TTIP

[SNova]

Voting to leave the EU will prevent a permanent TTIP deal.

 

[orchard]

Voting to leave the EU will prevent a permanent TTIP deal.

That's reassuring, we get our own acronym

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They have done the same thing with the TPPA. They don't want you to know what your govenment is agreeing to. Such gems like now corporations can sue countries (so for instance, it opens up stuff like Philip Morris suing Aus/NZ for requiring plain cigarette packaging, with no logos anything).

I believe the attitude is somewhat 'Just shut up and sign the paper'

A case that PM lost. We seem to have gone from TTIP being the of democracy in the west to fears now that it won't benefit the UK much. To be honest, that isn't really the point. If the UK are already a high benchmark for trade with the US then great, and if TTIP helps other parts of Europe get to similar levels then even better.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Voting to leave the EU will prevent a permanent TTIP deal.

I believe blowing your head off would probably prevent future headaches too, but it isn't something I'd recommend.

 

[orchard]

There are plenty of better examples of ISDS at work than the one given,and i'm not even sure that's a true ISDS case Bruce.
Outside of the agriculture, the EU-Us duty on trade is negligible, at around 3pc. We have 'free trade', and it obviously applies to all EU member states. That's not what this is about.

A case that PM lost. We seem to have gone from TTIP being the of democracy in the west to fears now that it won't benefit the UK much. To be honest, that isn't really the point. If the UK are already a high benchmark for trade with the US then great, and if TTIP helps other parts of Europe get to similar levels then even better.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It says to me that if no one breaks the law (state included) then no one has anything to fear. There seem to be a whole load of conclusions being jumped to that are based on things that make little sense to me.

 

[orchard]

What and who's 'law' Bruce?
I really think you need to consider the implications of your position.

It says to me that if no one breaks the law (state included) then no one has anything to fear. There seem to be a whole load of conclusions being jumped to that are based on things that make little sense to me.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I have no position mate, I'm just applying probability to things, and it seems very unlikely to me that officials on either side of the Atlantic are going to be deliberately entering into an agreement that completely and utterly nobbles them. I just can't see why they would ever do such a thing unless they're all equally corrupt and getting huge kick-backs from it, which seems unlikely to me.

With much in life, I find you can get a reasonable answer by simply asking what is in it for someone to take a course of action. I can't see what could possibly be in it for government officials to deliberately reduce the power of governments unless there were clear benefits to their constituents for doing so.

I mean I was chatting to a couple of EU commissioners earlier this week, and they may well be many things, but I wouldn't tag either as being massively corrupt, which is kind of what you're implying. I just think that's incredibly unfair.

 

[orchard]

That's why it's debated and contested in Europe Bruce, and even though our own Government's report suggests a negative impact, Tory mep's are whipped into voting it through.
And as stated here recently, hardly any mep's have access to what they're voting for...
Stop thinking 'brown envelopes', and entertain corporate sponsorship/revolving doors/disproportionate lobbying power/party funding, etc.

I have no position mate, I'm just applying probability to things, and it seems very unlikely to me that officials on either side of the Atlantic are going to be deliberately entering into an agreement that completely and utterly nobbles them. I just can't see why they would ever do such a thing unless they're all equally corrupt and getting huge kick-backs from it, which seems unlikely to me.

With much in life, I find you can get a reasonable answer by simply asking what is in it for someone to take a course of action. I can't see what could possibly be in it for government officials to deliberately reduce the power of governments unless there were clear benefits to their constituents for doing so.

I mean I was chatting to a couple of EU commissioners earlier this week, and they may well be many things, but I wouldn't tag either as being massively corrupt, which is kind of what you're implying. I just think that's incredibly unfair.

 

[orchard]

The system has been corrupted, and i'm sure some individuals do well out of it too, btw

 

[Dylan]

A case that PM lost. We seem to have gone from TTIP being the of democracy in the west to fears now that it won't benefit the UK much. To be honest, that isn't really the point. If the UK are already a high benchmark for trade with the US then great, and if TTIP helps other parts of Europe get to similar levels then even better.

Yes they did lose it, but the fact remains that now TPPA opens up nations to being liable to corporations that don't like the law.

If the deal is so sweet for us all, why not let the public see the contents?

 

[chrismpw]

Anyone read up about this?

A real insidious piece of legislation from the US & EU.



because they failed with the last attempt some while back

http://www.globalissues.org/article/48/multilateral-agreement-on-investment

The ruling families of the US (The Rothschilds etc who pull the strings of their puppet president) are casting Sauron's eye towards europe. Dark days.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's why it's debated and contested in Europe Bruce, and even though our own Government's report suggests a negative impact, Tory mep's are whipped into voting it through.
And as stated here recently, hardly any mep's have access to what they're voting for...
Stop thinking 'brown envelopes', and entertain corporate sponsorship/revolving doors/disproportionate lobbying power/party funding, etc.

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. 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.

To be honest, I don't know why it's being kept hush hush. It 'might' be to avoid lobbying as companies are as in the dark about it as we are. It might not be. The truth is we don't really know, so you either believe the system is crooked, or you don't. That seems to be what this comes down to.

Yes they did lose it, but the fact remains that now TPPA opens up nations to being liable to corporations that don't like the law.

If the deal is so sweet for us all, why not let the public see the contents?

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.

 

[Woolverhampton_Blue]

If the deal is so sweet for us all, why not let the public see the contents?

Exactly. It probably is sweet for big business and their friends. Not so much for the rest of the population. Some would argue that what is good for big business is good for us all, but most of us know that's not really true.

The idea that an organisation who's main purpose is to make profits for its shareholders, can litigate against elected governments trying to protect its citizens, due to losing profits, is worrying.

Let's not kid ourselves it won't be a problem, the yanks are a lot quicker to sue than their European counterparts.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Exactly. It probably is sweet for big business and their friends. Not so much for the rest of the population. Some would argue that what is good for big business is good for us all, but most of us know that's not really true.

The idea that an organisation who's main purpose is to make profits for its shareholders, can litigate against elected governments trying to protect its citizens, due to losing profits, is worrying.

Let's not kid ourselves it won't be a problem, the yanks are a lot quicker to sue than their European counterparts.

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.