TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers • Hacker News Board

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#121

Post by toyg » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 1:20 AM UTC

evgen wrote: post #55

toyg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US elites got used to a very sweet state of things in transatlantic relations post-1989, and it got even better after 9/11. Steamrolling Europeans was almost too easy, because Euroelites had been fully co-opted by the American way. Unfortunately, 13 years of unpopular wars have taken their toll. There are now two generations of politically-active Europeans who were not invested in the Cold War, and see the US fundame…

Possibly. An equally likely situation is that US leadership can see that the EU is falling apart. The UK is already headed out the door, the failure of EU banking and financial institutions given the current massive debt problems, and a collective that seems to only be able to solve their bleak demographic future by pulling in eastern European basket-cases that no one really wants to have in the union makes an EU tra…

> An equally likely situation is that US leadership can see that the EU is falling apart.

TTIP was (and still is) a US-led effort. The only voices asking to keep it going are US negotiators' and Obama's. That wouldn't happen if they really thought the EU was in disarray.

> the failure of EU banking and financial institutions

Well, at least we did not have Lehman and Merryll Lynch... the powerless "EuroBundesbank" is a bit of a mess, but nothing that can't be solved by a better German government.

> a collective that seems to only be able to solve their bleak demographic future by pulling in eastern European basket-cases that no one really wants to have in the union

Those countries were brought in under pressure from the US and the UK, eager to solidify the Cold War victory and water down EU institutions. Other countries didn't object because hey, more markets close-by with cheap highly-educated workforce and internal industry in disarray, ready for the picking! Politicians naively thought their national champions would expand there, while they actually wanted (and got) to delocalize with minimal fuss. Nobody had any interest in some "bleak demographic future", it was just profit all the way down; and I can assure you that most industries still want those countries in (to the point where the only serious talk for post-Brexit plans is about ways to grant Eastern-European workers easy access to British companies). Among other things, they're the only ones still taking Christianity seriously, something that European elites still somewhat value.

Europe has been in serious trouble before; compared to the last century or even the one before, this decade is barely a blip.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#122

Post by colechristensen » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 1:35 AM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #120

colechristensen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of talking about setting safety and environmental impact boundaries (and allowing everything within them), people are screaming BAN FRACKING. But it gets worse. Instead of talking about banning specific resource extraction methods, people are talking about "community rights", which don't exist. http://celdf.org/community-rights/ These people are ridiculous. Invoking the American revolution and then railing ag…

> The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit. Too true. However, I'd say this actually applies to just a…

Absolutely, I was too specific. I do generally lean one way and wanted to say something along the lines with "these people are idiots but I agree with them" ... but I was in no way implying that conservatives or folks on whatever alignment axis were reasonable.

I'd like to rephrase: the defining societal problem of the 21st century is going to be the failure to recognize that we've solved all of the big black and white issues with blunt tools which fit into the Christian good vs. evil narrative but we will keep trying to solve the grey-area issues with those same dumb tools. The failure is one of lacking appreciation for subtlety and nuance in the definition and solution of our problems.

Good vs. evil, clear cut rights and wrongs are issues of the past.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#123

Post by eyelidlessness » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 6:11 AM UTC

hiou wrote: post #85

icantdrive55 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(It was more about states rights, over federal rights. I don't think they really cared about slavery--unfortunately.)

I should just let this be down voted but there needs to be overwhelming repeated rebuttals to this very misleading framing. This whole thing tries to use the fact that no southern states voted for Lincoln to frame it like secession was actually just because they felt their voice wasn't being heard. What that ignores is that slavery was the main(almost only) economic driver in the south. The election was about slavery…

I don't think this is entirely accurate.

It's absolutely the case that the South was motivated to secede by the issue of slavery. It is not the case that the North was, they were motivated by the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said as much. Abolition was used by the Union as a weapon, not as a cause unto itself.

It's seen as revisionist to question the moral character of the US Civil War, but you have a President who said explicitly that he would preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union, and abolition that exempted Northern states.

Slavery was (partially[1]) abolished in the US not because there was some high-minded federal government that thought it was the right thing to do, but because abolitionists worked hard for generations to compel it. The fact that a war was fought over it only speaks to the fact that slavery was so entrenched in the Southern states that it considered the progression toward abolition an existential threat.

[1] Slavery was never fully abolished in the US, and we should be careful not to forget that. It's no mistake that the amendment to restrict slavery to punishment for crime also coincided with the beginning of a trend of criminalizing activities and lifestyles of former slaves and their descendants.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#124

Post by Silhouette » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #109

Silhouette wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can certainly place your signature on a document but it means nothing because you can't execute. But how is this any different from signing a deal that you've happily made in secret, only to find that the people you claimed to represent won't honour that deal because something in it was unacceptable to them and rejecting it in its entirety is the only possible action you've left them that doesn't accept the unacc…

Well as I see it there are only two possibilities: a) They let their people vote on it before ratifying the finalised treaty (maybe let them even vote multiple times until the result is right, the EU likes doing that) b) They know for some reason or another that they will be able to enact it (they control media, the courts and the men with guns which definitely helps) How is it any different? Well both parties start…

Well both parties start out a negotiation not knowing what the other sides limits are in certain areas, having society not interfere allows you to not give away this information to the other side.

Unfortunately, having society not interfere may also mean that you do not have that information yourself, even if you think you do.

If the negotiators are acting in the interest of their own people then you could assume that they will know quite well how far they can go.

Right, but that's a big "if". International trade agreements are like a textbook example of the principal-agent problem. It is extremely common for the negotiators to be adopting positions heavily influenced by special interest groups and business communities, with little if any regard for the effects on the actual people of the country those negotiators ostensibly represent. In the case of the EU, that issue is magnified further, because the EU itself can be (and often has been) used in a similar way.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#125

Post by Silhouette » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

witty_username wrote: post #115

Silhouette wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever met a client who would let you build the entire site for them, over an extended period during which you're charging for your time, and only on the final day of project present it to them for the first time, offering them only the choices to accept or turn down the site with no options for review or rework?

> you're charging for your time This is why this analogy is wrong. If a country doesn't accept the TTIP it'll be fine. There's no cost incurred.

If a country doesn't accept the TTIP it'll be fine. There's no cost incurred.

What about all of the time, money and resources invested in futile negotiations?

There's also the opportunity cost. It takes a lot of time to conduct these kinds of negotiations, and during that time trade is still happening. If the pursuit of a bad deal wastes a lot of time while a better deal, even on a smaller scale or with more limited scope, would have been possible, then all of the trade that could have happened under that better deal has been undermined.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#126

Post by jeff_petersen » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:49 PM UTC

misnome wrote: post #98

jeff_petersen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States didn't abolish slavery until after the civil war as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. In a way, the war triggered abolition (or spurred it to happen more quickly), not the other way around.

Yes, abolition happened afterwards. Congratulations, you can argue pedantically, perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.

> you can argue pedantically

This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important.

> perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery

Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition actually happened.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#127

Post by DominikR » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 11:51 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #124

DominikR wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well as I see it there are only two possibilities: a) They let their people vote on it before ratifying the finalised treaty (maybe let them even vote multiple times until the result is right, the EU likes doing that) b) They know for some reason or another that they will be able to enact it (they control media, the courts and the men with guns which definitely helps) How is it any different? Well both parties start…

Well both parties start out a negotiation not knowing what the other sides limits are in certain areas, having society not interfere allows you to not give away this information to the other side. Unfortunately, having society not interfere may also mean that you do not have that information yourself, even if you think you do. If the negotiators are acting in the interest of their own people then you could assume tha…

There is no doubt in my mind that the EU negotiated this in secret because they knew that society would be opposed. They likely would have tried to ratify this treaty afterwards in a stealthy way by suppressing media coverage or "encouraging" media give it a positive spin.

But I cannot prove this, that's why I'm also listing a few reasons for secret negotiations that could be acceptable for those who are inclined to give the EU the benefit of the doubt.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#128

Post by witty_username » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 5:13 AM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #125

witty_username wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're charging for your time This is why this analogy is wrong. If a country doesn't accept the TTIP it'll be fine. There's no cost incurred.

If a country doesn't accept the TTIP it'll be fine. There's no cost incurred. What about all of the time, money and resources invested in futile negotiations? There's also the opportunity cost. It takes a lot of time to conduct these kinds of negotiations, and during that time trade is still happening. If the pursuit of a bad deal wastes a lot of time while a better deal, even on a smaller scale or with more limited…

You're right.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#129

Post by misnome » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 3:17 PM UTC

jeff_petersen wrote: post #126

misnome wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, abolition happened afterwards. Congratulations, you can argue pedantically, perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.

> you can argue pedantically This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important. > perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition a…

> The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery

In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition".

You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.

Re: TTIP trade deal could be re-launched under a different name, say EU ministers

#130

Post by jeff_petersen » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

misnome wrote: post #129

jeff_petersen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can argue pedantically This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important. > perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition a…

> The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition". You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an impo…

Here's what you said:

> The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.

That's not the same as "working toward abolition."

> this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery

[citation needed]

> Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.

I said that a desire to keep the institution of slavery was the primary motivation. That is not the same as them reacting to abolition, which would violate causality.

Please try to be more civil rather than slinging around insults and accusations.