The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[hullefc]

Hang on a minute here, the legislation says that no company should be barred from bidding for an open tender for services. Surely that's a good thing? The NHS can choose whoever they like. The legislation doesn't say that the NHS has to choose the American supplier or they'll be sued, it just says that they can't discriminate against someone from tendering.

You buying a service from a supplier hardly gives them impunity to act how they like, does it?

"In addition to this deregulation agenda, TTIP also seeks to create new
markets by opening up public services and government procurement
contracts to competition from transnational corporations, threatening
to introduce a further wave of privatizations in key sectors, such as
health and education. Most worrying of all, TTIP seeks to grant foreign investors
a new right to sue sovereign governments in front of ad hoc arbitration
tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions.
This ‘investor-State dispute settlement’ mechanism effectively elevates

Sovereignty is out of the window. A political party cannot say this or that service will stay in public hands. If they do the company will get compensation for 'projected profits'.
this report

Edit. And therefore the government will have to pay the fine thereby borrow the money and increase debt or cut services elsewhere. The IMF lend money on condition that public services are open to companies, more often than not US.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

"In addition to this deregulation agenda, TTIP also seeks to create new
markets by opening up public services and government procurement
contracts to competition from transnational corporations, threatening
to introduce a further wave of privatizations in key sectors, such as
health and education. Most worrying of all, TTIP seeks to grant foreign investors
a new right to sue sovereign governments in front of ad hoc arbitration
tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions.
This ‘investor-State dispute settlement’ mechanism effectively elevates

Sovereignty is out of the window. A political party cannot say this or that service will stay in public hands. If they do the company will get compensation for 'projected profits'.
this report

Edit. And therefore the government will have to pay the fine thereby borrow the money and increase debt or cut services elsewhere. The IMF lend money on condition that public services are open to companies, more often than not US.

So secret that there's a whole section of the EU website devoted to it

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/

I'm amazed that this bloke seems to know so much about what are apparently secret arrangements. Given that the main European countries (and in particular France) are more left leaning than we are, the idea that they'd sell their public sector to rampant Americans is not something I give any credence to.

 

[hullefc]

So secret that there's a whole section of the EU website devoted to it

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/

I'm amazed that this bloke seems to know so much about what are apparently secret arrangements. Given that the main European countries (and in particular France) are more left leaning than we are, the idea that they'd sell their public sector to rampant Americans is not something I give any credence to.

Tory Britain is different. Osbourne wants to get the state back to pre 1948 levels and would relish getting rid of the 'socialistic' NHS and education.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Tory Britain is different. Osbourne wants to get the state back to pre 1948 levels and would relish getting rid of the 'socialistic' NHS and education.

Firstly, you have no evidence for that, and secondly, you may have noticed that we don't seem to have many friends in the EU. The idea that we'd be able to bluster this thing through against the will of the French and Germans is not something I can see happening at all.

 

[red1]

So secret that there's a whole section of the EU website devoted to it

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/

I'm amazed that this bloke seems to know so much about what are apparently secret arrangements. Given that the main European countries (and in particular France) are more left leaning than we are, the idea that they'd sell their public sector to rampant Americans is not something I give any credence to.

Just a couple things Bruce...when people use the word "secret" in reference to the TTIP, they mean the negotiations are secret, the House of Commons for example, are not included and will in fact be simply expected to rubber stamp whatever the leaders and the corporate lobbyists have thrashed out behind closed doors, they will not be consulted during negotiations. This is what secrecy here means. It's not just the EU but in the US as well, the Congressmen have not been allowed in any of the meetings or if they were allowed, they were not allowed to take original documents out of the meetings to consult lawyers etc. only Obama administration staff and corporate lawyers.

The problem with this is, usually in any complex treaty, you would need first of all transparency so that everyone can take a look at all the clauses of the treaty and scrutinize it in detail and secondly (arguably most importantly) you would need lawyers to take a look at it because they are qualified in figuring out the ins and outs of the treaty and what could possibly happen as a result of the treaty etc. Banning British lawyers who are called on by MP's from taking a look at it will basically mean that MP's might not know what they are doing, which is the intent. This was the complaint of Congressmen in the US as well.

It's interesting you mentioned France, because you are exactly right about them. they are more left wing than we are, which is precisely why they have consistently called for more transparency. In fact so far they have refused to sign it in the short term, they are simply not happy with the deal despite huge pressure from the US and the likes of Britain

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/tr...ment-will-not-sign-ttip-agreement-2015-310037
http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2014/11/french-ministers-clash-with-cameron-over-ttip/

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Just a couple things Bruce...when people use the word "secret" in reference to the TTIP, they mean the negotiations are secret, the House of Commons for example, are not included and will in fact be simply expected to rubber stamp whatever the leaders and the corporate lobbyists have thrashed out behind closed doors, they will not be consulted during negotiations. This is what secrecy here means. It's not just the EU but in the US as well, the Congressmen have not been allowed in any of the meetings or if they were allowed, they were not allowed to take original documents out of the meetings to consult lawyers etc. only Obama administration staff and corporate lawyers.

The problem with this is, usually in any complex treaty, you would need first of all transparency so that everyone can take a look at all the clauses of the treaty and scrutinize it in detail and secondly (arguably most importantly) you would need lawyers to take a look at it because they are qualified in figuring out the ins and outs of the treaty and what could possibly happen as a result of the treaty etc. Banning British lawyers who are called on by MP's from taking a look at it will basically mean that MP's might not know what they are doing, which is the intent. This was the complaint of Congressmen in the US as well.

It's interesting you mentioned France, because you are exactly right about them. they are more left wing than we are, which is precisely why they have consistently called for more transparency. In fact so far they have refused to sign it in the short term, they are simply not happy with the deal despite huge pressure from the US and the likes of Britain

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/tr...ment-will-not-sign-ttip-agreement-2015-310037
http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2014/11/french-ministers-clash-with-cameron-over-ttip/

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm far from any fan of the EU, and transparency should be the norm with any political dealings these days, I'm just sceptical that it will be as bad as people are suggesting given that it's an EU project. The EU hasn't really shown any evidence that it's in favour of unbridled capitalism and it would make no sense whatsoever for companies to be able to fine the state for not choosing them in a tendering process.

Given the way the EU has behaved thus far, I can see them having rules that say a US company can not be denied the chance to bid for a tender (and of course vice versa), but there seems no rational reason why the buyer should be forced into choosing a bidder they don't want (or risk being fined).

That would be crazy and whilst I'm sure a whole lot of lobbying goes on to pollute the water, that would be a right hum dinger to get passed through. To be honest, this is one of the reasons I dislike governments. Crony capitalism and rent seeking is far too prevalent.

 

[red1]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm far from any fan of the EU, and transparency should be the norm with any political dealings these days, I'm just sceptical that it will be as bad as people are suggesting given that it's an EU project. The EU hasn't really shown any evidence that it's in favour of unbridled capitalism and it would make no sense whatsoever for companies to be able to fine the state for not choosing them in a tendering process.

It's more of a US project I would say, the EU are going along with it because it gives the EU countries tonnes of money, there's no question about that. A lot of regulations will be wiped out in exchange for free trade and corporate power.

All indications so far tell us that companies would be able to sue and fine the State for any policy which affects their profits, so any environmental regulations which affect them, they will sue the State. You can forget about trying to control pollution in our own borders with TTIP and we lose a host of other powers as a country as well. What are the limits? We literally don't know. All we can do is just speculate, because the treaty is secret. That's the whole point. We have no idea what the full effects could be since it's all behind closed doors.

 

[Tubey]

Firstly, you have no evidence for that, and secondly, you may have noticed that we don't seem to have many friends in the EU. The idea that we'd be able to bluster this thing through against the will of the French and Germans is not something I can see happening at all.

There's been four years of evidence and an Autumn Statement backing that view up this very week to be fair.

 

[hullefc]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm far from any fan of the EU, and transparency should be the norm with any political dealings these days, I'm just sceptical that it will be as bad as people are suggesting given that it's an EU project. The EU hasn't really shown any evidence that it's in favour of unbridled capitalism and it would make no sense whatsoever for companies to be able to fine the state for not choosing them in a tendering process.

Given the way the EU has behaved thus far, I can see them having rules that say a US company can not be denied the chance to bid for a tender (and of course vice versa), but there seems no rational reason why the buyer should be forced into choosing a bidder they don't want (or risk being fined).

That would be crazy and whilst I'm sure a whole lot of lobbying goes on to pollute the water, that would be a right hum dinger to get passed through. To be honest, this is one of the reasons I dislike governments. Crony capitalism and rent seeking is far too prevalent.

Try telling that to the Greeks. The Troika said it wouldn't be 'so bad', bit of belt tightening, but for ordinary Greeks it is.

 

[hullefc]

TTIP.

The decision to start negotiations was in large part due to the continuing economic crisis and the stalling of the multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation - the so-called Doha Development Agenda. In addition, the reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and high commodity prices meant that both sides were ready to discuss agriculture and negotiate opening their markets.

At times of crisis the EU, the countries individually and collectively, like other countries and trade blocks will look at and try anything they think will get their economies moving.

"Struggling French carmaker PSA Peugeot Citroen has sealed a long-awaited rescue deal that will see its founding family cede control of the company.

China's Dongfeng Motors and the French government will each invest about 800m euros (£660m) in return for 14% stakes".

Britain has sold off its family silver and so are the French.

No country or trading block will stand in the way of multinationals, who are the main engine pushing for TTIP. It is the promise, often in economists heads, of economic growth.

"It suggests the EU's economy could benefit by €119 billion a year – equivalent to an extra €545 for a family of four in the EU. According to the study, the US economy could gain an extra €95 billion a year or €655 per American family. These benefits would cost very little because they would be the result of removing tariffs and doing away with unnecessary rules and bureaucratic hurdles that make it difficult to buy and sell across the Atlantic. The extra economic growth that is expected to come from the TTIP will benefit everyone. Boosting trade is a good way of boosting our economies by creating increased demand and supply without having to increase public spending or borrowing. The TTIP would be the cheapest stimulus package imaginable".

And the evidence?

"The cost of dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy can add the equivalent of tariffs of 10-20% to the price of goods, an extra expense which is paid by the consumer".

And of course this will be passed on to consumers. Waffle, waffle and more bull.

There is no hard evidence that it will benefit any economy. But there is a desperation to 'try' something 'different'.

But it will benefit those companies that are able to highjack the national purse to provide services like health.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

TTIP.

The decision to start negotiations was in large part due to the continuing economic crisis and the stalling of the multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation - the so-called Doha Development Agenda. In addition, the reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and high commodity prices meant that both sides were ready to discuss agriculture and negotiate opening their markets.

At times of crisis the EU, the countries individually and collectively, like other countries and trade blocks will look at and try anything they think will get their economies moving.

"Struggling French carmaker PSA Peugeot Citroen has sealed a long-awaited rescue deal that will see its founding family cede control of the company.

China's Dongfeng Motors and the French government will each invest about 800m euros (£660m) in return for 14% stakes".

Britain has sold off its family silver and so are the French.

No country or trading block will stand in the way of multinationals, who are the main engine pushing for TTIP. It is the promise, often in economists heads, of economic growth.

"It suggests the EU's economy could benefit by €119 billion a year – equivalent to an extra €545 for a family of four in the EU. According to the study, the US economy could gain an extra €95 billion a year or €655 per American family. These benefits would cost very little because they would be the result of removing tariffs and doing away with unnecessary rules and bureaucratic hurdles that make it difficult to buy and sell across the Atlantic. The extra economic growth that is expected to come from the TTIP will benefit everyone. Boosting trade is a good way of boosting our economies by creating increased demand and supply without having to increase public spending or borrowing. The TTIP would be the cheapest stimulus package imaginable".

And the evidence?

"The cost of dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy can add the equivalent of tariffs of 10-20% to the price of goods, an extra expense which is paid by the consumer".

And of course this will be passed on to consumers. Waffle, waffle and more bull.

There is no hard evidence that it will benefit any economy. But there is a desperation to 'try' something 'different'.

But it will benefit those companies that are able to highjack the national purse to provide services like health.

How do you equate lowering tariffs with hijacking the NHS?

 

[roydo]

So this TTIP is a way of removing trade barriers for countries selling into and out of the EU?

 

[hullefc]

How do you equate lowering tariffs with hijacking the NHS?

TTIP is the whole package of opening up all the economy. I was quoting the bull to sell it to the people of Europe and America.

"The cost of dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy can add the equivalent of tariffs of 10-20% to the price of goods, an extra expense which is paid by the consumer".

And of course this will be passed on to consumers. Waffle, waffle and more bull.

There is no hard evidence that it will benefit any economy. But there is a desperation to 'try' something 'different'.

But it will benefit those companies that are able to highjack the national purse to provide services like health".

The whole package including the areas that a government might want to protect because the people may want to protect it eg. the NHS.

But no say the US/French/German etc. health companies you can't do that under the TTIP agreement. You have to let us have the right to do surgeries at London hospital and you will pay for it or those having the surgery.

And as far as running GPs surgeries the GPs can't do that unless they bid lower than us but we can go really low at first before we raise the price and you will have to pay for it or the people will directly to see a doctor.

The IMF have many such privatisation programmes attached to lending money to a country that is forced to agree. With policy set by a private US company.

 

[roydo]

TTIP is the whole package of opening up all the economy. I was quoting the bull to sell it to the people of Europe and America.

"The cost of dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy can add the equivalent of tariffs of 10-20% to the price of goods, an extra expense which is paid by the consumer".

And of course this will be passed on to consumers. Waffle, waffle and more bull.

There is no hard evidence that it will benefit any economy. But there is a desperation to 'try' something 'different'.

But it will benefit those companies that are able to highjack the national purse to provide services like health".

The whole package including the areas that a government might want to protect because the people may want to protect it eg. the NHS.

But no say the US/French/German etc. health companies you can't do that under the TTIP agreement. You have to let us have the right to do surgeries at London hospital and you will pay for it or those having the surgery.

And as far as running GPs surgeries the GPs can't do that unless they bid lower than us but we can go really low at first before we raise the price and you will have to pay for it or the people will directly to see a doctor.

The IMF have many such privatisation programmes attached to lending money to a country that is forced to agree. With policy set by a private US company.

So this thing would allow a US company, or French one for that matter, to just say, "we can run that GP surgery cheaper, so hand it over", and thats that?

 

[davek]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/social-democrats-face-irrelevance-best-extinction-worse

That is a very decent read.