The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Logically, EU law, and national law, would have to be amended in accordance with the treaty. If the treaty specifies that genetically-modified foodstuffs, or hormone-fed turkeys, are OK, than no entity within the EU would be allowed to ban it.
So the European parliament would have to change all the relevant laws, and every member nation would have to transpose that into national law.
Sorry, I can't see that happening. Not only will it take years, it simply won't go through.
So what's really going to happen? Is there some sort of fast track? Does the treaty automatically re-write our laws for us? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
No, it's much "better". Every entity of the EU can ban whatever it pleases and pay compensation for these trade barriers. This is much more attractive than being allowed to sell GM food or hormone-meat and having the problem to make people buy it.
I think Dean Baker is wrong, although his thoughts were exactly how I thought before today clicking around the Corporate Europe Observatory website. Because up until now, the method has been to do a deal that is as big as possible and try to ram it through while denouncing any opponents as backwards trade opponents.
However, if Corporate Europe Observatory is right in their interpretation of the leaks the US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope has a new strategy. Instead of ramming through a big pile of stinking proposals, they will try to get a new structure in place that will then be used to water down existing regulations and halt new regulations (which also helps in getting around current regulations.
Regulation - none of our business? | Corporate Europe Observatory
Business interests on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing hard to get an institutional structure, an "oversight body", into the agreement, mostly referred to as an EU-US "Regulatory Council". This would be based on a set of rules for regulatory cooperation that would enable the parties to deal with their differences in a more long-term fashion, through procedures that will give business the upper hand. It might very well be that the final TTIP text will not include immediate concessions on public health and environmental regulation. But it could include an approach for the future, giving the basic message to citizens that regulation is none of their business, but first and foremost the business of business. Regulatory cooperation is a long term project. It is meant to deal with differences that could not be settled at the negotiating table at the highest level and also to respond to new regulations as they occur. In the course of the negotiations, the parties will see to what extent they can agree on common standards, or recognise each others' standards as basically similar. But in those areas where this is not possible in the short term, they will set up procedures to deal with them in the future. The idea is to make TTIP a "living agreement", not confined to what they can agree on in the first place, but a continuous process of ever deeper integration . That raises the prospect of the parties reaching a conclusion on even the most difficult issues, such as food safety. For corporations from the EU and US, it raises hopes for better access to each other's markets including in sectors that meet obstacles today, and for that reason it is being promoted vigorously by the business lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic.That formula has been pushed systematically by the business lobby since 2012; in particular, a proposal on "regulatory cooperation" from BusinessEurope and the US Chamber of Commerce is at the center of the debate (see box below on the two lobby groups).
Business interests on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing hard to get an institutional structure, an "oversight body", into the agreement, mostly referred to as an EU-US "Regulatory Council". This would be based on a set of rules for regulatory cooperation that would enable the parties to deal with their differences in a more long-term fashion, through procedures that will give business the upper hand. It might very well be that the final TTIP text will not include immediate concessions on public health and environmental regulation. But it could include an approach for the future, giving the basic message to citizens that regulation is none of their business, but first and foremost the business of business.
Regulatory cooperation is a long term project. It is meant to deal with differences that could not be settled at the negotiating table at the highest level and also to respond to new regulations as they occur. In the course of the negotiations, the parties will see to what extent they can agree on common standards, or recognise each others' standards as basically similar. But in those areas where this is not possible in the short term, they will set up procedures to deal with them in the future. The idea is to make TTIP a "living agreement", not confined to what they can agree on in the first place, but a continuous process of ever deeper integration . That raises the prospect of the parties reaching a conclusion on even the most difficult issues, such as food safety. For corporations from the EU and US, it raises hopes for better access to each other's markets including in sectors that meet obstacles today, and for that reason it is being promoted vigorously by the business lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic.
That formula has been pushed systematically by the business lobby since 2012; in particular, a proposal on "regulatory cooperation" from BusinessEurope and the US Chamber of Commerce is at the center of the debate (see box below on the two lobby groups).
But given the long, deep, and comprehensive nature of trade, communications, and investment between Europe and North America, I'm not sure why anyone would think an agreement like this should be opposed, a priori. Why shouldn't Americans and Europeans get on the same page regarding regulation of commercial activity between them?
You generally do not want people who believe in absurd fairie tales to conduct major institutional revisions. That's how you get stupid ideas like Art. 123 written into your constitution.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by gmoke - Jun 19
by Oui - Jul 6 1 comment
by gmoke - Jun 24
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jul 9
by Oui - Jul 7
by Oui - Jul 61 comment
by Oui - Jul 6
by Oui - Jul 5
by Oui - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 2
by Oui - Jul 26 comments
by Oui - Jul 16 comments
by Oui - Jun 301 comment
by Oui - Jun 303 comments
by Oui - Jun 295 comments
by Oui - Jun 29
by Oui - Jun 28
by Oui - Jun 281 comment
by Oui - Jun 27
by Oui - Jun 263 comments
by Oui - Jun 26