UKC

youtube.com/watch?v=4abS3S0PzpQ&

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

That explains sweet FA, really garbled towards the end and it's been edited despite being 2 minutes!

That's why I hate when people just post a link to a rubbish video saying 'watch this'. It's never worth the time.

In reply to winhill:

Got to agree, it's just an ill thought out rant.

In reply to FreshSlate:


You think that's a rant? Then you don't know what a rant is.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Noam Chomsky, "ill thought out"?

Yeah right!

Made perfect sense to me. Basically, the little guy (us) gets screwed, while vast corporations continue to tighten their strangle hold on controlling global agendas (if you need it brought down a level).

In reply to FreshSlate:


OK, my patience is running out. When someone is not ranting, and talking rationally, why do you call it a 'rant'? The only quarrel anyone can have here is with your abuse of language.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I didn't really want to know what a free trade agreement actually is. But I watched the video anyway. Unfortunately, after watching, I still don't know what a free trade agreement actually is. But thanks for posting.

In reply to abseil:
I think the point is a free trade agreement is a myth, the neerest thing was the EU which we have left and was only "free" trade if you were in the club.
A lot of trade agreements are now warping protocols put in place originally to protect 1st world countries when investing in chaotic third world countries with revolving door despots (and rarely had any small print that protected the money of those countries, making it very hard for them to reclaim money siphoned off by said despots)
They also contain lots of tedious discussion about standards which we did collectively in the EU (much more efficiant) what brexiteers don't seem to realise is that the much derided "law" about bananas was a trading standardisation and we are now doomed to pay lots of people to repeat this discussion with lots of different countries (or we adopt EU standards but have no say in them)

In reply to jethro kiernan:


Thanks for your reply, Jethro!

In reply to FreshSlate:


You really should look into some of the implications of TTIP. How wide ranging and the power it can give to corporations over governments.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Incoherent would be a better description.

It makes more sense when you work out that he is talking about TTIP rather than all free trade agreements as the OP implies

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


"speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way.
"she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all" "

What definition are you using Gordon?

In reply to FreshSlate:




Probably that one!

Just where is the impassioned anger in that clip?

In reply to Hugh J:
Some further context may have helped explain this to me, but it does rather hit the nail on the head.
I wonder if we'd feel more comfortable calling them something else like distribution contracts.

In reply to Hugh J:

Yes, I couldn't see much impassioned anger either (incidentally, I think the guy is unwell - he seems to be speaking much more slowly than he used to?) - and yes, it's a bit incoherent. I suppose the word the OP really meant was 'a polemic'. OK.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

When's Justin coming over to sign some Trade Agreement?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Sure - an incoherent polemic would be more accurate.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

One of the key aspects of "free trade" is that it requires adherence to international law... three pillars of which are....human rights, popular sovereignty and popular resource sovereignty.

By the terms of international law, free trade is a mirage...a high proportion of the key raw materials..oil, rare earth metals etc. are quite literally stolen goods and any talk of "free trade" without recognizing, acknowledging and attempting to remedy this reality is simply nonsense.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

One view is that they are simply a removal of "burdensome and unnecessary regulations/restrictions".

At their most benign, that could simply be a removal of import tariffs. End result is cheaper products, boosting consumption and money in the pocket and each country focusses on what its really good at. Downside would be local producers suddenly finding themselves being undercut.

On the other hand, burdensome regulation can come in the form of human rights laws, safety and environmental controls.

I can see the advantages in free-trade, and its obviously an ideal. But in the same way that free movement of people around the world is a goal we should aim for, while huge disparities in wealth and opportunity exist, it doesn't seem practical. I don't see how true free-trade wouldn't result in a race to the bottom in terms of wages, regulation and undermine all those annoying bits of legislation that actually allow us to live healthier and happier lives in the long-term.

In reply to redjerry:

There is nothing in the concept of free trade that implies it should be legal. Probably the only true example of free trade we have is the drugs trade.

The question of ownership of resources is an important one but trying to create a conceptual link with free trade is a political exercise in building a coalition of opposition.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Just to add, Germany is currently being sued for about 5G€ by the Swedish corporation Vattenfall for lost potential profits from their long depreciated nuclear reactors after the German government took the sovereign decision to end nuclear power production (technically the issue is transferring licences between different reactors, but the principle stands). The "jurisdiction" of the New York secret tribunal and its British judge stems from some ancient international energy treaty.

This is the same corporation that flogged off its coal pits and plants to some dodgy Czech outfit to wiggle out of the costs for the long term maintenance and eventual renaturation of the open cast mines they have operated since the 1990s.

The timing was actually quite good, as it reminded people about what these agreeements are all about.

CB

PS: I am actually in favour of true free exchange of products, services and labour (this must not be uncoupled), with a realistic price put on the environmental costs of transport, but this is not what CETA and TTIP in their current state are about.

In reply to cb294:


Just to make sure, is that a 5 followed by 9 zeros?!
The world's going mad and to hell in a hand cart.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

"There is nothing in the concept of free trade that implies it should be legal."....really? free trade doesn't completely depend on property rights? You might want to rethink that.

In reply to redjerry:

Surely smuggling is the epitome of free trade

In reply to Lusk:

Yes, 4.800.000.000 €, roughly the sum they had expected to earn by letting a few of their long written off reactors run a bit longer.

CB

In reply to cb294:

One really unfair issue about TTIP was even within the protection of corporate interests it isn't reciprocal (the US government can't get sued by EU companies). The tribunals that decide outcomes in such disputes have no proper accountability. I think we would be crazy to sign such deals which resemble a new form of protectionalism set up to give unfair advantage to US globalised corporate interests under a guise of freer trade. Something that has UKIP, the squabbling left and middle ground public lobby groups like 38 degrees all unified in their concerns needs the public to pay attention.