The 'Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership' is the Atlantic version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: attempts to cement global corporatization via trade treaties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlan ... artnershipEconomic growth and the supersession of national regulatory powers
In a Guardian article of 15 July 2013, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in the US observed that with conventional trade barriers between the US and the EU already low, the deal would focus on non-conventional barriers such as overriding national regulations regarding fracking, GMOs and finance and tightening laws on copyright. He goes on to assert that with less ambitious projections the economic benefits per household are mediocre "If we apply the projected income gain of 0.21% to the projected median personal income in 2027, it comes to a bit more than $50 a year. That's a little less than 15 cents a day. Don't spend it all in one place."[55]
National sovereignty and Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS)
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an instrument that allows an investor to bring a case directly against the country hosting its investment, without the intervention of the government of the investor’s country of origin.[56] In December 2013, a coalition of over 200 environmentalists, labor unions and consumer advocacy organizations on both sides of the Atlantic sent a letter to the USTR and European Commission demanding the investor-state dispute settlement be dropped from the trade talks, claiming that "Investor-state dispute settlement is a one-way street by which corporations can challenge government policies, but neither governments nor individuals are granted any comparable rights to hold corporations accountable."[57][58] Some point out the "potential for abuse" that may be inherent in the trade agreement due to its clauses relating to investor protection.[59][60]
National Objections
From both the European and American sides of the agreement, there are issues which are seen as essential if an accord is to be reached. According to Leif Johan Eliasson of Saarland University, "For the EU these include greater access to the American public procurement market, retained bans on imports of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) crops and hormone treated beef, and recognition of geographic trademarks on food products. For the US they include greater access for American dairy and other agricultural products (including scientific studies as the only accepted criteria for SPS policies), tariff-free motor vehicle exports, and retained bans on foreign contractors in several areas, such as domestic shipping." [61] Already, some US producers are concerned by EU proposals to restrict their use of 'particular designations' that the EU considers location-specific, such as Feta and Parmesan cheeses and possibly Budweiser beer.[62][63]
At French insistence, trade in audio-visual services was excluded from the EU negotiating mandate.[64] The European side has been pressing for the agreement to include a chapter on the regulation of financial services; but this is being resisted by the American side, which has recently passed the Dodd-Frank Act in this field.[65] U.S. Ambassador Anthony L. Gardner has denied any linkage between the two issues.[66]
European negotiators are also pressing the United States to loosen its restrictions on the export of crude oil and natural gas, to help the EU reduce its dependence on energy from Russia. The United States has so far reserved its position.[67]
One-world currency? Entrenched corporate control of world trade? All sorts of anti-nationalistic effects are being attributed to these proposed agreements. I read an analysis of the TPP that says a corporate entity could sue media or individuals for being openly critical of said corporation's conduct, environmental practices, labor conditions, etc.; first amendment rights are superceded (treaties are extra-constitutional). I'll see if I can find that article.
