See graafik - ühe sõnaga "flow chart" sellest, kuidas üht lepet Brüsselis menetletakse on tülgastav, aga ka süngelt tõelevastav. Mäletan kuidas Läti parlamendi liikmed kurtsid analoogilise menetlemise pärast. Tegemist oli kokkuhoiu meetmete paketiga mis tuli IMF-ist või maailmapangast (mäletatavasti varises Läti pangandus enam-vähem kokku pärast Lehmann Brothers'it ja erinevalt Eestist ei olnud Läti riigil rahalisi reserve). "Meie teid rahsüstiga ei päästa, kui te seda vastu ei võta".
See mida kurdeti tollal Läti Seimist - kujuta ette - parlamendi liikmed! - oli umbes sama. Et väljaspoolt peale surutud (keerulised-detailsed) kokkuhoiumeetmed olid kokkutambitud ühte pikka dokumenti, s.t. mitusada lehekülge, see siis pandi Läti parlamendiliikmete lauale (suurlinna telefoniraamatu paksune dokument) kus nad said VAHETULT enne hääletamist sellega pinnapealselt tutvuda, ja siis see võeti vastu (pressiti läbi) ühe tunni vältel, mille jooksul tuli menetleda mitte ainult seda ühte paksu dokumenti, vaid mitut! eelnõud. Ilmselt seisis parlamendiliikmete õlgade taga partei juhe ehk "whip", vaatamaks, et su käsi ei väärata, eksides vale nupu poole hääletamise ajal.
Ühe sõnaga: kui see on kauaunistatud demokraatia mida okupeeritud Baltikumis oodati aastani 1991, siis ma ei tahaks kogeda, kuidas autoritarism välja näeb….
Jüri
On 4 September, 2015, at 7:00 AM, lembit tork wrote:
>
> Kui Barack seda Tom'ile isiklikult soojalt soovitas, loomulikult 'pole tõsiseltvõetavat alternatiivi' ja pole vajagi lugeda!?
>
> Tere!
> Sellest on päris palju kirjutatud, aga mitte Eestis.
> vastu:
http://www.theguardian.com/com... > vastu:
http://www.theguardian.com/bus...> poolt:
http://www.economist.com/news/...>
> Hea kõikidele (Obama, Ilves, Rothschild's Economist)?
> Või massiivne rünnak demokraatia ja nn 'kodaniku ühiskonna' vastu (kas keegi enam kadunud Enn Soosaare mõistet mäletabki)?
>
> Brüsselis ei taheta sellest väga spetsiifiliselt rääkida, kuna:
> 1) föderalistidele on ju südame asi tsentraliseerimine. Neile on pigem meelepärane kui vastik hiidkorporatsioone eelistavad, 'harmoniseerivad' seadused, mis päris selgelt õõnestavad kohalikke seaduseid, õiguseid ja riikliku suveräänsust- hei, mida teha!!??, kui usinalt valmistad Euro omletti. Ja/või,
> 2) niikuinii on see 'offer you can't refuse'. Europarlamendi liikmed (ja ka loomulikult eestlased) põhimõtteliselt peavad nõustuma halva lepinguga, ükstapuha kui laastav demokraatiale, kuna see sisuliselt tõrjub Venemaad Euroopa kaubandussfäärist?
>
> Neid küsimusi ma ei vasta.
>
> Allolevad 2 artiklit peamiselt räägivad hoopis lepingu hämmastavast läbipaistmatusest.
> Jah, nii need asjad käivad tänapäevases 'avatud' Euroopas. Kas see peaks üllatama?
> Lembit
>
>
> Black-out on tobacco's access to EU trade talks an eerie indication of TTIP threat
>
>
http://corporateeurope.org/int...> August 26th 2015 International trade
>
> Transparency (or lack thereof) at the European Commission.
>
> Earlier this week, the European Commission 'released' very heavily redacted documents (see PDFs below) concerning their contacts with the tobacco industry on EU trade negotiations, including the ongoing EU-Japan and EU-US trade talks (TTIP). In all four documents (correspondence with and minutes of meetings with tobacco lobbyists) virtually all the content is removed (blacked out) including the names of all tobacco lobbyists and Commission officials involved. In a 14-page letter from British American Tobacco, for instance, less then 5% of the text is visible (a few fairly meaningless sentences about introductory and closing remarks ). In a one-page summary of a meeting with Philip Morris even the date of the meeting is removed and there is no mention of which trade negotiations were discussed. The Commission describes this as "partial access".
>
> The Commission's 14-page letter from tobacco lobby on trade talks. Full pdf here:
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/req...>
>
> The promised ‘transparency’ around TTIP has been a sham
> Sven Giegold
>
>
http://www.theguardian.com/com...>
> The most important documents about the TTIP talks are unavailable to us MEPs as well as the public – and it suits big business to keep it that way
>
> Monday 31 August 2015 17.17 BST
> Are you concerned about the implication of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)? Don’t worry! Only this month, the EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström promised another offensive on TTIP transparency: even more documents from the negotiations would be made available.
>
> Her promise was put to the test only a few days later: the corporate transparency nerds of Corporate Europe Observatory finally received documents on exchanges between the tobacco lobby and the Brussels institution concerning TTIP and the EU-Japan trade talks. The punchline of the story? Most of the documents were redacted. An exercise in black humour, in the most literal sense possible. A picture of the blackened documents received thousands of shares and likes on social media since.
>
> This rather amusing episode demonstrates the secrecy that still pervades the trade deals. Certainly, the EU commission has responded to the wave of criticism by civil society organisations against TTIP. A long list of documents, which they had previously kept secret, was published on its website. But the most important TTIP documents are still unavailable. No one knows what the US government is really asking from Europe. This is why many positive as well as negative claims cannot be substantiated, and exaggerations from supporters and adversaries of TTIP dominate the debate. Wikileaks’s offer of a €100,000 reward for the first person to leak the most secret documents is therefore highly welcome.
>
> We shouldn’t make the mistake of focusing too much on TTIP alone, though: not even the EU’s negotiation mandates for most ongoing bilateral trade negotiations are public.
>
> Wikileaks’s offer of a €100,000 reward for the first person to leak the most secret documents is welcome
>
> Unfortunately, most politicians in the European parliament are as much in the dark as ordinary citizens. We MEPs may get access to a few more documents in the parliament’s reading room than those searching the EU commission’s website. Nevertheless, the most important ones containing the demands of the US government are kept secret, even from MEPs. Even worse, although there are thousands of pages of documents, readers are not allowed to take any notes. Non-native English-speaking MEPs are further deterred by highly technical trade-law jargon. And while we could employ staff who are better trained to read the documents, they are not allowed to access the reading rooms. Therefore, the right of access to documents for MEPs is largely a sham. A real understanding of what is going on is only achieved through the actual publication of documents.
>
> Green MEPs have consistently demanded that full transparency of trade negotiation should be made a precondition for their progress. I simply do not understand that – in particular – conservative, liberal and socialist colleagues applaud the continuation of negotiations that they cannot effectively control.
>
> In order to regain credibility and public trust, the European Commission should end secrecy in trade negotiations and publish all important documents and in particular all negotiation mandates.
>
> As tempting as it may be to assume that this lack of transparency is solely an EU phenomenon, it is not. International deals have always been negotiated in darkness. This is why not even Europhobic governments such as the Conservatives in the UK have complained credibly about the lack of TTIP transparency. Otherwise it would become too evident that their own international negotiations are hidden behind the same veil of opacity. The European parliament continues to be the only important political space where representatives from different countries negotiate international law under the eyes of the public. This is a historic achievement in building international democracy, of which Europe can be truly proud.
>
> Beyond the lack of transparency, the real trouble with TTIP and the EU’s multitude of bilateral trade deals is not in the method, but in substance. Europe should put its weight behind a multilateral trading system based on open markets, fairness, sustainability and democracy. An equitable reform of the World Trade Organisation rules is clearly better for business and ethics than lots of bilateral trade and investment treaties. It is a myth that the WTO will never progress. The WTO trade talks could succeed if EU member states were ready to end unfair privileges, such as unsustainable agricultural subsidies and an obsession with intellectual property rights even in the poorest countries.
>
> TTIP, CETA and other bilaterals are much more than traditional trade agreements. They are deals aimed at harmonising or mutually recognising regulations and standards for goods and services. This touches the very heart of our democracies in Europe. Certainly international harmonisation of technical standards can enhance efficiency and cut red tape. A TTIP limited to technical standards and their application only could be positive.
>
> But when it comes to values-based choices, democracies must be free to change the level of regulation. Unfortunately, TTIP and co are about the most valuable standards in our societies, such healthy food, stable financial markets or chemical safety. European democracy should be able to increase environmental, social and consumer rights without having to find agreement with trading partners or to put its own businesses into a competitive disadvantage.
>
> Europe must remain free to develop the common market into a space of high standards for consumers, workers and the environment. Blocking this is likely to be the real motive behind the big business lobby’s obsession with TTIP and co. Europe is big enough to sustain a high level of social, consumer, health and consumer rights even in a globalising world. No transnational company wants to stop selling to the European common market. Therefore, Europeans hold in their hand a powerful tool for greening global business. This democratic tool we must not give up for the small potential benefits of bilateral trade deals negotiated behind a veil of secrecy.
