TTIP doesn't protect government monopolies on health and water services. You can view them as government monopolies or as ways of having the government protect and provide services to the people without competition. Same diff, different POVs.
TTIP uses the US perspective on food safety. If there's reasonable suspicion something's unsafe, if there's no evidence it's unsafe, then it's often considered safe (esp. if allowed by tradtion or precedent). Europe's precautionary principle says that anything's unsafe unless it's shown to be safe beyond fairly stringent requirements. Oddly, this doesn't always apply to naturally occuring products--you provide a poisonous fruit to market, it's dangerous. You want to market magnesium bicarbonate as a mineral supplement, you have years of regulatory hassle (even though it's going to be perfectly safe). IRCA said glyphosate was probably carcinogenic because of a mismatch between France's "not absolutely proven to not be carcinogenic" and IRCA's definitions, backed by research done by its chair in a former capacity and testified to after the chair stepped down. (Can you say "bias"?)
The US has more stringent banking rules than some European countries. They want our rules loosened. (Some in the US don't want our rules loosened.)
Privacy: negotiators would weaken the provisions in both countries, neither country wants them--but what gets weakened in each side's proposals is different.
Sovereignty. If companies lose money because of a country's policies--which in the US would be shoved under uncompensated taking--then the government can be sued. No government likes having its policies challenged by insignificant, unimportant people like CEOs. In the EU, many large corporations are clearly in bed with the government because that's how their economies went. Volkswagen gets a lot of support because the government can't just "make jobs", it has to let things go well for corporations. The French aerospace industry is the same. The idea of an independent board to adjudicate such things is intolerable and utterly unthinkable. TTIP gives individuals--in this case investors--more ability to challenge governments.
At the same time the Canadian agreement includes the ability of groups to sue over labor, sustainability, and environmental concerns. It's the stick that goes with the carrot, and when implemented between some countries it's fairly meaningless. Between others, it's a cudgel. It's a good idea, the thinking goes, to have an independent body to adjudicate such things. Unfortunately, by "independent" they mean "high level officials from both sides," or something like that, who'll evaluate the concerns from a yet-unnamed "civil society forum." Oh, joy. A committee with real teeth. Not. Notice that again, the idea is that individuals are subservient to "the people," which is to say, the bureaucrats and politicians in the government.
Some of the chapters in TTIP that are unaccepable deal with labor and environment. Most don't. Agreement was reached on not a single chapter, according to the biased, uninvolved, politically astute opposition observer cited in the OP. (Oh, am I veering towards an ad hominem argument? Why, yes I am. Not because he can't make a valid argument, but because there's no special reason to trust his assertions as to the factual basis for his conclusion, and good reasons to distrust them.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
