Slashdot Mirror


CETA Signed Off As Wallonia Folds Under Pressure (freezenet.ca)

Dangerous_Minds writes: The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has been signed off. The government of Wallonia appeared to be holding off on the agreement, but has since folded under the pressure. Two days after Wallonia agreed to the trade deal, countries signed off on the agreement. The agreement contains provisions surrounding a three strikes law, a global DMCA, site blocking, and the hugely controversial ISDS provisions to name a few. The deal still needs to be ratified for these laws to take effect.

158 comments

  1. Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this british english? What does that mean? It was cancelled? (Just kidding, I read the article). But, WTF? Signed off.

    1. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And wtf is wallonia..?

    2. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belgians.

    3. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a place that will magically exist on that distant day when someone invents a way for you to look things up you've never heard of - let's call it an "information-seeking motor" - and teaches you to use it.

    4. Re: Signed Off? by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      It's where Walloons come from.

    5. Re:Signed Off? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We use 'signed off' to mean 'approved' in America too, so......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Signed Off? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Signed off also means "ended" as derived from broadcasts that "sign off" to end the day.

    7. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumps new name for America after he wins the election

    8. Re: Signed Off? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Or at least Belgian Waffles.

    9. Re:Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this british english? What does that mean? It was cancelled? (Just kidding, I read the article). But, WTF? Signed off.

      Are you trolling? The first Google hit is from Websters Dictionary (m-w.com).

    10. Re: Signed Off? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

      And wtf is wallonia..?

      It's the post-independence name of South Elbonia.

    11. Re:Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know you're using idiot English...

    12. Re: Signed Off? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Walloonies :)

    13. Re:Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would say "Congress signed off DEATHTOFREEDOM ACT"? No, you would say "Congress signed off on DEATHTOFREEDOM ACT". "CETA signed off on" would have made sense (if a little awkward).

    14. Re: Signed Off? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I had heard of Walloons, I just didn't know they had a separate country.
      I guess the EU is taking advantage of Brexit to reorganize .
      Catalonia is also seeking independence.

      Maybe they should let Kurdistan join, since Turkey had a coup.

    15. Re: Signed Off? by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not a separate country. It's a region of Belgium and Belgium has a very complicated federal system. In many cases, Belgium can only sign contracts, if all regions agree to said contract.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    16. Re: Signed Off? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's literally that "bit where they talk funny", cognate with Wales and Wallachia.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Signed Off? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's more "completed" than "ended".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re: Signed Off? by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, it is a place filled with waffling Belgians.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me. You don't want to know.

    20. Re:Signed Off? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      We use 'signed off' to mean 'approved' in America too, so......

      Yeah. The usage in TFS is a odd, though. Usually, it's used in reference to a group or person giving approval, as in "The head of HR signed off on the new policy." Not "The new HR policy has been signed off."

    21. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the *easy* cases, when only the regions need to agree. Belgium has two overlapping federal structures. There's a regional system (Flanders, Walloon, Brussels) as well as a linguistic (Dutch, French, German). The two are not aligned, of course - the German-speaking part of Belgium is in Walloon, and Brussels is mixed Dutch/French. Although tbh the parliaments of Walloon and the French-speaking community have a ~90% personal overlap and joint sessions.

      This should really be an internal problem, but because the Belgians pretty much hate each other they've got a thin federal government and therefore the EU often has to deal directly with these lower-level parliaments. And there's no quick win, because such federal governments have been recognized by the EU from its beginning: Germany is also a federal state. Of course, Germany is a /functioning/ federal state.

    22. Re: Signed Off? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      It's not a separate country. It's a region of Belgium and Belgium has a very complicated federal system. In many cases, Belgium can only sign contracts, if all regions agree to said contract.

      Same deal for Canada. All provinces and Territories have to agree.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    23. Re: Signed Off? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Catalonia is also seeking independence.

      No point now Cerys Matthews has gone of to be a DJ & TV reporter.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Signed Off? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      They Were signed into AOL. Took them 10 years to figure out how to sign off.

    25. Re: Signed Off? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      They raised me to be evil. You know, that old chestnut

    26. Re: Signed Off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mouse That Roared? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/

    27. Re: Signed Off? by gordguide · · Score: 1



      <quote><p>It's not a separate country. It's a region of Belgium and Belgium has a very complicated federal system. In many cases, Belgium can only sign contracts, if all regions agree to said contract.</p></quote>

      <p>Same deal for Canada. All provinces and Territories have to agree.</p></quote>

      Bull. Provinces have nothing to do whatsoever with Treaties with other Nations.

      Yeah, a super-majority is needed to change the Constitution, and no, all Provinces and Territories don't even have to agree for that.

      Whatever number of Provinces that represent two thirds of the population have to agree. When Canada became truly independent of Britain in 1980 (when the Queen of England gave up her very last Rights over Canada) the Province of Quebec ... second in population ... famously did not sign on. The other 9 (0f 10) did, however, and the resulting Constitution was passed into Law.

      Bonus points for being wrong on two counts, though. The Federal Government has, and always had, the power to deal with any international business of any kind alone without the approval of even a single Province.

  2. The multinationals backed by a pupet us Governmet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The multinationals backed by a puppet US Government Signed off as Wallonia Folds Under Pressure..

  3. ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say they are bad for profits.

    1. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can only squeeze people so far before there's a breaking point. THEN it gets REAL ugly!

    2. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      they have basic healthcare over there.

    3. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't imagine the shit storm such a move may cause in the European politics. *Goes read about it* Ops, it was about international "market court." I guess everything is alright after all as the EU surely treats the corporations in a non-discriminatory way: equal regulations and restrictions for all. How else would there be any rule of law?

    4. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by evenmoreconfused · · Score: 1

      Yes. As they do in Canada.

      --
      No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
    5. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And less-than-basic taxes to pay for them. Don't get me wrong, I live in one of them countries and enjoy universal health care, but it's not all good. For one, our health care system suffers from many of the problems that the USA also has, for example having a small group of far too powerful insurers driving up prices. And our health care is expensive, while the premiums are affordable... or appear to be. According to some figures, our health care is one of the most expensive ones in the world (as % of GNP), but only 1.5% of that is paid for directly by patients, and few countries enjoy health care that cheap. But we pay a lot indirectly... in a pretty average middle class family where both mom and dad work, as much as 1/4 of their wages goes to health care indirectly, through income tax.

      Oh and back to the topic at hand: Wallonia didn't "fold under pressure", the politician holdouts never had the intention of letting CETA tank; they simply saw this as an opportunity to wrangle out a couple of nice concessions for the region. Probably a few exemptions or some extra regional aid out of Brussels... and under the table, perhaps a few cushy jobs for the polticians themselves a few years down the line. It wouldn't be the first time such deals were made.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Canada does not have universal health care. It has federal tax and transfer funding, a separate HMO per provincial government, and supplemental private insurance. The provincial HMOs are the only thing that give Canadians bargaining power to influence medical wages and the cost of drugs.

    7. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... they are bad for profits ...

      Big corps say that all the time and ISDS has nothing to do with workers. The point of the ISDS is allowing (US) corporations to sue foreign governments for lost sales caused by changes in law; sound familiar? (Hint: TTIP, TTP) The government that signs this gets absolutely no powers in exchange. In other words, when a foreign government realizes a (US) corporation is screwing them, that corporation can demand compensation for being nice. Such compensation is decided in secret tribunals although governments tend to not hide legal costs, so to date, the rulings have been published.

      Since 2011, Australia has refused to "support provisions that would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses" in new trade agreements. Yet Australia has just signed the TPP, which impacts workers' rights and confers greater rights (actually they're powers, not rights) on non-Australian corporations.

    8. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was about to vote for a 3rd party candidate when my hand became possessed by the ghost of Bernie Sanders campaign and I accidentally voted for Trump. SAD!

    9. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why a corporation can only sue for things where the government has explicitly given guarantees that they won't do X, read the text yourself (chapter 9). So if a country doesn't want to have any problem with ISDS it simply has to not promise anything. If that scares investments off, so be it.

    10. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And what are they going to do about it?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a friggin joke the EU was basically forced to sign this I very well hop TTIP (next on the agenda) will be blocked by The Netherlands and NOT have them crumble over the EU pressure like Belgium did. If not... NETHERLEXIT please!

    12. Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Not all ISDS systems are created equally. Each ISDS regime is created by a treaty and reflects what the treaty parties put in.

      In case of the CETA ISDS, both the Canadian and European negotiators are pretty workers right-friendly. In particular, it means that CETA recognizes the right of governments to legislate in the interest of workers. Even if it would hurt company profits, it simply wouldn't be a treaty violation. And the CETA ISDS only gets to rule on the CETA treaty violations.

      In fact, the Brits may really be peeved about the Brexit because of these treaties. The UK today has an exemption for EU workers rights - the EU had to allow this or they'd veto the EU rules. But the Brexit negotiations have veto rights for all other EU countries as well. And I'll bet they veto that the UK cannot use this exemption anymore if they want access to the Common European Market (no undercutting the EU on social rights) - not even via third parties such as Canada.

  4. Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wallonia is a real place, it's a region of Belgium, which is a country in Europe.

    1. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link?

    2. Re: Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And wth is Europe? Did they mean Europa, one of Jupiter's moons?

    3. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by maliqua · · Score: 1, Redundant
    4. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it is right next to Ebonia.

    5. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belgium, which is a country in Europe.

      I don't believe you.

    6. Re: Wallonia is a region of Belgium by slashrio · · Score: 1

      I suggest you take your questions to wikipedia or so.
      Discussions here on slashdot require at least some basic education, you know.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    7. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. Next, you'll be telling us its populated by Walloons.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      "Belgium" is the rudest word in the universe, which is "completely banned in all parts of the Galaxy, except in one part, where they could not possibly know what it means." - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    9. Re: Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspergers Man to the rescue!

    10. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae. (Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest/strongest.)
                      Julius Caesar in De Bello Gallico.

    11. Re:Wallonia is a region of Belgium by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Do you remember the Monty Python script, where they were offering up offensive nicknames for the various peoples of the world.

      For Belgium " ... we cannot think of any name more offensive than Belgian".

  5. Built a Wallonia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They built a Wallonia, and will make us all pay for it.

  6. Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This deal removes barriers to trade and will boost both economies significantly; with at least 22.9% increase worth €25.7 billion. See here.

    1. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When companies can sue a country because polluting can yield bigger profits but the government opposes it, there's something really wrong with the world.

    2. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      That is fantasy, this agreement has nothing to do with internal courts except in IPR. Where is your proof for terms in claiming removal of pollution restrictions exists?

    3. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by knightghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget the $50 Billion in job losses to offset the $25 B in gains. We tried this crap with NAFTA etc and it only benefits the rich.

    4. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-...

      Investors will be able to sue states.
      The so-called Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement (ISDS) – even in it’s new disguise as the EU’s “Investment Court System” (ICS) model – will grant foreign investors (i.e. Canadian and US companies) the right to sue European states if they believe that laws or measures of the EU or any member state have damaged their investments and reduced their expected profit. This will also affect laws and measures enacted in the interest of the common good, such as environmental and consumer protection.

    5. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read up on Investor State Tribunals in CETA here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Basically it allows corporations to sue states in arbitrary "tribunals" if a state violates its Non Discriminatory Treatment obligations (CETA, section 3, p 156 f) or because of a violation of the guaranteed investment protection.

      So corporations can claim that environmental protection laws are arbitrary and give unfair advantages to domestic companies that comply with those laws, while penalizing foreign companies that do not comply.

      The fear is that corporations will claim, "You are only enacting those environmental, worker protection, and social justice laws to penalize us, it's just code for 'protect local business.'" This is a realistic fear because it has happened before.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And the investor dispute protocols are going to be changed; the makeup of any tribunal that makes the decisions on investor disputes with the EU or its constituent nations will be a fixed body and will not have anyone on the panel from the investor in question. The Wallonians didn't "fold", no matter how this ludicrous article claims, they got what they wanted, not to mention that it's likely they will still be able to set up roadblocks to agricultural imports if they feel it puts their own producers at hardship.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it's a hyped up fear. This sort of tribunal exists in NAFTA and has never lead to this result. Not only that but the agreement that got Belgium onboard heavily modifies this tribunal, and corporate interests will no longer be able to name anyone to these tribunals. The tribunals will be picked from a fixed body of experts chosen by the EU and Canada and called in deal with disputes on a rotating basis.

      Unless you think nations who are signatories to treaties can just wantonly abrogate the obligations they agreed to and the affected party should have no right to seek a hearing. If that's the case, then just come out and say you reject any agreements between nation states of any kind, and believe treaties, big or small, are absolute wrongs.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sort of tribunal exists in NAFTA and has never lead to this result.

      Are you just ignorant or are you paid by multinational companies?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2...

    9. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by spun · · Score: 1

      I don't think NAFTA made any sort of provisions for corporations to sue the government. It has a system for adjudication of issues related to NAFTA, but nothing specifically like what CETA has. Of course, if you have sources that say otherwise then I will admit to being misinformed.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by r1348 · · Score: 4, Informative

      CETA includes exactly the same ISDS, as the summary states. Now before you judge others' reading skills...

    11. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by r1348 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This kind of tribunals have been and will be used this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay

    12. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      Soft wood lumber - Canadian producers have won every fight against American duties on it and yet the duties still exist and the Canadian logging companies have seen no compensation.

      Canada has 35 Million people, the EU 500 million. There was no way Canada was going to enter an agreement with a partner so much larger unless we had a complaint resolution process with a little more teeth.

      I have no idea who put the 3 strikes and other IP rights into the deal. No Canadian government would ever enforce such laws and stay in office.

    13. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by GlobalEcho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget the $50 Billion in job losses to offset the $25 B in gains. We tried this crap with NAFTA etc and it only benefits the rich.

      People who actually have studied this and know something about it disagree with you.

      I don't blame you, it is an easy mistake to make because benefits are diffuse while costs are concentrated and easy to identify, especially due to the inadequacy (in the USA) of the trade-adjustment assistance program.

    14. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know what "NA"FTA stands for, right? The simple existence of different laws can't be used as blanket excuse for your ignorance.

    15. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by slashrio · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter as long as the people are interested. Any evil company can be brought to its knees by a worldwide consumer boycott.
      If the people are not interested, then obviously it doesn't matter either.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    16. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes it does and it has been used a dozen times against the Canadian government. Search for "nafta mmt lawsuit". Canada had to pay a private US corporation $12 million dollars (the company had sued for a quarter billion) because we'd banned MMT, an additive to gasoline that is a suspected carcinogen. The Canadian government didn't only loose, but was forced to re-legalize MMT.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

    17. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait. You're suggesting that the Council on Foreign Relations agenda benefits anyone but the rich? Ahahahahahahahaha. Let me catch my breath. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    18. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      The Huffington post article is very misleading.

      We should have banned the use of MMT. Banning the import unfairly hurts a US company. This was the government of Canada just being stupid.

      Looking at the other small claims. One of the claims is for under a million dollars. Maybe it was fair maybe it wasn't. The $15 Million dollar award for the Hamilton Quary would have been won in Ontario provincial court. The other smaller claims the verdicts were fair. The PCB export case should never have gone to court. When Canada was negotiating the treaty banning export of PCB we should have made a provision for moving it into the USA (it's safer than shipping it 1000s of km across Canada).

      Lastly the bulk of the money is in the $130 million dollar AbitibiBowater case. But the dispute was never over $130 million dollars. It was over what fair value for the timber and water rights was. AbitibiBowater wanted $500 million for the rights. The province tried not to pay anything and didn't want to pay much more than $100 million. I'm not sure how this was a loss for Canada but if it was maybe you could count it as $30 million. i.e. how much more New Foundland paid than what they wanted to pay.

    19. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm ... You do know that Phillip Morris not only publicly lost but had to pay costs for the tribunal and $7 million to Uruguay. The company tried to use the tribunals this way and had their ass handed to them; hell this ruling has made it easier for small countries to follow Uruguay's lead

    20. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search for "nafta mmt lawsuit". Canada had to pay a private US corporation $12 million dollars (the company had sued for a quarter billion) because we'd banned MMT, an additive to gasoline that is a suspected carcinogen. The Canadian government didn't only loose, but was forced to re-legalize MMT.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      MMT (Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl) was a chemical used in gasoline as an octane booster. There were some health concerns about this. What should a sensible govt do?

      A sensible govt could say, "Hmm, there are health concerns about using MMT in gasoline, so until it has been studied and shown not to be harmful, we are banning MMT in gasonline."

      A sensible govt could say, "Hmm, there are health concerns about using MMT in gasoline, we are going to study the issue, but until those studies are completed we are continuing to allow the use of MMT in gasonline."

      Both are reasonable courses of action.

      Both are fully allowed under NAFTA, and no company would have any cause for action with either choice.

      But that isn't what the govt of Jean Chretien (the Canadian prime minister at the time) did. They banned the import of MMT, while allowing domestic manufacturers to make and sell MMT in gasoline.

      This action took a simple health & safety issue and made it a trade issue under NAFTA, since the Canadian govt was now discriminating against US manufacturers of MMT in favour of Canadian manufacturers of MMT.

      That kind of discrimination isn't allowed under NAFTA, that that is why the govt of Canada paid out millions in damages.

      (along with ignoring the health concerns entirely)

      The govt of Jean Chretien was known for incompetence, corruption and occasional mediocrity. Good riddance.

    21. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but I think the opposition to the agreement is not an issue regarding being anti-trade. The issue is regarding the "ear marks" which give industry too much legal power and could be used to scare the governments into hurting the people of their countries in order to support profiteering.

      The spirit of the agreement seems to be sound. I had to research it a bit to see why it was considered attractive to sign. After all, while there may be some... possibly many politicians who self-serve by garnering personal favor from industry and sign laws and agreements they clearly understand are against the best interest of their people, I would imagine for an agreement to appear to be passing so easily, it must have quite a bit of good in it.

      The problem is, the parts which can clearly hurt us look very small and innocent, but are sadly the items most likely to be acted upon by the ratification of the agreement.

    22. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash: Reality has a well-known bias in favor of those with more resources than others. That's kind of, you know, the whole idea behind having more resources than others.

      Ric Romero has more on this late-breaking story at 11.

    23. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Organized boycotts are dead. If you need proof, consider the republican party in the US. They still support Trump and will push to have him elected because even with a gigantic marketing budget to work with and full access to the media, a boycott of Trump can't be organized.

      The reason for this is that the nature of individuals today is to disagree on principal to exercise one's personal individualism and superiority. We live in a world of "I will gladly live with the gun shot wound in my foot as long as I can prove to you that you were wrong when you said shooting your own foot is stupid." Thanks to mass communication, the only thing we seem to be able to properly organize is our ability to disagree with each other. I believe this comment I'm making about your posting is an excellent example of this.
          1) I'm speaking authoritatively as though I believe I'm write. Instead of offering my opinion as a suggestion, I'm attempting to dictate your opinion to you.
          2) I am speaking down to you. While there's every chance you're more intelligent and better educated than me, I am speaking to you as if you weren't smart enough to advance your thoughts to my clearly more intelligent thoughts based upon the foundations of your statements.
          3) I am writing in a way which doesn't welcome debate, as if you would be stupid to debate with me. You should clearly see that I want you to believe that probably any response you could possibly make to my statement other than outright agreement has been considered and prepared for and I am obviously ready to squash all such arguments and humiliate you publicly. The fact that I'm basically just puffing out my chest and very likely failing to do it well is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I'm willing to move this pawn on the chess board hoping you won't realize I actually have no idea how to win this game.
          4) I attempt to persuade you to adopt my way of thinking. I do this by showing you my hand and letting you see I'm trying to persuade you. All along talking down to you and seeing if I can word it just right to make you part of the team... of course a pacifistic follower who bows to my clear superiority.
          5) I know I'm really just pissing all over you and pissing you off and know that the end result is a stale mate.
              a) you can't agree with me since agreeing with me would mean you are the loser I've described
              b) you can't disagree with me since you know that we as a people have sadly evolved into prideful beings that will disagree simply to be our own person... not dominated by anyone else.
          6) In reality, if we weren't in a position like this where we are likely to be measuring to see whose is longer, we probably could sit an enjoy a beer together and be friends.

      I'll leave with this, boycotts are combative. They attract people who are naturally combative. The result is that some people will join on principal. Some people will specifically break the boycott in order to simply disagree with the people who started the boycott. The boycott will grow by adding many people who will have no clear understanding why there is a boycott, but either because they are sheep who follow the people in the boycott or because they are idiots who will boycotts something just because another idiot is against it.

      Finally... if you believe I'm wrong about any of this... consider tuna fish.

    24. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except your starting premise is wrong because public health is more important and has longer-term consequences.

    25. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      *Philip Morris* is the kind of company you will have the most of trouble boycotting. It would be slightly easier to boycott the beer companies, or the running water company, or hell it'd be easier to get off the internet altogether which will boycott all ISP and Silicon Valley giants.
      Hell, you can brew your own beer, carry water to your place or build your own networks but cultivating your own tobacco is illegal (or might be, I wonder how it is in US or Canadian States)

    26. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by ph1ll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From your own link:

      "Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says anxiety over trade deals has grown because wages haven’t kept pace with labor productivity while income inequality has risen. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes".

      The fact that "most estimates conclude that the deal had a modest but positive impact on U.S. GDP of less than 0.5 percent" (from your link) is largely irrelevant when most people do not get to see the benefits. Indeed, median American income has been shrinking since the late 1990s (when adjusted for inflation) even while the mean has increased.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm one of the people who has done well out of the whole arrangement. But I totally appreciate others have not and are angry about it.

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    27. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You miss the point, I guess.

      The opposition to the tribunals exists because it means any and all laws that are passed in the future will have to be inspected from a "possible impact on foreign trade" perspective. Member states can't pass an environmental protection law any more to protect the environment, it needs to be written so that it doesn't harm trade. They can't pass a workplace safety law anymore just to safe workers health and life, it has to be written so that it doesn't harm trade. Everything becomes a matter of international trade.

      We already see the effect of this focus on the economy as the only god. In Germany, Schaeuble, the minister of finances, is without a doubt the most powerful minister and his opinion is asked and reported in the media on everything. Every law about work, immigration, foreign policy, health, education, literally everything. They made a law some years ago that forces the government to keep a balanced budget, and Schaeuble's "sorry, we don't have the money for this, and it would break the budget" can stop any law being discussed, no matter the subject.

      The tribunals lead to self-censorship. Laws will be written so that they don't damage corporate interests. You will probably be proven right that the tribunals are actually called on very little - because their main effect is not in the trial, but in the chilling effect it causes.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    28. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because immaterial property is the new money making machine after the global debt scam collapses. IP needs global agreements to work.
      IP = money. Permission to make new IP = permission to print money.

    29. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah. The "Council on Foreign Relations". That's as if the Local Butcher's club tells me "Mmmh. Meat is good for you. Trust us".

      This might well be the case, but no, I won't trust *you* on that, thankyouverymuch.

      Can you come up with other sources which ai'nt so *blatantly* a lobby organization for your point?

    30. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by khallow · · Score: 2

      The fact that "most estimates conclude that the deal had a modest but positive impact on U.S. GDP of less than 0.5 percent" (from your link) is largely irrelevant when most people do not get to see the benefits. Indeed, median American income has been shrinking since the late 1990s (when adjusted for inflation) even while the mean has increased.

      The obvious rebuttal is "Compared to what?" There is this mythology that the US's economic conditions of the 1950s and 1960s would continue, if only the US stopped trading with the rest of the world (or at least imposed punitive tariffs on goods and services from the poor parts of the world).

      But back in 1950 after the end of the Second World War, aside from the US and a handful of other countries, no one was developed world. Europe was a vast mess and the rest of the world was as poor as it was going to get.

      Trade changed that. Trade with the US was a key factor in helping keep western Europe and Japan free of the communist menace. And the US benefited as well with a golden age of expansion in STEM fields and industry.

      Since then, we've seen a huge improvement globally. I don't know how some people can rationalize away the signs of growing prosperity (things like road networks where dirt roads existed before, for example). But it's turned out to be quite easy for some to not see the benefits.

      And that brings me to your quote. Just because people "don't see the benefits" doesn't mean that the benefits don't exist. I see several really large warning signs from recent history that should encourage us to resist such unthinking protectionism.

      First, the US went from benefiting hugely from trade in the 1950s and 1960s to its current state. What changed? Some would say "greed" as if corporations had suddenly invented the idea back then. The obvious answer though is that the rest of the world got a lot better and a lot more competitive with respect to the US.

      Second, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, the US continues to enjoy strong labor protections, social safety nets, etc. These just haven't turned out to be very useful when the problem is labor competition with the rest of the world.

      Third, while a number of countries have used selective protectionism to build economic powerhouses, labor always sacrifices in those cases.There is no historical example where some country put up tariffs or stronger defenses against competition, gave their labor all sorts of advantages and privileges, and ended up doing better for it than the outside world. If you're behind economically, then labor has to take a haircut.

      Fourth, there's a lot of labor or socialism-friendly economic fantasies out there that are treated as fact, such as the model of demand-driven economics (which of course, completely blow off the demand from employers, a big part of real world economies) or Keynesian economics (which is basically used as a political excuse to spend public funds, no adherents bothers to save money when times are good). But where's the evidence that these things actually work? Too much of the time, it's confirmation bias with the thrashing of the moment assumed to have fixed things that would have fixed themselves anyway.

      Another sort of fantasy which drives the demand-driven model is the assumption that what we want must be good for the economy. Want basic income? Must be good for the economy. Don't want to compete with darker skinned folk from other countries who work for far less than you do? NAFTA must be bad for the economy. Have large medical bills? Any public system of paying those bills for you, no matter how badly run or how harmful it'll be in the future, there's always someone who thinks it's hot stuff, economically because it paid for a relative's bill. There seems to be this huge unawareness that things we want can be bad for our society. It leads to cargo cult economics where we recall what was wonderful about economies of the past (say having the same job fo

    31. Re: Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They put 3 strikes deals in every one of these craptacular trade agreements now, courtesy of the US strong arming them.

    32. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TL;DR: Man, this "supply-side" is really awesome. Want a toke?

    33. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The important question to ask here is if the growing inequality is a result of the trade deal, or if it's the result of something else and in a parallel universe could have benefited ordinary workers. If it's the latter, it seems that opposing the trade deal is the wrong response.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Two key points:

      1. Their claim was rejected, Uruguay's smoking ban is still in place and perfectly legal

      2. It's under a completely different system to CETA, where as the GP points out the EU and Canada get to pick the people doing the arbitration and which uses different criteria to decide.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every trade deal like CETA needs you to have trust in a court system, even when it is an international court system. Of course it takes some of the power away from local governments, but in return it also grants more freedom even when it are rich who profit most of this freedom.
       
      Generally socialist parties who aim for a central controlled economy are against international courts they can't control. Wallonia is ruled by PS, social democratic party. In their region they are the biggest party but the Marxist/communist PTB is eating away votes. They had 13% in some poll (for what it's worth) and the PS is afraid that the left wing parties become even more divided (there is PS = social democrats, Ecolo = green) by the popularity of the communists. This is the only reason to block the agreement to show they still have the 'balls' to revolt against Flanders, the EU and even Canada (and of course the evil capitalistic swines of the US and lets not forget the evil Jews).
       
      But I expect the PS politicians were surprised by the intolerance of the Canadians against their own intolerance. They get away with this tactic in Belgium. We are used to Wallonian politicians blocking every attempt to cut costs or cut taxes. We are used to having no government for over a year. But Canadians apparently don't know about this kind of politics, especially with a deal that has been open for criticism of 2 years. The Wallonians waited until it was time to sign off to block the deal.

    36. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by khallow · · Score: 2

      Workers supply what employers demand. You need an approach that is reasonably balanced IMHO not something that heavily favors one side. .

    37. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Uruguay won and Philip Morris even had to pay the costs of the lawsuit. So what is the problem here? That an evil government won from the poor investors?

    38. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the summary states that it contains *an* ISDS.

      The important part is that each treaty ISDS applies only to its own treaty. CETA treaty, CETA ISDS. Similarly, TTIP treaty, TTIP ISDS. Either ISDS allows companies to sue over treaty violations, but you can't sue for a CETA violation via a TTIP ISDS.

      As usual, you can't just sue *because* there's been a treaty violation. You must also be negatively affected by the treaty violation. That is where the "reduced profit" angle comes in. A company whose profits are lost has legal standing, but not necessarily a case. They'd still need to prove a treaty violation.

      Practically speaking, this means that the EU and Canada need to *prove* their measures benefit the common good. Curbing CO2 emissions is OK, curbing WiFi emissions would fail. So companies would be able to sue if Canada banned WiFi.

    39. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except your starting premise is wrong because public health is more important and has longer-term consequences.

      Please explain how banning US companies from selling MMT in Canada but allowing Canadian companies to sell MMT in Canada is good for public health.

      IE, the Chretien govt was full of incompetent idiots.

    40. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This deal removes barriers to trade and will boost both economies significantly; with at least 22.9% increase worth â25.7 billion. See here.

      Three obvious questions:

      - How long have you been working at the EU offices in bruxelles? Why don't you find an honest job? How does it feel to be on the brink of extinction? What will remain of you and your employer after the next series of elections in the continent, and the likely series of victories of anti-EU parties?

      - Why are you so retarded to think that anyone would ever click on a link that points to the official EU website (i.e., corporate propaganda)?

      - Have you ever considered committing suicide, and if you have but decided not to, shouldn't you consider it again?

      And don't forget to ask ugly corrupt unf*ckable lardarse Cecilia MalmstrÃm the same questions.

    41. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Workers supply what employers demand. You need an approach that is reasonably balanced IMHO not something that heavily favors one side. .

      Works can't supply free labor and tax cuts indefinitely. They'll starve.

      Because "poor "workers" are other people. Not high class media moguls like we Slashdotters. Because reasons.

    42. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      faggot

    43. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the EU, US and elsewhere internationally (UN) the environmental legislation starts with the principle of polluter paying. US political ramblings and philosophies have polluted the Wall Street and the world with illusions that now have to be dismantled by the courts and settlement systems, as other treaties and regulations interact with this one. They will protest for their freedom to hurt others and to protect their legal ignorance.

    44. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Works can't supply free labor and tax cuts indefinitely. They'll starve.

      Why is that even considered a problem? Workers don't do that now. Are workers going to forget how to negotiate or job hop, if Big Brother isn't carefully guiding them? Even in a completely free job market, there would be an effective minimum wage below which employers simply won't get workers.

    45. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Most people live, and the biggest markets are, outside the US or Canada.
      Where I am I can (cheaply) buy tobacco leaves in the market and make my own cigarettes and cigars.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    46. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Works can't supply free labor and tax cuts indefinitely. They'll starve.

      Why is that even considered a problem? Workers don't do that now. Are workers going to forget how to negotiate or job hop, if Big Brother isn't carefully guiding them?

      You're already wrong because workers DO do that now, since most workers ARE replaceable and cogs. Walmart is subsidized by the taxpayer and shows their employees how they can collect food stamps and other government assistance programs.

      Even in a completely free job market, there would be an effective minimum wage below which employers simply won't get workers.

      And that minimum wage will reach the "homeless starvation" wage in our lifetimes. Well, mine anyway, you may be extra old with that extra white attitude. Taxi and truck drivers are being replaced by robots and there isn't a new sector being created that they can migrate to, free training or not.

      The realists, the pro trader AND pro basic income crowd is simply saying let's not let Walmart and other mega corps benefit disproportionately through regulatory capture at the expense of small businesses who can't afford to hire the legal, tax and accounting staff. Give everyone welfare and people who want to work hard for more can keep it and their paycheck. And they can stay the hell out of my workplace and stop messing stuff up. I'm fine if I have to carry 1,2,3 people on public assistance so long as others do too. I'm productive enough, not a lazy asshole and I understand the alternative is rich vs poor civil wars with machine gun armed drones on one side and serially marginalized sub population scapegoats of poor on the other. I'm not sure I can survive the crossfire, so I'd rather pay a few grand extra to buy Xbox and Netflix for the poor than pay tens of thousands to incarcerate them with laws that might be applied to me later.

    47. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by slashrio · · Score: 1

      First let me compliment you with your excellent reply! The effort you put in it is the biggest compliment you can give me (if it wasn't a copy/paste :) .
      However, I only partly agree with your comment regarding the mass media.
      It is true that mass media is setting us up against ourselves, but also that they make us agree with the warmongering puppets that seem to run our governments.
      Further, your point 1) isn't valid, your point 2) is clear nonsense, point 3) is totally off-topic, and point 4) to 6) also make no sense at all.
      So, except from the first two lines and the last, your post is obviously copy/pasted noise (expect a copyright notice in your mailbox).
      Democracy and freedom are combative. If people aren't combative about these values, the political system will degenerate into what it has become now.
      However, as the elitist pressure on the masses will increase, so will combativeness, and the cycle will start all over again, only with different puppets and -isms.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    48. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by khallow · · Score: 2

      You're already wrong because workers DO do that now, since most workers ARE replaceable and cogs. Walmart is subsidized by the taxpayer and shows their employees how they can collect food stamps and other government assistance programs.

      Duh, Walmart employing poor people and helping them get government assistance is precisely the sort of thing we want to subsidize. Also keep in mind that it costs Walmart some to provide that service.

      But I don't see that as being relevant to my point. In the absence of an official minimum wage, Walmart isn't going to get free labor.

      And that minimum wage will reach the "homeless starvation" wage in our lifetimes. Well, mine anyway, you may be extra old with that extra white attitude. Taxi and truck drivers are being replaced by robots and there isn't a new sector being created that they can migrate to, free training or not.

      Unless, of course, you're wrong, then it won't. I'll just note that I have already mentioned that the rest of the world is getting wealthier. It's not going to take many decades before most of the world's population enjoys developed world status. At that point, there won't be starvation wages, instead there will be a growing demand for labor just like there was in the first few decades of the 20th Century in the US.

      The realists, the pro trader AND pro basic income crowd is simply saying let's not let Walmart and other mega corps benefit disproportionately through regulatory capture at the expense of small businesses who can't afford to hire the legal, tax and accounting staff.

      Any actual realists would know that this isn't a real problem now. The benefit of social programs are not benefits for employers who have to pay for them in higher taxes. And there's plenty of other regulation that's enabling these mega corps, which doesn't get touched by basic income.

    49. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just note that I have already mentioned that the rest of the world is getting wealthier.

      Not him, but note that the rest of the world isn't exactly pro-capitalist or pro-free market either. Not that the US is that free or capitalist itself (refer to your own post history complaining how uncompetitive the US is)

      This is the same rest of the world that American lefties point to with envy and wish the US would mimic some of their socialist policies. This is the same rest of the world that conservatives both in and outside the US (e.g Brexit leavers) decry as being dominated by an oppressive elite running a rigged game enriching themselves under the GUISE of being pro-trade and pro-free markets.

      One of the characteristics of truly free markets and trade is that EVERYBODY benefits. It's not a zero sum game. The pie is not fixed size. The fact you have to tell some people in the developed world that they have to "take a haircut" implies implies that all the benefits from last 60 years or so wasn't a result of capitalism and free trade (really, you sound like some Star Trek hippie talking about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)

      It is more accurate to say that the last 60 years or so was a giant socialist project, with various governments working together to try and centrally plan their way to uplift the developing world.

      Average Joe doesn't care about people in some country on the other side of the world (Average Joe American probably can't even find it on a map... most people don't know about Aleppo before Gary Johnson messed up on that question).

      The people who care the most about "global" prosperity are the likes of the UN or IMF, multi-national organizations with members being state actors, not free individuals doing charity and philanthropy.

    50. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Liberals have always been on the side of the copyright trolls, unfortunately. All the way back to the Chretien and Martin days.

      They've never felt comfortable passing legislation on it due to the backlash they'd receive, which is probably whey they're pretty okay with it ending up in this trade deal instead.

    51. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The fact you have to tell some people in the developed world that they have to "take a haircut" implies implies that all the benefits from last 60 years or so wasn't a result of capitalism and free trade (really, you sound like some Star Trek hippie talking about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)

      Buggy whip manufacturers had to take a hair cut too. Just because the pie is growing doesn't mean there won't be losers.

    52. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Well in Europe that'd be a criminal offense.
      You can have cheap tobacco if you live near a border (needs to be the right one too) and buy it abroad, but don't get caught carrying moderately large quantities.
      There is also such a thing as street dealers selling cigarettes packs (now as expensive as the legal price used to be years ago, so not a very good deal). Yea right.

    53. Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Although it sounds ominous, we can learn from the various lawsuits so far within the various FTAs signed up to now.

      For example the Canada-US FTA has one, and it was carried over into NAFTA. There have been five such suits against Canada:

      The Ethyl Corporation (US) sued Canada for banning MMT, a fuel additive (and one banned in the US). Cost? $13 million dollars paid by Canada.
      S.D. Myers Inc (US) sued Canada for banning the export of PCBs. Cost: $5 million paid by Canada.
      Sun Belt, Inc (US) sued Canada over it's moratorium on bulk water exports. Sun Belt dropped their case over advice from their legal team.
      V.G. Gallo (US private citizen) sued because the province banned the dumping of garbage into the provinces lakes. Dismissed, Canada awarded $450,000 USD in costs.
      Bilcoin Inc (US) sued over a failure to receive a Environmental Assessment approval for a quarry. Unsettled at this time.

      There are about a dozen cases filed against the US, and some against Mexico. I made the effort to dig through about a third of the cases; they all were dismissed, with costs awarded to the US Government.

      The information available on the relevant US Government website is ridiculously complex (dozens of legal submissions pdf format per case) and no brief summaries exist, while the Mexican cases are not only complex but also only in Spanish, unlike the information available from the Government of Canada.

      We can learn some things, however, from what is available. For one, we have a roughly 30 year history to look at (the original Canada-US FTA dates back to the late 1980's). Despite losing some of these cases in Court, Canada merely paid the assessments and carried on. The amounts fall into the "trivial" area as far as lawsuits go, let alone spending by Government. The winners in these tribunal cases were not allowed to carry on the practices or go about a project.

      Even when the Government in question loses, it's a matter of pay the money and that's the end of it. In no circumstance was any Government "forced" to "allow" anything.

      A reasonable dispute settling mechanism is a feature of all treaties, let alone Free Trade Agreements. Virtually any World Trade Organization ruling (which just about everyone is a member of, and therefore subject to it's rulings) costs more and reaches further, often requiring changing the law in the loser Nation. I don't see what the fuss is about with the considerably more benign FTA dispute settlement mechanisms.

  7. It's the way of the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Threats, blackmail, coercion. "Peaceful community" my ass. Europeans can raise their hands high and chant "Heil Juncker! Heil unsere Fuehrer! Sieg heil!" like the good little schutzstaffeln they are.

    1. Re:It's the way of the EU by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Assuming Juncker is a male it is 'unserer Fuehrer'. Oh, and also Schutzstaffeln.
      Anyway, you seem to have failed to understand that WWI and WWII, you know, that one with that Fuehrer, was caused by the Anglo-Americans and their allies for geo-political reasons.
      Just like nowadays with the Ukrainian 'question', America was and is hellbent on not to allow Russia and Europe form any economic alliance as that would rapidly evolve into a big economic--if not geo-political power--competitor causing the USA losing its hegemonic dominance in the world.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    2. Re: It's the way of the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever. I don't speak nazi.

    3. Re: It's the way of the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then pray tell, why did the EU side with the US when they could have simply said: "look, we don't need NATO anymore, we want good relationships with our neighbours, please bring your boys home, we will work out a peaceful solution without your interference"?

    4. Re:It's the way of the EU by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ...and WWII, you know, that one with that Fuehrer, was caused by the Anglo-Americans and their allies for geo-political reasons.

      "Oh, look at what you made me do"

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:It's the way of the EU by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      WWII was caused by the Anglo-Americans? Really? Please tell me what planet you are on - it certainly isn't the same one that I am!

    6. Re: It's the way of the EU by slashrio · · Score: 1
      Would you like to
      :

      have your currency debased

      be thrown out of the international payment system

      have your political career destroyed

      have wars on your soil

      color revolution

      receive no more oil

      nor gas

      be assassinated?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    7. Re:It's the way of the EU by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Did you read about the geo-political motives?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    8. Re:It's the way of the EU by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Remember the treaty of Versailles after WWI? Some general came out of the meeting and said:
      "We have just started WWII."
      It was all geopolitics by the English (WWI), later the Americans (WWII), to keep Germany and the rest of Western Europe from allying with Russia which would have formed the greates economic and military power in the world.
      Currently it's the same geo-political objective that led the USA to foment a overthrow in Ukraine.
      A barrier between Europe and Russia is and always was the objective.
      Indeed I'm afraid you're living on the wrong planet.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    9. Re: It's the way of the EU by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Germany isn't Nazi-Deutschland anymore :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    10. Re:It's the way of the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did someone translate that for you, or are you a native Russian speaker?

    11. Re:It's the way of the EU by slashrio · · Score: 1

      No & no. :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    12. Re:It's the way of the EU by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, WWII was started more by France and Britain who wanted punitive reparations from Germany, whose economy then collapsed. Your explanation of the 'big bad boogeyman' of the Russians..the Communists were a non issue at the end of WWI. Indeed, Joe Stalin was our buddy in WWII - if anything, FDR caused most of the issues because he gave eastern Europe to the USSR thus forcing millions of people under the yoke of the Soviet Union.

  8. ISDS is the end of the world as we know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Extrajudicial transnational corporate control of sovereign law and policy. "But it's only fines based on lost profits!" the proponents cry, like we haven't seen, for example, the MPAA making up imaginary multi-billion-dollar annual profits during piracy studies.

  9. yet Freedonia still holds on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-)

  10. TIL there is a place called Wallonia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Wallonia exists and is a place!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallonia

    However, I am a libertarian. What's a leppo?

  11. Backgrounder on Wallonia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This state was formed when a separatist movement succeeded in spliting off from the kingdom of Elbonia. Dilbert's co-worker Wally was chosen as their king, after he promised large cheering crowds that he would rebuild their coal industry and grow their economy by 4 percent each year, while reducing the national debt and throwing the opposition party leader into prison.

  12. So kiddies, It's time to learn.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hide yourself, don't fucking brag to get "street cred" and upload releases at open access points.

    It's time all the file share people learn black hat tips and tricks to stay out of the jails.

    Because sharing a movie is worse than murdering someone in today's legal world.

  13. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can sa by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Europeans love having someone to call "Fuehrer".

    Europeans (including Germans) have been there, done that, and no, they don't love it.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  14. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can sa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or in 2017 trump!

  15. 10B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is expected value of this contract between Canada and EU. The value of the losses that Russia sanctions caused is 100B. These are allegedly not detectable for EU economy. What this means is that this is not a trade that we talk about. As if the big corps did not have army of lawyers they just need investment protection. The great day for democracy I'd say. As great as the day democracy died. Maybe not completely but just a bit. The Economist had an article about trade v. democracy - seems democracy loses.

  16. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can sa by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Yeah but Europeans love to eat, too. At least the Fuhrer provided food and jobs.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  17. not at /. by ndverdo · · Score: 0

    now populism/nationalism/isolationism/*ism including reactionism : wishing the good old times of a non-globalized world back

    have caught up with /. Missing this comfy 20th century back? Don't worry the autocrats who tend to be somewhat less free-trade oriented are coming along and will make good on their promises.

    1. Re: not at /. by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.

    2. Re: not at /. by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU.

      Investor protection isn't a bad thing to have in a trade deal per se. The main idea is supposed to be to prevent things like nationalization of an industry after a trading partner country's company(s) setup shop, or to pass laws that effectively bypass the agreement altogether by passing laws which directly disadvantages the trade partners industries, while favouring the local industries (i.e.: make widgets sold by the trading partner illegal, but permit locally made widgets). I would think that if you owned a Canadian company and decided to spend a ton of money to setup a factory in Belgium, only for a local government to expropriate your factory without permission or compensation (like Cuba did to various US companies in 1960), you would be pretty pissed off. Likewise (and probably more likely), you'd also be pretty cheesed if you spent a bunch of money and effort to import your widgets to (say) France, only for the French government to turn around and find some bullshit reason to make import and sell your product effectively impossible (i.e.: perhaps they decide suddenly post-agreement that all widgets must contain 100% raw goods refined in France, or that all workers building widgets must be fed a steady diet of baguettes made in Paris), you'd likewise be pretty pissed that the goalpost was moved in order to disadvantage you, while giving your competition within a trade partner nation an unfair advantage.

      Ideally under such protections, changes to environmental and product safety laws shouldn't be a problem so long as they apply to everyone equally. That's the goal at least -- not having read CETA myself, I can't say how close it comes to the ideal. However, as a comparison here is a list of all current NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes, which makes for an interesting read on the types of disagreements the NAFTA ISDS-equivalent has dealt with.

      Ultimately, I don't think that a clause in a free trade agreement that says "you'll treat our companies and goods as you do your own companies and goods" is a bad thing, and anyone who is automatically against the concept of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is wrong (there really isn't a point to a free trade system without one). I think that criticism of the implementation of an ISDS system is fair game (so long as the goal is to make the system fair and reasonable) -- but as there are a lot of ways legislation can be drafted to disadvantage foreign goods without tariffs, a free trade agreement without such a system in place is meaningless.

      (And if you really can't stand having your local industries on a level footing with a foreign trading partner (and vice-versa), then you need to either negotiate an exemption for those industries when you (re)negotiate the agreement in the first place, or have the decency to back out of the agreement entirely. Disadvantaging your trading partners trade while expecting them to uphold their end of the agreement is a completely dick move that makes a mockery of trade agreements).

      Yaz

    3. Re: not at /. by ndverdo · · Score: 1

      Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.

      explaining this to the quite rule-based society Germany probably, which is typically receiving end of why trade needs state-independet dispute resolution even for established democracies. The 2nd part of the answer is why counterintuitively trade agreements and nation-independent courts would be the most impactful way to address climate change (!) if implemented properly.

      (1) The badly termed Schiedsgerichte investment court system (also investor-state dispute settlement-ISDS) protects investors from one country to political arbitrariness. Recent examples are:

      * banks having to forgive part of loans by decree of other governments that gift bank loan reductions to its voter clientele (Hungary, Croatia). Technically the exchange rate is modified by changing laws, which in effect forgives part of the loan. Needless to say that people will invest less given this, for which in the end all lose.

      That is, it's not uncommon at at all that even developed democracies parliaments/governments change rules affecting the investments of others on the fly. You would not believe how common it is even in more developed democracies for ex post facto changes based on domestic politics that harm investors from other nations, it's possible to cite many more recent examples.

      If an investor wants to go to court for this with only domestic courts it may amount to a wish-you-good-luck situation. So there need to be non-national, potentially less biased independent courts (better) or resolution mechanisms. As trade agreements are badly explained and quite complex which makes them prone for popular simplifications. but it's not given that robust democracies have need independent judiciary.

      (2) Climate change: I would posit that CETA-alike agreements with China could do more for climate change than lip-service non-binding populism as maybe seen with COP21 (non-binding Paris climhttps://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/30/2233243/ceta-signed-off-as-wallonia-folds-under-pressure#ate treaty). If China would need to pay for its environmental emissions enforced by proportional duties and other instruments, overseen by independent dispute settlement courts it could lead to real CO2 parts per million reductions.

      A pity that (2) sounds completely unrealistic in a populist climate of trade being bad mouthed and the need for non-national courts weakly understood.
       

    4. Re: not at /. by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that. In Germany, this is part of the constitution. I do not know if this is the case in Belgium, but it is also part of the EU treaties. The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of leaked parts of TTIP and CETA, if a state would forbid carbon fueled engines by 2040/2050 (which we must do), this could become extremely expensive for a state, as any car manufacturer could sue them. Also Austria was sued (based on another such treaty) by an Austrian bank, which owns itself via a company on some island, because Austria trailed and fined them violating the law. The Bank sued, because the trail resulted in a reduced reputation.

      The problem with such treaties is. They are all inclusive. Therefore, if some thing should be excluded it must be listed explicitly. It would be much, much better if they would only list those things where these rules apply. Yes this is more work, but it is better in the end. And yes there are positive things in the CETA treaty. You could just separate them from the rest and start with them. Why on earth must be everything in one treaty at one time.

      BTW: another issue with this treaty is the inability to quit and it is valid indefinitely. This is rubbish. No one should ever sign such treaty. What if the next generation wants a different treaty or no treaty?

    5. Re: not at /. by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that.

      Yes, however ISDS doesn't just cover eminent domain seizures; it also protects investors from governments passing BS laws that disadvantage foreign imports in order to confer a special advantage to competing local interests.

      Let's look at a (completely made up) example. Bombardier, a Canadian company, competes with Airbus, a French company in the aerospace field. Let's say that France wanted to confer a trade advantage to Airbus, and so decided to pass a law requiring X% of French-made parts in jets sold in France. The United States isn't party to CETA, and there is no tariff involved, so on the face of it, some politician might think this is legit. However, it would put Bombardier at a significant disadvantage -- the United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and importing parts made in France to Canada is going to cause the Canadian company to confer an added expense to ship parts to Canada that the French manufacturer doesn't have. In effect, it's a no-tarrif way to bypass a free trade agreement.

      EU laws protecting property doesn't cover such a scenario. And that's why there are Investor protections built in -- to prevent such shenanigans.

      The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of leaked parts of TTIP and CETA, if a state would forbid carbon fueled engines by 2040/2050 (which we must do), this could become extremely expensive for a state, as any car manufacturer could sue them.

      You can sue anybody for anything. Winning the suit is a completely different matter.

      I've spent some time since yesterday reading the text of CETA, and Chapter 24 on Environmental Protection seems to apply in this case. Indeed, Article 24.2 seems to promote the type of protection you're talking about. Article 24.3 specifically states that parties have the right to regulate and encourage high levels of environmental protection. However, I will note that IANAL, and CETA is hugely long, thus there could be some details I've missed. Again, it seems that so long as such measures are applied equally and fairly, a scenario such as the one you've suggested would be completely permitted (Chapter 8, Section C).

      Now, as the text does seem to indicate that the "parties" are Canada and the EU, so the treaty might require harmonization of such laws within the EU (as the above sections tend to talk about application to "the parties", and I'm not sure if individual nations within the EU are considered parties individually, or only as a collective). You'd need to take that up with a trade lawyer who knows more about this than I do. If that's the case I could see why some people have a problem with this, however isn't such harmonization the entire point of the EU in the first place?

      BTW: another issue with this treaty is the inability to quit and it is valid indefinitely. This is rubbish. No one should ever sign such treaty. What if the next generation wants a different treaty or no treaty?

      Any treaty can be quit. You don't need special wording added to an agreement to quit. Indeed, there are two ways you could conceptually quit CETA:

      Leave the EU: as we are currently seeing with the "Brexit", you can get out of a treaty such as CETA by leaving the EU. The EU charter has text on how to exit the EU, and as CETA is between Canada and the EU, if you're not in the EU, you're not party to CETA.

      Just announce you'll no longer recognize the treaty: or you can go the old-fashioned route and just ignore the treaty, and stop participating. Sure, this might trigger and old-fashioned trade war and cause a diplomatic crisis, however it has

  18. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can sa by r1348 · · Score: 1

    With all its obvious and widely discussed downsides, Nazism was nothing like an ultra-liberist capitalism.

  19. That's pretty much mass starvation by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and nothing else. You can literally do anything else. And you can squeeze as hard as you want on 10% of the population. The US used to do it to black folks, India to the "untouchables", Japan to Islanders and the Chinese/Koreans, etc, etc.

    The 1% have long since learned how hard they can squeeze. What few wars break out are when one member of the 1% pisses off another. We moved on Iraq so we could move on Afghanistan too. We did that so we could build an oil pipeline the Afghanistan gov't opposed.

    Don't wait for the revolution. It's not coming. Do something about wealth inequality now before it drags you down.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. I agree it'll be nasty by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but it's manageable as long as it doesn't get too big for it's britches. Fix wealth inequality and it won't matter. Worst case then & we'll pay a few billion here and there to some Chinese mega corps. Yeah, it'll suck to pay but it'll be small potatoes. Now, keep ignoring wealth inequality and it'll prompt a nativist backlash that'll make Trump seem tame by comparison...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. Fake approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It means nothing, its the fake signing ceremony they have to pretend its a done deal that cannot be revoked. It's sort of a two step thing, they sign it off and tell doubters its only ceremonial, and when it comes to National Parliaments, where the actual legal democratic process is supposed to occur, they tell them its a done deal already signed off.

    Yet the treating still includes the fake court (a tribuneral of lawyers that is not a court, not within any democracy and not challengable) that can require changes to national laws. No national government is empowered to take away the democracy and assign it to that court. They are giving away powers they legally cannot give away.

    1. Re:Fake approved by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not sure I'd put it as you did ( " a fake approval "), but you are describing the Standard Operating Procedure for most International Treaties by most Nations (including the United States). A Treaty is signed, and then it is ratified. The Ratification process usually involves passage by a legislature of some kind (Congress, Parliament, House, etc) and the process is defined by the laws of each Nation.

      So, yes, this Treaty has to be ratified in Europe and in Canada. I believe there is a two year window to get it done.

      In practical terms, though, it's rarely an issue. Sometimes you have Treaties amongst sworn enemies that aren't ratified; it's very rare for a Treaty amongst allies or friendly Nations to not be signed into law by the elected body.

      There is little chance this particular Treaty won't be ratified. It has to pass the European Parliament and the Canadian House of Commons. Both have enough support.

      Canada in particular has never failed to ratify a Free Trade Agreement, and there are a lot of them (Israel, Chile, USA/Mexico, Costa Rica, Peru, Columbia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, South Korea) and will soon ratify this European FTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States of America, Vietnam) and another with Ukraine.

      Canada is currently negotiating individual FTAs with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM members are Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago), and separately with Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Dominican Republic, India, Japan, Morocco and Singapore.

      Exploratory discussions are underway with Turkey, the Philippines, and Thailand.

  22. TPP to have no measurable impacts on GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    World Bank says TPP (which is almost identical treaty) will have no effect on GDP, its not a trade deal, its protectionism and a means for corps to overrule democracies:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world-bank-report-tpp-will-bring-negligible-economic-benefit-to-us-canada-australia.shtml

  23. I bow ... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    ... to our new George Soros overlord.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  24. "folding" included a changed deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Folding under the pressure" meant them having to draft a slightly different version of the deal to satisfy Wallonia, at least according to this, after the region rejected the original deal AND an ultimatum from the government.

    But after days of intense talks a version of the deal has been produced that satisfies the Wallonian Parliament, headed by socialist leader Paul Magnette. Magnette was concerned by a part of the deal that would allow corporations to sue national governments. "Let's be clear: I'm not a herald of antiglobalization," he told the French publication Liberation. "I want a deal."

  25. It is all a Politcal Game inside Belgium by NaughtyNimitz · · Score: 1

    The real deal is this: The french-speaking Parti Socialiste (PS or Socialist Party) was in government for 30 years or so. They always tried to hold back any laws that would grant more power to the regions (dutch-speaking, a.k.a. Flemish , french-speaking a.k.a. Wallonia and the mixed language capital of Brussels), but ultimately could endanger the financial transfers from the richer Flemish part to the poorer and big spending Walloon side, but this policy backfired the last decade when Flemish people (60% of the population) voted en masse for a more confederate-orientated party. Scaring their populace with stories of Flemish people wanting to tear the country down thereby dumping the royalties and throwing overboard any solidarity between the regions, a deadlock was created. Until the liberal french party (MR) was found to run the federal government with the Flemish parties and together they started cleaning out (or attempting to) the immense Socialist dump: a massive debt, a wildgrowth of departments etc... Now, the waning PS is only strong in it's bastion: Wallonia. And how do you think they can make themselves 'necessary'? Right, by blocking the CETA for a bit and showing the federal government, their electorate and the Europe: "See , we still have power! We are necessary! We are the conscience of Belgium". But what they tend to forget to say is that the CETA deal has already been on the table for 2 years: plenty of time to voice their opposition. Can someone please show the Walloon people what has been changed in the CETA agreement? Nothing, nada, noppes, nichts, rien!

  26. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet they still rally behind their leaders and are readying for war against Russia at their behest... Who will be next?

  27. Is Wallonia even a real country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like one of those fake locales in a soap opera.

  28. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dunno... You think the fact that we keep getting buzzed by Russian aircraft, ships, and submarines might have something to do with it? Or maybe the fact that Russia keeps feeding secessionist movements in its neighbours and then annexing the seceded bits?

  29. Re: ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off you lying piece of vata.

  30. What aboue Elbonia? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I'm more interested in what Elbonians have to say on the matter.

  31. Wallonoa signs off on CETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Walloons got guarantees that they felt they needed and so they were content with the arrangement they have made with the Belgian government which required unanimous assent in the devolved form of governance they have in Belgium. Contrary to the nonsense candied around about CETA, it is without a doubt the most advanced trade agreement ever made and will increase the standard of living in the affected nations of now .500 millions. All the lies bandied about against CETA will disappear in embarrassment. There is no corporate plotting and no bizarre back room deals. 98% of all tariffs between EU and Camada will disappear and there will be excellent trade between these many nations. This so the way the world ought to operate... I am not a corporate representative but a simple citizen in Camada who want to have the world to trade with and get out from under the heel of our biggest trading partner the US who has untrammelled power over us because of it. Now we shall have this gigantic additional ,ark et for our products and in turn shall have thousands of produces available to us here that were not imported die to tariff restrictions heretofore. It is a time to celebrate in the EU and Canada.

  32. Not done yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that it's signed, the Dutch get a chance to hold a referendum and could decide to not ratify. Convincing citizens will be a lot harder than buying politicians.

  33. Re:The multinationals backed by a pupet us Governm by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    Um, this is Canada - EU.