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?

TTIP - US-EU TTIP trade deal 'frozen' after Trump vote: commissioner

Talks on a vast free-trade deal between the EU and US are likely to be "frozen" for years after the stunning election victory of Donald Trump, the EU said on Friday.

US president-elect Trump campaigned furiously on a promise to scrap international trade deals, throwing the ambitious pact with the European Union into serious doubt.

Brussels and Washington tried to get the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) through by the time Barack Obama left office but fell short.

"TTIP will probably be in the freezer for quite some time and then what will happen when it is defrosted, I think we will need to wait and see," EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said after trade ministers held talks in Brussels.

"We don't know what he thinks about TTIP," Malmstroem said, referring to Trump, although she acknowledged that the brash billionaire was clearly opposed to big trade deals.

TTIP has been under negotiation since 2013 and was supposed to be one of the most ambitious free trade accords ever attempted.

Read more: Flash - US-EU TTIP trade deal 'frozen' after Trump vote: commissioner - France 24

TTIP: Signing EU-US TTIP Free Trade Deal Impossible Without EU-Canada CETA

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free-trade deal can only be signed, if the European Union and Canada seal their Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a source in the EU Parliament told RIA Novosti Monday.

The European Council failed to approve CETA due to Wallonia, a region in Belgium, not giving the country its approval to sign the agreement. The Walloon government voted against the trade deal for fear it would water down EU labor, consumer and environmental protections, and give too much power to multinationals.

Read moreL Signing EU-US TTIP Free Trade Deal Impossible Without EU-Canada CETA

Belgium snag for EU-Canada trade deal Cetas

A landmark EU-Canada free trade deal called Ceta has hit a serious snag after a Belgian region rejected it, threatening the signing this month.

Parliament in French-speaking Wallonia voted to prevent Belgium's government from signing the draft deal.

EU trade ministers are to decide on Ceta next Tuesday. If they all approve it, the deal can be signed with Canada on 27 October.

Ceta is the EU's most ambitious trade deal to date, lifting most barriers.
Walloon leader Paul Magnette said he would "not give the full powers to the federal government" to back the deal.

Read more:Belgium snag for EU-Canada trade deal Ceta - BBC News

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

Global Corporate Takeover: 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined

 69 of top 100 economic entities are corporations not countries

Walmart, Apple, Shell richer than Russia, Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands

British government has been told: stop supporting your corporations, support your people

Corporations have increased their wealth vis-à-vis countries according to new figures released by Global Justice Now.

The campaign group found that 69 of the world’s top economic entities are corporations rather than countries in 2015*. They also discovered that the world’s top 10 corporations – a list that includes Walmart, Shell and Apple – have a combined revenue of more than the 180 ‘poorest’ countries combined in the list which include Ireland, Indonesia, Israel, Colombia, Greece, South Africa, Iraq and Vietnam.  

The figures are worse than last year, when 63 of the top economic entities were corporations. When looking at the top 200 economic entities, the figures are even more extreme, with 153 being corporations.

Global Justice Now released the figures in order to increase pressure on the British government ahead of a UN working group, led by Ecuador, established to draw up a binding treaty to ensure transnational corporations abide by the full range of human rights responsibilities. Campaigners are calling for the treaty to be legally enforceable at a national and global level. Britain doesn’t support the process, and has repeatedly vetoed and opposed such proposal in the past.  

Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said:

“The vast wealth and power of corporations is at the heart of so many of the world’s problems – like inequality and climate change. The drive for short-term profits today seems to trump basic human rights for millions of people on the planet. These figures show the problem is getting worse.

“The UK government has facilitated this rise in corporate power – through tax structures, trade deals and even aid programmes that help big business. Their wholehearted support for the US-EU trade deal TTIP, is just the latest example of government help to big business. Disgracefully it also routinely opposes the call of developing countries to hold corporations to account for their human rights impacts at the UN. That’s why today we’re joining campaigns from across the world to tell the British government to stop blocking this international demand for justice.”

Read more: 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined | Global Justice Now

EU-US controversial trade deal on death bed

Germany's Vice Chancellor Gabriel: US-EU trade talks 'have failed' http://dw.com/p/1JrHl

TTIP EU-US TRade: US seeking bilateral trade deal with UK to press EU on TTIP - by Patrick Wintour

A potentially swift bilateral trade and investment deal with the UK is being suggested by American officials as a way of pressing the European Union to speed up its own stalled transatlantic trade deal, as well as cementing a commitment to the UK-US economic relationship.

The news will be welcomed by the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, who has been charged with striking British trade deals to replace the EU’s deals with the rest of the world.

The UK cannot formally sign any trade deals with other countries or trading blocs until it has left the EU, but it appears to be accepted that negotiations on the outline shape of such deals can start before that happens.

During the EU referendum campaign Barack Obama, the US President, said the UK would have to go to the back of the queue for a trade deal with America if it left the EU, but in the wake of the vote US thinking seems to be changing. Fox is due to visit the US shortly.

Note EU-Digest: Hopefully the EU does not get bamboozled by the this game playing of the "Anglo Saxon team" and capitulate on their principals by approving this basically bad deal for the EU.

Read more: US seeking bilateral trade deal with UK to press EU on TTIP | US news | The Guardian

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

The Global Economy: Globalization's Gluttony - by Anatol Zukerman

Corporate Global Power

Globalization is gobble-isation
By the goblins of global gluttony.
While gullible workers of troubled world
Work in the sweat of their brows
Crass corporations grab the world’s wealth
And don’t even share it with its creators.
 
This pen-and-ink drawing captures the shifting mindset among American workers. For decades, they went along with the promises of their leading politicians that, despite all the harsh changes in the national economy, there would be a brighter tomorrow. But now, these voters are running out of hope.

As the biggest American corporations liberally shed jobs at home and have effectively abandoned America for cheap labor and tax havens abroad, working-class voters feel at the receiving end of the stick.

The fact that these companies at the same time have American government in their claws does not make working-class voters feel better. Social benefits, meager to begin with, have been further reduced. Yet, another, fairer social compact is possible, as corporations in Europe demonstrate.

Not so in the United States, where corporations are not only determined to ignore the will of American people in order to expand their power and increase their profits, but get away with it due to bought-off politicians.

It is a painful irony that the latter claim to protect the “public” interest. It only leads to more bitterness that nearly all major American politicians – including the current crop of candidates for President of the United States – have made critical statements about corporations many times over many years. But it was just words, never followed up with deeds.

This globalization for the rich continues. If it isn’t more inclusive, it will fail.

Read more: Globalization's Gluttony - by Anatol Zukerman

EU-US Trade Conference: The TTIP trade deal is lost at sea "and has no Public support"

TTIP: No Public and only limited political support

The future of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and European Union seems bleak. Beset by doubts and stumbling alongside the UK’s referendum on EU membership, the TTIP is starting to look like an awful lot of effort for unremarkable gains.

US president Barack Obama may have given the negotiation process a shot in the arm in recent weeks, but there is a good possibility that a deal will not be struck during his administration. After that, all bets are off.

So why has such a major piece of international deal-making found it so hard to make headway, and what are the chances of a deal ever being done?

Well, the first reason for the impasse is that no one can agree on what it should cover. It is deeply complex, but there are essentially two choices: should TTIP only apply to the tariffs that countries place on imports, or should it also address other barriers to business, mostly technical regulations on things like car safety, or the procedures for testing new chemicals?

Estimates for the economic benefit to the EU from a tariffs-only deal come out at just 0.3% of GDP for the EU as a whole. If we abolish all non-tariff barriers, then we get a 4% boost.

That makes it seems like an easy decision from an economic point of view, but it’s highly contested.

The reason for the logjam is clear. Going far enough to make it economically valuable drags into play all sorts of political and social issues. Our reading of the draft texts is that it won’t, in fact, lead to significant harmonisation or even mutual recognition of existing rules.

There are procedures to make sure future regulations are as compatible as possible, but there is nothing explicit to say that regulatory decision making powers will be transferred. Indeed, it is hard to see the US Congress accepting anything else.

That might seem like an effective compromise, but of course, any weakening of the approach to non-tariff barriers may in turn dampen the economic advantages.

The less complicated route – a TTIP which only removes tariffs – would bring very limited gains. Both EU and US tariffs are generally very low, except for cars, chemicals and agriculture. Their removal would have only a small effect.

At its heart, the far more valuable non-tariff route drags up fears, founded or unfounded, of a regulatory race to the bottom on things like food safety, and objections from NGOs about the loss of domestic policy power on things like health or government procurement. Crucially, TTIP has also raised the (contested) possibility of major corporations suing states.

There is another obstacle. In short, governments love handing out contracts for public works to domestic companies; it keeps local industries happy, and maybe a few political donors too. No huge surprise then that after 13 rounds of negotiations the TTIP impasse on public procurement remains.

Both the EU and US are parties to the World Trade Organisation’s plurilateral agreement on government procurement but the EU’s big picture was for TTIP to trade access to European state agriculture spending for inroads into highly protected US procurement markets, particularly at the state level. But the US steadfastly refuses to concede to market access demands, due to its traditional and entrenched domestic lobby groups – the steel industry, small and medium-sized firms, and disadvantaged communities.

It’s a missed opportunity. We could have increased transparency with a standardised e-procurement system and tender forms. Much more could be gained through harmonising definitions of integrity and conflict of interest concepts, along with strengthening corruption control measures. It’s a win-win for improving the governance of public procurement markets – but negotiations have been dominated by intractable trade issues and the fears of ISDS.

In such a confrontational atmosphere, it is doubtful that a meaningful TTIP can be concluded. Sceptics’ doubts may be exaggerated, but they still reflect genuine public alarm.

The general confusion is highlighted by supporters of a UK exit from the EU, who argue both that the UK could sign a TTIP deal very quickly after Brexit, and that that leaving the EU is the only way to stop it. In any case, unless a deal is rushed through before the end of 2016, prospects for a deal are bleak.

Of the likely presidential candidates, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are likely to make TTIP a top priority in a future US administration.

Meanwhile, public opinion – and crucially the German government – move closer to outright opposition.

Read more: The TTIP trade deal is lost at sea

EU-USA-TTIP: 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

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 - Why German scorn could kill Europe's trade deal - by Therese Raphae

In Hannover on Sunday, Barack Obama sought to convince a hostile German public of the merits of a transatlantic free-trade deal. Pitching European Union membership in Britain was a walk in the park by comparison.

It's hard to overstate the level of opposition to the new deal in Germany. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, is more unpopular in Germany these days than President Obama in a room full of Tory euroskeptics. Ask an American what they think about investor-state dispute settlement provisions and you are likely to get a blank face. Ask a German, and there's a good chance you'll get an earful.

That wasn't always the case. Two years ago, when negotiations for a new transatlantic trade deal were announced (it was Germany that pushed for an agreement then, by the way), more than half of Germans favored the deal. A survey released last week showed only one in five Germans want it now. To Germans, TTIP reflects a capitalism that is too finance-driven, dominated by large multinationals, cavalier about privacy and not as serious about product standards.

A new round of negotiations -- the 13th, for anyone keeping track -- started in New York Monday for a pact that would liberalize trade affecting 40 percent of the global economy. The key to a deal, as Obama's Hannover visit suggested, rests with Germany. That a global exporting powerhouse and Europe's biggest economy has become such reluctant partner ought to be at least as worrying as the prospect of losing Britain's voice in the EU.

It's unusual even in these highly charged times for a trade agreement to receive the kind of attention that TTIP has in parts of Europe. But TTIP isn't a typical free-trade agreement. For one thing, it's much bigger than anything attempted before. It would create the world's largest free market of some 800 million people. According to U.S. chamber of commerce estimates, it would add 119 billion euros (nearly $134 billion) to Europe's economy and 95 billion euros to the U.S. economy, creating thousands of jobs in the process.

But the real difference is qualitative. While tariffs are already low between the two economies (they would be reduced further under TTIP), the main thrust of the agreement is the removal of non-tariff barriers in agriculture, services, procurement and other areas. It is this large-scale regulatory liberalization that many Europeans, and principally Germans, find dangerous.

Americans, too, are losing their appetite for free trade agreements, but their reasons are rather more prosaic. Among Americans opposed to the deal, half say they are worried about job losses and lower wages. Only 17 percent of Germans had those concerns. Germans, instead, are focused on what they see as inferior American standards (something that will strike many Americans as ironic after the Volkswagen emission scandal), concerns about privacy and also lack of transparency in the negotiations.

These sentiments took American negotiators by surprise. America is the destination of over 8 percent of German exports; some 600,000 German jobs directly or indirectly depend on that trade, according to a 2013 study by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research. German trust for America's business standards has been low for a while -- there was near hysteria over chlorine-washed U.S. chickens, even though a German body declared them perfectly safe -- but many figured France would present bigger obstacles to clinching an agreement.

They hadn't reckoned on the Snowden effect. TTIP was announced only weeks after revelations in 2013 by U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden of government surveillance programs that enraged privacy-oriented Germans. With German opinion becoming more skeptical, politicians who supported a transatlantic deal grew quiet. Meanwhile anti-TTIP organizations and unions (with support in the European Parliament) whipped up resistance, which has included mass petitions and protests.

All of that fed a growing sense after the financial crisis that something was awry in American capitalism. "Germany is a country that is very proud it's not as finance-driven as the Anglo-Saxon economic model," says Peter Sparding, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund, noting that German politicians have referred to hedge funds as 'locusts.' "It's not just about TTIP; it's about the image of America as standing for a kind of capitalism that is finance-driven and has lower standards in general."

In the post-Snowden, post financial-crisis world, there is little tolerance for the kind of secrecy that is typical of trade negotiations. Responding to criticism from Germany and other countries about lack of transparency in January 2015, the EU's ombudsman rejected a complaint that the European Commission had overstepped itself. But she made 10 suggestions for greater openness and noted there were "significant delays" by the Commission in granting public access to some TTIP documents.

Disclosing negotiating documents would undermine the Commission's position and its relations with the U.S., said the ombudsman. She also referred to a European Court of Justice ruling that while transparency isn't irrelevant in international negotiations, institutions decide whether disclosure of documents would work against the public interest.

The Commission argues it has gone beyond the usual practice and published negotiation position papers, conducted stakeholder meetings and launched a public consultation process over investor-state dispute settlement. That's a losing argument; the transparency debate is a proxy for the underlying mistrust in both EU processes and American standards on everything from hormone-treated beef to labor-market regulations. The EU will have to do more to overcome those objections or risk further losing public trust. The German Marshall Fund's Sparding suggests the unconventional approach of releasing intermediate negotiating results.
As he said in Hannover, Obama would dearly like to see agreement on the trade deal before he checks out of the White House. Obama and other proponents see TTIP as more than a stand-alone trade deal; it's a way to reinvigorate the transatlantic partnership and set new global standards for trade.

But time is running out, as is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's political capital with an electorate already deeply tested over immigration and other issues. America's presidential contenders don't see much percentage in touting free trade either; quite the opposite. The new U.S. president, even if he or she has a change of heart, will be busy filling positions in their administration. With major elections in France and Germany in 2017, the political timetable is working against an agreement.

Perhaps if the idea for TTIP had never been broached, nobody would miss it. But having gone this far, failure would be costly, and not just in terms of lost economic opportunities. It would stand as a sorry symbol of allies and close trading partners who couldn't overcome their difference over chlorine-washed chicken.
- - -
Therese Raphael is a Bloomberg View editor in London, writing about European politics and economics. She was previously editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe
.

Read more: Why German scorn could kill Europe's trade deal - Chicago Tribune

TTIP Rhetoric and Reality: Europe's Regulations at Risk - by Frank Ackerman

TTIP: Overall losses outweigh gains.

During the final week of April 2016, New York City is 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 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.

Trade liberalization can, according to many economists, 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.

The real agenda of the TTIP negotiations is not to eliminate the last few trade barriers, but to create pressure for downward harmonization of social and environmental regulations, adopting the weaker of American or European standards.

Special-purpose tribunals, outside the judicial systems of any of the participating countries, could allow corporations to sue foreign governments for damages allegedly caused by strict national regulation.

Innocuous-sounding mechanisms for “regulatory coordination” would ensure that corporate perspectives and preferences are reflected throughout the process of drafting and adopting regulations.

American standards are usually, though not always, weaker than European ones. Thus downward harmonization frequently means imposing lax U.S. rules on European countries that have had, or would prefer to have, stricter regulations.

The debate usually overlooks the very real, if hard to quantify, benefits of regulation that Europe would lose in this process.

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.

Overall losses outweigh gains.

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.

Insure-Digest

EU to Keep Part of TTIP Trade Deal Papers with US Under Wraps says Commissioner Malmstroem

Transparency in question

The European Commission does not plan unveiling all documents on the EU-US "free trade deal", Europe's top trade official said in an op-ed published inFrench newspaper Le Monde on Friday April 15.

The publication in Le Monde comes less than two weeks before the 13th round of EU-US talks on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) kicks off in New York on April 25.

"Certain documents must stay confidential, either those related to tactical comments directly referencing Europe’s negotiating stance or those citing US documents, which are not for us to publish," EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said in the article.

The TTIP deal, which aims to deregulate trade US-EU trade, has been criticized for lack of transparency, prompting the Commission to publish some of the TTIP documents.

Malmstroem stressed that TTIP documents in question would be made available to national parliaments of EU member states, offering a degree of openness that had not been there before. Parliaments will also be the last to decide on the trade pact once the Commission is done negotiating it, she added.

European lawmakers have laid down a set of principles they want to be observed during the ongoing talks, including greater transparency, inviolability of social and environmental standards, and respect of EU’s red lines, she continued.

Last year, the secretive deal sparked widespread concern that it would lower environmental, health, safety, and workers’ rights standards in Europe, as well as enable the extra-judicial settlement of disputes in circumvention of national sovereignty.

Read more: EU to Keep Part of TTIP Trade Deal Papers Under Wraps – Trade Commissioner

International Trade: Boston Mayor De Blasio Rips Trans Pacific Partnership, Calls NAFTA a ‘Disaster’

Free Trade : Not Always Benefiting Everyone

Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York today joined a slew of city politicians to decry President Barack Obama’s proposed Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal—comparing it to North American Free Trade Agreement, which he deemed a “disaster.”

“There’s such passion on this issue because we’ve already been to this movie,” Mr. de Blasio said at an anti-TPP rally in front of City Hall this morning. “We saw it with NAFTA. We saw what a disaster NAFTA was, and we’re not going to repeat that mistake in our time.”

Mr. de Blasio’s opposition to the TPP is not surprising: almost all of the city’s Congressional delegation is opposed to the deal, which is hated by unions. The pact would ease trade barriers and a host of regulations between the United States, Australia and several Asian and Latin American nations.

But the mayor’s comments come at a time when free trade has become a major issue in the presidential race, and not one that has been particularly good for Mr. de Blasio’s chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. As President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, Ms. Clinton was instrumental in creating the free trade accord, though she has since disavowed it.

Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has emphasized his long-time opposition to free trade deals like the TPP, and to NAFTA—which was passed by President Bill Clinton. And while Mr. de Blasio and Republican front-runner Donald Trump have little in common, they’ve now shared language on NAFTA: Mr. Trump, too, has called that free trade deal a “disaster.”

Mr. de Blasio framed his opposition to the president’s trade deal in familiar terms—as part of his crusade against income inequality.

“It’s a fight we have to win because this goes to the heart of the matter—if we’re going to fight income inequality in this country, we have to fight TPP because it will take us backwards, it will take us in the wrong direction,” Mr. de Blasio said. “And there is such a powerful coalition that has come forward to make sure that our trade deals actually don’t hurt our own people. That’s what this comes down to.”

He said the country could not “sacrifice the American middle class to the all mighty dollar.”

“And NAFTA was that. NAFTA took away almost a million jobs in this country—tens of thousands of them here in New York State. We saw places all over this country—towns and cities devastated. We saw people who had solid middle class lives have the rug pulled out from under them,” Mr. de Blasio said. “People who had done everything right, who had played by the rules, who had worked hard, suddenly were left with nothing—that’s what NAFTA did, and we have every reason to believe that TPP will do the same. And that’s why we have to stand up and fight against it.”

The president, with the help of the GOP House majority, obtained “fast track authority” last summer— meaning he has the power to negotiate the act himself, and Congress will get only an up and down vote on the deal.

Read more: De Blasio Rips Trans Pacific Partnership, Calls NAFTA a ‘Disaster’ | | Observer

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

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

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