All comments

    zoobab:
    26-Nov-2016

    I think you failed to mention how profits are moved offshore thanks to royalties. Apple creates a shell company in Ireland with a patent, and the mother company in the US then buys licenses in a loop, until the taxabe amount in the US is null. So Apple pays no tax in the US.

    DIDIER Pierre:
    21-Nov-2016

    Perhaps that organization never heard - or at l-east never read- the CETA’s umbrella agreement, i.e. the Strategic Partnership Agreement (data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5368-2016-REV-2/en/pdf) that was signed together with the CETA in November 2016.
    That agreement repeatedly refers to the joint willingness and cooperation of EU and Canada for enforcement of human rights both in their constituencies, in their relations and in the world. A full chapter ("title") is devoted to HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS,
    DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW . Its art. 28.7 states that " (...) the Parties recognise that a particularly serious and substantial violation of human rights or non-proliferation, (...), could also serve as grounds for the termination of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)".

    Sure, if a TTIP ever occurs (Trump and populist right/left allowing ?) a same strategic partnership agreement will be concluded with the USA: this is an absolute request of the European parliament.

    Eduardo Schroder:
    10-Nov-2016

    correciones:
    perjudicas debe decir PERJUDICADOS

    buscana debe decir buscan

    Eduardo Schroder:
    10-Nov-2016

    En una forma muy simplificada, se puede decir que el Frente Amplio de Uruguay, el gobierno de Chile, etc, son solo una forma " lavada" del neoliberalismo, en realidad estan defendiendo el capitalismo internacional y los grandes monopolios, solo con un lavado de cara. El resultado en un retroceso (o la no implementacion) de las nuevas formas democraticas (democracia participativa via INTERNET y voto de leyes por computadora) y la constante explotacion de las grandes empresas, desde las fases capitalista (colonial), a la fase imperialista y ahora a la noeocapitalista.

    Los perjudicas siempre son los indigenas, los campesinos, los empleados y las pequenias empresas, el ambiente y los grupos que no buscana ganancias. Los Estados (y los politicos tradicionales) son cada vez menos soberanos y esclavos de las grandes empresas, los grandes medios, el militarismo y las formas no democraticas o populares.

    Nicolas Roux:
    4-Nov-2016

    Dear Larry, CETA still contains language that favors corporations’ interests at the expense of the public interest so short answer is yes. You can also read the short report on investor protection in CETA: isds.bilaterals.org/?investment-court-system-put-to-the
    See this interviews of a Canadian Law Professor as well: isds.bilaterals.org/?a-threat-to-democracy-courts-and

    Larry Powell:
    4-Nov-2016

    Dear Bilaterals,

    Under CETA, will corporations still be able to sue Canada if we pass laws protecting our health or environment?

    Marc Maes:
    14-Oct-2016

    This part of the above article : "European Union (EU) delegation to Nigeria on Wednesday disclosed that the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) will fully kick-start in 13 West African countries that have signed the pact, on the 1st October 2016, despite the resentment of Nigeria." is sheer nonsense. I hope that the journalist did not hear this correctly and that the EU Delegate did not really say this.
    In any case the West African EPA did not kick in on 1 October 2016 and nor the EU nor the 13 countries that have signed the EPA can do this without the signature of ALL 16 West African countries AND ECOWAS and UEMOA. What really happened was that the European Commission threatened to withdraw preferential market access from Ghana and Ivory Coast if the EPA would not be signed and ratifed by all West African countries by 1 October 2016. As a result of this threat Ghana and Ivory Coast ratified their outdated 2007 bilateral interim EPA which can undermine West African regional integration. The EU will be fully to blame for this as there was no need to put such pressure. Singing and ratification of international agreements takes time and careful reflection.

    bobo:
    14-Oct-2016
    dave..z:
    13-Oct-2016

    we in Canada who have educated ourselve’s about these destructive corporate, ignorate selfish pig treaties .. don’t want them either, .. keep up the fight against them my European friends,... we need all the help we can can get to defeat the the corporate Khazarian mafia lead cabal..

    Nicolas Roux:
    11-Oct-2016

    It seems the author mixed up Richard Young the actual EU Deputy Head of Delegation and Filippo Amato the Head of Trade

    Alessia:
    11-Oct-2016

    I will pick just one among the many flaws of this article: "Fillipo Young" is not the Deputy Head of the EU Delegation to Nigeria - nor an existing human being for that matter.

    Jacques Berthelot:
    20-Sep-2016

    L’idée largement répandue notamment par l’UE que passer à des accords de libre-échange en abandonnant les accords préférentiels non réciproques de Lomé serait une exigence des règles de l’OMC est fausse. Ce que l’UE aurait dû faire était de régler son conflit avec les pays d’Amérique latine exportateurs de bananes en abaissant les droits de douane sur celles-ci comme elle l’a fait finalement en décembre 2009 à l’OMC. Elle aurait pu alors demander une dérogation à l’OMC et l’obtenir comme les Etats-Unis (EU) l’ont obtenue pour l’AGOA (accord d’importations préférentiels avec les pays d’Afrique sub-saharienne), une dérogation renouvelée pour 10 ans en 2015 avec un consensus unanime de l’OMC, dont de l’UE. Qui plus est les EU se sont appuyés sur une interprétation large d’une note de bas de page de la Clause d’habilitation censée régir uniquement les accords régionaux entre pays en développement mais qu’ils ont appliquée aux accords entre pays développés (les EU) et l’afrique sub-saharienne, sans que personne ne s’en plaigne auprès de l’OMC.
    A votre service pour plus d’explications.
    Jacques Berthelot

    OULEPO ARNAUD:
    19-Sep-2016

    Mr Jacques Berthelot, je pense qu’il serait important de donner les raisons de la décision de passer de ces accords sans réciprocité le cas ACP-UE pour passer à des accords plus conformes aux règles de l’OMC dont notamment l’ACP ratifié par les Etats d’Afrique de l’ouest dont la Côte-d’Ivoire.

    Dr. Hugh Govan:
    2-Sep-2016

    Thanks for good reporting. One issue that seems to be glossed over is the lack of any independent impact assessments that would actually be able to clearly spell out the costs and benefits of the deal, enable countries to strengthen the text and allow the people to interpret the elements that will affect their lives. The push to conclude, sign and implement before such assessments have been done in each country is significant. Who is pushing and why? The baseline assessment in 2007 raised many issues that have not been addressed since, for instance, to Cite Nathan Associates 2007: "It is essential that strategies for environmental management and resource protection are mutually beneficial for all FICs, yet nationally owned. These strategies should be put in place before Pacific markets expand and should aim to strike a balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth." No assessment has been carried out either regionally or nationally on this topic - given the certainty of environmental impacts and therefore the need for increased environmental regulation any pretence at an "aid package" would have to include ongoing and increased funding to regulatory agencies. Likewise, as in many countries, the bulk of environmental control falls to indigenous communities who communally own the land. While these are sovereign rights we need to see safeguards in place or spelt out for each country and "consultation on mechanisms to identify and share best practices is appropriate because of the complexity of the issue." Being hasty and failing to carry out due diligence will fail the people of the Pacific and not serve the commonly agreed purpose of the deal. Lets hope all the independent countries follow the lead of Vanuatu, Fiji, and PNG and think it through carefully.

    Nick Dearden:
    1-Sep-2016

    "The text is very clear that grounds for appeal are very limited (discrimination, expropriation without compensation AND that the public authority may not be sued for measures of the general good"

    That is not ‘very limited’. Tribunals have been historically willing to define expropriation very broadly including ‘indirect expropriation’ which is basically policy changes that impact upon corporate profit. I can imagine that ‘general good’ will also be subject to a lot of interpretation. Much more at: http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2016/02/zombie-isds

    "CETA does not compel EU to import any genetically GMO except those very few it already has admitted to market in the EU. Any change would need approval by member States and European Parliament - which is not a gift."

    At the outset, yes, this is true. But the regulatory cooperation chapter will entrench corporate lobbying opportunities in process related to food regulatory standards (including on GM). It will also serve to lock in any future loosening of the rules by either side on GMOs. As you yourself admit, it would make it harder to regulate GMOs already in the EU market.

    "Any imports from Canada will have to meet same conditions of animal welfare as those imposed on EU producers. This can only lead to improvement in Canada"

    Do you have any evidence on this? Like the above, what’s to stop a race to the bottom on animal welfare regulation. Look at the impact of Nafta - standards did not go up.

    "Fuel imported needs to abide by exactly same rules as applicable to fuel suppliers of the EU"

    The Fuel Quality Directive was watered down as a result of the CETA and TTIP negotiations so that those standards *for both parties* is now much lower than it would otherwise have been. It’s a great example of why we’re worried about GMO and animal welfare points above. The Canadian side clearly viewed CETA’s procurement chapter as part of a quid pro quo in exchange for a watering down of the FQD to facilitate the import of tar sands oil.

    "(a) All public services escape from commitments; authorities may anytime decide to "publicize" a service; (b) As in the EU, public awarding authorities may reserve contracts on social or environmental grounds."

    (a) The definition of ‘public services’ has been contested in the past (if private operators are involved there are strong grounds to say that it ceases to be a public service). What’s more, something that’s been privatised - such as railways in the UK - would definitely be counted as ’private’, allowing, as a minimum, corporations to sue in ISDS for attempts to renationalise.

    (b) I expect this will be thoroughly tested in dispute settlement (e.g. one of the arbitrators in a recent NAFTA case said that the very concept of environmental assessments had now been challenged by ISDS).

    "This leads farmers to over-produce, thus depresses prices, thus reinforces disappearance of producers; if this system (contrary to WTO rules) was to disappear as a follow-up of the CETA (????) Canada would have to replace subsidy to production by subsidy to producers, as in the EU, farmers becoming "gardeners of the nature" instead of industrial producers."

    There are problems with all systems, but in the EU, farmer subsidies are being paid to produce nothing, and those who’ve benefited are the biggest landowners, not small farmers. What will not help at all is the enforcement of these ’trade disciplines’ on small farmers, which prioritise a efficiency no matter what the social and environmental cost.

    admin:
    20-Aug-2016

    Yes, we have also attached it to the article now.

    DIDIER Pierre:
    18-Aug-2016

    - foreign corporations to sue governments for pretty much anything they don’t like: false: the text is very clear that grounds for appeal are very limited (discrimination, expropriation without compensation AND that the public authority may not be sued for measures of the general good
    - imports of genetically modified salmon (or others): false: CETA does not compel EU to import any genetically GMO except those very few it already has admitted to market in the EU. Any change would need approval by member States and European Parliament - which is not a gift.
    - animal welfare conditions: false: any imports from Canada will have to meet same conditions of animal welfare as those imposed on EU producers. This can only lead to improvement in Canada
    - Europe to drop its objections to the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet: false: fuel imported needs to abide by exactly same rules as applicable to fuel suppliers of the EU
    - Public procurement: false on at least two accounts: (a) all public services escape from commitments; authorities may anytime decide to "publicize" a service; (b) as in the EU, public awarding authorities may reserve contracts on social or environmental grounds.
    - government purchases of farm produce to give farmers price stability: this leads farmers to over-produce, thus depresses prices, thus reinforces disappearance of producers; if this system (contrary to WTO rules) was to disappear as a follow-up of the CETA (????) Canada would have to replace subsidy to production by subsidy to producers, as in the EU, farmers becoming "gardeners of the nature" instead of industrial producers.

    Why do you fan obviously populist counter-truth? Are you a new Donald Trump or Boris Jognson using all their lies?

    Evert-Jan:
    18-Aug-2016

    Can you share the hyperlink to the report? Is it publicly available?

    roger ross:
    8-Aug-2016

    Thank you. What a brilliant and meaningful flash mob .. We all need to touch the hearts of the machine that is promoting Ttip .. Please keep me posted for events in London and brighton. I’m excited to be part of transformation thru singing. With my best wishes. Roger

    José Oliveira:
    28-Jul-2016

    No compromise whatsoever! Down with all the corporate treaties!!!
    There can never be any reasonably justification for big companies to be granted much more previliges than all other social actors.

    0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 140 | 160 | ... | 1460