If what I've heard about Brussels is correct, then the Russian FSB will already know all about it
Maybe they could tell us?TTIP Scary!!!
- Thread starter Bego2K
- Start date
If what I've heard about Brussels is correct, then the Russian FSB will already know all about it
Maybe they could tell us?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
The businesses sueing governments for loss of profits is the main issue with me, that coupled with american foods flooding the markets here
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
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
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."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?
Then that will be the UKs choice, however a lot of what is on the the table with TTIP is not something we would consider in any trade deal anyway. You should be more worried at the utter lack of input the UK is being allowed in these negotiations.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,179
This is the classic example of why it is better to be Out than In, if we don't like the treaty we can allow it to lapse or use whatever get out clause exists on the basis of UK soveriegnty alone. If it's an EU deal we either have to persuade 27 other countries and the EU bureaucracy to let it lapse or use a get out clause. If it's a UK treaty we can change the Government for one that has a different perpsepctive on the value of the trade deal, we can't change the EU.
TTIP and other highly binding deals are a prime and valid example of why we should be out. At least we are directly responsible for the reprehensible mess our politicians might make instead of vicariuosly screwed by them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
What Farage said isn't the point, it's whether what he said is true or not.
And the quote from Wiki that was provided in no way supports the claim that UK delegates (the implication being that it was only the UK delegates and not those from other countries) are asked to leave the room when details are discussed.
UK delegates are the only delegates I actually want in the room.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,796
http://www.monbiot.com/2013/12/02/managing-transparency/
I would have though that the UK would be all for it, namely allowing corporations to rape the world so to speak and create more wealth and jobs whilst at the same time not being at all responsible for their acts.
I would have though that the UK would be all for it, namely allowing corporations to rape the world so to speak and create more wealth and jobs whilst at the same time not being at all responsible for their acts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
I see nothing wrong with that.
If your company had heavily invested in another country, with the full support/encouragement of that county's government, and then that same government ruled that your business could no longer operate due to an arbitrary decision I think it's entirely fair that you should expect some recompense for all of your investment they encouraged and have now prohibited.
The logical extreme being just that, a fallacious proposition that can't reasonably be expected to have any semblance to reality.
Wait, you want conservative ministers to make a deal with corporate america to safe-guard the future of the nhs?
Something tells me you not being entirely genuine in your motivations.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
Fantastically missing the point there Scorza. Probably deliberately because you know that point about "UK delegates being asked to leave" is guff.
Not so much the ministers - civil servants are the officials in question, who negotiate trade deals (under guidance from ministers).
Since it's "guff", you'll have no problem finding a link that shows UK officials are present during EU trade negotiations.
No it won't be the UKs choice, it will be down to two governments, both of whom are guilty of decision by lobbying and cronyism.
There hasn't yet been any proof that the UK hasn't been allowed input into these negotiations.
You'll have no problems backing up your original assertion then, I assume. Why haven't you done so yet? You're strawmanning here, hard. Prove the statement that you've made, several times, or don't - I couldn't care less - but stop strawmanning, because that wastes everyone time. Poor diversion tactics, even by your low standards.
Last edited:
But why would westminster civil servants be negotiating an eu trade deal? They wouldn't, the commission is.
Are you saying uk civil servants should negotiate on behalf of the whole of the eu or that no uk citizens are allowed in the negotiations?
Because the first I would assume, the latter I would say was possible, but I'm sure there's at least one brit involved, we're not entirely shut-out of the commission yet!
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
I never claimed they were. You made the claim they are being asked to leave the room but aren't able to substantiate it. To use one of your own wonderful 'arguments'; it's not up to me to prove your claim is false, its up to you to show it's true.
What's actually happening is that the details of an international trade deal are being kept confidential to the group negotiating the deal, which is perfectly reasonable given the amount of economic espionage, political infighting and histrionics such a deal attracts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
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.
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.
I'd also like to point out that I am in no way trying to say yes or no to TTIP, I simply want to understand the implications, from the most likely to the most extreme outcomes.
I'm saying UK civil servants should negotiate trade deals on behalf of the UK
Well Nigel Farage said it on LBC and no-one has said he was wrong.