No, No and No
In the current context, the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement is unacceptable. The French government and the European Commission must say no to this obsessive, dogmatic and dangerous attempt for three reasons.
No to the unbelievable secrecy surrounding the agreement. Of course, the final agreement, if it is successful, must be accepted by the governments and the elected parliaments. But why should the citizens of Europe, who are directly affected, be kept in the dark about negotiations in which they should have their say before the project is finalized?
No to the relaxation of health and environmental standards that will inevitably occur when compromising with a global power that has lower standards than Europe regarding these subjects.
No to the extravagant provision that will place democratic states at the mercy of decisions taken by private bodies with neither representation nor legitimacy, and answering only to their own free trade bias, beyond any social or ecological considerations. Have we forgotten that a body of this kind sued the Australian government because it enacted tobacco laws that were not in the interest of a multinational corporation?
Everyone knows, of course, that the development of international trade is a growth factor, that specialist economies increase production efficiency and that in many cases it’s often better to import a product at a reasonable price if you don’t know how to make it yourself. But the law at the heart of the agreement also has major disadvantages when it causes standards to drop, damages entire regions and gives exorbitant powers to large companies. So no.
No to the unbelievable secrecy surrounding the agreement. Of course, the final agreement, if it is successful, must be accepted by the governments and the elected parliaments. But why should the citizens of Europe, who are directly affected, be kept in the dark about negotiations in which they should have their say before the project is finalized?
No to the relaxation of health and environmental standards that will inevitably occur when compromising with a global power that has lower standards than Europe regarding these subjects.
No to the extravagant provision that will place democratic states at the mercy of decisions taken by private bodies with neither representation nor legitimacy, and answering only to their own free trade bias, beyond any social or ecological considerations. Have we forgotten that a body of this kind sued the Australian government because it enacted tobacco laws that were not in the interest of a multinational corporation?
Everyone knows, of course, that the development of international trade is a growth factor, that specialist economies increase production efficiency and that in many cases it’s often better to import a product at a reasonable price if you don’t know how to make it yourself. But the law at the heart of the agreement also has major disadvantages when it causes standards to drop, damages entire regions and gives exorbitant powers to large companies. So no.
Previous article![]( "Washington Won’t Renounce Nuclear Tests")
Next article![]( "America Is Behaving Rudely in the South China Sea, It Will Be Unable To Use This as Leverage against China")