I am re-“tweeting” information from Corporate Europe Observatory, as it was sent to me. The “trade” agreements are an assault on democracy and upon the rights of ordinary people:

Corporate Europe Observatory obtained a draft copy of the EU’s proposals covering “regulatory co-operation” (pdf), which describes a new transatlantic organization, called the Regulatory Cooperation Body. Here’s a summary of how this would work:

As soon as a new regulation is in the pipeline, businesses would be informed through an annual report, now called “early information on planned acts”. At the planning stage, “the regulating Party” has to offer business lobbyists, who have a stake in a piece of legislation or regulation, an opportunity to “provide input”, to “be taken into account” when finalising the proposal (article 6). This means businesses, for instance, at an early stage, can try to block rules intended to prevent, say, the food industry from marketing foodstuffs with toxic substances, laws trying to keep energy companies from destroying the climate, or regulations to combat pollution and protect consumers.

Along with the above, lobbyists would have another powerful weapon – the impact assessment, made up of three questions (article 7, reduced from seven in the earlier proposal):

– How does the legislative proposal relate to international instruments?
– How have the planned or existing rules of the other Party been taken into account?
– What impact will the new rule have on trade or investment?

Those questions are tilted towards the interests of business, not citizens. Thanks to the “early information” procedure, businesses can make sure their concerns are included in the report, and should it go against their interests, the report will have to cite a detrimental impact on transatlantic trade.

As Corporate Europe Observatory points out, the only criteria taken into account are impacts on trade or investment. So, for example, new environmental rules might well do wonders for reducing air pollution, but if they have an adverse effect on US or EU companies’ sales or investments, they would be marked as undesirable. This is likely to have a chilling effect on bringing in new standards that protect the public but might impose new costs on business.
Corporate sovereignty will be entrenched by law.

I will continue with this subject tomorrow. Incidentally, there is still nothing, nothing at all, in the American media about the trade negotiations.

Comment
The most widely cited projections for the growth impact of the TTIP are from the Centre for Economic Policy Research [CEPR] in London [in a study paid for by the European Commission] which shows the pact leading to an increase in GDP of 0.4 percent in the U.S. when its effects are fully felt in 2027, and 0.5 percent in the European Union. The analysis explicitly says that it will not lead to more jobs since the models are full employment models. It may lead to somewhat higher wages, but it is not a way to employ the unemployed. Furthermore, the discussion notes that in the transition, some workers may end up unemployed as the economies adjust to the new rules.

Implying that a deal that raises GDP by 0.4 or 0.5 percent 13 years out means “job-creating opportunities for workers on both continents” is just dishonest (comment on techdirt.com). The increment to annual growth is on the order of 0.03 percentage points.

Recognizing that claims of substantial growth don’t stand up to scrutiny, boosters of TTIP in Europe have resorted to talking about cars, and specifically about electric cars, where regulation is different on both sides of the Atlantic