Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Neverwhere

Ttip Meaningful Costs & No Significant Benefits?

Recommended Posts

TTIP%20damning%20report%20inforgraphic%2
Fresh off the press today is the government’s business report on the EU-US trade deal, TTIP, and its potential impacts on the UK. It finds that TTIP will have little economic and political benefit, even going as far as to say that it will pose ‘meaningful costs’ to the UK. These damning conclusions come with no surprise, and reveal that TTIP is ‘likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits’.

Here are the key findings;

(1) There is little reason to think that an EU-US investment chapter will provide the UK with significant economic benefits. No two countries in the world exchange more investment than the UK and the US, and there is no evidence that US or UK investors view either country as suffering from the kinds of political risks against which investment treaties are supposed to protect. Moreover, existing evidence suggests that the presence of an EU-US investment chapter is highly unlikely to encourage investment above and beyond what would otherwise take place. US investors have generally not taken much notice of investment treaties in the past when deciding where, and how much, to invest abroad – even when dealing with far more questionable jurisdictions than the UK.

(2) There is little reason to think that an EU-US investment chapter will provide the UK with significant political benefits. The political relationship between Washington and Whitehall is exceptionally strong, and we are aware of no evidence that it is vulnerable to a meaningful risk of investor-state disputes that would become undesirably “politicized” in the absence of an investment treaty. Secondly, we find it unlikely that an EU-US agreement would make significant negotiating partners – like India and China – more or less willing to agree to an investment treaty with the EU. Finally, it is unclear whether the US is particularly keen on an investment protection chapter with the EU, which means the Commission may not be able to use such a chapter as an effective ‘bargaining chip’ in other trade and/or investment negotiations with Washington. However, these are all issues that BIS might wish to explore in further detail.

(3) There is some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter will impose meaningful economic costs on the UK. Based on Canada’s experience under NAFTA, we would expect an EU-US investment chapter to be regularly invoked by US investors against the UK for governmental actions that would normally not be challengeable under UK law. While we would not expect the UK to lose many of these cases on the merits, the UK will necessarily incur costs to defend itself. Legal costs in investment treaty claims are substantial. The UK government may also find itself subject to pressure to settle some claims, even when there are reasonable prospects of successfully defending the claim on the merits. Finally, given the uncertain meaning of key elements of international investment law, it is possible that the UK would occasionally lose some arbitrations on the merits and be liable for significant damage awards.

(4) There is some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter to impose meaningful political costs on the UK. Under investment treaties similar to a likely EU-US investment chapter, US investors have brought claims that raise potentially controversial questions. Should US investors bring similar claims against the UK, this will increase the chances that a particular dispute could provoke a backlash against the EU-US economic agreement as a whole or, perhaps more broadly, investor-state arbitration as a governing institution.

Follow this link to read the full report:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260380/bis-13-1284-costs-and-benefits-of-an-eu-usa-investment-protection-treaty.pdf

Mods - feel free to merge with existing TTIP threads, but if possible can we leave this up for a little while beforehand so that this particular development gets some attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend to view TTIP according to their political beliefs.

Me? I sounds like a make-work scheme for trade negotiators.

There's probably lots of cockup in the treaty as its only be viewed by trade negotiators. And its a bit, complex document. Trade rules should be kept simple. Bigger documents more complexity.

Want to improve average Joe EU's life via trade? Then scrap CAP, allow US and non-EU countries to trade agriculutural products.

Any worry about GMOs and whatver can be sorted by clear labelling.

Done!

But I guess that did not keep 1,000s of economists in ungainful employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "Official Government Report on TTIP" but the report seems to be by LSE Enterprise (part of the LSE) and is dated 2013 - not a government report? and the report is not reflecting a government stance? So it was fresh off the press in 2013? and is being publicised again as a result of recent TTIP developments and for the eu referendum?

It was apparently sent "TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION AND SKILLS:" - does that department agree with the conclusions?

I'm not saying that the report's conclusions/criticisms regarding TTIP aren't valid.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression we needed the TTIP to support our comrades in the east By giving them a monopoly on western trade. Although, Vietnam will probably descend into civil war ...maybe that's the plan after Syria? I don't know, madmen rule the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "Official Government Report on TTIP" but the report seems to be by LSE Enterprise (part of the LSE) and is dated 2013 - not a government report? and the report is not reflecting a government stance? So it was fresh off the press in 2013? and is being publicised again as a result of recent TTIP developments and for the eu referendum?

It was apperently sent "TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION AND SKILLS:" - does that department agree with the conclusions?

I'm not saying that the report's conclusions/criticisms regarding TTIP aren't valid.

Good shout, my bad for taking the 33 Degrees portrayal of the report at face value. As ever, DYOR! (#^.^#)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression we needed the TTIP to support our comrades in the east By giving them a monopoly on western trade.

Yes, but only with the interest of selected corporates at the top of the food chain. It would also put those corporates legally above the rule of law of nation states, which they would love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good shout, my bad for taking the 33 Degrees portrayal of the report at face value. As ever, DYOR! (#^.^#)

Thanks - not bad but I'm also putting the question why 38 Degrees portrayed it (apparently a bit misleadingly) as an official government report as it tends to make one feel (incorrectly?) that the government won't be agreeing to TTIP which would put opposition to TTIP a bit off balance and maybe make some people opposed to TTIP think that they'd won - at least so far as the UK is concerned.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - not bad but I'm also putting the question why 38 Degrees portrayed it (apparently a bit misleadingly) as an official government report as it tends to make one feel (incorrectly?) that the government won't be agreeing to TTIP which would put opposition to TTIP a bit off balance and maybe make some people opposed to TTIP think that they'd won - at least so far as the UK is concerned.

Perhaps to make it look like there is a pro-TTIP conspiracy trying to suppress evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTIP - my main reason for voting to leave.

Put me at the back of the queue Obama you warmongering schill !

Have the Brexiters said they'll not sign up to TTIP?

I thought Brexiters were for free trade?

Id guess the US trade negotiations with an exited-UK would go along the lines of 'Signup for TTIP or piss off for 10 years'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the Brexiters said they'll not sign up to TTIP?

I thought Brexiters were for free trade?

Id guess the US trade negotiations with an exited-UK would go along the lines of 'Signup for TTIP or piss off for 10 years'

Brexit gives us the choice. Bremain doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit gives us the choice. Bremain doesn't.

Have the Brexiters promised to withdraw from TTIP?

All Ive heard is that ill take a year or so to sort out trade deals.

The only way thatll happen is i the UK signs up to an existing set of rules, which are TTIP for the US.

Look, at the moment, the States is pushing TTIP - Obama's visit after the UK was to Germany to smooth things down.

If we leave, will the US say - OK, what do want?

Or will it say - Fckit bot spending more time on a one-off deal for the UK, sign TTIP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   34 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.