TTIP

[Woolverhampton_Blue]

I think a more indicative case for legislative capability is that of Vattenfall. As we've seen with our own energy issues, building a nuclear power station is massively risky, so states often offer some kind of guarantee to incentivize their construction. In the light of the melt-down in Japan, Germany decide that they want to scrap all of their nuclear stations. Fair enough, that's their prerogative but it clearly breaks the agreement they had with Vattenfall, who rightly sought compensation.

I'm not sure any of us would say such a scenario is unreasonable.

Don't know a lot about the Vattenfall case, are they pursuing compensation for work & planning already undertaken or for loss of future earnings?

For the first scenario then it seems fair they should receive compensation. For the second one less so. If the government bans a certain legal high tomorrow due to health concerns, should manufacturers and retailers be compensated for future loss of earnings?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ersial-legal-right-as-environmental-deterrent

The article linked above, to me, is worrying.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Don't know a lot about the Vattenfall case, are they pursuing compensation for work & planning already undertaken or for loss of future earnings?

For the first scenario then it seems fair they should receive compensation. For the second one less so. If the government bans a certain legal high tomorrow due to health concerns, should manufacturers and retailers be compensated for future loss of earnings?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ersial-legal-right-as-environmental-deterrent

The article linked above, to me, is worrying.

I'd imagine it's both, if a state says to you that we'll support your build and ensure you the kind of returns to make such a hefty investment less risky, reneging on that must have some consequences. Like with our own government and their deal with the Chinese. If they sign an agreement with them saying we'll guarantee you £x for the energy you produce for x years, and then half way through that say that they're actually going to scrap nuclear, then that's not right.

I suspect it was a similar thing with the cigarettes thing. Had a state said "these things are really bad for you, we want to ban their sale" then I can't see how that can be disputed. If they say however that something is harmful, but we quite like the tax money so we'll keep selling them, but prevent you from associating your brand with them in anyway (or some other restriction in how you can trade), that's murkier ground imo.

It will be interesting to see how things such as GMO unfold. They've been used for years in America with no health issues that I'm aware of, but they're largely banned in Europe thanks to strong lobbying from French farmers. You would imagine that if there are no justifiable health concerns attached to something, then there may be valid questions asked about why it isn't allowed. I haven't seen the documents so have no idea how such a thing would be tackled (if it even is). Given the hugely negative impact the CAP has had on the world though, I'd doff my cap if the farming lobby was taken on. Long overdue.

 

[hullefc]

Don't know a lot about the Vattenfall case, are they pursuing compensation for work & planning already undertaken or for loss of future earnings?

For the first scenario then it seems fair they should receive compensation. For the second one less so. If the government bans a certain legal high tomorrow due to health concerns, should manufacturers and retailers be compensated for future loss of earnings?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ersial-legal-right-as-environmental-deterrent

The article linked above, to me, is worrying.

We should all be worried by the TTIP agreement. No elected government can protect themselves against big business, particularly those of the US. It doesn't matter what laws are passed if it infringes on big businesses right to make money then they will sued.

During the negotiations for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA - there was inserted a Chapter 11 an Investor-State Dispute Settlement - ISDS - clause which gave the 'right' of businesses to prosecute government for what they said was 'unfair' laws. Canada has been the most sued government using Chapter 11, costing £billions of tax payers money. Mostly to do with their environmental laws that they were elected to put into law. On behalf of US companies, highly expensive lawyers have made sure they actively pursue the governments of Mexico and Canada.

"Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret.

The CCPA believes the federal government’s strong commitment to Chapter 11 and its willingness to settle and compensate claimants is encouraging more cases against Canada. There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23.

The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.

Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study". Sunny Freeman, Huffington Post 14th January 2015.

The US are insisting that there is a ISDS clause Chapter put into TTIP. Not surprising considering they have never lost a case.

 

[peteblue]

If you don't like TTIP then tough, because you won't have a vote. If you want a vote against it then vote to Leave the EU.........

 

[dandydan]

How much is spent on the NHS annually? I bet there's a number of American medical corporations that would love to get their noses in that trough.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

If you don't like TTIP then tough, because you won't have a vote. If you want a vote against it then vote to Leave the EU.........

This, unfortunately.

Can't have it both ways...

 

[orchard]

From what I read of the government report, it suggested that we wouldn't benefit too much financially as we already do an awful lot of trade with America. The other nations in Europe however would benefit considerably.

The other 'Nations of Europe' have been operating under the same conditions as us Bruce.

There might be a slight negative in turns of political impact, but even that was very slight, and you'll surely note that there was no hyperbole in the report about the NHS being privatised or supermarkets being over-run with chlorinated chickens.

No, because it didn't concern itself with the other aspects of the treaty. If you think dropping the precautionary principle in medicine and agriculture is small-fry, you need to consider the implications more.

Lets be clear here, it opens up governments to proper scrutiny according to the law. It isn't likely to be the case that Acme Inc can demand a new law be created and that's the job done, but it does seem likely that it will hold governments to account according to the laws of their own land. That doesn't seem so bad, does it? I mean if a government decided that smoking was too dangerous to health and decided to ban it, I very much doubt that any court would say they wouldn't be able to do so.

Again, what's 'the law' ???

 

[orchard]

If you don't like TTIP then tough, because you won't have a vote. If you want a vote against it then vote to Leave the EU.........

What does this even mean ?

 

[orchard]

We should all be worried by the TTIP agreement. No elected government can protect themselves against big business, particularly those of the US. It doesn't matter what laws are passed if it infringes on big businesses right to make money then they will sued.

During the negotiations for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA - there was inserted a Chapter 11 an Investor-State Dispute Settlement - ISDS - clause which gave the 'right' of businesses to prosecute government for what they said was 'unfair' laws. Canada has been the most sued government using Chapter 11, costing £billions of tax payers money. Mostly to do with their environmental laws that they were elected to put into law. On behalf of US companies, highly expensive lawyers have made sure they actively pursue the governments of Mexico and Canada.

"Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret.

The CCPA believes the federal government’s strong commitment to Chapter 11 and its willingness to settle and compensate claimants is encouraging more cases against Canada. There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23.

The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.

Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study". Sunny Freeman, Huffington Post 14th January 2015.

The US are insisting that there is a ISDS clause Chapter put into TTIP. Not surprising considering they have never lost a case.

There was a country in South America who, after telling a mining company to reduce its serious pollution as it was affecting the health of thousands and getting no joy, were going to revoke the license, were informed that they'd have to pay more than its annual health budget in compensation. They then backed out and effectively sacrificed thousands of innocent lives.

 

[hullefc]

If you don't like TTIP then tough, because you won't have a vote. If you want a vote against it then vote to Leave the EU.........

Those that want to leave say that they can negotiate their own trade agreements with other countries. If the UK leaves and negotiates a trade agreement with the US, they will insist it will be a TTIP type agreement with the same provisos that are in TTIP. Namely, the Investor State Disputes Settlement. US health companies are salivating and jumping with joy with the prospect of getting their hands on public NHS money, with guarantees that the NHS is fully opened to the private sector.

Similarly, if the UK leaves and tries and negotiate with China, the Chinese will demand that clauses are put in so the UK would not be able to impose tariffs on Chinese steel or goods.

 

[hullefc]

How much is spent on the NHS annually? I bet there's a number of American medical corporations that would love to get their noses in that trough.

UK NHS taxpayers money is the principle driving force behind the US wanting the UK to stay in Europe. That is why the Tories agreed not to fight for the NHS to be exempt from the negotiations. As TTIP is nearly completed, US health companies are gearing themselves up for an assault on the NHS. If the UK leaves it will put back their attempts to get their hands on public money. Expediency has become the order of the day.

 

[hullefc]

There was a country in South America who, after telling a mining company to reduce its serious pollution as it was affecting the health of thousands and getting no joy, were going to revoke the license, were informed that they'd have to pay more than its annual health budget in compensation. They then backed out and effectively sacrificed thousands of innocent lives.

"The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination. Drafters of the 1994 treaty included the provision to protect U.S. and Canadian investors against corruption in Mexican courts". Sunny Freeman, Huffington Post 14th January 2015.

The ISDS Chapter means that investors are above the laws and regulations of a given country that signs an agreement with the US.

 

[orchard]

A brief introduction via early experience (it will get worse for Canada):


Harmonising standards:

 

[Bruce Wayne]

How much is spent on the NHS annually? I bet there's a number of American medical corporations that would love to get their noses in that trough.

Come on, be specific. How exactly will this happen? Which medical corporations will be doing what, and why is it bad?

The other 'Nations of Europe' have been operating under the same conditions as us Bruce.

So TTIP has already existed then?

No, because it didn't concern itself with the other aspects of the treaty. If you think dropping the precautionary principle in medicine and agriculture is small-fry, you need to consider the implications more.

Well, firstly I'm not sure anywhere has it been said that PP would be dropped. Lets not kid ourselves that the drug approval process is in any way optimal though. You have the 10+ year gestation period from compound discovery to release. You have the lack of openness in the clinical trial process, and the lack of reproducability. Heck, you've got the implicit motivation for the FDA et al to err excessively on the side of caution, merely because no one will hear of a potentially good drug that's rejected vs the huge publicity of a bad drug that's approved.

Likewise the rejection of GM crops. It's been largely based on scaremongering and lobbying, and its rejection has cost a great many lives throughout the world. Lets not pretend that we have some pure and perfect system that will be sullied by those horrid capitalists from across the pond.

Again, what's 'the law' ???[/QUOTE]

Well, one would assume the law of the land. Or have you seen some hidden document that suggests national jurisdiction will be over-ridden by some as yet unknown juror?

 

[hullefc]

An interesting read about the NHS and TTIP.

It's not Jeremy Hunt imposing a junior doctors' contract that will destroy the NHS – it's TTIP

Contained in the article is this.

legal experts have shown

Advice - Dr. Kyriaki-Korina Raptopoulou

1 THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NHS OF TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP Executive Summary.
The following advice shows that there are real risks arising from the TTIP that could impact on the NHS unless a robust carve-out is put in place. Some key points from the advice are:

• The EU and US rationale which underpins the TTIP perceives ‘welfare’ in such a way as to include the preservation of consumer and health standards but with no reference whatsoever to the protection of the underlying social and health protection systems like the NHS.

• The protections in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) applying to “services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority” do not appertain to NHS services. This is clear because of the competitive coexistence of public and private providers in the NHS as well as the private funding and commercial activities of NHS Foundation Trusts.

• Claims that the NHS will be protected as a ‘service of general economic interest’, a ‘public utility’, and/or a ‘public service’ are unfounded because this would still leave it included in the material scope of the TTIP and subject to the full gamut of obligations in the agreement, except for certain features of the market access principle.

• The NHS is subject to numerous obligations under the CETA (mostly to the fair and equal treatment standard and to the principle of protection against unlawful expropriation) that could trigger an investment claim if the UK Government modifies the legal and business environment for healthcare-related investors. The NHS will be in the same position under TTIP unless it is fully and clearly exempted.

• The potential impacts of the TTIP on the NHS are not solely dependent on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) being in place. However, the European Commission and the UK Government have been insisting on its inclusion and this will increase potential risks.

• ISDS as perceived in the CETA would allow healthcare-related investors to bring cases against the UK Government and to bypass domestic courts. Said cases will be judged by arbitrators lacking in independence and democratic legitimacy, in procedures subject to confidentiality with no appellate mechanism. It would also promote the risk of suppressing future legislation through the phenomenon of ‘regulatory chilling’.

• Under an investment treaty such as the TTIP, which potentially includes investor protection with the threshold of providing ‘full restitution’ in case of unlawful expropriation, future lost profits can be compensated for as well as the actual value of the property taken. Overall, the expropriator´s responsibility is increased once a taking is considered to be unlawful not only on the basis of UK law but also on the basis of an investment agreement.

• To fully and clearly exempt the NHS from TTIP would require a robust ‘carve-out’ of the NHS from the material scope of the agreement. This would ideally be done on the basis of a Advice - Dr. Kyriaki-Korina Raptopoulou 2 blanket exception inserted in its main text but could also potentially be achieved within the context of a carefully drafted Annex II reservation.

• In the UK’s Annex II reservations concerning health services in CETA, the UK decided to expose public ambulance services and all secondary care services ( i.e. hospital services, public or private) to the liberalising effect of the agreement and not to submit any reservation whatsoever in this respect. This is a worrying precedent for the TTIP.

• When the TTIP final text is complete, it will have to be adopted and ratified by the European Parliament and the EU Member States, respectively; however the role of national Parliaments is unclear and may have to be decided by the Court of Justice of the EU.

• Member States have to agree unanimously in the European Council on any trade agreement that risks “seriously disturbing the national organization of [social and human health] services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them”. However, there is no clear definition of when this applies".