TTIP Scary!!!

When discussing TTIP everyone seems to worry about the NHS but, for me, the biggest potential problem on the list in OP's Independent link is point number six. How can any government justify signing up to a system where the country is punishable for taking policy decisions that adversely affect profits for signatory companies ?

The example given is that Germany had a similar agreement with a Swedish power company and when the German government decided to close all nuclear plants (after Fukushima) in the interests its people they found themselves subject to legal action because it affects the Swedish company's profit.

The logical extreme of this is governments having to consider the effects of their policies on private company's profits and balance that against the needs of the people.
My biggest concern about the whole thing, that and its vagueness.

Much like the Snoopers charter, it's being intentionally vague - in my opinion of course - which is exactly what leads to the abuses of power that we've seen come to light recently (and those we haven't of course!).
 
There hasn't yet been any proof that the UK hasn't been allowed input into these negotiations.

The TTIP is an EU trade agreement, it's negotiated by the EU not sovereign states. The EU Trade Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU with consultation to the EU Trade Policy Committee. The UK delegate to the TPC is, I believe, Chris Barton - Director, International Affairs, Trade Policy & Export Control at Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

So there you are Scorza, Chris Barton has been actively involved in the negotiation of the TTIP on behalf of the UK.
 
The decision isn't arbitrary, it is taken due to a change in circumstances (the Fukushima event) and in the interests of the people rather than the interests of a company's shareholders.

Maybe arbitrary was the wrong word to use. still, Germany isn't exactly known as an earthquake & tsunami hotspot, and they were the direct cause of the Fukushima incident.

It isn't a fallacy (a mistaken belief), it is simply among the least likely possible outcomes. Further to that I had hoped people would be able to interpolate between the position of no TTIP to that logical extreme. Essentially the company is hedging its risks at the expense of the taxpayer.

And yet is is continually being relied upon so support the argument as to why the TTIP is a bad idea. It's ridiculous.
 
Not really the same thing, though, imo. The government should be putting the people before anything else when making policies. Your individual with a mobile doesn't have that kind of consideration alongside the phone company.

Furthermore, businesses should carry their own risk when seeking profits. I understand that this may make firms very conservative when investing abroad, but they probably should be anyway. Risk analysis, anyone ?

Finally, governments do this to individuals without any recompense (think about Gordon Brown and SUVs or the turnaround on feed-in tariffs). Why should companies be any different ?

Having written these things down it seems to read like an advert for nationalisation :( because the government should, theoretically, invest the money itself rather than wait for circumstances to change and incur enormous reparations. The Germans are being hit for 4 billion euros by Vattenfall. They may as well have (with hindsight, obvs) invested that directly in their own energy sector. Then they could have reaped the profits between the investment and the enactment of reactor closures.

In summary, I appear to be aligned with Corbyn :eek: Ultimately, what I want to avoid is companies telling governments, "If you do that we are going to hit you for $$$, so don't do it."

I can see where you're coming from, but I still don't believe governments should have carte blanch to do whatever they want without repercussions. Obviously risk analysis is important but at the same time there is only so far you can go, you're never going to be able to counter irrational decisions made by governments, such as the shutting down of those nuclear plants you mention.

Why should your statement of putting its people first before anyone else not also relate to British (as an example) consumers refusing to adhere to a contract with a foreign based company?

In the original intention behind it yes, but allowing a legal process run by a tribunal with vested interested to take part in secret? You don't find that worrying? And the vagueness of the wording - as with a lot of legislation - effectively allowing for company's to sue if they feel their profits are endagered? It's simply too big a piece of legislation.



It's worrying that people base their criteria on this. What are you going to do in the likely outcome that the US and the UK then persue their own deal, and we can't vote out of that?

As far as I know we don't know the wording and it isn't finalized at the moment anyway.

All I keep hearing about the TTIP is negative, but we don't know much about it AND much of the complaining is done by borderline conspiracy theorists so I'll take much of it with a pinch of salt. I'll wait until the final wording is actually released and then take a firm view.

Things like harmonizing standards are not a bad idea, but generally when that happens standards are not reduced, rather minimum standards are increased. I'd be very wary about the so called factual comments in that independent commentary (it looks more like an opinion piece not a news article).

Edit: just to clarify,I'm not in favour of "lost profits" claims, but am in favour of claims for "costs" due to changes in government policy.
 
Last edited:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...s-says-it-makes-no-difference-if-uk-is-in-eu/

“When the WTO [World Trade Organisation] meets,” said Farage, “the UK is out of the room, even though we are the sixth largest trader, and eighth largest manufacturer, Britain cannot strike is own trade deals. It cannot strike a trade deal with India. But Iceland has just struck a deal with China.”

Farage was referring to a free trade deal Iceland agreed with China in April 2013. The EU has not yet negotiated one.

“If it is good enough for Iceland to do it, I’m damned certain the British with 64 million can do even better,” said Farage.

The chairman of China’s second biggest bank appears to agree.

My emphasis. There we go.
 
That's very different to what you were discussing at the beginning. It's essentially saying the "UK" doesn't exist as an individual trade entity to the WTO. Our interests are represented by the EU, of which we are an active partner and have elected UK representatives as part of the EU trade team.

I'd also be interested to know what he means by "Trade deals" as (for example) we struck several with China at the end of last year http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/24/britains-deals-with-china-billions-what-do-they-mean. I assume what he means is we cannot independently set tariffs for imports and exports to various countries, i.e. lumber from Canada, electronics from China?
 
Last edited:
Farage also said his party won naff all here in Oldham because people rigged the postal vote, and he had proof. Not that he ever showed that period either. What he says isn't exactly gospel.

Farage also said that the Thanet vote at the general election was dodgy and low and behold we have a police investigation into the Conservative Party cheating.
 
Such an awesome photo in that article.

82857153_82857152.jpg
 
My missus has worked for the NHS for over 20 years and this is know about.

The unions and government are at logger heads over it in the back ground.

They are looking at selling off the NHS to the private sector.:eek:

Dark times ahead am afraid. :(
 
The vote wasn't dodgy at all, the investigation is into Conservative Party is about spending pre election.

Oh and this.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32725167

That would make the vote dodgy - the rules are there to ensure a fair vote and that the big parties can't just outspend everyone else to ensure victory.

If the allegations raised by Channel 4 news are correct then the Conservatives are guilty of misreporting their financial accounts, which is the same thing as fraud in my book.
 
No that's my link to back up my assertion that UK delegates aren't involved in trade negotiations. You'll have to do your own investigations into whether Farage is correct or not - let's be honest the media love fact checking anything UKIP say and make a big deal if they're wrong, so you shouldn't have any problems finding something that contradicts Farage if indeed that is the case.
 
No that's my link to back up my assertion that UK delegates aren't involved in trade negotiations. You'll have to do your own investigations into whether Farage is correct or not - let's be honest the media love fact checking anything UKIP say and make a big deal if they're wrong, so you shouldn't have any problems finding something that contradicts Farage if indeed that is the case.

I did. He's not. (See above re Trade Policy Committee)

And you're not backing it up, you're just repeating the same statement, which doesn't make it any more true.
 
Back
Top Bottom