Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

After the referendum, EU exit is on the short-term agenda - with new trade deals being the subsequent objective.

This has made me very curious. I've realised that, while the text of the EU treaties are available, I've not read another any other documents relating to international trade deals.

I assume that the extent and variety of trade deals must be extensive... (Isn't this what thousands of diplomats have focused upon for decades?)

So, my cheeky question is this: How many different trade deals are published - and where can I find the agreements that codify them?

While this may seem as if it is about to veer off topic, I am especially interested in establishing the international rules relating to the sale of asset backed securities and bonds arising from structured credit. I am aware, for example that European Securitization is an EU initiative - one that contributed to the excesses that led to 2008.

What is the overlap between foreign indirect investment; trade-deals and (structured) credit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read the full text of the Trans Pacific Partnership from various places, eg, here: https://ustr.gov/tpp/ .

Dunno if it covers ABS etc, but if it did it'd probably be in chapter 11.

TTIP definitely covers free trade in such instruments... as (I believe) do the EU treaties.

I am keen to discover whether this is a feature of every international trade deal. Are there any trade deals, either current or historic, that do not require nation states accept unconstrained trade in financial instruments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think UK veto many regulations relating to financial products.

I think it matters (a lot) specifically which regulations we're talking about...

Where major banks are dependent upon explicit state support, and where states are (implicitly or explicitly) responsible for bank failures, I consider the most relevant details in trade deals are those tat restrict - rather than impose - financial regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd that everyone seems to accept that TTIP is a de facto bad, but still seem to assume a specific trade deal with europe will be in our best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd that everyone seems to accept that TTIP is a de facto bad, but still seem to assume a specific trade deal with europe will be in our best interests.

The problem with TTIP is very few know the details and probably no one outside of the European Parliment has seen the details,then those within the group that have seen the details are not allowed to repeat them verbatim ...it`s the secrecy that makes the deal look shady ... if it`s such a good deal why keep it secret ? .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd that everyone seems to accept that TTIP is a de facto bad, but still seem to assume a specific trade deal with europe will be in our best interests.

Personally, I'm suspicious about TTIP... but, I admit, I'm not maximally informed about it. It is plausible that my apprehension is entirely down to ignorance... though - right now - I don't feel that to be an adequate explanation.

I'm beginning to think that there is a more fundamental problem... I am not clear what should be the objective of a trade deal... and, if I'm not clear, I wonder who else might be confused?

At a superficial level, one assumes that increased free-trade represents an increased quality of life for trading parties. This makes intuitive sense for tangible goods (and traditional services) - assuming a neutral balance of trade. It is less obvious that it is desirable to promote imbalanced trade. I also remain to be convinced that the international trade in risk (aka financial instruments) is similarly beneficial to either party in an international trade agreement.

If one takes a fundamentalist pro-international-trade perspective, this risks a systemic 'race to the bottom' - exploiting the poorest people to the detriment of the bulk of humanity. So, perhaps, if trade deals are to be positive, they must impose common legislation - to establish a level playing field? If this is the case, who decides upon this legislation - and whose perspective should be authoritative when it comes to identifying what is fair? How can one ensure that the subtle implications of a trade deal do not represent an egregious benefit to a small clique?

It strikes me that the term 'trade deal' covers a wide range of possibilities - and that the devil will be in the detail.

Edited by A.steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with TTIP is very few know the details and probably no one outside of the European Parliment has seen the details,then those within the group that have seen the details are not allowed to repeat them verbatim ...it`s the secrecy that makes the deal look shady ... if it`s such a good deal why keep it secret ? .

Because it's very politically sensitive.

Here is a leak from the Independent:

1 The NHS

Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

Imagine the stink if we announced we had to privatise the NHS because Europe were signing a trade deal with the US. Much better to do it quietly on the side over the past few years while nobody's paying attention..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with TTIP is very few know the details and probably no one outside of the European Parliment has seen the details,then those within the group that have seen the details are not allowed to repeat them verbatim ...it`s the secrecy that makes the deal look shady ... if it`s such a good deal why keep it secret ? .

Lots of civil servants are doing most of the negotiation: think Sir Humphrey.

Secrecy is indeed the key problem. Our press have speculated a lot on things that could be wrong, and that tends to come across as things that are wrong. Post #10 above being a classic case in point.

More openness would probably be a good idea, though I expect if you asked Sir Humphrey he'd explain why that couldn't possibly work. All experience tells us it would lead to our press spreading maliciously-misleading stories. Perhaps the main problem would be that briefing the press with your own position - or to ridicule an opposing position - might become a negotiating tactic, and fear of the press would get in the way of negotiating.

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.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.