EU-US Relations: – Will Trump matter for the EU’s policy priorities?

In Europe, as in much of the rest of the world including large parts of the United States, Donald Trump’s election conjured up a plethora of doomsday scenarios. It was quickly assumed, for example, that the US would pull out of the COP21 Paris Agreement. Bolstering EU defence capabilities was suddenly proclaimed an urgent priority in light of the uncertain continued commitment the new US administration could be expected to show towards NATO. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was also declared dead and parallels with Brexit were drawn. And finally there were fears that the migration crisis would be exacerbated by Trump’s pledge to block Syrian (Muslim) refugees from entering the US, including from Europe.

Now, two months after Trump’s election, it is time for Europe to recover from its initial state of shock and assess the possible implications of a Trump presidency on EU policy priorities. Trump’s election might have profound effects on the US, and indeed the world, but it is not likely to dramatically alter the EU’s international priorities (and may even, as recently argued by Daniel Gros, have a positive impact on the European Monetary Union). Looking at areas such as trade, climate change, the refugee crisis, Brexit and defence, the fact of the matter is that, at least as things now appear to stand, Trump’s election should have only a marginal impact on the EU’s policy priorities. To demonstrate why, we consider in turn each of these five important policy areas.

TTIP - Climate policy - Refugee crisis - Brexit- Security and defense 

Given the role that the EU plays on the international scene, no US presidential election will leave the EU, and indeed the world, unaffected. However, the fundamental international challenges Europe faces and thus the priorities of the EU in the areas we have analysed predated his election – and are likely to only be marginally influenced by his administration. Many of these challenges, such as climate change, trade, the refugee crisis and security, are likely to remain after his departure. 

For complete details click here: EUROPP – Will Trump matter for the EU’s policy priorities?

Loss Of Political Stature: How the United States and UK Risk Their Global Goodwill - by Shihoko Goto

Isolationists are gaining ground worldwide. From worries about losing jobs to concerns about the erosion of social values and cultural norms, disengagement and retreat from the international stage is seen as a viable solution to the looming challenges ahead.

The most glaring fact is that Britain and the United States are at the forefront of seeing withdrawal as an answer to problems facing a rapidly evolving world.

But far from offering any longer-term solutions to the real worries of losing out to international competition, the isolationists are at a real risk of losing their political, military and social and economic power.

With Brexit, non-EU countries are reassessing how they continue to do business in Europe, as Britain can no longer remain their gateway to Europe.

Never mind that for countries like Japan, Britain had been their base in Europe. Corporations including Toyota and Hitachi created over 140,000 jobs across UK as a result.

But while Brexit supporters have touted that leaving the European Union will enhance British economic competitiveness, such signs have yet to emerge.

In fact, the IMF predicted in October that Britain’s GDP growth will fall to 1.1% in 2017, compared to 2.2% growth in 2015. This is a direct result of Brexit and inspire of the British pound’s depreciation.

With even the staunchest of U.S. and British allies frustrated by their retreat, those supporters are already beginning to take matters into their own hands.

But the real cost of London’s isolationist policy may well be that it has shaken the foundations of relations over the decades that spills out well beyond the economic realm.

The intense national debates within Britain ahead of the referendum underscored the unexpected strength of the anti-trade, anti-globalization and ultimately, anti-foreigner stance of many voters.

With popular sentiment becoming more insular, Britain’s reliability as an ally in diplomacy and in security issues has come into question. the concerns are thus not just limited to trade relations with Europe and beyond.

Moreover, confidence in a Britain that has the will and the wherewithal to be a leader in addressing transnational issues, not least to ensure global economic stability, has faltered as well.

In short, the Brexit referendum that supposedly was to make Britain stronger has actually weakened its position on the global stage, at least in the near term.

Still, Britain is not alone in paying a price for its strategic isolationism. International disillusionment with the United States has also begun, especially as Washington continues to shy away from a global trade deal that it has been instrumental in crafting.

The economic merits of signing on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership aside, the fact that the United States could walk out of a negotiation at the eleventh hour, that it had been an integral part of puts U.S. credibility on the line.

As governments of the 11 other TPP member countries are pushing hard to have the deal ratified by their legislators, the fact that both U.S. presidential candidates are united in rejecting the TPP – at least as it currently stands – has been alarming.

In particular, blaming foreign competition for a growing income divide in the United States can hardly be seen as encouraging for overseas investors. At best, such “reasoning” is a wild stretch of the truth.

The trend to blame outsiders for many U.S. economic woes, when domestic reforms and reinvestment into projects, especially infrastructure, could do much to spur growth, has been alarming.

Like Britain, the United States continues to enjoy much international goodwill as a global leader in promoting democracy and free markets that it can continue to draw upon.

Yet, as public opinion in both countries continue to support greater protectionist measures and scaling back on global commitments, that goodwill may whittle down far more rapidly than expected. 

Read moew: How the United States and UK Risk Their Global Goodwill - The Globalist

TTIP:EU-US Trade Negotiations - "EU beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing” - Why the Rush? - by Stephan Richter

Long before the term “transatlantic” became fashionable on the global stage, from 1984 onward I started and chaired the TransAtlantic Futures Forum, a Washington-based discussion forum that convened well over 150 times.

And yet, it is precisely my more than three decades’ worth of living and working experience in the U.S. capital that tells me that Europe should resist the rush-cum-charm-offensive currently laid on by the Obama Administration.

Against ever longer odds, it still wants to get a deal over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) done over the next few months.

As a European, I have the distinct feeling that I have seen this movie before. Remember the disastrous Iraq invasion which supposedly could not wait for another day?

The German and the French governments at the time were very smart and courageous to counsel against the headlong rush into what everybody now recognizes has indeed turned out to be a mega-calamity.

Therefore, a good rule of thumb is this: Whenever the U.S. government is keen to rush the political calendar, be extra careful.

What about the argument raised by TTIP advocates that the world economy is very brittle – and urgently needs a boost? And that such a boost can be delivered via the TTIP?

That certainly sounds very compelling – until you look at the actual numbers. The presumed benefits resulting from a deal, measured in terms of their contribution to U.S., European or global GDP, are much smaller than often advertised.

Moreover, the impression the public is deliberately left with is that the deal would produce economic growth of the stated GDP range each year upon taking effect.

In reality, the projected growth impact would materialize, like a trickle, only over time, and even then probably not for at least another decade.

This is no real surprise. After more than six decades of ever more intense cooperation, the transatlantic trade and investment relationship is already very deep. Any further progress, by definition, must be quite marginal.

As the current legal troubles of two of today’s foremost U.S. corporate icons underscore, U.S. corporations have very little appreciation of the customs of the European market and of European societies.

All these titans of American business actually care about is to take the money they can milk out of European consumers – and run.

Forget all the silly recitations about chickens etc. with which TTIP’s faithful boosters try to belittle European citizens’ very legitimate concerns. The ruthless and callously selfish stance of Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon speak clear enough a language.

In the United States, the privacy rights of citizens, despite all the advertising and grand speechifying on that subject matter, count for very little.

The opposite is the case in Europe, largely due to the twin experiences of Nazism and Communism. Privacy matters a great deal there.

When Mark Zuckerberg wants it to be known that he truly, deeply cares about human relationships, you know you are in deep trouble. Let’s not forget that he founded Facebook because he couldn’t get a date.

These are not companies that care about Europe. What they care about is to carry a big stick – and swing it against anybody who dares to stand in their way.

That is hardly an enticement for any clear-headed European to make common cause with a corporatist democracy à la the United States where corporations, due to the inner workings of the campaign finance system, have the upper hand on all political matters.

Simply put, it is not credible for Europeans to sign a far-reaching transatlantic trade deal until these corporate issues are ironed out.

At this stage, and with the quite sad and disappointing track record the dominant U.S. corporations of our time have built up in Europe, it is a matter of confidence building, not of trusting.

Getting that confidence rebuilt will take a lot of effort – and hence time.

In short, Europeans would be well-advised to take certain actions when true goodwill has been established and when the evidence is in, but not before.

Read more: TTIP: Why the Rush? - The Globali

Corruption in the European Union: Scandals in Banking, Fraud and Secretive TTIP Negotiations - by Graham Vanbergen

In Brussels alone there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, which are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies and DigitalEurope, whose members include all the big IT names like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft are there. So are the Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby working for BMW, Ford, Renault and others, the Chemical Industry Council lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like, are all there.

The European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies are present as are powerful big Pharma companies and FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever are sitting at the negotiating table.

One in every 5 corporate lobby groups, which have lobbied for trade on TTIP (80 out of 372 corporate actors), is not registered in the EU’s Transparency Register. Of 597 closed meetings the EU Commissioners conducted over TTIP, 88% were with big corporations. Just 9% were with public interest groups.

Many, if not most of these corporations are not strangers to scandals of corruption in one sort or another. TTIP if successful, would perhaps be the apex of their achievement.

Transparency International explains the connection between lobbying and corruption thus:

    Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favour of a specific cause or outcome. Even when allowed by law, these acts can become distortive if disproportionate levels of influence exist — by companies, associations, organisations and individuals. (4)

 It should be clear to anyone that when transparency of policy making, basic safeguards and accountability are limited, this can lead to illegal, undue and unfair influence in a country’s policies and politics. TTIP is the embodiment of a corrupt system where corporations decide what are best, not democratic principles.

In the meantime, Cecelia Malmstrom has faced huge public opposition over TTIP. Millions have signed petitions. Mass protests groups have rallied in many cities across Europe and America, some have turned ugly with protestors facing riot police in Brussels and elsewhere. In response the EU Commission conducted the largest ever survey since its 1951 birth and reluctantly published the results in January 2015 where 97% of 150,000 respondents from 28 nations voiced their unequivocal opposition to the deal. At the same time, the Commission also received individual replies from more than 450 organisations who represented a wider spectrum of EU civil society, including trade unions, NGOs, business organisations, consumer groups, charities, legal firms and academics, all of whom expressed either deep concern or outright opposition – to no avail. (5)

Questioned by a reporter from The Independent on why she continued her persistent promotion of the deal against such massive public opposition, Malmström’s chilling response was: “I do not take my mandate from the European people.” EU commissioners are supposed to follow the elected governments of Europe and so this deal proves it is nothing more than a corporate coups d’état that clearly breaches any definition, no matter how low the bar, of corruption. (6)

This stark reality is highlighted by a report from War on Want who revealed that The European Commissioner for Trade receives orders directly from the corporate lobbyists that swarm around Brussels.

    Given that the European Commission takes its steer from industry lobbies it’s hardly surprising that 70 per cent of Europe’s population think corruption is now centered on politics and corporations.

Cancer Linked Herbicides: Private Tests Show Cancer-Linked Herbicide in Breakfast Foods; FDA mum on Its Assessments - by Carey Gillam

If you started your day off with a whole wheat bagel and a bowl of instant strawberries-and-cream-flavored oatmeal today, you might think you made some fairly healthy breakfast choices.

You might want to think again.

According to a report released Tuesday by the Alliance for Natural Health USA, testing procured from an independent laboratory found detectable levels of the herbicide glyphosate in oatmeal and bagels as well as coffee creamer and seven more products, for a total of 10 out of 24 breakfast food items showing levels of glyphosate - a chemical the World Health Organization’s cancer experts have linked to cancer.

Notably, some of the highest levels of the chemical were detected in organic food products, including eggs marketed as “organic, cage-free, antibiotic-free” eggs; and in organic bagels and bread. Indeed, the organic cage-free eggs contained more glyphosate than regulators allow, the group said.

The group also tested flour, corn flakes, instant oatmeal, yogurt, frozen hash browns, and coffee creamers.

The laboratory that conducted the tests was Microbe Inotech Laboratories in St. Louis. Microbe, founded by former Monsanto Co. scientist Bruce Hemming, has been sought out by an array of food companies, consumer groups and others to conduct glyphosate residue testing over the last few years.

Read more: Private Tests Show Cancer-Linked Herbicide in Breakfast Foods; FDA mum on Its Assessments

TTIP-EU-USA- Obama’s Push for a New Transatlantic Relationship ( "with many flaws") - by Judy Dempsey

"TTIP not as good as being advertised"

U.S. President Barack Obama has only nine months left in office. He now seems a man in a hurry. During his visit to Europe on April 21–25, he made a big pitch for the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would radically change the functioning of trade between European and U.S. companies.

Speaking in the German city of Hannover, where he opened one of the world’s biggest trade fairs, he told German Chancellor Angela Merkel and scores of leading company executives how time was slipping by to clinch this trade deal. “If we don’t complete negotiations this year, then upcoming political transitions in the United States and Europe would mean this agreement won’t be finished for quite some time,” he said.


Obama’s pitch is long overdue. TTIP is not only about establishing a trade deal that would set crucial standards for how business is conducted. It is also about underpinning if not reviving the West’s liberal economic order, which is coming under massive pressure from Russia and particularly China.

After annexing Crimea in 2014 and later invading parts of eastern Ukraine, Russia is now meddling in Europe through a sophisticated propaganda campaign that does everything to publicize populist and Euroskeptic movements and anti-U.S. sentiments.

Russia is doing everything possible to rattle NATO weeks before the alliance holds a summit in Warsaw, where it will discuss how to improve the security of its Eastern members in the face of increasing Russian intimidation.

Europe’s divisions over refugees and TTIP also play into the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin. A weakened Europe and a weakened transatlantic relationship are to Russia’s benefit. And to China’s.
Second only to the United States in terms of economic power, China is making a big bid to set new trading standards through its sheer size and political ambitions. Beijing’s huge investments in Africa and Latin America are about seeking allies to assert its authority and influence on the global stage.

That is why TTIP matters. If the deal does not go ahead, the West will have lost a major chance to regain its influence and set trading standards for the coming decades. Above all, Europe and the United States will have lost the opportunity to build a new transatlantic relationship, as the old one, built from the carnage of World War II, increasingly lacks the strategic importance and direction that it once had.

Despite the political and strategic significance of TTIP, European leaders have shied away from speaking out in favor of the deal. Merkel has rarely weighed in on an issue that has so far been successfully hijacked by a highly organized anti-TTIP campaign, not just in Germany but across Europe. Hours before Obama’s arrival in Hannover, tens of thousands of people demonstrated against TTIP.

Critics of TTIP insist that only big corporations will be the winners, that the United States will reap most of the benefits, and that consumers across Europe will be affected by lower standards when it comes to food protection and social issues.

Tell that to Germany’s Mittelstand, the medium-sized companies that are the backbone of the country’s economy. The German mechanical engineering industry, for example, ships more than €16 billion ($18 billion) of goods each year to the United States.

But don’t think a gadget made in Germany can be sold in its original form to a U.S. retailer. “We have to replace our EU plugs with US plugs, even though they essentially look the same, have the same safety characteristics and perform the same function,” said Carl Martin Welcker, vice president of the German Mechanical Engineering Industry and managing partner of Alfred H. Schütte, a machine tool factory.

“We are not just talking about plugs. We use the metric system to standardise our threads, whereas the USA measures in inches – so we have to change the threads in certain safety pipes,” he added. “The EU and the USA even have different requirements when it comes to the content of operating instructions. We end up producing the same machine twice, only differently. We have to buy materials twice, store materials twice. Machines have to be tested twice and approved twice.”

Just imagine the extra costs if a European company wants to enter and compete in the U.S. market. TTIP would do away with these different standards, in turn creating more jobs for European companies—and cutting production costs. These benefits are rarely articulated, just as the long-term strategic implications of TTIP are almost never discussed.

Instead, TTIP has become associated with populist, Euroskeptic, and antiglobalization movements. And there is more than a tinge of anti-Americanism, as Obama surely sensed during his visit to London on April 22–24. Indeed, his public support for Britain to remain in the EU and his pleading for European leaders to support TTIP were really about the United States wanting a stronger Europe and a revitalized transatlantic relationship.

Unless there is a major shift across Europe in the coming months, Obama’s bid to clinch what would be a historic trade deal will elude him. Russia and China will no doubt be relieved.

Note EU-Digest: The above report in favor of the TTIP , put together by a a US Democratic Party supported Think-Tank also contains some major omissions which are not in favor of this TTIP. 

These include:

The disappearance of jobs in some sectors

Increased international competition will lead to fewer jobs in some sectors. Research has shown, for example, that jobs will be lost among producers and exporters of machinery and meat. The Netherlands is looking for ways to compensate for job losses. The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation is consulting the trade unions on this issue.

TTIP must not have a negative impact on our European social model. The government seeks to safeguard labour relations and terms of employment in the Netherlands. The government has asked the Social and Economic Council (SER) for advice on protecting labour standards in TTIP.

Concerns about lower standards

There are concerns that TTIP will lead to lower European standards. Like standards on food safety, the environment, privacy and labour conditions. TTIP’s benefits must not be brought about at the expense of people, animals and the environment. The Netherlands and the EU want to see firm guarantees to this effect in the agreement. See What guarantees does the EU want to see in TTIP?

Concerns about TTIP’s impact on low- and middle-income countries

TTIP could have an adverse impact on some low- and middle-income countries and their products. Yet TTIP’s benefits for these countries seem to outweigh the disadvantages. Higher economic growth in the US and the EU means, for example, more market opportunities for other countries, including poorer ones. The agreement should also make it easier for developing countries to export to the EU and the US.

The economic benefits of TTIP must not be enjoyed at the expense of low- and middle-income countries. The Netherlands believes that the agreement must offer just as many benefits to these countries, too. It has consistently called for a focus on these countries’ interests. The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation has commissioned a thorough study of TTIP’s impact on them. 

Concerns that companies will be able to do as they please

Some civil society organisations are concerned that the investment protection provided by TTIP will give companies too much power. They fear it will limit governments’ democratic scope to make laws and regulations. This is known as the regulatory chill effect. Foreign investors that feel they 
have been disadvantaged can, for example, challenge a government decision. 

The Netherlands and the EU want to see a chapter on investment protection in TTIP that will prevent this from happening. That can be achieved by setting clear rules for conflicts between governments and investors. TTIP presents an opportunity to improve the traditional system of investment protection. The European Commission and the Netherlands are pressing for balanced system of investment protection that precludes abuse.

Read more: Obama’s Push for a New Transatlantic Relationship - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

GMO Propaganda: "Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe" - US Report Says - by Maggie Fox

Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday.

But the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are not just asking people to take their word for it. They're putting the evidence up on a website so skeptics — and they know there are plenty of them — can check for themselves.

"You can't just continue to have an opinion without backing it up with data," said Fred Gould, distinguished professor of entomology and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.

"Part of our approach here was to make this not just a report," added Gould, who chaired the expert committee that released the report. "This is all on a website. We hope that this report will open a conversation, not make some kind of a proclamation."

"They really want somebody to say this is good or this is bad, we came to the conclusion that making any sweeping generalizations about genetically engineered crops is not appropriate," Gould told NBC News.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the huge debate over GMOs, only two types of genetically engineered crops are in wide use - one engineered to carry genes from a common bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt for short) that kills insects that eat it, and one that makes crops resistant to weedkillers.

But more than 90 percent of corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. 

Note EU-Digest: funding  for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine also includes a variety of donors from the Private Sector, including chemical companies involved in GMO development and the sale of GMO treated products.

Read mpre: Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says - NBC News

Kleptocracy Rules: The Panama Papers & Capitalism-Today:Neo-liberalism’s World of Corruption

TTIP: legalizing Kleptocracy

Of course corruption has always existed in capitalism. But neo-liberalism, the ‘free market’ system that started in the 1980s, promoted it on a vast scale for two reasons:

1. Neo-liberal deregulation and privatisation promoted the dominance of financial capital and the expense of industry and the state. Financialisation and low capital gains taxes have turned big companies and utilities into cash cows, virtual banks with huge wealth, looking to maximise the interest on their money and minimise their tax. Finance capital is, after all, basically about swindling. In the middle ages they called it usury.

2. The shift to the right crashed ‘socialist’ command economies and undermined nationalist governments in the third world, replacing both with corrupt and usually highly authoritarian neoliberal regimes. Getting hold of the state apparatus has become a royal road to mega-wealth for dozens of dictators and their cronies through simple theft.

The core of it is the banking system. European and American banks receive (read: launder) billions of dollars every year from international mafias, and in particular from drug dealers. Sometimes by accident some of this comes to light. In 2006 Mexican soldiers intercepted a drug shipment in Ciudad del Carmen and found a cache of documents showing the Sinaloa drugs cartel had made payments of $378 billion to the American bank Wachovia, a subsidiary of the financial giant Welles Fargo.

Roberto Saviano, the author of the best-selling Gamorrah which exposed the workings of the Neapolitan crime organisation Camorra, claims that London is the centre of money laundering for Latin American drug money. Even the British National Crime Agency says:

“We assess that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year.”

Saviano says that Mexico is the ‘heart’ of the drugs trade and London its ‘head’. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Crime and Drugs Agency, says drug dealers invested $352 billion in Western banks in 2008, and this was key in keeping some major banks from collapse.

So corruption – receiving money from crime and drug cartels – is deeply ingrained in the culture of US and European banks. And this is not going to stop, given the vast profits involved.

The klepocratic state is an old story. It’s reckoned that no Mexican president leaves offices with less than $100m. Key Western allies from the 60s and 70s, like Mobutu, president of Zaire (DRC) from 1965-97 and Suharto, president of Indonesia from 1967-98, both established murderous regimes and systematically looted their respective peoples of billions of dollars.

Direct corruption by the state is one thing, influence is something else. In western democracies influence is stacked in favour of the rich and powerful. In the United States and increasingly in Britain it is professional lobbyists who fight their corner. The Atlantic magazine in the US points out:

“Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures—more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.

“Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labour unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.”

The above account doesn’t include the direct payments and other gifts given to members of Congress by big companies, not least the health insurance and healthcare companies who have fought so long and so successfully against a universal US healthcare system.

Britain is going in the same direction. As in the United States, business and politics are often revolving doors with former minister joining the boards of companies they dealt with when in power. Seumas Milne says:
“…lobbying doesn’t begin to cover the extent of corporate influence. More than ever the Tory party is in thrall to the City, with over half its income from bankers and hedge fund and private equity financiers. Peers who have made six-figure donations have been rewarded with government jobs.

“But the real corruption that has eaten into the heart of British public life is the tightening corporate grip on government and public institutions – not just by lobbyists, but by the politicians, civil servants, bankers and corporate advisers who increasingly swap jobs, favors and insider information, and inevitably come to see their interests as mutual and interchangeable. The doors are no longer just revolving but spinning, and the people charged with protecting the public interest are bought and sold with barely a fig leaf of regulation.”

Corruption everywhere has the effect of transferring huge amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich. If poor individuals are not directly robbed, then their economic situation, their public services, their health service, their transport, their education – all these are robbed when taxes are avoided and government revenues robbed.

You can’t analyse corruption today by looking for illegal activity alone. Many of the practices that happen in rich and poor countries are legal or in a grey area where it’s difficult to tell criminal from the lawful.

For example, property dealing in Britain is profoundly corrupt. House prices in London (and thus in the whole country indirectly) are pressured by the huge amount of hot money from corrupt Russian oligarchs and assorted gangsters of various nationalities invested in the expensive end of the market. But nothing here is illegal, as far as the house purchases in Britain are concerned. It’s just that they are bought with corrupt money and force up the living costs of millions of ordinary British people.

Look at the purchase of rare earth minerals from the Congo, essential for computers and mobile phones. Much of this mineral wealth is controlled by war lord armies, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The companies who buy the mineral products they control – the moral equivalent of blood diamonds – have no contact with them at all. Dealers act as a buffer and through their transactions – perfectly legal – wealth based on rape and murder is miraculously washed clean.

Finance capital is by definition corrupt. The investment banks typically do not disclose their fees to investors in advance (they call their charges ‘consideration’) by deduct self-decided amounts as they go along. Free charging professionals like lawyers, and in many countries doctors and dentists, make up their own huge fees. Isn’t this corrupt? But there’s nothing illegal about it.

The tax dodges by major companies like Amazon, Facebook and Starbucks, are perfectly legal. They pay all the tax they are required by law – or by agreement –in countries like Ireland and Luxemburg where they are registered. Whether these practices are illegal in the UK for example is a very grey area. But corruption it certainly is.

All these examples have the same effect: robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy.

 Read more: CADTM - The Panama Papers & Capitalism Today: Neo-liberalism’s World of Corruption

EU-US Trade Negotiations: TTIP Rhetoric and Reality: Europe's Regulations at Risk - by Frank Ackerman

TTIP:downward harmonization 
outweighing optimistic estimates

During the final week of April 2016, New York City was playing host to U.S. and European trade negotiators for the 13th round of talks on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Protocols agreement (TTIP).

That it is still even under discussion reflects not only the vast political influence of multinational corporations, but also a certain automatic orthodoxy among many economists. The latter assert that trade liberalization can create huge worldwide economic benefits.

If those benefits sound important, I hope you enjoyed them – because they have already happened. In the “bad” old days – think 1990 or earlier – there were real barriers to international trade. Tariffs, import quotas and many varieties of protectionist legislation did appear to limit the flow of goods between nations.

But then, NAFTA and CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement equivalent) opened up Western Hemisphere trade. Next, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), and WTO rules lowered worldwide trade barriers.

Also, a longstanding textile quota agreement was allowed to expire as well.

Meanwhile, the European Union continued to expand its single market across more and more of Europe. Bilateral and regional trade agreements, too numerous to mention, continued to pop up on every continent.

Analyses sow there are enormous benefits from multiple areas of European regulation. In chemicals policy, the EU requires manufacturers and importers of chemicals to provide well-defined evidence on the safety of their products.

In the U.S., unfamiliar chemicals are treated as innocent until proven guilty, with almost no requirements for safety testing.

In climate change and renewable energy, Europe is far ahead of the United States. Thanks to feed-in tariffs and other policies that promote renewables, more than 25% of EU electricity now comes from renewable energy.

This has climate benefits, because it avoids CO2 emissions from conventional generation (usually coal-fired, in Europe).

It has health benefits, because it avoids the other pollutants caused by coal combustion.

And there are more than 1.2 million jobs in renewable energy industries throughout the EU.

The benefits of just these two areas of European regulation, chemicals policy and renewable energy, are almost as valuable as the entire economic benefit of TTIP to Europe (as estimated by TTIP advocates).

So suppose that Europe accepted TTIP and gained as much income as the trade optimists predict. If this came at the price of downward harmonization to U.S. standards,

Europe would lose about as much in the benefits of chemical safety and renewable energy as it gained in higher incomes. 

Since many other valuable areas of regulation would also be at risk, the overall losses from downward harmonization would greatly outweigh the optimistic estimates of the gains from slightly expanded trade.

The rhetoric of trade liberalization lives on. Only the reality has changed. As Janis Joplin might have put it, is free trade just another word for nothing left to lose?

We need another word for orderly, democratically governed trade between sovereign nations that are free to protect their citizens from social and environmental harm.

TTIP and similar proposed treaties have nothing in common with the international agreements we need to promote the common good.

Read more: TTIP Rhetoric and Reality: Europe's Regulations at Risk - The Globalist

TTIP: U.S. Trade Policy: Populist Anger or Out-of-Touch Elites? - by Jeff Faux,

Nobody wants it except the
Corporate and Government elites

The presidential primary campaigns of both political parties have exposed widespread voter anger over U.S. global trade policies. In response, hardly a day has recently gone by without the New York Times, the Washington Post and other defenders of the status quo lecturing their readers on why unregulated foreign trade is good for them.

The ultimate conclusion is always the same – that voters should leave complicated issues like this to those intellectually better qualified to deal with them. So much for democracy.

Trade experts, according to Binyamin Appelbaum of the Times have been “surprised” at the popular discontent over this issue. Their surprise only shows how disconnected the elite and the policy class that supports it is from the way most people actually experience the national economy.

The United States has always been a trading nation. But until the 1994 North American Trade Agreement, trade policy was primarily an instrument to support domestic economic welfare and development.

Starting with NAFTA, pushed through not by a Republican president, but by the Bill Clinton in 1994, it became a series of deals in which profit opportunities for American investors were opened up elsewhere in the world in exchange for opening up U.S. labor markets to fierce foreign competition.

As Jorge Castañeda, who later became Mexico’s foreign minister, put it, NAFTA was “an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.”

For 20 years, leaders of both parties have assured Americans that each new NAFTA-style deal would bring more jobs and higher wages for workers, and trade surpluses for their country. It was, they were told, an iron law of economics.

What actually followed were outsourced jobs, wage declines, shrunken opportunities and rising trade deficits. The result has been a dramatic weakening of the bargaining power of American workers.

So it should come as no surprise when the large parts of the U.S. workforce now conclude that these trade deals may have had something to do with the redistribution of income from their pockets to the bank accounts of the top 1% who own and manage large multinational corporations.

Read more: U.S. Trade Policy: Populist Anger or Out-of-Touch Elites? - The Globalist

Trade Agreements: Even Mainstream Economists Starting to Admit that "Free Trade Agreements" Are Anything But ..- by Robert Reich

Trump and Sanders have whipped up a lot of popular support by opposing “free trade” agreements during the US Presidential debates.

But it’s not just politics and populism … mainstream experts are starting to reconsider their blind adherence to the dogma that more globalization and bigger free trade agreement are always good.

UC Berkeley Economics professor Robert Reich – Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor – wrote last month:

    "Suppose that by enacting a particular law we’d increase the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. But almost all that growth would go to the richest 1 percent.

    The rest of us could buy some products cheaper than before. But those gains would be offset by losses of jobs and wages.
   
This is pretty much what “free trade” has brought us over the last two decades.
   
    I used to believe in trade agreements. That was before the wages of most Americans stagnated and a relative few at the top captured just about all the economic gains.  Recent trade agreements have been wins for big corporations and Wall Street, along with their executives and major shareholders

    But those deals haven’t been wins for most Americans. The fact is, trade agreements are no longer really about trade.

Indeed, while it’s falsely called a “trade agreement”, only 5 out of 29 of the Trans Pacific Partnership’s chapters have anything to do with trade.  And conservatives point out that even the 5 chapters on trade do not promote free trade."

Reich continues: "Worldwide tariffs are already low. Big American corporations no longer make many products in the United States for export abroad.

    Google, Apple, Uber, Facebook, Walmart, McDonalds, Microsoft, and Pfizer, for example, are making huge profits all over the world. but those profits don’t depend on American labor – apart from a tiny group of managers, designers, and researchers in the U.S.

     To the extent big American-based corporations any longer make stuff for export, they make most of it abroad and then export it from there, for sale all over the world – including for sale back here in the United States.

    The Apple iPhone is assembled in China from components made in Japan, Singapore, and a half-dozen other locales. The only things coming from the U.S. are designs and instructions from a handful of engineers and managers in California.

     Apple even stows most of its profits outside the U.S. so it doesn’t have to pay American taxes on them.

     This is why big American companies are less interested than they once were in opening other countries to goods exported from the United States and made by American workers.

     They’re more interested in making sure other countries don’t run off with their patented designs and trademarks. Or restrict where they can put and shift their profits.

     In fact, today’s “trade agreements” should really be called “global corporate agreements” because they’re mostly about protecting the assets and profits of these global corporations rather than increasing American jobs and wages. The deals don’t even guard against currency manipulation by other nations.

     According to Economic Policy Institute, the North American Free Trade Act cost U.S. workers almost 700,000 jobs, thereby pushing down American wages.

     Since the passage of the Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, America’s trade deficit with Korea has grown more than 80 percent, equivalent to a loss of more than 70,000 additional U.S. jobs.

     The U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased $23.9 billion last year, to $342.6 billion. Again, the ultimate result has been to keep U.S. wages down.

     The old-style trade agreements of the 1960s and 1970s increased worldwide demand for products made by American workers, and thereby helped push up American wages.

     The new-style global corporate agreements mainly enhance corporate and financial profits, and push down wages.

     Global deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership or the TTIP with Europe will boost the profits of Wall Street and big multi-national corporations, and make the richest 1 percent even richer."

Bottom- line - but they are not beneficial for the citizens of the countries which have signed these treaties. 

Read more: Even Mainstream Economists Starting to Admit that "Free Trade Agreements" Are Anything But ... | Zero Hedge

EU - TTIP : Big business and US to have major say in EU trade deals, leak reveals - by Paul Gallagher

Say No To TTIP

The European Commission will be obliged to consult with US authorities before adopting new legislative proposals following passage of a controversial series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret.

A leaked document obtained by campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the
Independent from the ongoing EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations reveals the unelected Commission will have authority to decide in which areas there should be cooperation with the US – leaving EU member states and the European Parliament further sidelined.

The main objective of TTIP is to harmonise transatlantic rules in a range of areas – including food and consumer product safety, environmental protection, financial services and banking.

The leaked document concerns the “regulatory cooperation” chapter of the talks, which the European Union says will result in “cutting red tape for EU firms without cutting corners”. It shows a labyrinth of procedures that could tie up any EU proposals that go against US interests, according to analysis by CEO.

The campaign group said the document also reveals the extent to which major corporations and industry groups will be able to influence the development of regulatory cooperation by making what is referred to as a “substantial proposal” to the working agenda of the Commission and US agencies.

The plans revealed by the document will give the US regulatory authorities a “questionable role” in Brussels lawmaking and weaken the European Parliament, CEO argues.

Read more: TTIP: Big business and US to have major say in EU trade deals, leak reveals | Business News | News | The Independent

The EU and TTIP: Secret document reveals EU offer to drop 97 percent of tariffs - Justus von Daniels and Marta Orosz

We now know that the TTIP negotiations entered a decisive phase on October 15, 2015. That’s when US and EU representatives laid their cards on the table, exchanging offers to cut taxes on imports from each other. Up until then, the US had only broached hypothetical reductions; now they were openly offering to remove 87.5 percent of tariffs completely.

That was more than the EU expected. European negotiators had to agree a better offer, or risk derailing the deal. A week later, they did came up with a new proposal: reductions in 97 percent of tariff categories.

The EU’s secret offer, which CORRECTIV has seen in its entirety, is made up of 181 pages of densely-printed text and can be found here. It’s got almost 8,000 categories: Every species of fish, every chemical has its own tariff category. Importing a parka? Wool, or polyester?

Trade deals are like poker games. Europe’s big offer comes with a big hope: That the US will open up its public bidding process to European firms. That way, European construction companies could bid on contracts to build US highways, or BMW could sell cop cars to American sheriffs.

For the first time, the tariff offer makes clear what TTIP might do for consumers: remove duties, and prices tend to drop. With tariffs on parts gone, cars could get cheaper. Per part, tariffs add just a few cents on the euro, but altogether European car manufacturers could save a billion Euros each year, according to German Association of the Automotive Industry calculations. Manufacturers could then pass the savings on to consumers.

The EU is now waiting for the US to offer a substantial deal on public procurement. In a September 15 report obtained by CORRECTIV, the European Commission says “it definitely expects that the US will offer to open public procurement at a future point in time, in exchange for the revised tariff offer.”

That report also indicated that the US “promised to make a proposal regarding public procurement for the first time” when the EU and US put forth their symmetrical tariff reductions, eliminating 97 percent of all tariffs.
Public bids are a major TTIP sticking point. The EU wants the US to finally open its markets to allow firms like Balfour Beattie or BMW to compete when cities put out a call for bids on a new building or fleet of cars. The US is less than eager, because that would subject domestic companies – which are already allowed to bid on projects in the EU – to increased competition.

Four days before the next negotiation round starts, the European Commission has now indicated that they don’t expect a comprehensive offer. Sources said that the US haven’t sent their proposal yet and that public procurement will be discussed right after the official negotiation round. The 12th round of negotiations started this Monday in Brussels.

Read more: TTIP: Secret document reveals EU offer to drop 97 percent of tariffs | openDemocracy

EU-TTIP: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy - by Graham Vanbergen

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

TTIP: A secret and bad deal

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.

More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.

The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.

From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
 
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.

A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?

When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times

Germany - TTIP: German judges slap TTIP down as not lawful

The German Magistrates Association (DRB) has delivered a slap in the face to the European Union, by coming out against one of the key planks of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - the special courts allowing investors and corporations to sue national governments if their policies happen to threaten their profits.

"The DRB sees neither a legal basis nor a need for such a court," the association said in a statement issued on Wednesday. The judges added that the assumption that foreign investors currently don't already enjoy "effective judicial protection" has no "factual basis."

Part of the TTIP deal proposed by the European Commission is a new Investment Court System (ICS) meant exclusively to protect investors. According to the DRB statement, the European Commission's definition of an investor's assets is so wide it effectively gives the ICS jurisdiction that "extends from civil law through to general administrative law and social and tax legislation." In other words, it potentially gives corporations the opportunity to sue governments over any piece of legislation it deems a threat.

The judges said the ICS represents a threat to the sovereignty of legal systems already in place in Europe, and they put little faith in the EU's ability to manage it:

"The German Magistrates Association has serious doubts whether the European Union has the competence to institute an investment court," the statement read. "An ICS would not only limit the legislative powers of the Union and the Member States; it would also alter the established court system within the Member States and the European Union."

The judges' statement is being celebrated as a serious setback for the TTIP negotiations by the deal's opponents, not least because the ICS was meant to be a compromise to assuage critics' concerns.

The ICS was proposed by EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström as a permanent and organized alternative to the improvised courts in the current investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and which are currently used in trade deals between individual countries.

"The EU offices must be in turmoil now," said Nick Dearden of UK-based campaign group Global Justice Now. "They were really nervous about ever getting through an agreement that had ISDS in it, because every time they've done consultations on it people have overwhelmingly said they don't like it. So they put this on the table."

Note Almere-Digest : click on this link to see what this so called TTIP treaty is all about and the dangers it entails

Read more: German judges slap TTIP down | Germany | DW.COM | 04.02.2016

GMO Labeling Endorsed by US Physicians but blocked by Chemical Industry Lobby - Ten Reason to avoid them

Is the Industry Lobby Bamboozling you about GMO's?

Even as the federal government pursues H.R. 1599, aka the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” (DARK) act, mainstream medicine is urging the government to abandon its resistance to GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling. 

They are bolstered by a recent announcement by the World Health Organization that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer) is probably carcinogenic in humans. The genetic engineering ends up making crops resistant to the herbicide so more must be applied.

According to contributing doctors from Harvard, Mt. Sinai Medical Center and the University of Wisconsin reporting in the New England Journal of Medicine, “GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides, and two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.”

A recent notice in the same journal, “GMOs, Herbicides and Public Health,” reports: “The application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the soy and [feed] corn grown in the United States are now genetically engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous.”

Sixty-four countries, including Russia and China, have already adopted transparency in labeling laws, but U.S. Big Food and Big Ag lobbyists have stonewalled efforts domestically.\

EU representatives at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) hopefully will not let this issue be swiped off the table by the American delegation.  As it is well known that the political establishment in the US Congress is very much influenced by the US Chemical and food Industry Lobby, which includes corporate giants like Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, Syngenta, Tyson, ADM and Cargill..

To put this in an order of magnitude: ADM and Cargill now control 65% of the world's trade in grain. Monsanto and Syngenta control 20% of the $60-billion market in bio-engineered seeds.

The EU better be aware that this US corporate lobby campaign to "patent nature" and control the world's food supply has been very successful,  Today, 85% of US corn is genetically engineered.

And if you need more convincing: Ten Reasons to avoid  GMO's  - Europe does not need GMO's

EU-Digest 

US Congress - GMO Labeling: The Monsanto Protection Act is back -- worse than before - impact on EU TTIP negotiations

The biggest threat to GMO labeling that we ever saw could soon become law if people don’t react now.

US Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo, Monsanto’s hand-picked representative in Washington, has combined his anti-GMO labeling bill, the “DARK Act,” with the Monsanto Protection Act – and it’s even worse than before.

This newly revised Monsanto Protection Act would not only prevent states from enacting their own GMO labeling laws, but it would go even further by nullifying all existing restrictions on GMO crops already on the books.

This unbelievable power grab by Monsanto and its Republican supporters is quickly making its way through Congressional committees and could be up for a final vote by the end of the month.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a leading advocate for GMO labeling and major opponent of Rep. Pompeo’s legislation, the new Monsanto Protection Act would:

• Block all state laws requiring mandatory GMO labeling, including Vermont’s landmark labeling law;
• Prevent the FDA from establishing a national mandatory GMO labeling program;
• Possibly block non-GMO claims until the USDA creates a non-GMO certification program, which could take up to 10 years;
• Block all state and local efforts to protect rural communities and farmers from the impacts of GMO crops;
• Prevent claims by food companies that non-GMO foods are better than GMO ones.

The consequences of this legislation for the US food system would be drastic and widespread.

US State-level efforts to label GMO foods that have already passed in states like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut would be nullified. All local oversight and restrictions on genetically modified crops would be prohibited. Laws and regulations in states and communities with GMO-free agricultural zones, including in California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, could be completely overturned.

Monsanto has significantly beefed up its lobbying efforts to pass this bill, spending nearly a half million dollars per month in total lobbying and boasting that it has contacted every single member of Congress.

Recent polling shows that even though more than 90% of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling, corporate money  is being used to influence Congressional legislators to vote against preventive health measures and consumer choices provided by food labeling.

The EU negotiating team at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) are hopefully also aware of the going's on in the US Congress in relation to GMO's and food labeling. 

New EU food labeling rules came into force in the EU on December 13, 2014 to ensure that consumers receive clearer and more accurate information about what they buy and eat.

The new EU  rules will now even  force restaurants and cafés to list 14 different allergens in the menus - including nuts, gluten, lactose, soy or milk.Displaying allergens was until then only mandatory for pre-packed foods.

Nano components will also have to be included in the ingredients list. Oils will need to refer to the plants used in their production, such as sunflower, palm or olive.

Fresh meat from pigs, sheep, goats and poultry will need to carry a mandatory origin label, with a font size of at least 1.2 milimetres.   

As one EU parliamentarian noted: "we must keep that unlabeled American Junk-Food out off the European food supplies". 

EU-Digest