the other elephant in the room

Lord Foul wrote:TTIP

perhaps our friends across the pond should reflect on teh negative effect this had on folks perceptions too

whatever made you think that........ something that virtually allowed BUSINESS in your neck of the wood to overide our national govt if they felt "put out" by any legislation
like say us banning cyclmates (cos they cause liver cancer) or banning YOUR saw tables cos they dont have the safety features WE require

or at an extreme end of things perhaps even overiding our strict and perfectly reasonable gun laws to open up another market for your merchants of death,,,,

would be seen as anything even slightly acceptable?

 Anyone who does not meet the standards of a respective trade partner will not be allowed to export. This means, for example, that the EU may specify that only a certain quantity of pesticide residue may remain in a tomato that is imported into the EU. Or that a peanut may only contain a certain quantity of fungi (alfatoxins). The criteria that a seatbelt must meet, etc. may also be specified. If the products do not meet the EU standards, they cannot be imported.
Simultaneously, with the elimination of customs duties at the turn of the century, the meaning of standards and technical rules increased drastically. Two reasons are listed for this in the scientific literature: a) industrialized countries that were allowed to protect their products with customs duties in the past, for example, are now protecting their markets through high-quality standards and thus effectively preventing market access for other countries; b) due to increasing incomes and increasingly nuanced consumer behavior, the standards in industrialized countries have changed and been adapted.
At the turn of the century, standards (primarily food safety standards regarding, for instance, pesticide residues, impurity of foodstuffs through fungi, animal diseases, plant diseases, etc.) were a very important subject in the debates at the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements, because many developing countries rightly criticized the fact that the increasingly stricter standards were blocking their newly won potential market access to the markets of the industrialized countries.
Different laws and test methods made it impossible for many developing countries to import into industrialized countries.
For example, in the agricultural sector, there was often a lack of the laboratories necessary to check for pesticide residue quantities or fungi levels. There was a lack of veterinary offices in order to verify that certain animal diseases were not present in the countries (or regions).
However, trade disputes based on standards did not take place only between the North and the South.
Many developing countries did not and do not even have the knowledge, the personnel, or the financial wherewithal to submit complaints to the WTO regarding the standards of industrialized countries. A large part of the trade disputes regarding standards is between industrialized countries.
The WTO stipulates the handling of standards in two agreements: All aspects regarding food safety and animal and plant health are specified in an agreement regarding Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS agreement). All other standards fall under the agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT agreement).
Both agreements stipulate rules for handling standards and attempt to establish a balance between a) the need of the respective country to set standards when regulating products and production processes, and b) preventing “unnecessary trade barriers” as it is called by the WTO.
The two agreements define how standards are allowed to be set in order to not be classified as trade barriers. Both agreements accept the international standard-setting organizations – e.g. the Codex Alimentarius, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), etc. – as a reference framework and require that countries align their own standard setting with the international guidelines. Deviating from international standards is allowed if the respective government can scientifically verify that there is a hazard to the health of consumers, animals, plants, the environment, etc. If the respective government is not able to provide corresponding scientific documentation, it must either adapt the standard, or, in the event of a complaint by another country, be judged by the WTO Court of Arbitration and assessed to pay a financial penalty. The precautionary principle established in the EU, upon which consumer protection in the EU is based, is not recognized by WTO law.
When countries or institutions such as the EU require standards that other countries classify as trade barriers, these other countries can file a report with the SPS committee or the TBT committee. This will be followed by a bilateral clarification process that will go before the WTO Court of Arbitration if it is not successful. This is what happened to the EU, for example, when it was brought before the WTO Court of Arbitration by the US and Canada because it does not allow any growth hormones in beef production. Because the scientific documentation of the EU could not convince the court of a potential health hazard caused by hormones, the EU was ordered to pay annual financial penalties amounting to US$202 million to the US and C$75 million to Canada. Instead of concrete payments, both countries obtained the right to levy customs duties for EU products that corresponded to this value.
https://us.boell.org/2014/08/28/ttip-selling-out-standards 

Lord Foul wrote:thats all very well....
BUT...for instance...where are you going to find the scientific evidence that owning guns is detrimental to health???
on the face of it ...its no more risky than owning a car
YOUR govt has just decided that cyclamates are NOT hazardous  WE think they are
YOUR (likely bised and twisted ) scientific evidence says not...ours says yes...
your people would argue that a table saw without splitter and guard is safe
our years of practical exerience proves otherwise

Lord Foul wrote:Welll on the agricultural front you have the biggest argument AGAINST TTIP there could ever be.....MONSANTO

also, there is a point in the bit you posted up there that the "precautionary principle" is NOT recognised

which "precautionary principle" means that if something is even suspected of being say mutagenic...it is banned UNTIL its PROVEN SAFE, rather than as you do having 100,000 birth defects before even beginning a law suit to get rid of it (which law suit could take years and another 100,000 .........

Tommy Monk wrote:What's your point...?
Are you admitting problems and health risks with any of these things or denying them...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:What's your point...?


Are you admitting problems and health risks with any of these things or denying them...!?

veya_victaous wrote:@op
and now they have you over a barrell and can pretty much force you to agree to the most crappy conditions.

the EU was by far the lesser of many many evils in this world