If Massive U.S.-EU Trade Pact Passes Congress, U.S. Farmers May Be Subject to Foreign Regs

By Mark Anderson —

Free trade does not simply include cars, appliances, electronics and other durable goods. It also includes food. And the seeds have been planted to lure farmers into this trap through a massive trade bill known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Most Republicans favor this pact, although they know little about it in terms of the big picture. They just hear the promises of greener pastures of prosperity from big business, the Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative office.

The problem is, TTIP negotiations, like those for the more expansive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), are highly confidential.

TTIP, if snuck past the populace on both sides of “the pond” and signed into law, would become the first-ever formal trade and investment pact between the U.S. and the 28-nation European Union (EU).

As this reporter has revealed, the Delegation of the European Union to the United States has been in high gear for months wooing state governors, academics and members of Congress. The lobbying group has a Washington office not far from where the European Union’s “taproot”—the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)—set up an office back in the early 1950s.

Back then, the ECSC touted the “common market” concept, which history shows laid the foundation for the EU.

The ECSC was formed by “Europhile” elites for the express purpose of morphing it into an economic and political union known for a time as the European Economic Community, also as the European Community, among other names, before becoming the EU. Britain joined the EU but kept the pound sterling and stayed out of the Eurozone.

Given the trap that the EU has become—as Europeans witness virtually nonstop centralization of banking, regulation and other tyrannical tentacles—the unique national cultures of Europe are fading in favor of an unwieldy “superstate.”

Therefore, any new talk of a larger “common market” should set off warning sirens all over the place. If a continental common market can form something like the EU, imagine what a transatlantic common market could do.


That’s why American farmers and their brethren in the United Kingdom (UK) and in Europe had better pay close attention to this.

The American Farm Bureau (AFBF), itself a large lobbying outfit with state chapters across the U.S., has long romanticized about tearing down trade barriers. But perhaps the AFBF and its affiliates don’t realize that national sovereignty also is seen as a “trade barrier.”

Deluded Montana and Wyoming Farm Bureau leaders early last fall took part in a farmer-rancher delegation to Europe to discuss trade. “The American Farm Bureau’s Trade Advisory Committee met with World Trade Organization Director General Roberto Azevedo and with trade ambassadors from Canada, Japan, Brazil, China, India and Australia,” a press release noted.

“The [September] meetings first took place in Geneva, followed by a meeting with the European Union in Brussels,” the AFBF also noted, while adding that TTIP—surprise—was a key topic.

TPP—a 12-nation behemoth that straddles the Pacific Ocean while TTIP straddles the Atlantic—is waiting in the wings, as well.

Generally, the American farm delegation discussed trade policies that “reduce and eliminate government-imposed barriers” to agri-trade, as they put it. Usually such “barriers” consist of import taxes, or tariffs. But in this case, “non-tariff barriers” were discussed, which often take the form of “standards” to manage trade. Notably, the AFBF and its fellow travelers believe regulatory barriers are a “significant impediment to growth.”

Yet the dirty little secret is that TTIP is designed to merge the regulatory systems of the EU and the U.S. and create a new and larger “common market,” which strongly suggests that a new Trans-Atlantic Union (TAU) is on track via TTIP.

Last year in Washington, at a meeting covered by AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Belgian “Eurocrat” Monique Goyens of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue spelled it out: “TTIP is much more than a trade agreement. It lays the foundation of a trans-Atlantic common market.”

With considerable gravity, she added: “This concept of regulatory cooperation is totally new. It doesn’t exist in any other trade agreements. . . . We’re laying the foundations for a single market.”

And with that, she added, “the regulatory sovereignty” of each nation has to decline.

That means that the EU likely is not the final stage of transformation. Rather, it’s just a rest stop on the way to a huge world-government building block we could call the TAU.

Logically then the TPP would undergird an enlarged Pacific Union. The fingerprints of the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission and other world-planning, policy-manipulation outfits won’t exactly be difficult to find amid this mess.

The danger of this is that everyday people and their representatives would lose their influence over decision-making by the elevation of such policy-making to a global level. Across the UK, Europe and the U.S., down to South America and over the Pacific to various nations, the parallel governing structure cemented by free trade agreements is undermining the sovereignty of the nation state.

Donate to us

AFP Roving Editor Mark Anderson is a veteran reporter who covers the annual Bilderberg meetings and is chairman of AFP’s new America First Action Committee, designed to involve AFP readers in focusing intensely on Congress to enact key changes, including monetary reform and a pullback of the warfare state. He and his wife Angie often work together on news projects. Write to Mark at [email protected].

2 Comments on If Massive U.S.-EU Trade Pact Passes Congress, U.S. Farmers May Be Subject to Foreign Regs

  1. I wrote the Government and voiced my opposition to this. But like N.A.F.T.A., C.A.F.T.A. and the F.T.A.A., it will happen more than likely.
  2. TPP, CETA, TTIP, Global Treaties; Corporate ‘USA’ and SHAREHOLDERS Secretly Using Tax Dollars to Implement SECRET Suing Machine to HAMMER Non Shareholders. ‘GAME’ Almost Over. Time to Re-Set ‘Game’?

    Will corp. ‘USA’, et al, and Feds to Prepay $Billions for All ‘Trade’ Treaty/’Arrangements’, et al, Secret (‘Death-Star-Chamber) Tribunals’ Punitive Damages to Protect Home State’s Taxpayers? Other States, Municipalities, et al, “…(we) need to control corp. USA’s ‘Contributions.'”

    Undemocratic, Higher Taxes and More Cuts to Services to Pay Secret Penalties; NON Shareholders Have to Pay corporates USA, Japan, Canada, et al, and their SHAREHOLDERS.

    How Much are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for?

    But, If Not PUTIN; ‘The WHITE KNIGHT,’ then Who Do YOU Want to Bankroll the Saving the harmless NON shareholders of the World from Fast Tracking TPPs, CETAs (TTIP) Secret ‘Death-Star-Chamber’ Tribunal Penalties? Will China, Iran, the Muslim World, et al, Support Putin in Suits?

    It will be good for not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that can be generated by the on-going global ‘cooperation’ of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU-Canada CETA, the China-Canada Investment Treaty, et al, but for the potential shareholders, as well, who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as ‘The White Knight.’

    And, while President Putin’s potential support as ‘The WHITE KNIGHT’ in the development of the CET Agreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present and future sanctions leveled by American-led, et al, corporations and financial institutions via their governments’ signing their global corporate economic treaties/’arrangements,’ and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30-40 years and beyond, are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS and NON shareholders) of Germany and JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:

    1) The Submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA and the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding ‘The Submission’:
    ‘The SHAREHOLDERS and Corporations of AMERICA, CHINA, Japan, Germany, Canada, et al
    the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native and non Native, et al’?
    (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)


    2) ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?’
    (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)

    Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?

    And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, and/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA, the EU and Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (‘Death-Star Chamber’) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay and not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:

    1) operating from,
    2) maintain their headquarters,
    3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, ‘taxation’, etc.
    4) et al?

    And, re; the CHINA–Canada Investment Treaty (C-CIT), is it understandable why the ‘coveted’ Hong Kong investor and his associates are ‘concerned’ with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, and the effects of the potential findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?

    In regard to arms sales (and other ‘contentious’ products and services); how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the ‘trade’ treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. and non BRICS, adjudicate, decide and penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi-legitimate and ‘illegal’ sales of arms within the signatories nations and the those of others, and/or, unaligned? Of particular interest is China, which does have a treaty with Canada, which puts China ‘at odds’ with other arms manufacturing and nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any ‘arrangements’ with.

    Are these types of questions that your politicians and the corporate lobbyists call ‘forget-me-nots’ (‘Buyer Beware’) that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast-tracked signatures are obtained?

    And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada ‘…And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/’arrangements’ began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/’arrangements’ that corporate Canada and the Government of Canada have ‘foisted’ upon Native Canadians…’? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al?

    On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again:

    “What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.”

    And, how will YOUR submission to YOUR highest court IMPROVE upon The Submission that is presently before The Supreme Court of Canada?

    David E. H. Smith
    – Researcher
    – ‘Qui tam…’
    Please consider sharing the enclosed information and questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, and then they can share it with 10 others…
    For more Information and Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights and Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

Comments are closed.