I wonder whats the estimated damage of democracy to the western economies (seriously). Wouldn't it be way better to let the heads of big cooperations or their relatives rule the western world? This way trade agreements like TTIP could be done in a more open way. Nobody would be able to complain as they got no vote and legislation would be easier! Also we could forbid lobbyism and replace it with a more open and honest "Pay for Law". So vote for more open legislation by abolishing democracy. Remember making life easier for the best and richest among us is the most nobel goal in life.
TTIP Documents Revealed
31–40 of 94 posts
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#32How about some reciprocation on immigration laws as well? How fair and free can this agreement be if the immigration flow in one of the directions is so much easier than in the other?
Which direction is that (honest question, I suspect US -> EU being easier, but I recall companies having trouble "importing" Americans as well...)?
In fact there's no such a thing as a EU-US deal at all. US has separate deals with each EU country.
If you're from one of non-blessed EU countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Romania and most notably Poland), you can not enter the US without a visa, even for tourism.
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#33> The U.S. government concurrently has criticized the fundamental prevention principal of the EU Consumer Centre which protects 500 million Europeans from consuming genetically modified food and hormone-treated meat. Good for the EU. If only our government showed the same care for its own citizens.
That's a matter of opinion. An opinion unsupported by evidence.
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most alarming features of this proposed legislation are the facts that it contains this: ".. it also contains an ‘investor protection’ provision allowing corporations to effectively sue governments for taking action to harm their business." (source: http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-... ) So .. effectively, this could mean that a corporation could overrule a government in legislation if…
My biggest issue with the TTIP; thanks for calling it out.
And if someone thinks this is a virtual threat, google for "Philip Morris vs. (Australia|Uruguay)" (countries being sued for anti-tobacco regulations hurting business of PM)
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally I agree with you. The recent changes to VAT feel like a mess. Maybe I'm missing something there and they're not as bad as they seem?
Aren't they exactly what was wanted, to stop big companies like Amazon from taking advantage of the tax system (invoice everything in Luxembourg) that aren't practical for small businesses? Or, to prevent foreign online retailers from undercutting local ones simply through lower "local" taxation rates.
In theory the laws are great. But they should be applied over a certain revenue threshold, say €1M. They're a mess for someone selling a few items per month to customers all around Europe (like selling an ebook on your own website).
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#36All I see is a single post and an image of a container ship, is my browser broken or are there no documents?
Hit the International Home or German Edition links on the left hand side. Looks like the german newspaper has a lot more articles though.
Not much additional content in the german articles. Thursday comes the print edition I think, that probably will have longer stories about it.
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#37> The U.S. government concurrently has criticized the fundamental prevention principal of the EU Consumer Centre which protects 500 million Europeans from consuming genetically modified food and hormone-treated meat. Good for the EU. If only our government showed the same care for its own citizens.
> The U.S., for example, demands that statutory prohibitions on products to protect human health should only be allowed to be passed if it has been scientifically proven that these products really are harmful. Sounds like a reasonable argument.
Unless you're the one that dies and becomes the scientific proof.
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#38That overzealous secrecy around TTIP is a shame. It doesn't look like such a bad piece of legislation. The overall theme seems to be some deregulation on EU side (as generally EU is the over-regulated side) and bringing regulatory standards closer together. The IP protections are the most concerning part so far IMO? I don't know much about that kind of negotiations, the secrecy might as well be the right strategy to…
"(as generally EU is the over-regulated side) Why is regulation a bad thing? These rules exist for a reason in health/food for example.
Corporations lose money through regulation and lives are saved. I'm sure you can see why many Americans are horrified by it: they value money over human lives.
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#39> The U.S. government concurrently has criticized the fundamental prevention principal of the EU Consumer Centre which protects 500 million Europeans from consuming genetically modified food and hormone-treated meat. Good for the EU. If only our government showed the same care for its own citizens.
> The U.S., for example, demands that statutory prohibitions on products to protect human health should only be allowed to be passed if it has been scientifically proven that these products really are harmful. Sounds like a reasonable argument.
I disagree. Maybe the prohibitions being statutory is a bit strong but I think products should be proven safe before they're allowed.
The burden of proof shouldn't be on the government, it should be on the manufacturer, similar to how medicines require FDA approval.
Re: TTIP Documents Revealed
#40> The U.S. government concurrently has criticized the fundamental prevention principal of the EU Consumer Centre which protects 500 million Europeans from consuming genetically modified food and hormone-treated meat. Good for the EU. If only our government showed the same care for its own citizens.
> The U.S., for example, demands that statutory prohibitions on products to protect human health should only be allowed to be passed if it has been scientifically proven that these products really are harmful. Sounds like a reasonable argument.
More reasonable than the alternative?
> "whereas the U.S. only bans them if people have already been harmed as a result of consuming said products"
I think those people harmed would disagree.
Also to "scientifically prove" something might not be as easy as it sounds. You may have a couple of studies that find a harmful effect, and then you have some (possibly industry-backed) studies that find no effect at all. You now have a strong hint, but no proof. At best it is "scientifically debated". Think of tobacco industry vs "smoking causes cancer", or oil companies vs "global warming is caused by humans".