"Final Death Blow" to Canada-EU Trade Deal as Delegates Hold Firm Against It

One of the many protests against the TTIP and CETA trade deals, this on in Berlin

by Gaius Publius

In our coverage recently of the European mass protests against the so-called "free trade" agreement TTIP, and its demise, you may have noticed another trade deal mentioned alongside it, something called CETA, the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement. CETA is a "trade" deal being negotiated between Canada and the European Union. As you can see from the image above, those mass protests in Europe targeted both deals, not just the one (TTIP) involving the U.S. Even though it doesn't involve us, doesn't mean the Europeans are any more in favor of it. They're not.

As you know if you clicked the first link above, TTIP is basically dead. TTIP is one of the three cornerstone corporate-friendly deals the U.S. corporate elite is using their well-funded office-holders to enact, the other two being TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal) and TiSA, the Trade in Services Agreement, which is actually the real killer. (TiSA, for example, would force the fast-tracking of imported non-union, very-low-wage foreign labor. Picture, if you will, the rapid demise of construction unions under TiSA.)

The death of CETA, if it holds, strikes another blow at the heart of the pro-corporate globalist project. This means that of three "trade" deals the Europeans are involved in, two have been killed. This leaves only TiSA, and while that one is much less further along, it's looking more and more possible that the Europeans will do us a favor and kill it too — leaving only TPP standing. Regarding TPP, we may be on our own.

From Lauren McCauley at Common Dreams on CETA:

'Final Death Blow' to CETA as Delegates Hold Firm Against Pro-Corporate Deal

"It's time for a fundamental shift toward international agreements that put people and the planet before corporate profits. That's the message from Europe today."

Dealing what campaigners say is the final "death blow" to the pro-corporate Canada-European Union trade deal, negotiations collapsed on Friday after representatives from the Belgian region of Wallonia refused to agree to a deal that continues ignore democracy in favor of multi-national corporations.

Canada's International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland reportedly walked out of talks with the Wallonia delegation, which had ruled to maintain their veto against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) after the parties reached a stalemate over the controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system.

"We made new significant progress, especially on the agriculture issues, but difficulties remain, specifically on the symbolic issue of arbitration, which is politically extremely important," Wallonia president Paul Magnette told the regional parliament. ISDS permits companies to sue governments over perceived loss of profits due to regulations or other laws.

Magnette had told reporters Thursday that the delegation had particular concerns over "matters affecting U.S. companies in Canada which will benefit from the system."

Seems even with a Canadian "trade" deal, the problem the Europeans have is what it allows U.S. companies to do. Still, the obviously pro-corporate Canadian negotiators tried to push it through. And when they failed, they blamed the Europeans for not being "capable" of "having an international treaty."

Friday's talks were held as a last-ditch effort to save the trade deal. After they fell apart, an emotional Freeland told reporters, "I've worked very, very hard, but I think it's impossible," referring to the impasse. "It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada."

There's more in the article about the deep and widespread objection across Western Europe to each of these deals. All good news.

Next to Fall: TPP and NAFTA?

Assuming the deals involving the Europeans fail, there's only two more to go — NAFTA and TPP — and both have Withdrawal clauses. Clinton in 2008 promised to renegotiate NAFTA using the threat of withdrawal.

If she was sincere, the same would apply to TPP, which she has recently announced she opposes. I'll be interested to see how all this plays out. At the moment, though, the citizens appear to be winning.

GP
  

TTIP "Trade" Agreement Talks Indefinitely Suspended

Despite the fervent best wishes of the U.S. corporate class, President Barack Obama, and other aligned politicians, it looks like the people of Europe have killed TTIP. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber; source)

by Gaius Publius

Count this as a victory. It looks like the Atlantic version of TPP, called TTIP, has failed.

Background: The U.S. corporate world has been aching to pass three "trade" mega-deals — TPP, TTIP and TiSA.

• The first, TPP, ropes in nations bordering the Pacific, including the U.S. Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile and much of Asia (but deliberately not China). 

• The second, TTIP is the same kind of treaty on the Altantic side and includes the U.S., the U.K, and the European Union. 

• TiSA, a more or less global "trade in services" agreement, is the worst of the three and deserves its own, separate treatment. TiSA would radically open local markets to foreign companies that offer "services" — everything from law firms to companies that supply imported contract labor.
  
  (Think about that — companies that supply imported contract labor. Under TiSA, I think unions are instantly dead. You don't have to export jobs to slave labor, very-low-wage, countries if you can import the slave labor here under treaty-mandated expedited visas.)

The citizens of the U.S., both on the left and the right of the political spectrum, have been opposed to these kinds of agreements for years, ever since the devastation caused by Bill Clinton's NAFTA became apparent. Both the Trump campaign and the Sanders campaign were strongly opposed (or in Trump's case, said they were strongly opposed), which accounts for much of their ascendancy.

Opposition to corporate-written "trade" agreements is a huge part of what makes this election a "change election."

A good, brief Wikileaks-produced video explaining these three "trade" mega-deals

Now, thanks mainly to the frustration of the negotiators in Europe — and strong opposition from European citizens — TTIP talks have not just broken down; they've been indefinitely suspended.

This is not complete victory; they could be revived. But momentum has definitely stalled, and this could well be the death knell for this one. Michelle Chen writing at the The Nation:

Another Free-Trade Deal Bites the Dust

Negotiations surrounding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have been indefinitely suspended.

What if a trade deal died and nobody noticed? The presidential campaign trail has been awash in angry backlash against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the latest in a slew of controversial free-trade deals that symbolize to American voters the evils of corporate globalization. But another trade deal collapsed silently on the other side of the globe. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was supposed to be the Atlantic world’s analog to the TPP, but after three years of frustrated negotiations, it was just pronounced dead by key ministers, or at least temporarily moribund, overwhelmed by a phalanx of populist opposition across the continent. How’d that happen?

Chen goes on to explain:

Though smaller in scope than the TPP, TTIP paralleled the Pacific agreement in that it built on trade-agreement proposals that had stalled in previous discussions, ultimately collapsed during the round of World Trade Organization negotiations that began in 2001, and have fizzled out in the years since. EU and US trade ministers had hoped to sell it as a boon to global trade. But an increasingly cynical European public wasn’t buying it, seeing it instead as another pathway to more deregulation and corporate impunity.

Following months of gridlock and protests, and despite a meeting scheduled for next month in New York to continue discussions, negotiations have effectively ground to a halt. (October’s meetings are apparently aimed at redirecting talks toward a smaller-scale, preliminary pact as a substitute to the full TTIP. This is seen as progress, if not outright victory, for campaigns mobilizing against the EU free trade agenda deal by deal.)

It could be that corporate lobbyists and ministers are just hoping for a more opportune political climate, but the demise of this version of TTIP illustrates that, in real-life political terms, trade deals could mostly prove useless at best for trade and devastating at worst for democracy....

"Another pathway to more deregulation and corporate impunity" it certainly is — in fact all of them are that. Makes you wonder why any patriotic soon-to-retire U.S. president would push so hard to pass them. Isn't that person sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution" and not subvert it? But things are what they are, as are the people doing them. Obama has a library to build, and we have a Constitution to protect. We each have our tasks, I guess.

I would call victory on this one and celebrate. The Europeans brought down TTIP. Can we do the same for TPP? One down and two to go. Onward.

GP
 

Hundreds of Thousands March in Germany Against TTIP and Corporate "Trade" Agreements

An excellent, brief video produced by Wikileaks — "The US strategy to create a new global legal and economic system: TPP, TTIP, TISA." Discusses the change from post-WWII U.S. economic dominance to adapting in a world with competitors. These three trade agreements are the U.S. attempt to recapture dominance by building a U.S. corporate-controlled legal superstructure.

by Gaius Publius

If you watched the video above (I hope you did), you learned how the triangle of new global super-agreements — TTP, TTIP, TiSA — are designed not just to re-establish U.S. trade dominance, lost after the post-WWII boom years, but also the dominance of U.S. corporations over markets all over the world, including in the U.S., at the expense of national sovereignty everywhere.

It's a powerful strategy, but it can only work (a) in secret, or (b) by manipulating the political process in every country considering it. In the U.S. we're seeing both, secrecy and political manipulation. The manipulation comes in the form of campaign contributions (and very likely, promises of very lucrative post-electoral jobs and rewards). The manipulation comes also in the form of media silence about these agreements (MSNBC is notable in this regard, especially including silence from the so-called "liberal" evening hosts), or outright media misrepresentation (for example, when the New York Times calls anti-Fast Track Democrats "anti-trade" and pro-Fast Track Democrats "pro-trade").

As for the latter examples, the Times is just lying, but they're also deeply committed to the corporate project. The New York Times Company is itself one of the corporate "bigs," with 2014 revenue of nearly $1.5 billion and assets of about $2.5 billion — so you know where their corporate heart lies, just as you know where the corporate heart of MSNBC, owned by Comcast, lies. Comcast had 2014 revenue of about $75 billion and assets of $166 billion. Corporate America wants these deals, and they're pulling out all the stops to get them.

As these agreements are leaked or released, they are almost universally hated — except by the holders of super-large personal and corporate fortunes who control both political parties, both houses of Congress, and the White House. (We'll leave the extent to which the courts are controlled by holders of large fortunes for later.)

I've been watching the progress of these agreements fairly closely, as have a great many others. The latest news is that, despite media reports implying that TPP is being rejected by congressional Republicans, it's not. Also, that TTIP, the Atlantic version of TTP, is being rejected by even European pro-corporate negotiators as containing "nothing but crumbs" for the Europeans.

Now there's even more bad news, at least for TTIP. Not only do the pro-corporate negotiators in Europe hate them; the people of Europe hate them even more. Jon Queally writing in Common Dreams:

Hundreds of Thousands March in Germany Against TTIP, CETA

These agreements, says critics, 'threaten environmental and consumer protection for millions of people in Europe and North America'

Hundreds of thousands took to city streets across Germany on Saturday as they marched against a pair of corporate-backed trade deals they say will undermine democracy, attack workers and local economies, and accelerate the threats posed by corporate hegemony and global warming.

Taking aim at both the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), European Union deals with the United States and Canada respectively, opponents say the agreements are not really concerned with expanding trade but rather increasing corporate power.

"CETA and TTIP threaten environmental and consumer protection for millions of people in Europe and North America," said Jennifer Morgan, co-executive director of Greenpeace International. "These agreements will weaken food safety laws, environmental legislation, banking regulations and undermine the sovereign powers of nations."

One view of the turnout in Berlin:

(Source; click to enlarge)

And another showing disdain for America's role in trying to force these deals on a public that hates them:

A man dressed like the Statue of Liberty attends a demonstration against the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA in Berlin, Saturday, Sept. 17, 2016. Thousands of people are rallying in cities across Germany to protest against planned European Union trade deals with the United States and Canada. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

I think still-in-office Obama may succeed in branding himself with these corporate trade deals. I'm not sure post-presidential Obama may like the post-branding result.

GP
    

Trade Deal Update — TTIP Starting To Die; TTP Still Possible, Perhaps Likely, in Lame Duck Session

These are your Democratic Party Fast Track villains in the Senate, at least the visible ones. (Notice VP nominee Tim Kaine in the group, and Patty Murray, whose leadership star is rising.) If the part of the universe that loves actual people were just, each of them would be applying for work on K Street for their sins.

by Gaius Publius

While the big U.S–European Union trade deal (TTIP) is starting to die, the U.S.–Asian trade deal (TTP) still looks likely to get a vote in the lame duck Congress at the end of this year. TTIP first, then TPP.

France Calls for End of TTIP Talks

France has joined a growing list of EU nations increasingly dissatisfied by the heavy balance of TTIP benefits to the U.S. One French trade minister said the treaty contains "nothing but crumbs" for France and cites growing popular dissatisfaction with the proposed deal.

So France wants out. John Queally, writing at Common Dreams:

'Another Day, Another Death Knell' for TTIP as France Calls for End of Talks

Describing ongoing negotiations as producing "nothing or just crumbs," French Junior Trade Minister Matthias Fekl says there is "no more political support in France" for the corporate-friendly deal

Though the office of the U.S Trade Representative on Monday said efforts to seal a trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union were still "making steady progress," the attempt to put an optimistic spin on the struggling negotiations was undermined once again on Tuesday as France's financial minister called for the outright suspension of talks.

Describing the ongoing negotiations with the U.S. over the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as producing "nothing or just crumbs," French Junior Trade Minister Matthias Fekl said on Tuesday there is "no more political support in France" for the deal at this point.

"France calls for an end to these negotiations," Fekl said during an interview on RMC radio in France. He indicated there is no longer any hope that the countries involved could secure an agreement by year's end. "France would rather see things as they are and not harbor the illusion that an agreement will be struck before the end of the U.S. president's term in office."

While backers of the corporate-friendly deal, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have vowed to push ahead, its critics see the wave of public declarations by top ministers as proof their campaigning against the deal is paying off.

It seems the Europeans too are wary of the loss of state sovereignty under ISDS provisions of the treaty, as well as the way it tilts the playing field on other corporate matters.

Just a few days earlier, Germany expressed similar sentiments, saying that the treaty had "de facto failed."

"Negotiations with the U.S. have de facto failed, because of course as Europeans we couldn't allow ourselves to submit to American demands," Sigmar Gabriel told the German news station ZDF in an interview that will air at 7pm German time Sunday, according to Der Spiegel.

"Everything has stalled," Gabriel said.

What does "de facto failed" mean in practice? According to The Independent, after 14 rounds of negotiation, three of those rounds in the previous six months, none of the 27 chapters being deliberated had been agreed to.

Your bottom line — If TTIP is to pass, the next U.S. president will have to take over the negotiations. Barring a drastic change, tt looks like the current one, President Obama, has failed.

TTP Still Very Viable in This Year's Lame Duck Session

The same is not true for TPP, the Pacific agreement, which is much further along. You're probably hearing about how Paul Ryan in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate are saying TPP will not get a lame duck vote. According to Public Citizen's trade expert, Lori Wallach, this is just a negotiating posture by the Republicans and their corporate backers to get Obama to sweeten the pro-corporate deal even further.

In other words, don't count TPP dead until the lame duck fails to bring it up or to pass it. (And even then don't count it dead, as I see it.)

Other things to keep in mind when contemplating the fate of TPP:

• Fast Track is a one-use tool per trade agreement. If Obama tries to force a vote this year, and that vote fails, Fast Track rules no long apply to TPP. So the stakes are high.

• Corporate donors to both parties, including the Republican Party, are desperate for TPP to pass. In Wallach's estimation (and mine), Ryan and McConnell are stalling to get Obama to make the deal even more corporate-friendly — by extending patent and IP protections, for example, which drug companies consider to be inadequate in the current agreement (meaning, those new provisions are very lucrative, but still not lucrative enough).

• Obama can't force a vote; he can only "start the Fast Track clock." The clock allows a window of 90 session-days within which a vote must be taken. But since there aren't 90 session-days left in this Congress, the Republicans, if they wish, really can block the treaty by not bringing it up for a vote and letting time run out in this Congress. (Think of it like the shot clock and the game clock in basketball. The shot clock may show 20 seconds before they team with the ball has to shoot, but if there are only 10 seconds left in the game, the shot clock is moot.)

• Obama might call the Republicans' bluff and try to force a vote anyway by starting the clock without making changes. Remember, Fast Track can only be used once per treaty. If he does this, it then becomes a question of how much of the big-money pie do über-wealthy Republican donors want to settle for — all but the last small piece, or do they want that piece as well?

• Finally, the votes may not be there this time, as Wallach explains. Still, you never know. Congressional Democrats always finds enough people on their team willing to do the dirty work so the rest of the team can pretend to be opposed (looking at you, Schumer and Pelosi). This will take constant vigilance.

Now over to Lori Wallach, who really is the tireless, go-to expert on all of these really bad trade deals and the reasons to oppose them. Writing in the Huffington Post, she says:

TPP Is Not Dead, Unfortunately

The reports of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's death have been greatly exaggerated, unfortunately.

It would great news if the pact, which would mean more power for corporations over our lives and government, and fewer good jobs for Americans, were ready to be boxed and buried.

But more urgently, if last week's news stories convince the growing transpartisan movement fighting the TPP to stand down, the prospects that the pact's powerful proponents can succeed in their plan to pass it after the election [i.e., in the lame duck session] will increase.

Last week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said at the Kentucky Farm Bureau: "The current agreement...which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year." This generated a wave of press coverage declaring that there would be no lame duck vote on the TPP....

Note that McConnell said the "current agreement" would not get a vote. A few weeks ago House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said: "I see no point in bringing up an agreement only to defeat it...it is not ready, the president has to renegotiate some critical components of it." Immediately after McConnell's speech, a Ryan spokesman said: "As we have said for months, timing will be determined by progress on the substance - and the administration has a lot of work to do there."

Wallach's reason for Ryan and McConnell's opposition is mine as well — "progress on the substance," or sweetness, of the deal itself (my emphasis):

Those statements need to be understood for what they are: negotiating for changes to obtain even more corporate goodies - longer monopoly protections for pharmaceutical firms' high medicine prices, elimination of an exception protecting some tobacco regulations from TPP attack, and more. So far the corporate "we-want-more-or-else" tactic has pushed the White House into caving on Wall Street firms' demands to "fix" TPP rules allowing governments to limit movement of financial data across borders. Since the administration has made no parallel moves to address criticisms coming from its own party, a very bad deal is getting even worse.

About the game of "chicken" Obama is playing with the money people pulling the GOP leaders' strings:

It's also possible congressional Republicans will jump into gear to pass the deal in the lame duck session even if they do not achieve that last one percent of corporate goodies for the one percent. Thanks to Fast Track, President Obama gets to decide if the TPP vote clock is started - not the Republican leadership. It is risky, but Obama could call the GOP leaders' negotiating bluff.

Fast Track is a one use tool. Failure to pass the TPP once a president starts the clock means that Fast Track for the TPP is "used up." Knowing that corporations that fund the Republicans want the TPP, Obama could gamble that the GOP leaders would fold on their demands and start pressuring their members to vote "yes" if he submits the implementing legislation....

Because there would not be the required 90 congressional session days to force floor votes under Fast Track, the Republican congressional leaders would have to bring the TPP to a vote quickly or run out of time. (That is why Sen. Bernie Sander's statement last week, praising McConnell for announcing he would "block" the TPP was so very sly, because of course McConnell said no such thing.)

Make no mistake, though. The entire U.S. corporate universe, which finances both parties, wants this deal to pass, as do almost all of the leaders of those parties, even while, as Wallach says elsewhere in the article, congressional votes for it are starting to disappear — or starting to appear to disappear ahead of the election.

Your bottom line — TPP is very likely not dead in the lame duck session. I consider it highly likely to come up for a vote.

GP