Ttip - Why Are The Unions + Left Going Nuts?

[spyguy]

After getting an umpteenth facebook ad on TTIP will privatise the NHS, I thought I'd better have a look.

As far as I understand it, its just another US-EU trade deal.

Its been kicking around for a few years.

All of a sudden there seems to be a concerted effort from he broad left against it.

Why deal with everything by using NHS?

The NHS is an expensive, underperforming public sector monopoly.

Surely, the unions should make a stand and hand back their ipods?

[Guest_northshore_*]

I think it's about retaining a modicum of democratic control over what our money is spent on. A pretty non-partisan thing; a bit like people writing thousands of posts about similar problems with land and housing. Crazy huh, almost enough to make a person want to actually read up on it themselves.

But yeah if ever in policy doubt, blame ipods.

[Self Employed Youth]

Isn't there a clause that allows corporations to sue governments if they lose any business, thus guaranteeing them a profit and the ability to extract money from various governments.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

I think it's about retaining a modicum of democratic control over what our money is spent on..

I think you will find that when they take our money off us it becomes...Their money.

[Guest_northshore_*]

I think you will find that when they take our money off us it becomes...Their money.

Indeed. And it's that attitude that perpetuates it.

[Executive Sadman]

Not just the left. UKIP also

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/02/ttip-vince-cable-ukip_n_5914040.html

One of those rare times the far left and right agree on things...nato is another one. Galloway has even said coming out of NATO is the first thing he'd do as PM.

If the establishment parties are for it, im against it, unions or not.

[kjw]

All about further erosion national sovereignty and granting greater power and control to multinational corporations (as do all such "free trade" agreements).

[byron78]

There's a clause allowing corporations to sue governments (and all manner of other ugliness).

It's not just the left going nuts either. I know plenty of Tories unsettled by it.

[Executive Sadman]

All about further erosion national sovereignty and granting greater power and control to multinational corporations (as do all such "free trade" agreements).

Precisely. Everything must be sold and loaded up with debt. The banking system/city of London depends on it.

[Neverwhere]

There's a clause allowing corporations to sue governments (and all manner of other ugliness).

It's not just the left going nuts either. I know plenty of Tories unsettled by it.

It's not just that they can sue the government, it's that these cases go to international arbitrators so they are not even overseen by our judicial system. Essentially they corporations have their ability to hold the government to ransom enshrined in law so no more democracy, but it was always somewhat of an illusion, right?

Edit: more here, although wikipedia so not necessarily the most reliable of sources this is broadly what we're in store for.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Neverwhere

[Neverwhere]

Not just the left. UKIP also

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/02/ttip-vince-cable-ukip_n_5914040.html

One of those rare times the far left and right agree on things...nato is another one. Galloway has even said coming out of NATO is the first thing he'd do as PM.

If the establishment parties are for it, im against it, unions or not.

If only they would come out and oppose the investor-state dispute settlement clause and not just try and ring fence the NHS...

[begob]

Edit: more here, although wikipedia so not necessarily the most reliable of sources this is broadly what we're in store for.

Wikipedia is the most reliable source. In a busy article everything has to be referred to a reliable source, and the talk page discusses disputes. Better than the media, and probably a better process than academic debate. Other articles not so much, but substantial contributions will probably come from people with an interest in facts rather than opinion.

[Neverwhere]

Wikipedia is the most reliable source. In a busy article everything has to be referred to a reliable source, and the talk page discusses disputes. Better than the media, and probably a better process than academic debate. Other articles not so much, but substantial contributions will probably come from people with an interest in facts rather than opinion.

Yes I agree, as long as the information is linked and/or you go to the effort of checking out the discussion pages it's very good, I just meant that the overview may not always be entirely reliable as the latest iteration might not have been subject to review yet. There was a game at my university (which I didn't play) to see who could get the most outrageous rubbish up on to the highest profile wikipedia pages for the longest period of time, so probably I am unnecessarily cautious about it as a result...

Edited November 20, 2014 by Neverwhere

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

It's not just another trade deal. TTIP is extremely dangerous and undemocratic. See here; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

There's 2 big problems with this article

1. It's published in the Guardian

2. It's written by George Moonbat Monbiot

Not even worth taking seriously

[Neverwhere]

There's a petition to stop TTIP if anyone is interested.

[billybong]

http://

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/02/ttip-vince-cable-ukip_n_5914040.html

The trade deal, supporters say, would create jobs and boost the UK economy by £10 billion a year,..

That's exactly the sort of thing that they said about the common market which then turned into the eu.

Whether it might (or might not) be a good trading idea in principle just the fact that the likes of Mr Cable are in favour of it means that the chances are it will ultimately turn out to be a duff and undemocratic deal for most people.

When are they going to hold the referendum on that proposal. At the same time as the eu referendum? - and in any event it should be before they sign any agreements.

Edited November 20, 2014 by billybong

[Neverwhere]

That's exactly the sort of thing that they said about the common market which then turned into the eu.

Whether it might (or might not) be a good trading idea in principle just the fact that the likes of Mr Cable are in favour of it means that the chances are it will ultimately turn out to be a duff and undemocratic deal for most people.

When are they going to hold the referendum on that proposal. At the same time as the eu referendum? - and in any event it should be before they sign any agreements.

They're not going to give us a referendum they're just going to take us into a common market with the US, and it's going to be an even less democratic partnership than we have with Europe...

[billybong]

They're not going to give us a referendum they're just going to take us into a common market with the US, and it's going to be an even less democratic partnership than we have with Europe...

So another reason to vote UKIP as UKIP is against it.

It's interesting that from the huffington article the LibLabCon is coming up with exactly the same duff claims made for the common market such as last chance, Britain on it's own, any possible bad things would be dealt with by exemption, more jobs etc etc.

They're so lacking that after all this time they can't even find better reasons for such an agreement than they used for the common market - but in the light of the eu experience there are plenty of very clear and proven reasons why it likely wouldn't be beneficial.

Edited November 21, 2014 by billybong

[Neverwhere]

So another reason to vote UKIP as UKIP is against it.

It's interesting that from the huffington article the LibLabCon is coming up with all the duff claims made for the common market such as last chance, Britain on it's own, any possible bad things would be exempted, more jobs etc etc.

They're so lacking that after all this time they can't even find better reasons for such an agreement than they used for the common market - but in the light of the eu experience there are plenty of very clear and proven reasons why it likely wouldn't be beneficial.

I hope UKIP are against it, all I've seen so far from them is that they want the NHS exempted. Does anyone have any other info on this?

The investor-state dispute settlement clause seems to be an order of magnitude worse than anything we've ever agreed with the EU so anyone who is concerned about our relationship with Europe should be heavily opposed to TTIP, or at the very least to this particular clause.

[billybong]

I hope UKIP are against it, all I've seen so far from them is that they want the NHS exempted. Does anyone have any other info on this?

The investor-state dispute settlement clause seems to be an order of magnitude worse than anything we've ever agreed with the EU so anyone who is concerned about our relationship with Europe should be heavily opposed to TTIP, or at the very least to this particular clause.

It's in the headline of the huffingtonpost article

http://

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/02/ttip-vince-cable-ukip_n_5914040.html

Vince Cable Mocks Ukip's 'Weakness' For Opposing TTIP Trade Deal

Vince Cable has hit out at UKip for opposing a controversial EU-US trade deal that the party fears would lead to "widespread privatisation" of the NHS.

The UKIP objection does indeed seem to be linked to the NHS but at least that's something rather than the LibLabCon which seems to be accepting it wholesale and selling the UK people down the river again.

Edited November 20, 2014 by billybong

[Neverwhere]

It's in the headline of the huffingtonpost article

The objection does indeed seem to be linked to the NHS but at least that's something rather than the LibLabCon accepting it wholesale and selling the UK people down the river again.

Sure, that's what Vince Cable says they're doing, I meant that I haven't seen any quotes or literature directly from UKIP that opposes anything other than the inclusion of the NHS in the deal. For instance:

Ukip has backtracked on an earlier statement issued to IBTimes UK, in which its trade spokesperson said the party wished to open the NHS and education to US investors as part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

In a statement, Clive Page, who claimed to be a spokesperson for trade spokesperson William Dartmouth, issued the following response to the story that ran on 20 October:

"It is Ukip policy that the NHS would be excluded from any TTIP agreement. This policy was clearly spelled out by health spokesman Louise Bourse [sic] at our Doncaster conference.

You have been sent a copy of letter from Nigel Farage in which he clearly states that he opposed to TTIP.

The information you received from an employee of William Dartmouth was incorrect. He was not authorised to speak on matters of policy or indeed to talk to the press."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-ukip-backtracks-nhs-privatisation-amid-communication-shambles-1470926

Edit: in this context I took the statement that "in which [Nigel Farage] clearly states that he opposed to TTIP" to be directly in relation to the NHS as this was the article he was responding to and in the letter he writes "I will oppose this for the reasons you mention." I hope it means it will be opposed on a wider front but I would like to see more from UKIP to confirm that...

Edited November 20, 2014 by Neverwhere

[billybong]

You have been sent a copy of letter from Nigel Farage in which he clearly states that he opposed to TTIP.

That seems to be pretty clear. That seems to be UKIPs position at the moment and in the absence of a referendum it's better than the LibLabCon's position which is to just trample on like with the eu and not bother with votes etc.

Edited November 20, 2014 by billybong

[Neverwhere]

That seems to be pretty clear. That seems to be UKIPs position at the moment and in the absence of a referendum it's better than the LibLabCon's position which is to just trample on like with the eu and not bother with votes etc.

Agreed.

[RentingForever]

It's not just that they can sue the government, it's that these cases go to international arbitrators so they are not even overseen by our judicial system. Essentially they corporations have their ability to hold the government to ransom enshrined in law so no more democracy, but it was always somewhat of an illusion, right?

Edit: more here, although wikipedia so not necessarily the most reliable of sources this is broadly what we're in store for.

And the international arbitrators are taken from a pool of corporate lawyers.

Plus there's no right of appeal.

Edited November 20, 2014 by RentingForever

[billybong]

It's not just that they can sue the government, it's that these cases go to international arbitrators so they are not even overseen by our judicial system. Essentially they corporations have their ability to hold the government to ransom enshrined in law so no more democracy, but it was always somewhat of an illusion, right?

Edit: more here, although wikipedia so not necessarily the most reliable of sources this is broadly what we're in store for.

Then there would be no point in elections (or at least even less point in holding elections as they seem to more or less just do as they please now).

Likely they still would hold them but it would be dumbed down to stuff like where to place traffic signals and suchlike.

Yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time was an example of several hundred people (MPs) demonstrating their redundancy including squabbling over the words of a celebrity's utterances on BBC's own Question Time.

Edited November 20, 2014 by billybong