Without touching on the unpopular Fast-Track mechanism necessary to pass these two treaties, Sachs laid out five reasons why, on the substance, they should not be passed or ratified.
With court systems and property rights laws that rank among the strongest in the world, one cannot possibly argue that it is necessary for the EU and United States to allow foreign corporations to skirt domestic legal systems in order to attract their investment.
Given that around 26 states in the U.S. have moved to enact more comprehensive labeling requirements for GMOs, any trade measures that could threaten the rights of U.S. citizens to democratically determine higher standards in food labeling, should be opposed.
The majority of binding and enforceable rulings of the WTO and those of other trade bodies such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) demonstrate a consistent pattern of lowering food, environmental, labor, or consumer safety standards in behest to trade agendas.
The Obama administration is pursuing a free trade agreement with the European Union that would grant corporations new political power to challenge an array of regulations both at home and abroad, according to an administration official involved in the negotiations.
She said investor-state resolution is "terribly risky for communities, the environment, and our climate." Talks with the
Momentum seems to be gaining this week on the idea of a Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA). But if the joint White House-European Union committee exploring the topic is to be of any value, it needs to examine a key corollary to free trade -- labor mobility.
There's a buzz in both Berlin and D.C. these days for free trade as a potential path back to growth for ailing economies. Indeed, a Transatlantic Free Trade area would be a very good idea -- but a highly regulated trade area would not deliver the benefits promised.