negative list

Negative list means opportunity for democracy LOST. -----all service sectors and modes of supply ARE INCLUDED BY DEFAULT. Negative list is also an implied standstill.

THIS PAGE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS- Its being edited as I try out different text.

---------

re: negative list.

It also contains an implicit "standstill".  Which means exactly what it sounds like, no more regulation, nomatter what people vote for, unless a country leaves of modifies its agreement terms which often triggers demands for compensation.

negative list means "opt out" not "opt in" and is a LOT like a standstill clause in that it freezes new regulation subsequent to its coming into effect. So it would block all new regulation after that date except by mutual agreement of countries, totally blocking any consideration of what the voters in the country actually want. .

GATS is a hybrid, parts are (positive listing or "bottom up") (opt-in) but other parts, particularly financial services, as pushed by the US, use a negative list approach, implemented by means of a standstill clause.  (The US is the big pusher of negative listing)

so - the new

TISA which is likely to be revived by Biden I am gathering, from the trade media- is negative list or top-down. So are NAFTA and most other US style FTAs like TTIP/TAFTA, and others .

Hybrid Listing Part III of the GATS approaches the
scheduling of services commitments so Members to gradually build up obligations through a process of “positive listings” of sectoral commitments.  

Negative List makes an assumption that countries want to privatize  all service sectors, and modes of supply, unless they are excluded in writing in their schedules then. (A "carve-out")

This can become a huge trap as negative list also means a freeze on all further regulation, (similar to the freeze we have had on financial services - because of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.

Positive List is opt in, like GATS - apart from financial services like banking, health and other insurance, etc. They are officially frozen! But one wouldn't gather that from the news media or Congress. 

But I think that despite that huge amount of inconsistency we would be wise to understand the trade agreements as the real situation and the others activities as likely questionable or even fake, unless the country gets out of these deals by the official procedures to do so. Which we have intentionally or not made potentially very difficult and costly. , TISA will block new regulations in areas like health insurance, pegging the ceiling for new rules to the date long ago in the 1990s when the Understanding took effect, not today.

30 countries signed the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, but many included reservations. Also the low number of countries that signed on in the eyes of many WTO Members makes it appear to lack legitimacy in some ways.

This is likely why the US istrying to revisit the issues and get another change to compel them to limit  their government involvement in a great many issues in such an inflexible undemocratic way.

Does this make the applicability of the Understanding unclear and confusing? yes. Does it make it any less binding on the US itself, its main advocate?

I have no idea. It seems to me that the Understanding was especially targeting attempts to expand social services and healthcare in the US itself which is also targeted for large scale services liberalization.  So we are delieratly squelching democracy and tying our own hands, to lock in bad policy?  It would see that way to me.

This is so obviously so against the peoples wishes its hard to see how it could be allowed to have gotten even as far as it has without having been challenged. But it has, with the media having been completely silent.

See also:

Related content