The WTO - WTF?

There was a Newsnight report on the Doha Round WTO talks last night.

It seems that there are four main planks to the prospective agreement, not two.

1. Open up developing countries markets to manufacturing and services imports
2. Open up all WTO job markets to skilled labour from all WTO countries
3. Further requirement for neoliberal privatisation by law
4. Reducing agricultural subsidies in advanced countries.

We apparently have a veto if we don't agree with the package - but will the package be brought back for public debate?

These massive changes in governance are being made over our heads with barely a mention in the press and the Dail.

cactus flower wrote:

These massive changes in governance are being made over our heads with barely a mention in the press and the Dail.

It's incredibly undemocratic alright but isn't it like what a bunch of farmers would do here behind people's backs anyway?

Single Farm Payment? €3.2 billion industry under threat? O Holy God Biddy ..

Quote :

FA piles on pressure over WTO deal

By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent
PRESSURE mounted on the Government yesterday to prevent the €3.2 billion beef and lamb industries being wiped out in the world trade talks in Geneva.


Irish Farmers Association president Pádraig Walshe said the Government must veto the tariff concessions offered by European Commissioner Peter Mandelson, or the Irish beef industry will be sold out to the Brazilians and the Americans before the weekend.

Mr Walshe clashed with Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith, accusing him of raising threats to the single farm payment when the real issues are tariff cuts that would wipe out the beef industry, cut milk prices and destroy the sheep sector. Click Here!


“Farmers will see through any attempt by Minister Smith to use the single farm payment in a damage limitation exercise after a bad WTO deal,” Mr Walshe said. “Rather than pretending to have saved the single farm payment, Minister Smith should be applying all the Government’s forces in defending the beef, dairy and sheep industries.”

Mr Smith earlier warned the issue of the “Green Box” which protects almost €2bn worth of EU subsidies to Irish farmers each year had come to the fore in the negotiations.

“I have made it clear that we will not accept any threat to these payments which account for 75% of farmers’ income,” he said.

Mr Smith said he was also continuing to lobby hard on the issue of protecting key EU markets from the effects of tariff reductions and increased imports. He said Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel had paid tribute to the persistence of Ireland on the issue

Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association president Jackie Cahill said a new front against European agriculture is now being opened on de-coupled payments. The range of other damaging proposals on market access and the phasing-out of export refunds also remain on the table, he said.

Meat Industry Ireland director Cormac Healy said the most negative impact of the proposals will be felt in the Irish beef and lamb processing sectors which provide about 10,000 jobs and underpins the livelihood of 100,000 farmers. The sectors have an annual turnover of €3.2bn.

Food and Drink Industry Ireland director Paul Kelly said it was vital the Government maintain its stated position as EU proposals on agriculture have gone too far.

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=business-qqqm=business-qqqa=business-qqqid=68148-qqqx=1.asp

Watch Prime Time tonight cactus, Keelin Shanley will be on mouthing off about what's going on at the WTO talks in Geneva.


Could be a bad year ahead for Fianna Fail - at last ! MUHAHAHAHAH !

Prime Time on now. bump

cactus flower wrote:

There was a Newsnight report on the Doha Round WTO talks last night.

It seems that there are four main planks to the prospective agreement, not two.

1. Open up developing countries markets to manufacturing and services imports
2. Open up all WTO job markets to skilled labour from all WTO countries
3. Further requirement for neoliberal privatisation by law
4. Reducing agricultural subsidies in advanced countries.

We apparently have a veto if we don't agree with the package - but will the package be brought back for public debate?

These massive changes in governance are being made over our heads with barely a mention in the press and the Dail.

Which is why, cactus flower, if Harney doesn't finish the health service as we know it, the GATS has the potential to do so. As you say, not a peep from our politicians. Perhaps some of them are not aware of it.

What's GATS Slim Buddha?


EU Tariffs to be cut by 66%...

All Tariffs lifted by 2013 ...

Poorer countries will be allowed to hold higher tariff barriers for a while so there may be trade justice

The problem is the BRIC countries they say - Brazil China India Russia

Padraig Walshe is on and - are there many other sectors besides agriculture getting negotiated at Geneva for this Doha round?

Mary Coughlan is saying the talks have broken down for now ...

"The Green Box" is being spoken about now by Padraig - this was jargon busted as a subsidy for farmers who are producing below the cost of production, according to Padraig.

The presenter reporting Teagasc says that farm incomes are up by 18% this year while food prices are also up so now might be a good time for the farmers to take a hit ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

What's GATS Slim Buddha?


EU Tariffs to be cut by 66%...

All Tariffs lifted by 2013 ...

Poorer countries will be allowed to hold higher tariff barriers for a while so there may be trade justice

The problem is the BRIC countries they say - Brazil China India Russia

Padraig Walshe is on and - are there many other sectors besides agriculture getting negotiated at Geneva for this Doha round?

The General Agreement on Trade in Services. GATT just deals in goods but the GATS deals in Services which is the driver of many US commercial health companies, for example, making inroads into the public health services traditionally available in west European countries. It is a very complex, technical agreement and its true impact has yet to be felt.

Slim Buddha wrote:

The General Agreement on Trade in Services. GATT just deals in goods but the GATS deals in Services which is the driver of many US commercial health companies, for example, making inroads into the public health services traditionally available in west European countries. It is a very complex, technical agreement and its true impact has yet to be felt.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Which is why, cactus flower, if Harney doesn't finish the health service as we know it, the GATS has the potential to do so. As you say, not a peep from our politicians. Perhaps some of them are not aware of it.

Given the erroneous ejaculations of some politicians lately there's a good chance they aren't aware of it. O God.

But this agreement should be observed like an internation Treaty - it is in effect an international treaty, isn't it?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

The General Agreement on Trade in Services. GATT just deals in goods but the GATS deals in Services which is the driver of many US commercial health companies, for example, making inroads into the public health services traditionally available in west European countries. It is a very complex, technical agreement and its true impact has yet to be felt.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Which is why, cactus flower, if Harney doesn't finish the health service as we know it, the GATS has the potential to do so. As you say, not a peep from our politicians. Perhaps some of them are not aware of it.

Given the erroneous ejaculations of some politicians lately there's a good chance they aren't aware of it. O God.

But this agreement should be observed like an internation Treaty - it is in effect an international treaty, isn't it?

It very much is an international agreement containing the full force of international law. Furthermore, any attmept to stop foreign service providers is subject to a "necessity test" whereby a government must justify a restriction placed against opening up a service area like, for example, health and that restriction cannot be more burdensome than necessary. Any dispute arising over the interpretation of what necessary actually means will be adjudicated by a Disputes Panel in the WTO which, naturally, conducts all its hearings in camera.

Is health definitely one of those business areas for sure? How could we get away with keeping out businesses which would want a cut of our health service? There are many other countries in the WTO like England and France - wouldn't there be revolution there if their NHSes were under threat?

Or maybe privatisation is not necessary in those countries because their systems are satisfactory already?

You're joking aren't you Audi?! There are many who would argue that the current New Lab. govt. has fully assisted the increased privatisation of health in this country. Eg it is now almost impossible to have dental services on the NHS. The current plan to roll out "Polyclinics" is certainly worth a second look - many are saying that it is a front for the transferral of GP services to large private concerns. And on and on. Private capital, as recent Klein readers will know , moves on to look for the next chunk of meat to sink it's teeth into and the NHS is meaty.

It has been a good 3 or 4 years since I paid close attention to the WTO, but a lecturer I knew who has written on these issues said it was a whole new form of binding international law most had no idea existed.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/law/about/ft-academic/macmillan/publications


Slim, as you specialise in these matters, is it true that some have worried in the last couple of years that maybe the Bush administration was content to negotiate bilateral deals all over the place, rather than multilateral WTO-wide deals? And that the weaker nations would thereby lose out? Sounded like a large chunk of pro-WTO propaganda to me, considering it's origins in big Pharma.

Polyclinics? I'm afraid what I know of the NHS comes from report and rumour from posters on p.ie and a film by Michael Moore. I've read few if any articles in the UK papers etc.

Good to know that stuff above.

But the French NHS is under threat. By technocratic graduations though:

- Allowing specialized doctors to charge more than is refunded

- diminishing refund for glasses, dental and many other things

- closing hospitals in many areas, thus preparing private competition...

... But of course keeping the NHS as a symbol, so the larger population cannot clearly identify the deal.

So the French and English systems are both going to change, ye're saying?

Sounds like it alright!

I probably have reams of stuff here somewhere about the WTO, or at least TRIPS which exercised me quite a bit a few years ago, as it did so many.

They're reporting on Irish Television that the trade talks have broke down but I didn't catch on what. Unbelievable that they are orchestrating capitalism on such a grand scale as to possibly affect our public health services like that. Don't national parliaments have a say on whether our services get privatised or not? Something's very fishy about it - farming yes but blanket privatisation ... great in theory but I thought the debate about health privatisation was far from over?

There's something outrageous in this especially as cactus says that it's so hidden from the public...

Atticus wrote:

You're joking aren't you Audi?! There are many who would argue that the current New Lab. govt. has fully assisted the increased privatisation of health in this country. Eg it is now almost impossible to have dental services on the NHS. The current plan to roll out "Polyclinics" is certainly worth a second look - many are saying that it is a front for the transferral of GP services to large private concerns. And on and on. Private capital, as recent Klein readers will know , moves on to look for the next chunk of meat to sink it's teeth into and the NHS is meaty.

It has been a good 3 or 4 years since I paid close attention to the WTO, but a lecturer I knew who has written on these issues said it was a whole new form of binding international law most had no idea existed.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/law/about/ft-academic/macmillan/publications


Slim, as you specialise in these matters, is it true that some have worried in the last couple of years that maybe the Bush administration was content to negotiate bilateral deals all over the place, rather than multilateral WTO-wide deals? And that the weaker nations would thereby lose out? Sounded like a large chunk of pro-WTO propaganda to me, considering it's origins in big Pharma.

The US position is interesting. I believe you are right about the tendency towards bi-lateralism in general and the US in particular. I believe the GATS case v Antigua is causing a policy change since 2003 by the US which is giving all the appearance of them using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is a big 21 nation Pacific Rim agreement in the pipeline which, if it comes to pass will have the US, China, India and Japan participating but will crucially have its own governance model which in effect will bypass the WTO. If it comes to pass. The WTO needs all the favourable press it can get.

The Irish Times wrote:

“We will resume again at midday here and frankly I think it could be over by the afternoon, or we could go through the night and come out red-eyed and tired with a deal early tomorrow morning. Beyond saying it’s about 50:50 I wouldn’t like to make a prediction.”

Ministers from more than 30 countries are at the talks in the so-called Doha round of the World Trade Organisation talks in Geneva.

Major disagreements emerged in late-night talks on Wednesday over a so-called anti-concentration clause, which is meant to prevent states from shielding large parts of their industry from foreign imports.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0725/breaking35.htm

It looks like we'll know today sometime whether or not those WTO talks will come to a conclusion. It's really true that the media has not been covering this or moreso, that there isn't same emotional reactions to it as there were to the Lisbon Referendum. For the obvious reason that there isn't a referendum on this, I suppose.

Still, the changes could be very significant for Ireland if agreement is reached; markets in India and China will be opened up, leading to more and more reasonably priced products not to mention bursts of investment in science and technology - for example, hydrogen fuel cells for your devices


http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1908/70/
(i want it)

Quote :

Irish-born David O’Sullivan, who is at the talks, said he believed there were many gains for Ireland in the current proposals, particularly in the industrial and services sector.

He also said he did not believe the plan threatens Irish agriculture in the way that farmers here claim.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland , Mr O’Sullivan said: “It’s true that in any trade deal some people see specific losses, whereas the gains are spread across the economy as a whole.”

“I certainly think that we would have huge gains in the industrial sectors [with] tariffs in the OECD countries being halved, which is where we have most of our trade.”

Mr O’Sullivan said tariffs in China would be “significantly reduced” and that low tariffs in India would be “locked in” under the proposed trade deal.

However, the IFA wants Ireland to veto the talks as we know from Lisbon

Quote :

The Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) has insisted that the Government must veto tariff concessions offered by EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, claiming they are a “sell-out” of the Irish beef industry to Brazil and the US.

Does anyone know if the different sections of the agreements - services etc. can be agreed seperately from farming which can be left til later or is it all or nothing? If it's all or nothing then Fianna Fail could effectively hold up a world agreement ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

Polyclinics? I'm afraid what I know of the NHS comes from report and rumour from posters on p.ie and a film by Michael Moore. I've read few if any articles in the UK papers etc.

Good to know that stuff above.

Sorry Audi, I didn't mean to imply that you should know.

Looking at the WTO site this morning, I see they have a Distance Learning module, which seems to supply some handy background info. Lots of other info on the site.

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/d_learn_e/d_learn_e.htm

Slim, I look forward to reading your posts on trade in the coming weeks and months.

Good link Atticus. Some very good general theoretical economic background on internation trade on this link from the WTO site

http://www.swisslearn.org/wto/module4/e/start.htm

It is a good link and Madame Marceau talks a good talk. However, it is how the various agreements impact on developing countries ability to perform economically is where the effectiveness of the WTO can be measured. It's not called Whose Trade Organisation(?) for nothing.

Slim Buddha wrote:

However, it is how the various agreements impact on developing countries ability to perform economically is where the effectiveness of the WTO can be measured. It's not called Whose Trade Organisation(?) for nothing.

And this success is itself measured by the WTO or is it done by the UN or are there international market indicators of GNP/GDP and so on that monitor it? And what are the main bodies who watch the progress anyway - the IMF and World Bank etc.?

Are there independent organisations which watch and monitor the growth and development of dev. countries and the impacts which trade liberalisation has on them?