My biggest concern about the whole thing, that and its vagueness.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.
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!).
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.
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."