This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Well? And other big trade deals?
I support the ideas but the secrecy makes me very supicious of the motivations. Surely things so fundemental to governance should be fully scrutinised like any other law or treaty?
I support the ideas but the secrecy makes me very supicious of the motivations. Surely things so fundemental to governance should be fully scrutinised like any other law or treaty?
11
1
In reply to MG:
I guess all parties don't necessarily want to weaken their negotiating position by releasing the contents until it is fully finalised.
But nowadays these tend to leak anyway.
> Well? And other big trade deals?
> I support the ideas but the secrecy makes me very supicious of the motivations. Surely things so fundemental to governance should be fully scrutinised like any other law or treaty?
I guess all parties don't necessarily want to weaken their negotiating position by releasing the contents until it is fully finalised.
But nowadays these tend to leak anyway.
3
7
In reply to MG:
I fear in this instance we're merely consumers
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-wh...
> But the parties are us, and other electorates!!
I fear in this instance we're merely consumers
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-wh...
1
In reply to MG:
What exactly are the 'ideas' you're supporting? And, since the negotiations are being conducted in secret, how do you/we know they're anything to do with what's being discussed?
> Well? And other big trade deals?
> I support the ideas but the secrecy makes me very supicious of the motivations.
What exactly are the 'ideas' you're supporting? And, since the negotiations are being conducted in secret, how do you/we know they're anything to do with what's being discussed?
2
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Removing barriers to trade.
And, since the negotiations are being conducted in secret, how do you/we know they're anything to do with what's being discussed?
Well I don't! Which is my point.
> What exactly are the 'ideas' you're supporting?
Removing barriers to trade.
And, since the negotiations are being conducted in secret, how do you/we know they're anything to do with what's being discussed?
Well I don't! Which is my point.
3
1
In reply to MG:
I meant, the negotiators.
I don't really have a problem with that, at the end the finalised treaty will be submitted to the EU council and if we don't like it we can always veto it.
> But the parties are us, and other electorates!!
I meant, the negotiators.
I don't really have a problem with that, at the end the finalised treaty will be submitted to the EU council and if we don't like it we can always veto it.
Post edited at 22:13
2
In reply to MG:
I'm not sure which particular 'barriers' you have in mind. Some barriers are useful: if we want our own steel industry, as a very recent example, it might be that we need to erect some new ones.
The last thirty years of laissez faire economics don't fill me with confidence.
Quite.
> Removing barriers to trade.
I'm not sure which particular 'barriers' you have in mind. Some barriers are useful: if we want our own steel industry, as a very recent example, it might be that we need to erect some new ones.
The last thirty years of laissez faire economics don't fill me with confidence.
> Well I don't! Which is my point.
Quite.
Post edited at 22:21
6
2
In reply to MG:
Salutary warnings from the Indy
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-wh...
Whoops, missed that this had been posted above, soz.
Salutary warnings from the Indy
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-wh...
Whoops, missed that this had been posted above, soz.
Post edited at 22:42
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
I suspect that when the hour of judgement arrives, consumer knowledge will lag far behind commercial / cartel knowledge and the ensuing lobbys and pay-offs will suit the rich and powerful
> I meant, the negotiators.
> we can always veto it.
I suspect that when the hour of judgement arrives, consumer knowledge will lag far behind commercial / cartel knowledge and the ensuing lobbys and pay-offs will suit the rich and powerful
15
In reply to MG:
Don't look at this post !
Obama's come over here to meet the Royals, give Sideshow Boz an airing, and give a pep talk to help us be more pro-European.
TTIP? Never heard of it!
Don't look at this post !
Obama's come over here to meet the Royals, give Sideshow Boz an airing, and give a pep talk to help us be more pro-European.
TTIP? Never heard of it!
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
Not sure how this works. No one is asking (seriously anyway) for all parties to publish their background materials on it. Just the actual draft treaty which I would kinda hope they have access to.
> I guess all parties don't necessarily want to weaken their negotiating position by releasing the contents until it is fully finalised.
Not sure how this works. No one is asking (seriously anyway) for all parties to publish their background materials on it. Just the actual draft treaty which I would kinda hope they have access to.
In reply to MG:
All this 'don't worry you silly little heads about TTIP' tends to evoke the unease framed by Richard Feynman's
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
All this 'don't worry you silly little heads about TTIP' tends to evoke the unease framed by Richard Feynman's
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
19
In reply to MG:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/13/unite-says-government-is-re...
Whoops, TTIP and the EU is certainly causing some furore amongst my left leaning friends. They want to be in the EU as it means that even if we elect a Tory government Brussels can over-ride them, but they do not want American firms having privitisation inroads to the NHS, and American companies having the right to sue our state for interfering with their ability to make profits.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/10/ttip-must-not-allow-compani...
> Controversy over TTIP has also threatened to become a leftwing rallying point in the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. While the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has committed to supporting a vote for the UK to remain in the EU, he has strongly criticised TTIP, saying it risks signing away public services. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist recruited by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, to advise the Labour party, earlier this month went as far as saying the UK could be better off leaving the EU if TTIP was signed.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/13/unite-says-government-is-re...
Whoops, TTIP and the EU is certainly causing some furore amongst my left leaning friends. They want to be in the EU as it means that even if we elect a Tory government Brussels can over-ride them, but they do not want American firms having privitisation inroads to the NHS, and American companies having the right to sue our state for interfering with their ability to make profits.
> The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is being negotiated between the EU and US, may contain a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This would allow investors and companies to sue countries when they introduce laws that restrict their business practices. A report by the UK's parliamentary environmental audit committee (EAC) said: "EU states must retain their right to regulate, but a TTIP treaty text that enshrines such a safeguard will be meaningless if the prospect of ISDS [investor state dispute settlement] litigation produces a chilling effect on future regulation-setting."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/10/ttip-must-not-allow-compani...
Post edited at 00:06
2
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Does anyone genuinely believe that a UK outside of the EU would be able to agree better trade terms with the US than could the whole EU together?
Does anyone genuinely believe that a UK outside of the EU would be able to agree better trade terms with the US than could the whole EU together?
10
In reply to Big Ger:
Let's turn it round on its head and look at the practises in the USA which stop European based company's from doing more business in the USA.For example in Federal contracts the contracts which are only awarded to what are defined as USA small business.These discriminate against uk small business from pitching directly for federal contracts.
Also it's good for the European/uk steel industry because it will mean that the current USA tariffs on steel will in all probability be reduced to zero.not something the USA steel industry will like.
Also that so called prospect of investor state dispute situation already exists in the uk . Think virgin who sued the uk govt over disputes on the rail.
Let's turn it round on its head and look at the practises in the USA which stop European based company's from doing more business in the USA.For example in Federal contracts the contracts which are only awarded to what are defined as USA small business.These discriminate against uk small business from pitching directly for federal contracts.
Also it's good for the European/uk steel industry because it will mean that the current USA tariffs on steel will in all probability be reduced to zero.not something the USA steel industry will like.
Also that so called prospect of investor state dispute situation already exists in the uk . Think virgin who sued the uk govt over disputes on the rail.
In reply to Big Ger:
You've made a similar comment before in another thread, so let me repeat something I've also said elsewhere: there is no simple left/right analysis on the entire EU question. So no wonder your left-leaning friends see a dilemma here.
> Whoops, TTIP and the EU is certainly causing some furore amongst my left leaning friends.
You've made a similar comment before in another thread, so let me repeat something I've also said elsewhere: there is no simple left/right analysis on the entire EU question. So no wonder your left-leaning friends see a dilemma here.
Post edited at 07:46
8
In reply to john arran:
'Better' for whom, and in what respect?
I think we are correct to be concerned about the TTIP negotiations and their potential implications for public institutions like the NHS. Do I trust the EU bureaucrats do get this right? Not necessarily. Nor I would I necessarily trust the current UK government.
> Does anyone genuinely believe that a UK outside of the EU would be able to agree better trade terms with the US than could the whole EU together?
'Better' for whom, and in what respect?
I think we are correct to be concerned about the TTIP negotiations and their potential implications for public institutions like the NHS. Do I trust the EU bureaucrats do get this right? Not necessarily. Nor I would I necessarily trust the current UK government.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
This is Isnt an EU thing. The same problems arise with the other big trade deals being negotiated elsewhere.
This is Isnt an EU thing. The same problems arise with the other big trade deals being negotiated elsewhere.
In reply to MG:
I think it is definitely an 'EU thing.'
Were the UK government to be negotiating on its own, it would almost certainly be doing so as a result of a direct electoral mandate. (Whether you or I would agree with that mandate is another question - but that's democracy.) In addition, a 'local' agreement would by definition be more sensitive to local issues; and would also be easier to amend - or throw out - after the event.
> This is Isnt an EU thing.
I think it is definitely an 'EU thing.'
Were the UK government to be negotiating on its own, it would almost certainly be doing so as a result of a direct electoral mandate. (Whether you or I would agree with that mandate is another question - but that's democracy.) In addition, a 'local' agreement would by definition be more sensitive to local issues; and would also be easier to amend - or throw out - after the event.
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Its not. Look around the world and there are several simulate deals.in progress with similar problems of secrecy, eg TTP in the Pacific. New Zealand, for example, had the same concerns but was not in the EU or similar. The problem is a power imbalance between big business and pipulations generally. If anything being out of the EU would give us less power, as Obama and now Hilary note.
Its not. Look around the world and there are several simulate deals.in progress with similar problems of secrecy, eg TTP in the Pacific. New Zealand, for example, had the same concerns but was not in the EU or similar. The problem is a power imbalance between big business and pipulations generally. If anything being out of the EU would give us less power, as Obama and now Hilary note.
Post edited at 09:12
1
1
In reply to MG:
We'll disagree on that.
Are you suggesting that the TTP negotiations represent a good model to emulate?
Even if that assertion is true, there is no reason to believe that negotiations conducted in secret will do anything to redress such imbalances. For all we know, the end result could be the reverse.
I think it is true that we need collective action - for example, to rein in tax abuses by the current crop of corporate behemoths: Apple, Google, etc. But that *isn't* being done locally within the EU at present - the Irish giveaway corporate tax rate to Apple being one example.
> Its not.
We'll disagree on that.
> Look around the world and there are several simular deals in progress with similar problems of secrecy, eg TTP in the Pacific
Are you suggesting that the TTP negotiations represent a good model to emulate?
> The problem is a power imbalance between big business and populations
Even if that assertion is true, there is no reason to believe that negotiations conducted in secret will do anything to redress such imbalances. For all we know, the end result could be the reverse.
I think it is true that we need collective action - for example, to rein in tax abuses by the current crop of corporate behemoths: Apple, Google, etc. But that *isn't* being done locally within the EU at present - the Irish giveaway corporate tax rate to Apple being one example.
Post edited at 09:41
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I think we are at cross purposes here. No! But I am pointing out the same seems to happen in or out of the EU. I deliberately started a new thread to avoid EU matters, this seems to have failed...
I know!!
> Are you suggesting that the TTP negotiations represent a good model to emulate?
I think we are at cross purposes here. No! But I am pointing out the same seems to happen in or out of the EU. I deliberately started a new thread to avoid EU matters, this seems to have failed...
> Even if that assertion is true, there is no reason to believe that negotiations conducted in secret will do anything to redress such imbalances. For all we know, the end result could be the reverse.
I know!!
1
In reply to MG:
Yes. The corporations hold power to change government policies and this may be resisted by poular vote. But government and corporations also influence the media which tells the voters what to vote ...
Would UK interests within the EU be any less vulnerable to this catch 22 ??
> The problem is a power imbalance between big business and populations generally.
Yes. The corporations hold power to change government policies and this may be resisted by poular vote. But government and corporations also influence the media which tells the voters what to vote ...
Would UK interests within the EU be any less vulnerable to this catch 22 ??
In reply to MG:
TTIP will be an agreement between the US and the EU and with the referendum on the horizon technically this trade deal will be open to UK public vote. Whether or not there are hidden agendas or if it's simply that the negotiations are so far apart (apparently the agreement will only be finalised in the next three years), I can only see the additional uncertainty forcing the "No" vote.
One thing that has surprised me is the public display of US arrogance by Obama.
TTIP will be an agreement between the US and the EU and with the referendum on the horizon technically this trade deal will be open to UK public vote. Whether or not there are hidden agendas or if it's simply that the negotiations are so far apart (apparently the agreement will only be finalised in the next three years), I can only see the additional uncertainty forcing the "No" vote.
One thing that has surprised me is the public display of US arrogance by Obama.
3
In reply to Weekend punter:
Which one? The fact that he has an opinion that doesn't agree with what you want to hear.
To RobParsons - I would absolutely not trust the current government to do a better job of defending the public interest in negotiations around TTIP than faceless EU beaurecrats. I can easily see a scenario where a very business friendly UK government agrees to a TTIP like agreement, and then , when public outcry arises where bits of the NHS are sold off, food safety regulations reduced and so on can simply wave their arms around and cry that there's nothing they can do , it's all in TTIP and beyond their control. The recent BS around steel protectionism should be a salutory example for you, and you should read the earlier article linked to in the independent and consider how well the current government would defend points 1,2,3 and 5 in particular
I would append that 'business friendly' doesn't apply to all businesses, only the 'right sort' of large business
Which one? The fact that he has an opinion that doesn't agree with what you want to hear.
To RobParsons - I would absolutely not trust the current government to do a better job of defending the public interest in negotiations around TTIP than faceless EU beaurecrats. I can easily see a scenario where a very business friendly UK government agrees to a TTIP like agreement, and then , when public outcry arises where bits of the NHS are sold off, food safety regulations reduced and so on can simply wave their arms around and cry that there's nothing they can do , it's all in TTIP and beyond their control. The recent BS around steel protectionism should be a salutory example for you, and you should read the earlier article linked to in the independent and consider how well the current government would defend points 1,2,3 and 5 in particular
I would append that 'business friendly' doesn't apply to all businesses, only the 'right sort' of large business
Post edited at 12:52
1
1
In reply to broken spectre:
Exactly.....
Look towards the bottom of the above link and it says....
"So I don’t know about you, but I’m scared. I would vote against TTIP, except… hang on a minute… I can’t. Like you, I have no say whatsoever in whether TTIP goes through or not"
As a "consumer" we have a choice!
When I buy something a part of the decision making process for me includes thinking about social justice. I've NEVER bought any clothes from Primark I don't care how cheap they are. Same goes for when I bought a new pair of running shoes I could have got them cheaper from Sports Direct but chose to pay more and get them from a shop that treats its employees better.
These trade agreements can mandate whatever they want but they can't force you to accept it. I'm never going to buy GMO food. If everyone gets together and also boycotts GMO's then the company that supplies it isn't going to be in business for very long.
TTIP will happen because of consumer apathy.
> I fear in this instance we're merely consumers
Exactly.....
Look towards the bottom of the above link and it says....
"So I don’t know about you, but I’m scared. I would vote against TTIP, except… hang on a minute… I can’t. Like you, I have no say whatsoever in whether TTIP goes through or not"
As a "consumer" we have a choice!
When I buy something a part of the decision making process for me includes thinking about social justice. I've NEVER bought any clothes from Primark I don't care how cheap they are. Same goes for when I bought a new pair of running shoes I could have got them cheaper from Sports Direct but chose to pay more and get them from a shop that treats its employees better.
These trade agreements can mandate whatever they want but they can't force you to accept it. I'm never going to buy GMO food. If everyone gets together and also boycotts GMO's then the company that supplies it isn't going to be in business for very long.
TTIP will happen because of consumer apathy.
3
In reply to wbo:
Differing of opinion doesn't necessarily mean I regard their rhetoric as arrogant.
> Which one? The fact that he has an opinion that doesn't agree with what you want to hear.
Differing of opinion doesn't necessarily mean I regard their rhetoric as arrogant.
1
In reply to Weekend Punter:
So if it's going to take 3 years to finalise this agreement, what are we doing at the moment as far as trade deals go ? And is anything going to change when the agreement is finalised ? P.s I'm not questioning you at all, I'm just trying to find out a bit more about it .
> TTIP will be an agreement between the US and the EU and with the referendum on the horizon technically this trade deal will be open to UK public vote. Whether or not there are hidden agendas or if it's simply that the negotiations are so far apart (apparently the agreement will only be finalised in the next three years), I can only see the additional uncertainty forcing the "No" vote.
> One thing that has surprised me is the public display of US arrogance by Obama.
So if it's going to take 3 years to finalise this agreement, what are we doing at the moment as far as trade deals go ? And is anything going to change when the agreement is finalised ? P.s I'm not questioning you at all, I'm just trying to find out a bit more about it .
In reply to wbo:
Nor would I; that is not the choice, however. As Obama's suggested timescales make clear, it wouldn't be the current UK government doing any such deal. If we do get to that scenario, it'll be another government, and the principles of any deal will have been discussed in an election campaign. (You or I mightn't like the resulting outcome - but, that's democracy.)
In addition: a 'local' deal can (potentially) better address local concerns than can a 'one-size-fits-all' deal worked in Brussels; and a local deal would also be easier to later amend - or throw out - than would a EU wide one.
I am suspicious of the current TTIP process. Obama's statements this week (which seem perfectly fair to me) have been seized on as a real win for the 'Remain' side of the referendum, but I am not so sure: I welcome a bit of attention being given to the TTIP negotiations - the potential problems of those had been in danger of being forgotten about.
> To RobParsons - I would absolutely not trust the current government to do a better job of defending the public interest in negotiations around TTIP than faceless EU beaurecrats.
Nor would I; that is not the choice, however. As Obama's suggested timescales make clear, it wouldn't be the current UK government doing any such deal. If we do get to that scenario, it'll be another government, and the principles of any deal will have been discussed in an election campaign. (You or I mightn't like the resulting outcome - but, that's democracy.)
In addition: a 'local' deal can (potentially) better address local concerns than can a 'one-size-fits-all' deal worked in Brussels; and a local deal would also be easier to later amend - or throw out - than would a EU wide one.
I am suspicious of the current TTIP process. Obama's statements this week (which seem perfectly fair to me) have been seized on as a real win for the 'Remain' side of the referendum, but I am not so sure: I welcome a bit of attention being given to the TTIP negotiations - the potential problems of those had been in danger of being forgotten about.
1
In reply to MG:
Does anyone know if or how, as a major player in the EU, our UK government is actively involved in EU TTIP negotiations, and has it expressed any public opinion on the matter?
Could it be planning to let it go through, either keeping quiet in Brussels or even actively encouraging it because it wants to please it's corporate friends, and then publically claim it was opposed all along and blame it on the EU?
Does anyone know if or how, as a major player in the EU, our UK government is actively involved in EU TTIP negotiations, and has it expressed any public opinion on the matter?
Could it be planning to let it go through, either keeping quiet in Brussels or even actively encouraging it because it wants to please it's corporate friends, and then publically claim it was opposed all along and blame it on the EU?
1
Since the leak the negotiations are not so secret anymore, summaries of every negotiations round available here : http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154391.pdf
In reply to john arran:
There are others negotiation report this is just one amongst hundreds.
> Thanks Rom
> Couldn't find much about UK involvement in that document though.
There are others negotiation report this is just one amongst hundreds.
In reply to RomTheBear:
So, despite this site usually being a goldmine of useful and interesting facts on such matters, nobody seems aware of anything our UK government is actually doing to make sure our EU trade deal is in our best interests and not the best interests of large corporations.
According to this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36123622 "For the past couple of years negotiations have been taking place on this bi-lateral deal, which, the UK government says 'could add as much as £10bn annually to the UK economy in the long term'."
So I'm still wondering how anyone could argue that trade deals with the US would be any more favourable were we not in the EU?
So, despite this site usually being a goldmine of useful and interesting facts on such matters, nobody seems aware of anything our UK government is actually doing to make sure our EU trade deal is in our best interests and not the best interests of large corporations.
According to this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36123622 "For the past couple of years negotiations have been taking place on this bi-lateral deal, which, the UK government says 'could add as much as £10bn annually to the UK economy in the long term'."
So I'm still wondering how anyone could argue that trade deals with the US would be any more favourable were we not in the EU?
1
In reply to john arran:
Having said that, the government has stated it's support for TTIP and you have pointed out that it supposedly 'could add as much as £10bn annually to the UK economy in the long term'. Would you not regard that as "in our best interests"?
Regarding the original question about why the negotiations are secret: presumably on the grounds of strengthening bargaining positions, protecting commercial privacy, habit, and the avoidance of unwanted interference by ordinary people, and because it would reveal how boring they are. Such secrecy has actually been an own goal in that it has encouraged anti capitalist conspiracy theories to flourish.
> So, despite this site usually being a goldmine of useful and interesting facts on such matters, nobody seems aware of anything our UK government is actually doing to make sure our EU trade deal is in our best interests and not the best interests of large corporations.
>
Why do you think there might be such evidence? The deal is being negotiated by the EU, specifically 24 EU committees, not by individual nations. That is the whole point. No doubt individual nations lobby behind the scenes but given that the whole negotiation is supposed to be secret, it is pretty unlikely that the lobbying behind the secret negotiations is going to be public.Having said that, the government has stated it's support for TTIP and you have pointed out that it supposedly 'could add as much as £10bn annually to the UK economy in the long term'. Would you not regard that as "in our best interests"?
Regarding the original question about why the negotiations are secret: presumably on the grounds of strengthening bargaining positions, protecting commercial privacy, habit, and the avoidance of unwanted interference by ordinary people, and because it would reveal how boring they are. Such secrecy has actually been an own goal in that it has encouraged anti capitalist conspiracy theories to flourish.
Post edited at 09:53
1
In reply to john arran:
The EU Trade Commission has an official mandate to conduct the negotiations on behalf of all 28 member states. At the end of each phase of the negotiations, it reports to governments. Of course lobbying outside of those phases will also take place.
If you are interested in more detail, look at, for example http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/trade/index_en.htm
I am not sure why you hope that special powers would accrue to the UK in all of this; nor in what sense you think we are a 'major player.' The entire process is carried out according to EU rules and agreements - that is, indeed, the entire point.
> So, despite this site usually being a goldmine of useful and interesting facts on such matters, nobody seems aware of anything our UK government is actually doing to make sure our EU trade deal is in our best interests and not the best interests of large corporations.
The EU Trade Commission has an official mandate to conduct the negotiations on behalf of all 28 member states. At the end of each phase of the negotiations, it reports to governments. Of course lobbying outside of those phases will also take place.
If you are interested in more detail, look at, for example http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/trade/index_en.htm
I am not sure why you hope that special powers would accrue to the UK in all of this; nor in what sense you think we are a 'major player.' The entire process is carried out according to EU rules and agreements - that is, indeed, the entire point.
1
In reply to john arran:
As a PS: I love that 'could'! The figure of £10bn seems obviously to be just another made-up number.
> According to this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36123622 "For the past couple of years negotiations have been taking place on this bi-lateral deal, which, the UK government says 'could add as much as £10bn annually to the UK economy in the long term'."
As a PS: I love that 'could'! The figure of £10bn seems obviously to be just another made-up number.
2
In reply to wbo:
" I would absolutely not trust the current government to do a better job of defending the public interest in negotiations around TTIP than faceless EU beaurecrats. I can easily see a scenario where a very business friendly UK government agrees to a TTIP like agreement, and then , when public outcry arises where bits of the NHS are sold off, food safety regulations reduced and so on can simply wave their arms around and cry that there's nothing they can do , it's all in TTIP and beyond their control. The recent BS around steel protectionism should be a salutory example for you, and you should read the earlier article linked to in the independent and consider how well the current government would defend points 1,2,3 and 5 in particular"
The problem with this train of thought is that you are forgetting the possibility of a Labour government in the future being powerless to stop the sell off of the NHS to US companies because TTIP is an "EU" treaty which we signed up to and remain part of. To worry that a Tory government will embrace TTIP is short sighted...of course they will. It's the fact we will struggle to protect what we want regardless of who we vote in power that is the bigger issue here. That's my take on it anyway...
" I would absolutely not trust the current government to do a better job of defending the public interest in negotiations around TTIP than faceless EU beaurecrats. I can easily see a scenario where a very business friendly UK government agrees to a TTIP like agreement, and then , when public outcry arises where bits of the NHS are sold off, food safety regulations reduced and so on can simply wave their arms around and cry that there's nothing they can do , it's all in TTIP and beyond their control. The recent BS around steel protectionism should be a salutory example for you, and you should read the earlier article linked to in the independent and consider how well the current government would defend points 1,2,3 and 5 in particular"
The problem with this train of thought is that you are forgetting the possibility of a Labour government in the future being powerless to stop the sell off of the NHS to US companies because TTIP is an "EU" treaty which we signed up to and remain part of. To worry that a Tory government will embrace TTIP is short sighted...of course they will. It's the fact we will struggle to protect what we want regardless of who we vote in power that is the bigger issue here. That's my take on it anyway...
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Interesting article by Liam Halligan in Sundays business telegraph regarding these made up (or very massaged) numbers from Osbornes Treasury
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/23/a-pro-eu-study-straight-from...
Interesting article by Liam Halligan in Sundays business telegraph regarding these made up (or very massaged) numbers from Osbornes Treasury
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/23/a-pro-eu-study-straight-from...
In reply to MG:
my only doubt is the fact that the USA doesn't do much, if anything, that doesn't benefit itself in the short or long term. If it thinks it will gain from ttip, then I expect Europe will be worse off, either financially as US produced goods flood the market, or lower product standards. The US isn't pursuing ttip because it wants to the help the EU's struggling economic position. The US has much lower production costs, for a variety of reasons, if product X can be export either totally tariff free, or near as, then that is some serious competition for EU industries, which isn't likely to be offset by the EU selling a few high end niche products to better off USA consumers.
Talks are secret to protect industry and investments if anything, when it comes out a company that currently produces saw clothing and exports to the USA with a 30%+ tariff, might suddenly find itself tariff free, wouldn't it be great to buy a few shares in that company now?
my only doubt is the fact that the USA doesn't do much, if anything, that doesn't benefit itself in the short or long term. If it thinks it will gain from ttip, then I expect Europe will be worse off, either financially as US produced goods flood the market, or lower product standards. The US isn't pursuing ttip because it wants to the help the EU's struggling economic position. The US has much lower production costs, for a variety of reasons, if product X can be export either totally tariff free, or near as, then that is some serious competition for EU industries, which isn't likely to be offset by the EU selling a few high end niche products to better off USA consumers.
Talks are secret to protect industry and investments if anything, when it comes out a company that currently produces saw clothing and exports to the USA with a 30%+ tariff, might suddenly find itself tariff free, wouldn't it be great to buy a few shares in that company now?
Post edited at 10:43
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
From your link this page: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1115 seems to give worthwhile assurances about protection of public services from commercial takeover. This is still at the mercy of individual governments but at least it seems that if we can convince our own government to offer protection to the NHS, education etc. from commercial exploitation then the TTIP as apparently being negotiated will not stand in its way. Could we be confident of the same assurance from a non-EU, nationally-brokered UK-US trade deal if we were to leave the EU and have to negotiate one separately?
From your link this page: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1115 seems to give worthwhile assurances about protection of public services from commercial takeover. This is still at the mercy of individual governments but at least it seems that if we can convince our own government to offer protection to the NHS, education etc. from commercial exploitation then the TTIP as apparently being negotiated will not stand in its way. Could we be confident of the same assurance from a non-EU, nationally-brokered UK-US trade deal if we were to leave the EU and have to negotiate one separately?
In reply to MG:
I'm not sure it's really about this, at least in the standard sense - not having import or export tariffs. It's more about corporate power - being able to challenge elected governments in the courts - and intellectual property rights.
Good discussion here - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0
(You might disagree with Krugman on a lot of things, but on trade economics is his field of expertise and he has a pretty standard, non-partisan view on it - generally he's all for free trade)
> Removing barriers to trade.
I'm not sure it's really about this, at least in the standard sense - not having import or export tariffs. It's more about corporate power - being able to challenge elected governments in the courts - and intellectual property rights.
Good discussion here - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0
(You might disagree with Krugman on a lot of things, but on trade economics is his field of expertise and he has a pretty standard, non-partisan view on it - generally he's all for free trade)
In reply to john arran:
Those do seem to be worthwhile statements of intent. The Unite trade union has legal advice that they're practically insufficient though. See e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/ttip-deal-real-serious-risk...
That will presumably depend on the mandate of the government we've voted for. I myself mightn't like the result - but it would be local democracy in action.
> From your link this page: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1115 seems to give worthwhile assurances about protection of public services from commercial takeover.
Those do seem to be worthwhile statements of intent. The Unite trade union has legal advice that they're practically insufficient though. See e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/ttip-deal-real-serious-risk...
> Could we be confident of the same assurance from a non-EU, nationally-brokered UK-US trade deal if we were to leave the EU and have to negotiate one separately?
That will presumably depend on the mandate of the government we've voted for. I myself mightn't like the result - but it would be local democracy in action.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Except it seems when the election is for a European Parliament when the Brexiteers would have us believe it's anything but democracy.
Martin
> ......... will have been discussed in an election campaign. (You or I mightn't like the resulting outcome - but, that's democracy.)
Except it seems when the election is for a European Parliament when the Brexiteers would have us believe it's anything but democracy.
Martin
In reply to john arran:
Unfortunately quite a few people seem to, including a number of UKC posters on the previous Obama thread.
There is work to do to achieve a REMAIN vote on 23 June. I'm campaigning. Anyone wanting to join in can sign up on the "Britain Stronger In Europe" website or join one of the political parties' IN campaigns. Just 8 weeks to go!
Martin
> Does anyone genuinely believe that a UK outside of the EU would be able to agree better trade terms with the US than could the whole EU together?
Unfortunately quite a few people seem to, including a number of UKC posters on the previous Obama thread.
There is work to do to achieve a REMAIN vote on 23 June. I'm campaigning. Anyone wanting to join in can sign up on the "Britain Stronger In Europe" website or join one of the political parties' IN campaigns. Just 8 weeks to go!
Martin
1
In reply to Martin Hore:
That misses the point. The European Parliament is of course a democratic institution. But it collectively represents the citizens of the entire EU; and the representatives of each country need to fight their own corner.
In practice it is (obviously) much easier for the UK to change 'local' legislation (if such a change is what has been voted for), than it is to change pan-European legislation.
> Except it seems when the election is for a European Parliament when the Brexiteers would have us believe it's anything but democracy.
That misses the point. The European Parliament is of course a democratic institution. But it collectively represents the citizens of the entire EU; and the representatives of each country need to fight their own corner.
In practice it is (obviously) much easier for the UK to change 'local' legislation (if such a change is what has been voted for), than it is to change pan-European legislation.
Post edited at 12:22
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I do chuckle at this idea that TTIP is the big threat to the NHS. There are already American companies over here bidding for those contracts. The horse has already bolted.The gate was opened along time ago.Its too late. Anyway you still cannot stop French or German or Australian or Chinese or Indian companys bidding. Why the big hang up over America?
I do chuckle at this idea that TTIP is the big threat to the NHS. There are already American companies over here bidding for those contracts. The horse has already bolted.The gate was opened along time ago.Its too late. Anyway you still cannot stop French or German or Australian or Chinese or Indian companys bidding. Why the big hang up over America?
1
In reply to neilh:
I know what you mean, i'm chuckling at the thought of the company i work for suing the governments of the countries it operates in for curbing it's profits by bringing laws that mean we cannot make as much money as we once did
I have no big hang up with America. I work for an American outfit.
I know what you mean, i'm chuckling at the thought of the company i work for suing the governments of the countries it operates in for curbing it's profits by bringing laws that mean we cannot make as much money as we once did
I have no big hang up with America. I work for an American outfit.
1
1
In reply to neilh:
Because they have less scruples ... lower standards ?
Compare the widespread rejection of GMO crops in european countries w r t american acceptance
> Why the big hang up over America?
Because they have less scruples ... lower standards ?
Compare the widespread rejection of GMO crops in european countries w r t american acceptance
In reply to LeeWood:
or growth hormones in meat production.
> Because they have less scruples ... lower standards ?
> Compare the widespread rejection of GMO crops in european countries w r t american acceptance
> Compare the widespread rejection of GMO crops in european countries w r t american acceptance
or growth hormones in meat production.
Post edited at 16:54
5
In reply to LeeWood:
Which may just mean the Europeans are blXXdy stupid.
> Because they have less scruples ... lower standards ?
> Compare the widespread rejection of GMO crops in european countries w r t american acceptance
Which may just mean the Europeans are blXXdy stupid.
2
6
In reply to MG:
This is interesting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ttip-uk-government-only-did...
This is interesting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ttip-uk-government-only-did...
In reply to llechwedd:
Well for my business which already exports to the USA it will have benefits. As a start it will mean I no longer have to buy a customs bond every year for importing into the USA. If you want me to list all the other things then I will be more than happy to do so. Most are what I call technical issues. It will allow me to bid for Federal work where I am precluded due to procedural rules. If you think the ce has a lot of paperwork you should see the bibles on "fedbiz " procedures .
Well for my business which already exports to the USA it will have benefits. As a start it will mean I no longer have to buy a customs bond every year for importing into the USA. If you want me to list all the other things then I will be more than happy to do so. Most are what I call technical issues. It will allow me to bid for Federal work where I am precluded due to procedural rules. If you think the ce has a lot of paperwork you should see the bibles on "fedbiz " procedures .
In reply to MG:
Well the very pro EU Germans seem to find the TTIP an anathema, odd eh?
Well the very pro EU Germans seem to find the TTIP an anathema, odd eh?
> Ahead of Obama’s visit to Germany, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest a massive trade deal between the United States and European Union. Critics say the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, would undermine safety and environmental regulations to serve corporate interests. Organizers said 90,000 people attended the rally in the northern city of Hanover Saturday. Protests continued on Sunday.
In reply to Big Ger:
So many Germans apparently think the economic advantages of TTIP are outweighed by more important legal and social issues. What's the UK government position on this?
So many Germans apparently think the economic advantages of TTIP are outweighed by more important legal and social issues. What's the UK government position on this?
In reply to Big Ger:
Not really. Unless you confuse being pro EU with being pro TTIP.
If it helps UKIP's opposition to TTIP is a recent thing.
> Well the very pro EU Germans seem to find the TTIP an anathema, odd eh?
Not really. Unless you confuse being pro EU with being pro TTIP.
If it helps UKIP's opposition to TTIP is a recent thing.
In reply to MG:
Greenpeace lifts the lid :
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987644/leaked_ttip_papers_r...
and a vote to carry on supporting Greenpeace
Greenpeace lifts the lid :
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987644/leaked_ttip_papers_r...
and a vote to carry on supporting Greenpeace
In reply to john arran:
Precisely. While our government coalition is pushing TTIP in the hope of promoting German industry, people are extremely wary of the extrajudicial dispute settlement (the US provide the majority of arbitrators, surprisingly they have not yet lost a single cause, unlike European governments).
It is also still unclear whether the agreement as it stands now would survive ratification by the EU parliament (which is very much democratically elected, whatever the Eurosceptics claim), ratification by the member states, or constitutional challenges within the member states (as is currently happening to CETA, the Euro/Canadian equivalent).
As for negotiating tactics, denying all claims by the critics only to be shown up by leaked documents proving that the US is not budging one millimeter on issues like GM food, dispute settlement, infrastructure and health, or protected regions of origin in amateurish to say the least. Almost as if the negotiators wanted to do the job if the anti TTIP movement.
As an aside, and in reference to the stupid car names thread, which mad cow came up with the glorious acronym for the remain campaign?
CB
> So many Germans apparently think the economic advantages of TTIP are outweighed by more important legal and social issues.
Precisely. While our government coalition is pushing TTIP in the hope of promoting German industry, people are extremely wary of the extrajudicial dispute settlement (the US provide the majority of arbitrators, surprisingly they have not yet lost a single cause, unlike European governments).
It is also still unclear whether the agreement as it stands now would survive ratification by the EU parliament (which is very much democratically elected, whatever the Eurosceptics claim), ratification by the member states, or constitutional challenges within the member states (as is currently happening to CETA, the Euro/Canadian equivalent).
As for negotiating tactics, denying all claims by the critics only to be shown up by leaked documents proving that the US is not budging one millimeter on issues like GM food, dispute settlement, infrastructure and health, or protected regions of origin in amateurish to say the least. Almost as if the negotiators wanted to do the job if the anti TTIP movement.
As an aside, and in reference to the stupid car names thread, which mad cow came up with the glorious acronym for the remain campaign?
CB
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...