Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TTIP Documents Revealed

international.sueddeutsche.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#81

Post by mcv »

Qantourisc wrote: post #68

I just wondered about one thing. Why when the US asked (forced ?) the EU to negotiate in secret didn't the EU answer with a f.u. ? Also who are these people that agree to do this in secret ?

The EU isn't quite the democratic paradise either. We too have corporate lobbyists writing laws, and politicians and officials negotiating behind closed doors.

On average, the EU is more transparent than the EU, and politicians tend to feel more like they really should be representing the people, but it's really a sliding scale with the US just a bit further down than the EU.

I really hope transparency about the TTIP negotiations will help turn this around in both the EU and the US.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#82

Post by mcv »

onetimePete wrote: post #22
auganov wrote: post #15

That 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…

I am a citizen, i voted for those regulations, these are the laws i wanted, you try to step upon.

And that's the root of what's wrong about TTIP: the US doesn't like the way Europeans vote, and wants to put a stop to it. Business interests need to be protected against the evil democracy.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#83

Post by DanBC »

Symbiote wrote: post #26
DanBC wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.

I think the replies to my post show some of the problems.

Flat taxes might not be practical, but the baffling system of VAT and excise duties we have in place at the moment place a really high bureaucratic burden on businesses.

I'm often pro-regulation, and I like taxes, and I definitely thought some of those tax avoiding businesses were abusively avoiding tax.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#84

Post by Hockenbrizzle »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #18
auganov wrote: post #15

That 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…

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…

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Obama's stance on this particular part of the legislation? He was just in Hanover and was asked about this by the public, but avoided giving a clear answer. Are there any records of him explaining why he actually might think this is a good thing?

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#85

Post by pas »

Silhouette wrote: post #62
pas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no lower threshold to who the new rules affect. I never claimed there is a minimum amount, I just said that not anything over the net is automatically subject to the new "customer's host state's VAT applies" rule. > conflicts between the rules about VAT and other EU consumer protection rules about advertising all-inclusive prices You can't advertise as "9.99EUR + VAT"? Or guess the VAT rate based on geo-IP…

I never claimed there is a minimum amount, I just said that not anything over the net is automatically subject to the new "customer's host state's VAT applies" rule. No, you said only service providers, citing two of the biggest firms in tech. Unfortunately, the rule is far more general than that. Anyone selling any sort of digital services or products online is covered, even if it's just someone selling crosswords f…

Hm, I still think we don't have the full picture.

For example online tangible product sales is not covered, as it's not a service. (If I understand the explanatory notes correctly.) But selling software is covered, because you can electronically deliver it. Bah.

Yes, the crossword or sudoku provider has to fiddle with VAT, just as an app store. But if the crosswords are made by humans, then it's not an electronic service. The necessity of the human element seems to be the deciding factor.

Furthermore, the point is that this is a step in the right direction, a unified legal requirement, because before this providers were simply ignoring the VAT, and Member States' tax authorities were not really enforcing it.

Regarding the inclusiveness. This is a problem of legal harmonization, eventually one law/statue/directive will come out on top.

So, I'd just go with the IP based approach, the important thing is good faith. Not a 100% correct solution. And you can always display a warning next to the price that you are not sure of the taxes to apply, so please dear end-user select where you are established.

And yes, national (member state) tax offices act rather dumb and macho when it comes to collecting money.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#86

Post by pas »

Silhouette wrote: post #63
pas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr Kahale might be an expert, but that doesn't mean he is not biased toward his clients. After all, the scope definition clause was a futile attempt from the beginning, since any law can be dressed up as environmental or "deemed appropriate" by the State. I don't really trust lawmakers on this, (nor corporations not to abuse these treaties as yet another venue to argue their bullshit or righteous grievance), let's a…

Mr Kahale might be an expert, but that doesn't mean he is not biased toward his clients. Sorry, I don't follow. He's an expert lawyer in the field, his firm often represents governments in these actions, and he's saying that the wording doesn't protect those governments as much as they think it does and providing a very simple and clear reason for his position. Whether or not he might be biased in a courtroom or trib…

He's selling the line that it doesn't protect governments as if it were a bad thing. It protects the companies in those states against the other governments for example, which is a good thing.

More people die because of coal/oil/gas power plants than because of nuclear ones. So now, instead of inspecting their own plants, which they have the best position to do so, they're relying on who knows what form of power generation.

It's understandable that you feel that by submitting the UK to an unknown even higher court you take a risk, but a lot of people on the other hand feel that it's going to be a boon to restrict the actions (and especially future actions) of their State. And the documents are public (and there is a push to make video recordings and even live streaming of the discussions/arguments), and in English, much better than when a company has to deal with let's say the Hungarian courts.

And exactly, because a lot of investment is not making its way to such countries, why the whole treaty is negotiated.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#87

Post by Silhouette »

pas wrote: post #85
Silhouette wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed there is a minimum amount, I just said that not anything over the net is automatically subject to the new "customer's host state's VAT applies" rule. No, you said only service providers, citing two of the biggest firms in tech. Unfortunately, the rule is far more general than that. Anyone selling any sort of digital services or products online is covered, even if it's just someone selling crosswords f…

Hm, I still think we don't have the full picture. For example online tangible product sales is not covered, as it's not a service. (If I understand the explanatory notes correctly.) But selling software is covered, because you can electronically deliver it. Bah. Yes, the crossword or sudoku provider has to fiddle with VAT, just as an app store. But if the crosswords are made by humans, then it's not an electronic ser…

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be polite and constructive here, but please understand that this is an issue where some of us spent days or even weeks doing little more than understanding what the new rules actually require and then updating our systems and records to account for them. We talked to lawyers. We talked to our elected representatives. Urgent questions were asked at the highest levels of government. And the loopholes you think might be there are not there. Even the tax authorities themselves have now admitted that they mishandled the situation for smaller businesses, but since snails move at a faster pace than EU bureaucracy, it will probably be several more months before they even debate the issue further.

This isn't really a unified legal requirement where before we got to ignore VAT. In reality, it's quite the opposite. We now have to comply with 28 different sets of legal requirements, where before we only had to charge VAT at our local rate and account for it on our local VAT return. For very small businesses here in the UK, such as someone selling the kitchen table crossword supplies I mentioned as an example before, we weren't required to charge VAT or file returns at all below a certain threshold on a de minimis principle, and no such threshold exists under the new rules.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#88

Post by Silhouette »

pas wrote: post #86
Silhouette wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr Kahale might be an expert, but that doesn't mean he is not biased toward his clients. Sorry, I don't follow. He's an expert lawyer in the field, his firm often represents governments in these actions, and he's saying that the wording doesn't protect those governments as much as they think it does and providing a very simple and clear reason for his position. Whether or not he might be biased in a courtroom or trib…

He's selling the line that it doesn't protect governments as if it were a bad thing. It protects the companies in those states against the other governments for example, which is a good thing. More people die because of coal/oil/gas power plants than because of nuclear ones. So now, instead of inspecting their own plants, which they have the best position to do so, they're relying on who knows what form of power gene…

It's understandable that you feel that by submitting the UK to an unknown even higher court you take a risk, but a lot of people on the other hand feel that it's going to be a boon to restrict the actions (and especially future actions) of their State.

The European Commission conducted possibly the largest public consultation in history and found almost unanimous opposition either to ISDS or to TTIP in its entirety, except among some organisations representing businesses, and even there the response was mixed. So who are the "alot of people" you're talking about here? They don't appear to be ordinary EU citizens, nor lawyers, trade unions, academics...

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_15...

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2015/jan/13/new-levels-...

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#89

Post by onetimePete »

Assuming TTIP fails, how will the next contract to attack democracy be called? QTIP? UTIP? COUP? GRACE?

At least put some effort into naming. To have your rights grind away so slowly and being coerced like a mule to even thread that mill that maims you.. Im for a law that forbids to discuss content-similar contracts that have been downvoted for at least 8 years.

Re: TTIP Documents Revealed

#90

Post by green7ea »

mcv wrote: post #80
zavi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Science doesn't prove things. It provides likelihoods and most likely explanations. So the real question is: should something only be banned when it's 99.5% certain that it's harmful? Is 50% chance of it being harmful okay? Or 80%? And why? The EU prefers to err on the side of safety. The US prefers to err on the side of profit. I don't see why the US approach would be better.

I can't up vote you enough because this is exactly it (that and many US companies using dodgy science since the bar is so low).
Post reply on HN