both sides of the Atlantic..."

    It's amazing how much longer that sentence becomes when you look past the Orwellian euphemisms to what's really being said.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  29. Re: Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because greenpeace's lies and conspiracy theories have been the leading cause of global war,ign since the 1960's. Without those evil fuckers, we would have reduced our CO2 emissions at least 3:1 over the past 20 years instead of increasing them. Without their NiMBYism, electric cars would have been economically viable 8 years ago instead of "hopefully in the next 5 years".

  30. Re:Greenpeace by bug_hunter · · Score: 2

    Do you believe they forged 248 pages of the TTIP?

    --
    It's turtles all the way down.
  31. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is funny to see Americans complain about the shit in these agreements, when the worst shit was put there by their own government.

    Why is that funny? The US Government hasn't represented the American people for years.

  32. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    At least now corporations have to bribe politicians in each country separately. With this agreement they just have to bribe some judges.

  33. Waha by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    Join the party mofo's, we had threats of AGOA being recinded to force crappy American chicken (tainted with cyanide) on us. So unless I raised the damn chicken myself there will be no chicken for me for the next 4 years.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  34. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is funny to see Americans complain about the shit in these agreements, when the worst shit was put there by their own government.

    These trade agreements could be a force for good in the world, raising environmental standards and labor rights, while spreading prosperity. But instead, America uses them to push the worst aspects of our capitalist system onto other countries, like draconian IP laws and disregard for consumer privacy.

    And we have another foreign asshole who thinks the American Government == the American People*.

    Do you honestly think that we would WANT to give Multinational Corporations control over local laws and policy? When we fear giving control to others so much that we refused to ratify and have practically withdrawn from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court? Give me a break.

    The reason we complain is because we ALSO disagree with the provisions in the treaties.

    BTW: Do you think we want Hillary vs. Trump come November? Most sane people here don't. We are trying to fix things, but it's taking a lot of time and effort and we are fighting against a severely well-prepared opponent. Change is not gonna happen overnight. Especially so given the fact that we're trying to avoid the the 4th box, and it's required bloodbath.

    One thing that I will ask you is this: Why is it that you and your governments are so willing to allow the known corrupt US government to dictate policy to the world? Why is it that whenever the US says "Bend over." your governments do so? Why is it always the fault of the American People* that the WORLD allows the tyranny of the US government to spread beyond it's borders? Granted we need to do our part as well, but the idea that the rest of the world happily allows the US government to have it's way is just as questionable as the "unwillingness" of the American People to do their job of controlling their government.

    * Note: When I say American People I mean the meatsacks, not the multinational entities known as "Corporations".

  35. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Whibla · · Score: 1

    Obama recently visited the UK, and urged us to remain in the EU, citing international agreements such as the TTIP and pointing out that if we left we'd no longer be a part of them.

    Best reason to leave the EU, ever!

  36. Re:Could be anything by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your argument is nuts. But lets assume it is not. The easiest way to defeat the claims made by Greenpeace would be to release the present state of results.

  37. Terror turn about is fair play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What about the standard bs line they always give us on surveillance... if you've done nothing wrong, there is no need to hide anything.

  38. Why the hell does this need to be "leaked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    this document should be open to the public in the first place.

    1. Re:Why the hell does this need to be "leaked" by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Trade negotiations never are, and for good reason. For one, whatever is in these leaks is meaningless. The current draft may not look anything like the leaked version, and the final may be radically different from both.

      It's like the old saying, "Never judge a book by the first draft".

  39. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he says it's funny, what he means is that he saw all of this a long time ago and he's generally smarter and better. That's predominantly what he means.

  40. Or by sabbede · · Score: 2

    US regulations may move towards Europe's.

    1. Re:Or by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      US regulations may move towards Europe's.

      Haha, good one.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:Or by sabbede · · Score: 1
      It's not like all European regulations are more strict than those in the US. Drug/medical device approval is a big example.

      And it's not like the current administration is pro-corporate, anti-regulation. It's not a matter of what regulations the negotiators can get weakened so much as how much stronger they can be made and still pass the Senate.

    3. Re:Or by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It's going to drag down to whichever side has the lowest standard for each thing.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:Or by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. On the whole, attitudes and regulations aren't that far apart. Besides, that isn't how compromise works.

    5. Re:Or by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      You forget, this isn't about bringing up standards. It's about 'removing barriers to trade' which all these pesky regulations and safety measures definitely are in the eyes of the corps that are being given the power. One such power is suing governments in private courts if the enact any regulation that impacts their trade. It's bad juju all around.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  41. IP is fungible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America can never compete with China on a price per widget basis. The TPP is designed to screw up economic efficiency.
    The grand plan is IP and invisibles, and reverse head offices with offshore tax havens will save their economic bacon. Except if is a US drug co - showing how ungrateful and disloyal they are - after penning the agreements.

    The Australian Free trade agreement has been a disaster for both countries. Rather than Australia pay more for everything, our drugs, pharmaceuticals are sourced from China and India, while Thailand ships in cars with no import tariffs, while electronic media drops in value.
    Heavy machinery from Korea or Japan, French Subs. Ar relative 30% currency disadvantage means USA and Switzerland are shunned by buyers.
    Now Apple is seeing the China market shrink - because not everyone is riding on a high $USD,
    In return 2% of Australia's landmass (sell more beef) is valued at a mere 300 million - yep beans! Those nasty US quotas ensure US jobs are protected somewhat, while Australia becomes the first OECD country to de-industrialise and wind up car manufacturing. negating beef exports.
    Its not all bad - USA won that round. The trouble is China is filling in the value added gap, making China rich and giving them the means to make new islands.

    In short, USA companies teaching China how to do it right and moving offshore have obliterated the gains the could have been made. If Pfizer and others make another 'legal' move is going to really get the message that IP is fungible. And the jobs go offshore to boot.

  42. Re:Could be anything by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't be beyond the real of possibility if someone made up at least some data, put it into some other pages of information and then leaked it to a group that's desperate for attention and donations.

    I'd be more worried about why the negotiations are in secret and why they don't want anyone who basically isn't actively involved or stands to profit from it to even see the thing than some charity trying to grab attention. The one trying to avoid attention is usually more worthy of it than he who seeks.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  43. Re:Could be anything by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Lemme see, the same jerks who scared everybody away from nuclear power ,and thereby killed us with global warming want to tell us more bull crap

    Bullshit claim aside this attitude is the problem. Who gives a shit if we poison and destroy the world and by extension ourselves as long as we can make shit cheaper to make and more expensive to sell? Who gives a shit about the plebs who live in the shadow of our unregulated facilities that can do whatever the fuck they like? Going back to your bullshit example, nuclear power is perfectly fine if done properly, but doing it properly is expensive and threatens the bottom line if they have to worry about not radiating everything and disposing of the waste in a safe and sustainable way. The costs of that is why nuclear power dwindled, because it's cheaper with more profit to do it the old shit way.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  44. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    We are easily distracted.

    TTIP would put corporations at the center of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health."

    Yes. The trade partnership agreement will see corporations at the center of policy making... not like what we have now.

    It just gives them a seat at the table rather than having to bother with all that expensive lobbying and bribery, which are of course, barriers to trade.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  45. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Obama recently visited the UK, and urged us to remain in the EU, citing international agreements such as the TTIP and pointing out that if we left we'd no longer be a part of them.

    Best reason to leave the EU, ever!

    Yeah but can you imagine scameron and his tory mates with no oversight? We'd be worse off than the victorians!

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  46. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you need the help of a certain french invention of the late 1700's.

  47. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by bungo · · Score: 1

    Yes. The trade partnership agreement will see corporations at the center of policy making... not like what we have now.

    So, you're saying that there is some sort of trade federation, backed by a shadowy figure trying to control everything.... ..... I have a bad feeling about this .....

    --
    "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
  48. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nuclear power industry is fully capable of doing that itself. EDF - Years late, massive cost overruns, need guaranteed electricity prices 3x current rates for new UK reactor (but still maybe unviable) yadda yadda.

    Greenpeace are irrelevant in this sorry tale.

  49. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current UK government has effectively said it would sign up for TTIP or equivalent, including all the worst bits if we *left* the EU.

    Meanwhile, it's quite likely to be dropped or heavily modified within the EU since every government plus the EU parliament has a veto.

    TTIP: One of the best reasons for *staying* in the EU.

  50. Re:Could be anything by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Doesn't need to be a conspiracy ,greed will suffice Was there a conspiracy making the tobacco industry to lie for decades,and expending millions in political lobbying, propaganda, and misinformation? what about the oil companies with the leaded fuel?

    I would say yes, and yes. Both are conspiracies. I would also add the conspiracy among extraction companies to sow FUD about AGW.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  51. Re: Could be anything by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Because greenpeace's lies and conspiracy theories have been the leading cause of global war,ign since the 1960's

    The leading cause? That's some next-level shit right there. Bravo!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  52. Re:Could be anything by ssam · · Score: 1

    Yet still cheaper than wind or solar (even before you factor in storage).

  53. Re:Could be anything by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 1

    What Greenpeace has released IS the current state of play - it's internal documents from the negotiators.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  54. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    I know PLENTY of people, both Liberal and Conservative that don't like these trade agreements. Part of the charm of both Bernie and Trump is that they are not from the Political Cabal that is set up in DC that keeps pushing this shit though.

    And I doubt you are against capitalism, I think you're really against Corpratism. And Being Libertarian, I am against the creation of the state (corporations) controlling its creator via political bribes, threats and influence. IMHO the rise of PACs, Union Contribution, and other "Group Politics" has contributed to a disconnected political class that doesn't have to respond to the will of the people.

    I personally think that many on both the Right and Left in America actually agree on what the problems are, it is the solutions that divide us. IMHO people who think Statism is the answer to Statism are simply delusional. The only solution is to start dismanteling the consolidation of power at the places furthest from the actual people.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  55. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Isn't it a conspiracy either way? Either the government is working to lower standards so companies have an easier time of it (conspiracy) or Greenpeace made things up to hurt public support (also a conspiracy). I'm more inclined to believe the first is true, but it wouldn't surprise me if Greenpeace is lying; they aren't always the most trustworthy organization.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  56. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    Do you think our government or main stream media- CNN FOX MSNBC NBC CBS ABC or any of the newspapers including the NYTimes of WSJ have said peep about the TTP? Most Americans don't even know what it is and would be outraged if they understood it. This is Congress and the WH and the government operating as nothing less than a criminal gang. This is the 1%er doing what the 1%ers do- smashing democracy, destroying the 99%s living standards for their personal private benefit.

    All these trade agreements have do nothing but destroyed the econoomies of the nations who signed onto them. Mexico is now nothing more than a narco state with entire swaths of it not even nominally under the control of the Mexican goverrnment. Virtually all able bodied males between the ages of 13 and 65 are in the US illegally or otherwise desperate for work their own nation can no longer provide them. This is the reality of NAFTA.

    And where are the degenerate "free market" neoliberal think-tank sponsored "scholars" and economists who promised us all in 94 that NAFTA would result in unprecedented wealth for the average Mexican and benefit the US also? The CTO Institute freaks nad the "economists" from bought-off shithole universities like Chicago ? The Dan Griswolds of the world? No doubt they're still living large off the money the think tanks, corporations and 1%ers in the MSM and (NPR too!) gave them to shovel their bullshit economics on the Americna public's head.

    You don't get to be a billionaire by playing nice and providing value. You get to be a billionaire by murdering people via proxy, bulldozing millions of other people's lives off a cliff, bribery, lying and controlling Congress by offering them deep seven figure jobs after their time acting as your personal footman and bitchboy in the Senate is over.

    In case you weren't aware.

  57. Re:Could be anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that, but the author of the previous post questions that.

  58. Re: Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned tog by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Official in what sense? These people have no actual authority. Any decisions stemming from them have equal weight: no moral authority, only the threat of physical violence.

  59. Re: Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned tog by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Official on what sense? These people have no actual authority. Any decisions stemming from them have equal weight: no moral authority, only the threat of physical violence.

  60. Re: Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned to by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Also, do we even have a need for the concept behind the word 'official' in today's world?

  61. Re:Could be anything by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    So, your stance is that because a reactor took longer to build and cost more, all nuclear power is terrible?

    Why was this UK reactor delayed? Was it maybe because of Fukushima, and lawsuits related to that against them? Why has it taken longer to build than estimated when they started? Did things change during construction that made the delays happen?

    I see no indication of why the reactor was delayed, but you offer no evidence that is had anything to do with poorly run anything, and instead just act like it is fact.

    Modern nuclear power plants use containment vessels that can only be made in one factory that is in Japan, it is possible that the delays were just because of the Tsunami that caused the Fukushima incident, and nothing at all to do with mismanagement.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  62. Re:Since the TPP and TTIP are often mentioned toge by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Do you think our government or main stream media- CNN FOX MSNBC NBC CBS ABC or any of the newspapers including the NYTimes of WSJ have said peep about the TTP?

    Apparently, they have said so little that you confused the names of two of them :)

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?