© MARTIN BESECKE 2010 - 2018 ALLE RECHTE VORBEHALTEN.
The CETA The CETA, the free trade agreement between Kanada and the EU, was signed on October 30, 2016 and was originally intended to enter into force through the undemocratic process, the EU Commission procedure of “Provisional Applicability”. This procedure simply turns the CETA into an exclusive matter for the EU Commission and means in practice the legally binding preliminary entry into force of the CETA before the necessary parliamentary votes in the EU nation states or that the voting results in the nation states remain without legal and democratic significance. After massive protests, then the EU Parliament should decide on the entry into force, but this is not legally responsible for this and therefore only a pseudo-democratically tokenism without legal value represents. This vote took place on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, with a clear majority for the CETA, and thus is the CETA on September 21, 2017, according to official usage, although only provisional, came into force. Because finally the parliaments of the individual nation states should now be allowed to decide on CETA, which will probably take several years, but which is ultimately irrelevant for the CETA. Because the provisional entry into force means in practice the complete and legally binding entry into force of the CETA, because the possible applicability will create normative and legal facts which national parliaments can no longer resist. Or in other words, under the pretext of the vote by the European Parliament, in the end nevertheless, through the backdoor actually enforced and applied the "Provisional Applicability". In practice means the CETA the already well-known reductions of the social, OSH Acts and environmental protection standards that have been previously existed and the implementation of the investor protection. Where you have to add here, but only after the Wallonia protest, that a state can no longer be sued by the economy if it is to advance its environmental protection. However, this does not apply to the areas of labor and social standards. With the CETA, more than 50,000 US companies will be able for the first time to sue EU countries for investor protection through their Canadian subsidiaries. In a comprehensive evaluation of all previous arbitration proceedings, the Transnational Institute has already found out that these possibilities of court actions have of course immediately been turned into a business model by the companies. And analysis of the impact of the NAFTA, the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the US, has shown that the nation states have, so to speak, in anticipatory obedience laws designed and issued to prevent such lawsuits as much as possible and in practice, of course, i.a. destroyed the regional and local economy and unilaterally favored multinational corporations and in Mexico led to it that the entire economy is now in the hands of only a dozen investors. Furthermore, the NAFTA led to millions of jobs being transferred to the low-cost country of Mexico, as well as, due to the now possible instruments of blackmail, to massive wage cuts across the entire NAFTA region. Only because of massive protests or imminent electoral defeats, the EU Commission was then forced to renegotiate the entire complex of investor protection with the already agreed private arbitration. The result is to create a model named "International Investment Court" based on the role model of the European Court of Justice, which is to be filled in advance with judges admitted independent judges and whose court hearings should be public. BUT, it has also been agreed that this court may only rule on the basis of the international law, which means in practice that the adjudication may be based solely on the content of the international agreement CETA. And that in turn means in practice that the judgments, strictly have to follow the text of the agreement, can of course only turn out in favor of the corporations, as has been the case with the judgments of the European Court of Justice in context with the international law "Treaty of Lisbon", whose jurisprudence has to be made according to the same requirements, or due to the international law anchoring also of this treaty, may only be done. And therefore, becomes a "balanced" case law, due to the neo-liberal orientation of the CETA, even by a (seemingly) independent "International Investment Court" just as possible, as is already not possible with the economic-liberal "Treaty of Lisbon" by the European Court of Justice. In the same way, the judgments of this Court of Investment, like the judgments of the European Court of Justice, have a constitutional status for the nation states because of this anchoring in international law and can no longer be changed by the national governments and parliaments by new and different laws. Furthermore, these possibilities of court action are, of course, only unilateral, which means that only the companies are allowed to sue, but not vice versa also the nation states, e.g. when it comes to environmental crime. Similarly, the subsequent, on the initiative of the then German Federal Minister of Economics Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), quickly formulated "supplementary agreements", which should to guarantee the previously passed OSH Acts and social standards, are only pure waste and no value, because they have no legally binding within the CETA and should not get it. These "supplementary agreements" served exclusively and only to calm the CETA opponents. This situation is similar with the supplementary agreement, also enforced by Wallonia, under which the European Court of Justice should issue an expert opinion on jurisdiction in the context of investor protection. Because this "International Investment Court" as well as its status and its tasks go compliant with the international law and therefore can only be judged by the ECJ as lawful and legitimate. In principle, the same applies to the so-called "evaluation procedure", which allows periodic reviews by the individual contracting states as to whether the trade facilitation caused by the CETA leads to negative developments in the domestic economy, e.g. in the agriculture. It is then the CETA 6 months suspended until completely allowed to be terminated. (This addition was only agreed after massive pressure from Wallonia, a large agricultural region.) Because negative market developments, that will come, the CETA can not be legally blamed, and 2., because due to the legal constitutions and thus fact creation, market developments to large monopolistic corporations can not be reversed again. Because 1. promotes the CETA exactly these monopolies and, above all, permits them legally, and 2., will the legal constructions practiced here not only through the CETA itself, keyword: the investor protection, but also secured by other, then additionally valid legal situations. In summary, this supplementary agreement does not prevent monopolization or negative market developments in the nation states. Only the inventory and trademark protection, such as for the Italian original buffalo mozzarella, could be preserved, and this only after a massive impact of Wallonia, but then here also supported by Italy. Furthermore, the CETA brings into use the so-called "Joint Committee". This committee is not subject to any democratic and parliamentary control. This institution should be 6 months in advance all planned legislation proposed by the nation states which could affect the contents of the agreement, such as economic, tax, social, environmental and nature conservation, consumer protection and labor law, be submitted for review, assessment, advice and negotiation. This committee is due to its function to treat transnational contractual matters, anchored in international law and thus legitimized by the international law. And that means in practice that his powers of directing and decision-making are beyond the decisions of the national parliaments. Of course, the CETA itself is also anchored in international law through this international legal anchoring, ergo an so-called agreement under international law, which means that the agreement content for the nation states not only has a legal, but even a constitutional status and then this agreement no longer can be unilaterally terminated by an individual nation state. Furthermore, the CETA implements the so-called "standstill clause". This clause said that already privatized public property can not be re-nationalized anymore. The CETA was completely secretly negotiated. Democratically elected representatives who wanted to see the text of the agreement were not allowed to take notes, were not allowed to bring mobile phones and were obliged to keep silence. And France, for example, has on the spot replaced overly critical officials who involved in the contract negotiations. The fact that there have been any minimal improvements in terms of the common good is solely due to Wallonia. All other participating nation states wanted to enforce the original text, including the originally agreed private arbitrations, the repeal of trademark protection and the lowering of social, OSH Acts and environmental standards, against any resistance. Nevertheless, these "improvements" neither question the neo-liberal economic system, nor is it even rudimentarily attacked or threatened, nor will they be able to prevent the negative developments resulting from the CETA. But, one must to state that with agreements of this design, our democracies are in fact abolished and replaced by an economic constitution anchored in international law, from which outgoing all systemic and social areas are regulated and determined. Here the CETA in the original wording as PDF file!  >>
The TiSA While the TTIP negotiations are initially on hold due to the change of president in the USA, the TISA will continue to be negotiated. At the TISA has been negotiating a total of 50 states since 2012, including the 27 EU countries as well as the USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The negotiations should initially be completed by the end of 2016. The TISA treated the entire service sector, which accounts for around 3/4 of the European economic output and 3/4 of the jobs, and is intended to regulate the trade in services and goods as well as the provision of services among the contracting states. The TISA should also become an agreement under international law, which means that the contract contents of the TISA, as well as those of the CETA, are legally binding for all contracting states and have not only a legal, but even a constitutional rank. Whether an institution, such as the "Joint Committee" in the CETA, for the treatment of the contents of the agreement, or whether it has jurisdiction, such as the ECJ for the Treaty of Lisbon, and if so, how it should look and be designed is still unclear. Previous status of negotiations (as of 2016): To date, in the TISA so-called "transparency rules" should be determined. These said that all legislative proposals and measures by the individual nation states that could affect the content of the agreement, all other contracting states and all "interested persons", that is, citizens but of course also lobbyists to be presented in advance for review with the opportunity to influence. Of course, these rules in practice only mean a fake transparency, because due to the international law anchoring of the TISA, the agreement contents must always be respected to. According to the TISA, public contracts should no longer simply be awarded to regional or local providers without first checking the offers of the international providers. Because that would be a "restriction of competition" and thus a "distortion of competition". In practice this means the end of a regional and local economic promotion, which is absolutely necessary in the globalized economic order, as well as due to the pricing options of large corporations in particular the probable economic end for small and medium-sized regional providers, which will lead to a further concentration of markets and power in favor of large corporations. Likewise, falls under the services treated by the TISA, all services of general interest, ergo pension, sickness and unemployment insurance as well as education, water, waste disposal and the army, police and prison services as well as the secret services. Because according to the previous formulations in TISA, represents the public service of general interest, ergo the welfare state, an undue distortion of competition, which means that the nation states can in fact be forced to privatize all state social welfare. And for this purpose, in addition to the "standstill clause", also the so-called "ratchet clause" will be established. This ratchet clause said that everything that should or will be privatized in the future, also can not be reversed. That means in Practice, for example, that then the dealing with the in future millions unemployed through the digitization will lie in the hands of private companies and it here none at all more state influence and design possibilities may give. Of course, the same applies e.g. to the prison privatization and the privatization of education, army, police and intelligence services. The state and its institutions will be here completely disempowered and, of course, completely superfluous, because all state tasks will then be in the hands of private companies and, of course, they will think, work and act purely profit-oriented. Just as it has been the reality in Chile for decades and where, like through a magnifying glass, one can evaluate the resulting only negative developments. The TISA should also regulate the entire handling of digital data. According to the current status of negotiations, the TISA in practice means the complete end of data protection! Though each nation state may write its own privacy policy, but they are not allowed to constitute "barriers to trade" or "unjustifiable discrimination" vis-à-vis other states. By that would e.g. the stricter European Data Protection Regulation ineffective because it put at a disadvantage to other states, such as the USA. Also, the so-called earmarking binding of data would be tipped. In this way companies should be able to pass on and sell their user data to other companies for marketing and commercialization. Likewise, the existing possibility in the EU that users can unsubscribe from an advertising directory should be canceled in favor of a then legalized expansion of personalized advertising (keyword: advertising emails, etc.). In summary, these rules will mean in practice that the private user completely loses the personal and self-determined handling of his data and above all the control over it, and that all his digital data may be collected, evaluated and used for the economic usage (keyword: BIG DATA). Also, these contract rules can then enforce laws and regulations that force citizens to pass even sensitive data, such as health data by e.g. internet- capable toothbrushes and wristbands or urine analyzing toilets directly to insurance companies, because otherwise necessary insurance benefits are no longer granted, as that e.g. even in the USA is a reality where you can only conclude a new health insurance, even if you also have an accessible Facebook account, so as to find out whether the one, for example. conduct a risk sport in the free time, which would then have an impact on the amount of the insurance premium. In summary, this inevitably leads to a total surveillance and fluoroscopy by large corporations and to a total commercialization, marketing and commercial exploitation and thus to a total expropriation of the people and to a not yet estimable increase in profits and power for the private business sector, and that secured by international law. Here then the new neoliberal ideology of "consumer welfare" would be manifested under international law. While in the past the economic policy was driven and designed by the maxim "the more suppliers there are, the better for the consumer" and to be competitive and thereby paying attention to diversity, what also meant for example, that overpowering monopolies were shattered by the governments, is the economic policy of consumer welfare no longer about competition but only about efficiency, which also means that business combinations and concentrations towards gigantic market monopolists are no longer regarded as critical by the politics, but may even be supported and promoted. In other words, if the TISA came into force in this form, then the cartel authorities would have no influence and would be disempowered. And while the competition-oriented economic policy followed a democratic basic idea (keyword: freedom of choice of the consumer), the economic policy of consumer welfare follows technocratic guidelines, which in their nature have a dictatorial character, because here will from only few persons, from above, in principle arbitrary decided what is good for the consumer and what is not and what he has to buy and what not. The consumer welfare should be understood as a general efficiency gain for the entire national economy, and it does not matter where the profits are made and how many people or companies divide those profits. It will be enough if a net economic gain is achieved, no matter where it settles and how concentrated it is. Furthermore, an "adequate network management" should be implemented, which means in practice nothing else than the abolition of the net neutrality in favor of chargeable digital fast lanes for specific service providers (keyword: e-commerce). In addition, operators of services, e.g. Facebook or Google, should be allowed private censorship, which inevitably leads to an information sovereignty and power as well as to a monopoly of opinion for the providers. Another serious invasion of people's privacy and self-determination is treated under the point of "National Security". So should the national secret services and law enforcement agencies be allowed to access the private user data of every company in each contracting state, which is not legal yet, and certainly not if the data is stored on a server in another nation state. Thus, the state total surveillance by secret services via the TISA will not only extended, but above all legitimized by international law. Furthermore, the TISA can not only legally promote and legitimize the increasing privatization of state intelligence activities, but also enforce them, as is already the case in the USA, where 80% of the activities of all US intelligence agencies are already performed by private companies and which, of course, work purely profit-oriented and which, of course, in the logical development has led to a high-corrupt state in the state. This private secret service state is also called "Deepstate" in the USA. In the USA, the budget for this market is $ 100 billion a year and consists entirely of taxpayers' money. And because of the legal framework, which was knowingly constructed only for this market, this budget moves completely in secret and, with this legislation, is also protected against any democratic control and influence. A goldmine and a self-service store without peers! In summary, in this field the TISA would mean nothing other than a major corruption legitimized by international law. The EU Commission classifies the market for surveillance technology and services as a global future market with great growth potential. And not to leave the USA here the world market, the EU Commission has also already a concept of private intelligence service activities in planning. And of course, in the context of the TISA, the standstill and the ratchet clause would also apply to this whole area, which means that what was once privatized and is or shoud and will to be privatized in the future may not be reversed. In summary, the TISA in its current formulation would in practice mean the complete privatization of the entire service sector, which, as mentioned above, already accounts for over 3/4 of the total economic output, which means that the TISA the entire community and social welfare, that is, so to speak, the whole world would be completely privatized and commercialized, and that due to the anchoring in international law also irreversible. The democratically elected governments and parliaments would then in fact be only staffage and their sole task would be to raise taxes and then pass those taxes to the privatized sectors. The federal government of Germany wants to make Germany to a leading nation in terms of artificial intelligence. And for that they wants to facilitate the data collection and utilization as well as the state data of the citizens to pass in form of a "co-operation" to the private business enterprises! Because the TISA is being negotiated in secret and is still completely in the negotiating status, there are still no reliable, officially published papers. Therefore only this link: Here is the official website for the TISA of the European Commission!  >>
mb mb MARTIN BESECKE I • N • V • D • D
EN|RU
EN  RU
The International Law The international law is not a strictly legal code with clearly formulated legally binding paragraphs. But, the international law is a collection of documents of conventions and declarations that have been adopted by the UN General Assembly as legally binding and valid. The international law wants to guarantee from its original spirit a global stable peace and security order. In the context of the international law anchoring of such economic-radical agreements as the CETA, TiSA and the TTIP, the international law has meanwhile been knowingly perverted by the politics. And how consciously and purposefully the politics uses the instrument international law, shows for example the so-called UN World Climate Agreement of Paris (COP21), which, of course, should not be made an agreement under international law. Here the international law as PDF file!  >> What is an agreement under international law?   -   Here is an explanation!  >>
The Treaty of Lisbon The “Treaty of Lisbon” or also named EU Reform Treaty, was signed on December 13, 2007 and entered into force on December 1, 2009. It replaces the EU Constitutional Treaty of 2004, which was rejected in a referendum by France and the Netherlands in 2005, and reformed all previous EU treaties to the (alleged) needs of today, so i.a. to a globalized (neoliberal) economic order. And so it inforces in its practical application within the EU an economic-liberal overall policy geared primarily to the interests of the economy with the (inevitably) accompanying destruction of the social compensation. Furthermore, the Treaty of Lisbon regulates the tasks and responsibilities of the EU Commission and the EU Parliament as well as the work and decision-making procedures and processes between the EU Commission and the EU institutions and the national governments as well as the national institutions and organizations and beyond, the co-operation and bodies of the EU nation states on pan-European topics. And in this connection the Treaty of Lisbon demands an ever-increasing political (power) concentration towards Europe, the European Commission and thus a reduction in the sovereignty and political independence of the nation states. This became most apparent in the context of the controversial "provisional applicability" procedure for thr CETA, but whose legality can be derived and legitimized from the Lisbon Treaty. And in these processes of shifting responsibilities towards the EU Commission and the EU institutions, again and again legal vacuums arise, which in turn invite to abuse and, of course, are abused. However, the Treaty of Lisbon fails to formulate and prescribe procedures and ways of closing these legal and jurisdictional vacuums, with the result that, according to past experience, the closure of these vacuums is very slow or even non-existent, so that new mafia structures can arise and also develop, which can go down to the administrative and systemic. These problems have been found e.g. especially clear in dealing with the so-called "refugee crisis" of 2015. The compliance with the contract contents can be brought before the European Court of Justice. Because the Treaty of Lisbon is a so-called agreement under international law, have the judgments of the ECJ in this regard not only a legal rank for the nation states, but also, due to its anchoring in international law, a constitutional rank. Especially in the jurisdiction on the economic content of the contract, one must attest to the European Court of Justice a missionary zeal in the enforcement of an economic liberal (neoliberal) overall policy. Here the Treaty of Lisbon in the original wording as PDF file!  >>