Interesting to know that there are still people - even visitors here - that don't know what TTIP is! ;-)
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a proposed trade agreement between the European Union and the United States, with the aim of promoting trade and multilateral economic growth. The American government considers the TTIP a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
To add to the other replies, there are two areas where TTIP is particularly controversial.
One such area is that the TTIP might include provisions that are broadly worded and have unintended (or "actually intended but they'd never admit to it") side effects. For example, if businesses in foreign countries gained new rights to sue national governments if the governments act in a way that costs those businesses revenue, would that mean a government can no longer ban smoking in public places by law without paying compensation to the cigarette firms? Or if we extended patent rights in the pharmaceutical industry, would that limit the access of patients in poor countries to generic medicines they can afford, and force them to buy branded versions at much higher cost or go without?
The other area of controversy is the secrecy of the negotiations. It seems likely that significant parts of the proposed agreement have been influenced or even written by lobbyists representing special interest groups. However, pushing these kinds of changes via a trade agreement means the exact wording is kept between a small number of officials from the EU and US and isn't subject to wider scrutiny. Even elected representatives in European and more recently national governments only have access to documents under tightly controlled conditions. Thus there is concern that what will be presented for more democratically accountable consideration will effectively be a fait accompli, one big take-it-or-leave-it bundle of new rules backed by heavy political pressure to take it even if some of the details aren't wanted.
For a more detailed criticism, there are a few articles like this one around:
>For example, if businesses in foreign countries gained new rights to sue national governments if the governments act in a way that costs those businesses revenue,
Maybe it is. The trouble is, we know that there is a credible threat of international agreements being used to subvert previous national positions in general, but we don't know what the real proposed wording says in specific areas of this particular agreement. It's impossible to have a rational debate on the subject under these conditions.
A businesses in foreign countries CAN sue a national governments if pass protectionist regulations that favor domestic businesses.
For example: The US can pass environmental regulations blocking all logging on Federally owned land. They can not pass regulations that only allow US-based companies to log on Federally owned land. If they did, then foreign companies could sue for being excluded.
>It's impossible to have a rational debate on the subject
With all the FUD being spread around, I completely agree.
As I have consistently said, that may be the case.
But the fact is that I don't know that for sure, and unless you're both one of a very select group and violating an explicit confidentiality agreement by posting here, neither do you.
>As I have consistently said, that may be the case.
Just like it may be the case that the moon landings were faked.
>unless you're both one of a very select group and violating an explicit confidentiality agreement by posting here, neither do you.
The full text of TIPP has been released for months now. I know because I have read factual reporting from journalists who have actually read the text, not from ignorant FUD spreaders in website comment sections.
