I will address the most important part first. I am not dismissing your arguments and I am not saying those who oppose TTIP are angst-Germans. That was a point made by Rincewind81 and I agreed in the sense that there is a growing force in Germany nowadays that goes against large projects and that wants to be left alone in little corner of the world (the knowledge of which comes from the Spiegel article I linked and my person dealings with some Germans).

Once again, I welcome all discussion of any issue. I find it invigorating and good for our societies. We have forgotten how to debate important issues, which has led to the inertia and stagnation of our societies. Since everyone benefits from being informed, that is all the more reason to present arguments and evidence from both sides.

Going back to your points. I propose that we leave the Malstrom issue and say that we view her in different ways. Considering that most commissioners lack any sort of PR abilities or often just repeat stuff from the papers that were prepared for them, Scandinavian politicians in Europe are a breath of fresh air. Just look at Vestager! But yes, I agree that censorship does not solve any underlying problem.

As for the documents, you have to consider that in negotiations that the party that wants something is weaker than the party does that not want a particular thing. This is why some minor states are able to exhibit such influence. If they do not wish to change something, than others who do must convince them otherwise or offer some sort of compensation for their efforts. So if the EU wants to reduce tariffs in one area, but the USA does not, then the EU is in a weaker position. Making such information public will only reduce our negotiating strength. Furthermore, some elements of negotiations touch upon Member State prerogatives and it is most likely the Council that refuses to make the information public.

I must also mention that I am of the opinion that in international diplomacy things take time and things evolve suddenly and unexpectedly. As such, it is sometimes better to give space to negotiators for them to work their magic. Even in the EU, there have been cases when either the EP or Council walked away (or hardened their position) because the other wanted to pressure them by leaking information to the public. Take the migration issue for example. The moment the Commission mentioned possible resettlement, Hungary (and the UK) more or less promised to block the reform of asylum and migration policies.

Concerning the possible privatisation of public goods, I do not remember them being mentioned in TTIP documentation. It is possible I missed them, but even so, I do not remember any trade agreement where liberalisation of public utilities was mandated. Regardless, the public backlash that was the unpublished proposal to liberalise public water supply more or less poured cold water over any such ideas in the future.

Care to explain more about the termination clause? Every international treaty needs to be published in the Official Journal and before that, any text voted by the European Parliament (and possibly Member States) needs to be read in assemblies and thus has to be made public.

Looking at the jobs, once again, I am not an economist. I do know that they have different models, with different data and that each can cause different results. Just look at the calculations about possible Brexit. It is a far clearer situation, as we know more or less what would happen under different possible exit strategies and even there you have widely different analysis. As to why research backed by one party or another to this debate provides opposite results, I have no comment than to point you to the second sentence of this paragraph. As a social scientist, I know that if they follow proper methodology and the same model/data, they should come to the same results. What they choose, however, and how they explain their choices, is another thing completely.

Nevertheless, trade in general has always benefited economies (on an aggregate level). Once you start looking at specific sectors, then this becomes a completely different discussion. In one of my previous posts I mentioned the issue of redistribution of gains made by additional trade to people that lost out due to reduced barriers. This is a societal issue and should be addressed to political forces in that society.

Wrong. PRM it is going to be. If it is not boycotted.

Ok you got me. Better talk to lobbyists and politicians. They will give you a realistic view. Unlike activists, that are vastly corrupted by commerce and power

Personally I'd prefer to talk to people who seem to be able to carry a reasoned conversation, like de_Monteynard. If I had to choose between lobbyists, politicians and activists, I don't know. Lobbyists would probably be the most interesting, because they're likely less deluded about reality. They are simply self-serving. Activists let their zeal warp their grasp of reality, and it's generally the least fun to talk with zealots. Politicians are probably most interesting here. Some are activists, some just enjoy the game (and lying), some just like their pockets being padded, some don't care and some don't have all the information.

So talk to, probably lobbyists, politicians and activists, in this order. Listen to? Anyone who has some information as opposed to opinion and propaganda.

Lord, let it rain brain

Sorry, all I've got are bran flakes.

It did. You missed that day.

About the angst-germans, it seems I have misapprehended your statement, I wrote it because you agreed to Rincewind81's statement.

Nevertheless, the statement itself "growing force in Germany nowadays that goes against large projects and that wants to be left alone in a little corner of the world" I would consider questionable and biased, and the Spiegel article you linked says nothing about this. Also, how does talking to "a few germans" lead to a conclusion like this, I wonder?
(this is the article you mentioned, right? http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/criticism-grows-over-investor-protections-in-transatlantic-trade-deal-a-945107.html)

I would also like to discuss the issue of mistrust towards both the US-government (due to them spying on us and a lot of issues in the US itself, which the EU seems to be mirroring, e.g. police militarization and internet censorship) and the EU Commission, which is not elected by the people but by the different nations in contrast to the parliament.
I write this because I understand your point of trying to be temperate and calculating in agreements which have such huge impacts, but in light of events such as the NSA-economic spying (or even bulk NSA-spying in general), why maintain this stance?

I agree, let's put Malmström out of the equation, we have different opinions on her and she is only a side-issue here.

About privatization, you say the backlash has more or less poured cold water over any such ideas in the future...
I doubt that, and I think, since corporate lobbying is a widespread issue in Brussels, that privatization measurements have a tendency to be wrapped in a different package and presented as something new a few years later.

Also, on a sidenote, I think it wise to mistrust any EU-politician who accepts corporate (or any lobbying) money to genuinely represent anybody but the interests of those he/she is taking money from.

About the termination clause, I read in a few newspaper articles (not online, but in paper form) from Austria that, if the TTIP deal would go through, there would be no possibility whatsoever to terminate the deal anytime in the future. A quick search on the internet unfortunately revealed nothing of interest, but maybe you could help out by explaining, for example, if and how this treaty could be terminated/negated/rescinded etc. if it is already in effect?

And talking about the jobs, I am also not an economist, but even for me it is evident in the example I mentioned, that working with economic models from the 1980s and 1990s in the year 2010+, where the economy is totally different, not even taking into account "the" economic crisis, is methodologically insufficient, plain and simple. Coming from the EU-Commission, I have to assume, this is on purpose. The alternative would suggest, that the people there are totally incompetent, which is hardly any better.

But on general, I also welcome debate and am of the opinion, that too many people don't want to participate in political or societal discussions.

I find it ironic for you to write that, since labeling all activits zealots and indicating they are deluded (what a generalisation!) and preferring to talk to lobbyists instead and than talking about a "realistic" view seems to me to indictae a not so reflected stance towards politics on your point. Or maybe you are just a cynic.

I don't want to insult or bash you with this post, just engage in a discussion.

Please ask yourself this: Who has more self-interests to protect? An elected politician, a lobbyist or an activist?

I am glad we are able to continue this discussion. Often such threads died a quick death on non-political forums.

Returning for what I hope will be the last time to "angst-Germans", this was the article in question. Also, when talking to my German colleagues of around the same age (which is why I cannot say many, but few out of the larger general population), they often presented the same views of their country. Youth looks forward, it always has and what we are seeing right now in Germany and across all has the same roots, fighting against change. That does not mean that such individuals are bad or evil and the reasons for their actions are far too numerous to be aggregated into a singular entity/explanation. However, I do see a sense of complacency and inertia being ever more present in Europe. In is unfortunate that it is usually the Germans that are the face of such developments due to their general perception as angst-y.

Concerning our relationship with the USA, well, let's say that my position is more like de Gaulle's than anything else. Screw USA, screw the east (which does not mean that you cannot cooperate) and have a strong Europe that is able to stand to the changing tides (of course, I am also more pro-integration than he would ever approve, but times have changed). Consequently, I remain my more reserved view of the whole spying affair as I in my mind, we should be making damn certain we do the same to them and because nothing has really changed.

Let us be honest here. Germany spied on France, Austria! and the EU institutions (which is possibly just the tip of the iceberg). Such a breach of trust is utterly unimaginable and Merkel has a lot of explaining to do to her people and to what were supposed to be her allies. However, at the end of the day, the raison d’état will prevail over everything else. The USA (and others) know more about us than we do and we accept that. They cannot show their stronger hand in negotiations, however, as it would ultimately limit their ability to negotiate. If you admit that you lied, spied and cheated, even if the other party knows you did so regardless, you lose face. So yeah, unpleasant and unfortunate in many ways, but ultimately nothing to be overly worried about (aside from our governments taking away our civil liberties. This is something we should be pissed about). The Great Game continues!

About privatisation and consequently lobbying in general. Lobbying or interest representation as it should be known, includes EVERYONE trying to change public policy to match what they want. In this, there is no difference between industrial representatives, civil society, NGO, activists, citizens, etc, etc. Some have more enlightened interests than others, but they all have interests. I no more trust NGOs than I do the industry. Of course, I will more often find myself on the side of the activist, but it ultimately comes down to your political convictions. Are you a firm believer in the work of von Mises? Then any sort of regulation is beyond question. Are you a LGBT activist? Then discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be forbidden and included in any societal and work-related legislation. And so on and so on.

However, when it comes to fundamental issue to our societies, such as protection of environment (consider privatisation of water utilities) and the internet (net neutrality being lobbied by civil society into the text voted upon by the European Parliament last year), you see a massive mobilisation on the side of the citizenry. This is why I do not think that such an issue will pop up again any time soon or if it will, it will be shouted down rather quickly. Consider this an interesting kontrapunkt to the complacency I mentioned in the first paragraph.

Oh, and you should not be under any illusion that only politicians accept money linked to a specific agenda. There is a whole stiftung industry out there that feeds on public and private money. This is why I wish more people knew about general scientific methodology and statistics, so that they would be able to see problems that might exist with a given study.

Going back to more technical matters. International treaties should contain a section of general and final provisions that stipulate when they enter into force. This also includes a possible ending period. For example, Article 356 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, stipulates that the treaty is concluded for an unlimited period. Looking at trade agreements, the latest publicly available text (due it being ratified) is the EU-South Korea FTA. [url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2011:127:FULL&from=EN]Article 15.11[/url], allows for indefinite validity, but in the case of the parties decides to denounce this Agreement, it must do so by notifying the other in writing. The treaty's provisions stop having effect 6 months after such notification. It is likely that such a clause will also be included in the TTIP, as agreements between states usually have a way of ending them. Even in the EU there is now a legal basis for countries to exit if they wish to do so.

About the economy, I so not wish to repeat myself much further, but everything depends on what models and data they use. That is all I can say on this issue. But yes, you are right that the situation now and in the 80s/90s is different from what we have now. But not all studies I have seen used that dataset.

Thanks. My response just reflected Nr8's back at him, nothing more. I'm not a cynic, I just play devil's advocate. I try to make people see that their world view is not necessarily the only way of seeing things. Of course that rarely works for the other side, especially when I'm being a smart-ass. :) But I do hope that onlookers do get something more from the discussion.

True, I'm labeling activists, but you're labeling politicians. Many people have a cynical view towards politics. Sure, it's easy to find examples of corrupt politicians, but most politicians do have a particular world view which they are trying to push. They're not just going "oh, let's find this cushy job where I can get bribes", they're more like activists who think that they'll have more say about issues when they're elected. I'm sure that there are a lot of politicians who are against TTIP or certain bad things in it. Are you labeling them as self serving too?

Activists? Well, I'm probably no more correct in labeling them than others are in labeling politicians. I still think that people who feel strongly enough about a subject to act tend to view it in and black and white manner. They often conflate issues related to it and don't distinguish between what's important and what's less important about it. I tend to mistrust anyone's opinion if I feel it's one sided.

I said I prefer talking to lobbyists because they're easier to "trust". I know they're self serving. I can filter what they say through that filter. They provide a limited view, but a simple one. Besides, salespeople can be annoying when they try to sell you something, but can be pretty interesting people when they're not. I'm not saying that I'm going to accept what they say, I'm just saying that as conversationalists they're probably better than activists. Someone who is selling an opinion as part of his job is probably a lot less obsessed with it than an activist, so would possibly be easier to converse with.

Well just to bring more information to the people interested in civil discussion. It is 7 pages long reading, but you have there lot of links to both sides of researches. Written by an english section of US website arstechnica. Which in my humble opinion maintains very high standard of being objective.

A boost for national economies, or a Trojan Horse for corporations?

For me, because I am from a small country the biggest issue is ISDS. Until this will stay in the papers, there is no chance, that I can ever support any trade treaty like this. Slovakia has been hostage of few "corporate" trials already and even if our government wanted to do something for public, they had few times to back out of it, or pay very high fines. And in the events of how Australia, Canada and Uruguay was sued in the last few years, I do not see this trend to change in the future.

I recommend to all of you to read as much about it as possible from different sources, so you could form as informed opinion, as possible, because this will affect the future of you and your children.

Until ISDS is in the treaty, unfortunately, this link is the only way, how I can react to this initiative.

Petition against TTIP

I strongly agree with you. Changes can be good or bad. And TTIP undermines democratic legislation in the EU. A recent Princeton study gave proof that corporations have almost a monoply when it comes to influence our parlaments.
In addition to the ISDS within TTIP I also think that the council for regulative cooperation is also a very democracyhostile part of this treaty. And the third part is privatization. The more parts of a society get privatized the less influence our parlaments have and therefore the people have less influence on their daily live.
If companies will continue to privatize our public wellfare like water servies, hospitals, schools and the police they will gain control.
And they always put profit above enviroment, human rights etc. I`m not condeming them because of that, it`s a fact. It is simply their nature. Only laws can force them to follow basic moral and ethic standards.

And TTIP-leaks have shown us that they intend to dodge that legislation. That is a bad change. People like me that refuse TTIP are fighting for a better change.
Setting up a false claim that TTIP protestors are against change is ignorant at best and perfidious in the worst case.

What a disgusting treaty. Sounds like we will go backwards but instead of religions and the aristocracy having power it will be a new, more efficient "corporate politics".