Loss of profits, or recouping money spent on projects when countries renegade on contracts and agreements? Big difference. Last time I checked it was more the latter, not the former.
TTIP
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Loss of profits, or recouping money spent on projects when countries renegade on contracts and agreements? Big difference. Last time I checked it was more the latter, not the former.
I'm having difficulty picturing your pub sign.
There is a lot of misinformation around about TTIP, I'm struggling to get an accurate view on what it actually is.
Seems that the controversial parts are that it will involve a mechanism for companies to take nation states to court more easily than currently possible, and that there will be a commission set up to investigate state interference into markets, including nationalised industries like the British health service.
What this all really means though, I don't know. The fact that its so hard to find out information from credible sources is a cause for concern in itself.
To be replaced with another MEP that doesn't have the power to change anything either.
Thats all for the EU referendum thread though.
Seems that the controversial parts are that it will involve a mechanism for companies to take nation states to court more easily than currently possible, and that there will be a commission set up to investigate state interference into markets, including nationalised industries like the British health service.
What this all really means though, I don't know. The fact that its so hard to find out information from credible sources is a cause for concern in itself.
To be replaced with another MEP that doesn't have the power to change anything either.
Thats all for the EU referendum thread though.
Joseph Stiglitz is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank and is a former member and chairman of the (US president's) Council of Economic Advisers.
This is his view of the TTIP:
This is his view of the TTIP:
From the little I have heard a major worry about TTIP would be the introduction of GMO foods from Monsanto (scary as hell if you read up about them and backed by Hillary BTW) which is currently not allowed thanks to the EU.
If the deal was passed, I fear the only thing that could stop this would be to stay in EU.
If the deal was passed, I fear the only thing that could stop this would be to stay in EU.
"No reason," wailed the old woman, rocking. "No reason."
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
This TTIP could have implications on the Brexit debate, which adds to reason why they'd want it all hush hush.
This is one of many deals being done behind closed doors, it's really nothing new.
This is one of many deals being done behind closed doors, it's really nothing new.
GMO is one of those things that's instantly divisive. I think a couple of better examples would be the hormone treatments they give to cattle which through the WTO, the US has tried to get approved things that have failed EU safety regulations. Under TTIP, they'd likely get away with it. Another example, though not European, would be how a US tobacco company is suing Uruguay for introducing certain controls on cigarettes such as advertising restrictions and selling to children. Again, that's the sort of thing under TTIP that could pass (not cigarettes obviously - that boat has sailed, but imagine any modern equivalent situation that arose).
Still, GMO is relevant because what they'd do with TTIP is take away people's choice in the matter. They'd block labelling so that it wasn't possible to distinguish GMO products from non-GMO products and whether you consider GMO's harmful or not, everyone can recognize that hiding information from customers is wrong. Imagine the same applied to sweatshops or child labour or compliance with environmental regulations.
As to GMO itself, this is a tangent but for many people who have reservations about it, it's not about whether GMO has an immediate health impact on the consumer or not, it's about the fact that most GMOs are engineered for pesticide and herbicide resistance allowing vast increases in the amount of these used which run off into rivers and damage ecosystems; it's about companies being able to patent basic food staples and drive out through market abuse non-patented crops leading to monopolies on food production and seed selling; it's about the irreversibility of the introduction of radical changes to the environment that we can't undo. No - putting a gene from caterpillars into a cereal crop that poisons insects that eat it is NOT just a faster version of the plant breeding we've been doing for thousands of years. Finally there's the simple fact that GMOs are used as a patch for our own bad practices, such as Indian farmers being forced to concentrate on growing rice rather than the more balanced variety of crops they used to, meaning they get vitamin deficiencies. And then the same companies that brought about this situation try to present themselves as heroic for engineering a type of rice ("Golden Rice") that contains vitamin D.
Yet whenever GMOs are discussed, I'm immediately faced with people implying anyone against GMOs is an anti-science moron and repeat like zombies phrases like "GMOs haven't been shown to cause health problems".
Rant over.
There is no planned process for consultation and revision after negotiations complete. Just as with other similar partnerships there will be a concerted effort to pass it into primary legislation as quickly as possible once it is published.
I agree that there is a need for privacy during negotiations but without a guarantee that we will get a decent time to consult and revise the outcome of the negotiations I simply don't buy the argument that we should wait and see. The time to be raised the alarm is now; let's kill this thing before it sees the light of day.
The simple fact that elected representatives are not allowed to look at this thing, supports this as well.
It's one thing to say "I shouldn't show my hand during negotiations" but quite another to say "I'm negotiating on your behalf and you're not allowed to know."
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,796
http://www.monbiot.com/2015/01/13/trade-secrets/
nothing to do with trade but more to do with corporations getting what they want when they don't get it. Plenty of companies sue governments when slighted and so it will continue. Essentially it is the means by which corporations can get around country protections for its people and its society.
nothing to do with trade but more to do with corporations getting what they want when they don't get it. Plenty of companies sue governments when slighted and so it will continue. Essentially it is the means by which corporations can get around country protections for its people and its society.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,178
- Location
- Europe
What informed decision? It's not like we get a vote on it.
Fortunately it won't go through anyway. There is no way France and it's farmers, wine growers, and cheese makers will stand for it.
The Government's own report from the LSE into TTIP is damning, these are their key findings (p.44-45):
which leads them to conclude:
The arguments for benefits from TTIP are weak, and the forecast benefits from similar trade agreements elsewhere have proved illusory. While the potential costs from the disturbing quasi-legal nature of ISDS are high. We should kill this thing now.
Fortunately, it looks like opposition is rising across Europe and I see very little chance of it being passed into law in anything like its current state.
(1) There is little reason to think that an EU-US investment chapter will provide the UK with significant economic benefits.
(2) There is little reason to think that an EU-US investment chapter will provide the UK
with significant political benefits.
(3) There is some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter will impose meaningful economic costs on the UK.
(4) There is some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter to impose meaningful political costs on the UK.
(2) There is little reason to think that an EU-US investment chapter will provide the UK
with significant political benefits.
(3) There is some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter will impose meaningful economic costs on the UK.
(4) There is some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter to impose meaningful political costs on the UK.
which leads them to conclude:
In sum, an EU-US investment chapter is likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits. On the other hand, with more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in US FDI stock, the UK exposes itself to a significant measure of costs.
The arguments for benefits from TTIP are weak, and the forecast benefits from similar trade agreements elsewhere have proved illusory. While the potential costs from the disturbing quasi-legal nature of ISDS are high. We should kill this thing now.
Fortunately, it looks like opposition is rising across Europe and I see very little chance of it being passed into law in anything like its current state.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,179
I'm inclined to agree, but if a post Brexit Conservative Government imposed it on us at least it would be our fault for electing them and we could defenestrate them at the next election. If the EU makes the decision for us that's it we're boned.
When it says quarter of a trillion dollars in US FDI stock, does that mean the UK has invested a quarter of a million in US businesses, or they've invested quarter of a million in ours?