***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
Continuing discussion.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 13 Jun 15 at 20:42
|
What is also important at the moment is TTIP.Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
This will effect us all in Europe and jo public has no say.The negotiations are done behind closed doors.Multinationals like Monsanta are pushing their agenda for genetic modified food.
The bigger the companies the less control and they become a law to themselves.Europe isn't anymore about people but about controlling our lives in a way I don't like.Ameika's laws regarding what companies can get away with is far more easy going than ours in Europe.
I often wonder that our politicans are puppets to the shadow power.This might sound like a conspiracy theory but it isn't.
Read a good book about this by a professor called Eward Engelen who speaks many languages.
|
|
"Ewald" I believe, not "Eward".
|
|
Like Dutchie I find our politicians, including UKIP, strangely mute on TTIP.
|
|
Not much point in a UKIP, or any other for that matter, politician talking about something that a Mail reader would neither find interesting nor intelligible.
|
>>Not much point in a UKIP, or any other for that matter, politician talking about something that a Mail reader would neither find interesting nor intelligible.
Pompous ass.
|
ooo, did I hit a nerve? A Mail reader, I assume.
QED.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 9 Jun 15 at 17:42
|
>> >>Not much point in a UKIP, or any other for that matter, politician talking about
>> something that a Mail reader would neither find interesting nor intelligible.
>>
>> Pompous ass.
>>
He's not wrong though is he?
|
Of course I am not wrong - as we have seen over the years, and particularly in the last two, politics has descended to the point that it must be easy to understand, preferably with good soundbites, and appeal to readers of a juvenile media.
Given that, how many Mail readers know what TTIP is, understand its motivation, drivers and implications, and have any interest in either?
The Mail, in common with all such publications, is interested in selling newspapers. It does that by printing stuff that its readers are capable of understanding and interested in knowing about.
So what do we think the overlap of the groups "Mail Readers" and "People who understand and are interested in TTIP" is?
And here, even in a discussion forum, the standard of argument is putting a green thumb of a red frownie on something - presumably because either the author has nothing of worth to say, or lacks the balls to say it. Do say if you have another reason.
|
Of course Daily Mail readers know what TTIP is. It means their Cornish Pasties would be made in America.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2898785/Fears-Cornish-pasty-AMERICA-transatlantic-trade-deal-Europe.html
|
>> Of course Daily Mail readers know what TTIP is. It means their Cornish Pasties would
>> be made in America.
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2898785/Fears-Cornish-pasty-AMERICA-transatlantic-trade-deal-Europe.html
>>
Oh No McPastie
|
>> Oh No McPastie
Ronald McDonald and Nasty McPastie presumably.
I don't think the Yorkshire Wensleydale creamery has much to worry about, have you ever eaten American cheese?
|
>>So what do we think the overlap of the groups "Mail Readers" and "People who understand and are interested in TTIP" is?
Quite a high number I expect.
I have been less inclined to extrapolate from which newspapers people read since discovering that more AB men read the Sun than the Times some time ago.
Whilst I don't like the Mail, it isn't as bad as it's website, or the websites of several other newspaper brands that are stuffed with sensational click bait that seems to have been mass produced for the purpose.
|
>>I don't like the Mail, it isn't as bad as it's website
Ah well, I'm 8,000 miles away, I can only see the website. And its the website that I keep seeing links to, so I've no idea how the actual hardcopy compares.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 9 Jun 15 at 19:47
|
From UKIP's 2015 Manifesto
"THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (TTIP)
TTIP is a proposed EU/USA free trade agreement that is
being negotiated in secret by the EU Trade Commission and
other EU bureaucrats.
There is growing concern that TTIP may compel us to put
many of our public services up for sale to US companies,
thereby privatising significant parts of our NHS.
UKIP is committed to securing the exclusion of the
NHS, by name, from TTIP.
The level of public concern around TTIP makes it a good
example of what can potentially go wrong while we remain
in the EU and allow EU Commissioners to negotiate every
single trade agreement on behalf of twenty-eight member
states, including the UK, en bloc.
Fears of what TTIP might contain precisely illustrate
why UKIP believes we should leave the EU and
negotiate our own free trade agreements again.
We find it astonishing that other political
parties, while launching high-profile
campaigns against TTIP, nevertheless
remain committed to our EU membership.
Their hypocrisy is shameless."
|
So why were UKIP then, and indeed right now, not highlighting the issues around TTIP and its threat to our sovereignty?
Nothing of course to do with they're being 'continuity Thatcherites' happy to kow-tow to the US while pretending the real challenge to our independence lies in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 Jun 15 at 20:11
|
>> So why were UKIP then, and indeed right now, not highlighting the issues around TTIP
>> and its threat to our sovereignty?
>>
>> Nothing of course to do with they're being 'continuity Thatcherites' happy to kow-tow to the
>> US while pretending the real challenge to our independence lies in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Eh? It's in UKIP's manifesto, what more do you want? NFM has already told us why TTIP is not in the press. You'd argue black is white if UKIP said the opposite!
|
>>Nothing of course to do with they're being 'continuity Thatcherites' happy to kow-tow to the US while pretending the real challenge to our independence lies in Brussels and Strasbourg.
What? Wrong end, wrong stick there I think Bromp.
They have adopted it as something they have an opinion on, and if the masses want to hear about it, because its suddenly affecting their lives, then I am sure that the Mail and UKIP will both shout it from the hilltops - along with every other politician.
The issue is as I said, the Mail wants to appeal to the masses and the politicians wish to send messages to the masses.
So the Mail will print things that they believe their readers will be interested in and understand, and will only print a politicians opinions if it fits that profile.
For all we know UKIP has been bellowing it from the rooftops, that still won't make the Mail print it unless they think that it, or something about it will appeal to their readership.
We have no issue with our politicians, of whatever party, as a group. Our issue is what interests the public, what they understand, and what they feel strongly about.
Or, as I said before....
"Not much point in a UKIP, or any other for that matter, politician talking about something that a Mail reader would neither find interesting nor intelligible. "
And I still don't understand why that statement is pompous, nor why the lemmings put a frownie on it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 9 Jun 15 at 20:35
|
>> Fears of what TTIP might contain precisely illustrate
>> why UKIP believes we should leave the EU and
>> negotiate our own free trade agreements again.
So UKIP really thinks that a small country has more say with the US than a large trading block and we would be able to negotiate better treaties?
Anyone who believes that is a complete tit.
|
Complete tit here.
To phrase the question correctly
Would the UK have more say with the US as the UK, or as a member of the EU, in which in would have no decisive say at all?
Also - it can be easier, not harder, to negotiate carve outs when the other party does not automatically have to extend them to 27 other countries.
|
>> Complete tit here.
>>
>> To phrase the question correctly
>>
>> Would the UK have more say with the US as the UK, or as a
>> member of the EU, in which in would have no decisive say at all?
No. alone we would be completely inconsequential in the eyes of the US. And any other trading block.
>> Also - it can be easier, not harder, to negotiate carve outs when the other
>> party does not automatically have to extend them to 27 other countries.
You wont get any negotiation room over anything with anyone if you are outside a trading block. That will be easy wont it.
|
>> You wont get any negotiation room over anything with anyone if you are outside a
>> trading block. That will be easy wont it.
Cobblers.
|
>> >> You wont get any negotiation room over anything with anyone if you are outside
>> a
>> >> trading block. That will be easy wont it.
>>
>> Cobblers.
Really?
Ok think on this. How much dies the US depend on exporting to the UK? How much would we depend on exporting the US? Who do you think would come of second best on bi lateral us/uk trade relationships?
Ill add you name to the Tit camp shall I?
|
You're tying yourself in knots Z.
What makes you think the US would not sign up to the same terms with UK as with the EU?
The US has a large trade deficit with the EU, but fairly balanced trade with UK, which takes about 15% of the US exports to EU.
Call me whatever you want. UK would be better off out. Nothing to do with national pride or hatred of furriners, purely that it would be negotiating for itself, not subject to compromise that works for Europe as a whole.
Western Europe is fine. Throw in the rest of it and economically we will be dragged down for decades, assuming eventual convergence on fiscal control.
Think on that.
|
>> Call me whatever you want. UK would be better off out. Nothing to do with
>> national pride or hatred of furriners, purely that it would be negotiating for itself, not
>> subject to compromise that works for Europe as a whole.
The vast majority of out trade is with Europe.
>> Think on that.
You left me nothing to think on.
|
> You wont get any negotiation room over anything with anyone if you are outside a
>> trading block. That will be easy wont it.
>>
How do countries outside of an economic trade block manage in similar to the EU? South Korea, Australia etc. Are all there trade deals one sided and have no negotiation room over anything with anyone?
|
>> > You wont get any negotiation room over anything with anyone if you are outside
>> a
>> >> trading block. That will be easy wont it.
>> >>
>>
>> How do countries outside of an economic trade block manage in similar to the EU?
>> South Korea, Australia etc. Are all there trade deals one sided and have no negotiation
>> room over anything with anyone?
Australia are literally selling the country to the Chinese, South Korea imports nothing.
|
Well they seem to have done very well out of selling everything to those abroad. Not that we would do such a thing.
S korea exports alot that is part of trading. Import and export, how does it other countries manage with no negotiation room over anything with anyone?
|
I agree with you about the value of being in/out of trading blocs, but specifically regarding South Korea...
www.tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/imports
They have a nice surplus on trade, but they import loads (all the oil for a start), of which 9% comes from the EU. (Third largest importer)
|
>> I agree with you about the value of being in/out of trading blocs, but specifically
>> regarding South Korea...
>>
>> www.tradingeconomics.com/south-wkorea/imports
>>
>> They have a nice surplus on trade, but they import loads (all the oil for
>> a start), of which 9% comes from the EU. (Third largest importer)
>>
>>
>>
SK was merely an example to expand the debate. Anyway we've been told they imported nothing.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 9 Jun 15 at 22:16
|
>> I agree with you about the value of being in/out of trading blocs, but specifically
>> regarding South Korea...
>>
>> www.tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/imports
>>
>> They have a nice surplus on trade, but they import loads (all the oil for
>> a start), of which 9% comes from the EU. (Third largest importer)
How do they import oil from the EU?
|
They don't. Let me phrase it differently.
They have a nice surplus on trade, but they import loads.
9% of all South Korea's imports comes from the EU,the third largest importer.
The biggest single import is oil (23 percent of total imports) , though none of this comes from the EU.
Now please resume the fight. I'm right behind you if you want any research done to back up your argument. :-)
|
>> Now please resume the fight. I'm right behind you if you want any research done
>> to back up your argument. :-)
>>
Only if you can make it unambiguous!
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 9 Jun 15 at 22:26
|
>>
>> >> Fears of what TTIP might contain precisely illustrate
>> >> why UKIP believes we should leave the EU and
>> >> negotiate our own free trade agreements again.
>>
>> So UKIP really thinks that a small country has more say with the US than
>> a large trading block and we would be able to negotiate better treaties?
>>
>> Anyone who believes that is a complete tit.
>>
Er - we may be small geographically, but we are, I think, in the top ten trading nations in the world.
|
>> >> Anyone who believes that is a complete tit.
>> >>
>>
>> Er - we may be small geographically, but we are, I think, in the top
>> ten trading nations in the world.
Don't worry, I figured you for a tit.
|
Fear not, everyone. The iron law of "sod" will not be thwarted.
The UK will have it's great debate in the run up to the actual referendum, and finally conclude on balance that it is better to stay in the EU, even to accept "ever closer union", and the fact that this means having to eventually join the Euro.
The votes will be counted, and a resounding "YES" victory will hail a new era in the UK's engagement with the EU.
Finally a country at peace with its relationship with Europe.
Then six months later the EU will split apart due to a Black Swan event.
|
Facebook post today from Tim Aker - UKIP MEP.
"I would have voted against TTIP this morning but the President of the Parliament pulled the vote and there was a vote to cancel the debate.
I voted for the debate to go ahead. Labour and the Tories voted to cancel the debate. Only your UKIP MEPs would have voted against TTIP and we voted to allow debate."
|
.........and from Bill Etheridge - UKIP MEP
"This morning the EU parliament decided not to discuss TTIP ( The EU - USA Trade deal) this was decided by 183 votes to 181 with the main groups that include the British Labour and Conservative parties voting not to have the debate. This is a classic example of dodgy backroom deals at the EU and just in case anybody feels like shrugging their shoulders and saying never mind there is the potential for this trade deal to directly effect the NHS. These people are terrified of open debate. We now have several empty hours that should have been used debating this vital issue. I am disgusted and furious"
|
>> .........and from Bill Etheridge - UKIP MEP
>>
>> "This morning the EU parliament decided not to discuss TTIP ( The EU - USA
>> Trade deal) this was decided by 183 votes to 181 with the main groups that
>> include the British Labour and Conservative parties voting not to have the debate. This is
>> a classic example of dodgy backroom deals at the EU and just in case anybody
>> feels like shrugging their shoulders and saying never mind there is the potential for this
>> trade deal to directly effect the NHS. These people are terrified of open debate. We
>> now have several empty hours that should have been used debating this vital issue. I
>> am disgusted and furious"
Why do they keep blathering on about TTIP affecting the NHS when It will have no new effect on the NHS.
Oh I know, because they think it will scare us.
Some tits swallow if all of course. If they were to actually look at the TTIP and how the EU is negotiating it, as a whole, they would see they are playing hardball and most of the benefit goes to the EU.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 11:21
|
The debate was not cancelled.
However, since the voting on TTIP itself was delayed [due to the massive amount of amendments], then the suggestion was that the debate should be delayed until the amendments were incorporated.
UKIP made much of this postponement. Nobody voted "not to have the debate", they voted "not to have the debate today".
TTIP is essentially a trade agreement removing tariffs and taxes, and trying to bring some level of consistency to standards and rules. Not unlike the original Common Market, I guess.
The so-called NHS involvement is around privatisation of public services. Theoretically as TTIP seeks to abolish state monopolies, that might apply to Health Services, although there are exclusions being put in place.
I have only had a very brief read, but as far as I can see that comes down to three points;
There are exclusions permitting countries to run their own Health Service how they wish, but there is some concern from some areas that this might not stand up in court. This seems unlikely to be a problem, and is part of the amendment which caused the TTIP vote to be delayed.
If you privatise it you have to allow international competition for the contracts.
If you subsequently re-nationalise it then you have to pay compensation to the owners of the contracts that you cancel.
Instead of countries taking action against each other, it would be referred to the ISDS process - this is the investor-state dispute settlement, but which Unite prefers to call a "secret court". It is intended that this should be used rather than the current process of either country governments stepping in, or official court processes being used.Standard arbitration stuff.
It is worth pointing out that TTIP is based upon the draft contract between the EU and Canada.
As I said yesterday TTIP is neither interesting nor intelligible to Mail readers, but "UKIP stands up against evil EU and lazy Government" absolutely is.
And thus today it appears in the media.
I am not really sure why UKIP care. Since there will be a referendum on the EU and since Farage/UKIP know that the UK wishes to be out, it'll be a non-event so other than the current grand standing, what's the point?
Unless Farage thinks we're staying in. Surely not?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 12:43
|
If you think you might care about TTIP but as yet know insufficient, try these....
You'll get both sides of the argument fairly clearly, although there's always more to know...
www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-top-5-hopes-and-prospects
www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-top-5-concerns-and-criticism
And this will tell you where the EU stands...
ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/questions-and-answers/index_en.htm
Do remember that articles are as objective as the people that write them, which usually is not very.
|
>> The so-called NHS involvement is around privatisation of public services. Theoretically as TTIP seeks to
>> abolish state monopolies, that might apply to Health Services, although there are exclusions being put
>> in place.
Parts of the NHS are are already privatised*. at one stage my missus got TUPE'd to Virgin Care.
*or contracted out if you like
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 15:01
|
Ah! The "Good News" and "Bad News" scenario.
The Good News. Something that the EU does relatively well.
From Wikipedia:
TUPE
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced tu-pee,[1] are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Business Transfers Directive.[2] It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business.
The Bad news, transferred to having Branson as your boss. Intellectually I don't find him any better/worse than many people in the public eye, but my gut reaction to him is always loathing.
I wish that I could understand why the reaction is so extreme. Maybe it's just because he appears to be so oily and smug.
|
>> The Bad news, transferred to having Branson as your boss. Intellectually I don't find him
>> any better/worse than many people in the public eye, but my gut reaction to him
>> is always loathing.
>> I wish that I could understand why the reaction is so extreme. Maybe it's just
>> because he appears to be so oily and smug.
There is plenty I could say about him on here, most of which would get this qweb site closed down and taken to the cleaners.
However, he has little to do with any of the companies that use the Virgin brand. Not that makes any difference to Assura, they were an awful company before they renamed to Virgin, and are still awful.
|
>> because he appears to be so oily and smug.
Pretty much spot on, I'd say.
Although I'd add whiny and whingy as well.
|
>> The Bad news, transferred to having Branson as your boss. Intellectually I don't find him
>> any better/worse than many people in the public eye, but my gut reaction to him
>> is always loathing.
A good friend of mine has reported directly to him for 10 years now, and reckons he's a good chap to work for. Behind the slick PR and publicity stunts is a disarmingly ordinary bloke who is very easy to deal with. Expects a lot from his people, but is very fair, always respectful and doesn't micromanage. Also is quite happy for people to have a life outside of work, as he himself has.
I think his overly slick PR can be counter-productive as far as general impressions go.
Beyond this, I have no opinion on him either way. He's a multimillionaire and therefore by definition cannot be a truly "nice guy", but comes across as significantly less obnoxious than most.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 15:52
|
>> www.flickr.com/photos/125140832@N05/18461483098/in/dateposted-public/
You blimming foreigners are all the same, cock a deaf ear when it suits you. No speaka da Inglisch.
But you know how to fill in a benefit form OK when it comes to it.
:o)
|
What's a Black Swan event?
I enjoyed the film. Quite intense.
Although I preferred 'The Wild Bunch'
|
>> What's a Black Swan event?
>> I enjoyed the film. Quite intense.
>> Although I preferred 'The Wild Bunch'
>>
Wikipedia definition:
The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
e.g. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand leading to WW1,
Twin Towers destruction 9/11
Sudden death of Attila the Hun
Wall Street Crash
see also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
|
>> >> inappropriately
>> rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
>>
So you can't have a future Black Swan event, because you can't anticipate hindsight of an unknown event that hasn't and may not happen. :)
|
|
Thanks for explaining that. Never previously heard of such a thing.
|
That is just a s***e bit of reporting....
>>"TTIP: Ukip lead dramatic EU revolt against trade deal that could force NHS privatisation "
"UKIP lead" - no they didn't
"dramatic" in what way?
"EU Revolt" there wasn't one
"that could force NHS privtatisation" No it can't.
TTIP - not news, not interesting, been ignored for months.
UKIP "lead" "revolt" - all over the media within 12 hours.
Its almost like that if you're a politician its only worth shouting about something if it is interesting and intelligible to the tabloid readers.
|
|
The only thing worse than being blackguarded is being ignored!
|
Bit of a waste of time posting that link Roger, we we're told yesterday in this thread that we would neither find it interesting or be capable of understanding it!
Pat
|
|
You should also understand the article is written by someone who has an agenda. Some of it is lies, and most of it is slanted to provide an inaccurate view.
|
I doubt we're intelligent enough to take that into consideration either.
Pat
|
>> I doubt we're intelligent enough to take that into consideration either.
>>
>> Pat
I also have no doubt you are in a s***ty mood this morning,
|
|
I would have written something, but I wasn't sure that you would find it intelligible or interesting.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 10:26
|
Well, that's good because I stopped reading this thread yesterday morning while taking offence:)
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 11:11
|
I don't think the Mirror piece is especially slanted as reporting goes. But, as ever, if you are interested in something (and we should be) it doesn't do to get all your information from one source.
Not to say that it is easy to glean a balanced picture, I don't think you'd get one even if you spoke to the negotiators, and the internet is packed with inaccurate stuff.
TTIP is widely perceived as a tariff-free trade agreement between US and EU. The US is bent on making trade agreements generally (see TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership) the and I don't think UK would have any difficulty making its own; about the only major trading country the US is not trying to do this with is China...and presumably Russia is PNG at the moment.
But the US isn't stupid. Many of the emerging Pacific countries have high tariffs against the US. With Europe, tariffs are less of an issue but there are other elements which are serious watch-outs for the European side. Like TPP, TTIP is US led, not EU led. Whilst the TPP is primarily about tariffs and also about protecting US intellectual property, TTIP has more of an emphasis on regulatory convergence. Understanding that is more important that the impact of removing an average 3% tariff.
For anybody who has an hour.
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688
Necessarily this leaves many questions unanswered, so far. The main concerns are ISDS (investor-state-dispute-settlement) and the intellectual property regulations. Contrary to what some have suggested, these are not nit-picking debating areas, they are more at the heart of the proposals than the tariff removal, which is not controversial.
I don't think this is difficult to understand, regardless of what newspaper you read. What does make it hard to take a view on TTIP is the lack of transparency and answers. In a way this is inevitable - it is hard to conduct negotiations in public. That is why consultation and debate is so important, and it is reasonable to be concerned that there might be inadequate scrutiny in the rush to bank what the Trade Commission has convinced itself is a triumphal achievement.
Remember this was not a EU initiative but a US one; probably part of a strategic approach to bypass the generally sclerotic WTO processes, consequent on the everlasting nature of the multilateral negotiations under that organisation's aegis.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 10:47
|
>> I don't think the Mirror piece is especially slanted as reporting goes.
I do, from the moment it shouts
TTIP: Ukip lead dramatic EU revolt against trade deal that could force NHS privatisation
As the title is misleading and untrue
and it follows on with
It was in response to a move by the President to avoid a vote on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Industry Partnership
Again inaccurate and untrue,
Sure the article does then go on to attempt to explain the scope of TTIP albeit mostly in a negative manner.
|
Maybe you prefer the Independent's version:
goo.gl/BDcFve
"TTIP vote in European Parliament descends into chaos after Ukip MEPs spark protest"
"Stephen Woolfe, Ukip's immigration and financial affair's spokesman, initiated the protest by reading out rules of procedure stating that if 40 MEPs stood up, they could halt the whole plenary session."
As I said, the Mirror piece isn't especially slanted as reporting goes. I thought it was quite good. Most of us can see which side of an argument is being put, and that sort of thing isn't unique to the Mirror.
|
TTIP doesn't affect whether the NHS is state-run or privatised. The UK government decides that. It's just a trade treaty.
If TTIP tried to include other topics then it becomes a "mixed agreement", and the UK parliament would have to explicitly ratify or reject it.
Under EU Single Market rules, there has to be equal treatment given to any EU-based company bidding for a contract to provide NHS services.
There is hardly anything sinister in this - it's just providing a level playing field. British companies get the same rights when bidding for contracts in other EU member countries.
As part of the overall TTIP agreement, America wants its companies to have the same rights in the EU, and in return the EU wants similar rights in the US.
Who knows? If we actually get a deal signed, then with the US on board we may even be able to exert enough pressure to make France play by the b***** rules!
|
Londoner, I think you need a definition of "just a trade deal".
I believe TTIP will need to be ratified by the 28, not just the European Parliament, if ISDS is included.
The EU FAQs are no less slanted than the Mirror article. On the 'NHS' question, the answer says
"Neither TTIP nor any other EU trade agreement require countries to liberalise, deregulate or privatise public services at national or local level. This includes:
-public health
-state education
-public transport
-water collection, purification, distribution and management
In its trade agreements, the EU always underlines its commitment to protecting public utilities at all levels of government, including the local level. Any decision to liberalise, deregulate or privatise such services is entirely up to national governments and local authorities. Trade agreements will not change that; TTIP will not change that.
Nor will TTIP require EU governments or public health services to put anything out to private contract. Some EU countries have chosen to allow firms from countries outside the EU to provide private education and health services; others have not. This is entirely a choice of each national government.
If an EU government decides to renationalise a service that it or a previous government had privatised or contracted out to a private company, it is free to do so. It would, of course have to respect its own national laws and EU law - for example, by paying compensation for expropriation. But TTIP will not allow US companies to sue the government for lost profits."
As we know, the NHS is not exclusively state operated. To the extent that it isn't, parts of TTIP will apply. Whether US companies can sue governments for lost profits depends on what is in TTIP. Under a 1993 "trade" agreement, Philip Morris Asia demanded compensation for its lost profits in Australia consequent on the plain paper packaging legislation - not directly for loss of profits, but for "expropriation of assets" as if Australia had nationalised part of its business (for which compensation does of course have to be paid. That demand has failed, kicked out by an Australian court AFAIK.
US companies have litigation in their genes. The Canadian government is being sued for $3.5bn by a US company - under (just) a trade agreement - because it has decided to build a second bridge over the Detroit River.
You can no more reassure everybody on TTIP than I can say that it is to our disadvantage - neither of us knows, and neither, at the moment, does the European parliament.
|
Manatee,
How does TTIP change the potential to sue / be sued, beyond that which already exists in contract and EU law?
Doesn't it just change the way it would be dealt with (ISDS vs. Court)?
Perhaps neither ISDS nor TTIP are the issue. The issue would appear to be what one can sue for.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 12:48
|
>> Manatee,
>>
>> How does TTIP change the potential to sue / be sued, beyond that which already
>> exists in contract and EU law?
I don't know...but I think as things stand if it did happen it would be a UK court.
>>
>> Doesn't it just change the way it would be dealt with (ISDS vs. Court)?
Maybe, but the examples I cited were both actions under "trade" agreements.
>>
>> Perhaps neither ISDS nor TTIP are the issue. The issue would appear to be what
>> one can sue for.
I think that is what ISDS deals with. It appears to be a formal provision for the investor state (seemingly meaning its companies) to have a go at the administration it is operating, or trying to operate, in.
TBH, I waiting to see what develops. The FT seems a reasonable source. I think UKIP has a point, and the government probably has as similar view - but as it will possibly be ratifying the agreement, but might want some amendments, it makes no sense to whip up mob hysteria one way or the other. UKIP is in the business of taking shots at the EU, so it has. I dare say Cameron will do the same when it suits his purpose.
|
>> You can no more reassure everybody on TTIP than I can say that it is to our disadvantage -
>> neither of us knows, and neither, at the moment, does the European parliament.
I agree, and we seem to be generally in violent agreement overall.
The actual terms of the deal may not look that god, once negotiations are concluded.
I am not to trying reassure people about TTIP as a whole - just that is not some dastardly plot to privatise the NHS through the back door. (There are a lot of loons around who peddle this claptrap)
>> US companies have litigation in their genes
Yes, and I hate this also. A point in favour of the EU is that we have more chance of standing up to these bullies as part of the EU rather than as an solo country. (For example see the EU taking on Google. You could...err...Google it)
If ISDS causes the UK Parliament to get a say then so much the better.
|
>> A point in favour of the EU is that
>> we have more chance of standing up to these bullies as part of the EU
>> rather than as an solo country. (For example see the EU taking on Google. You
>> could...err...Google it)
Provided that the EU wants to stand up for something. Inevitably some things benefit or damage different countries in different ways.
The EU has done some good stuff on credit cards, finally getting the interchange down, although it has taken years.
(The problem, for anybody not familiar with it, is that most of the merchant fee on card transactions consists of the interchange fee, levied by the network (e.g Visa or Mastercard) via the payment processor and given to the issuer. This is a major part of the income of a card issuer and is essentially what funds your interest-free period. There is no competitive pressure in this at all because shops have to accept all cards (or none) from a network, and charge the same price to everybody. A brilliant wheeze the industry came up with was 'premium cards' offering more cardholder benefits and cashbacks. These cards carry a higher interchange fee, which just carries through into retailer pricing. The only way to contain this is through regulation).
|
>> and neither, at the moment, does the
>> European parliament.
Which is why the European parliament tried to defer the vote until they do, you'd have thought Nige would have considered that a good idea wouldn't you.
|
>>ou'd have thought Nige would have considered that a good idea wouldn't you.
Nige is no fool and I am sure he understands the situation perfectly.
Equally I am sure in his mind is knowledge of what will make the tabloids, and thus his audience, and what will not.
|
It was the Mirror, of course, which led the baying pack of the MSM (except the Express Group!) in demonising UKIP in the run-up to the General Election.
It is a surprise to see an article, in that paper, which is not actively in "hate" mode towards UKIP!
|
From the Grauniad:
Cecilia Malmström, the EU’s trade commissioner, said she planned to rework key areas of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement in response to fears the deal could be used by US corporations to win health service contracts and undermine the NHS.
In an interview with the Guardian, she said courts that would arbitrate in-camera on corporate disputes needed to give US multinationals only a “limited possibility†of winning compensation if governments were to cancel privatisations or award public contracts to in-house bids.
goo.gl/eacDSk
|
Pity the Law Society doesn't do an entire newspaper.
|
The article goes on to say:
"Malmström warned that limiting the scope of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) service would be difficult to achieve but she gave a categorical commitment that publicly-funded health services would be explicitly excluded from a TTIP agreement."
Good for her. Presumably You and I and supporters of the NHS everwhere would be pleased with that?
|
>> The article goes on to say:
>> "Malmström warned that limiting the scope of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) service would be
>> difficult to achieve but she gave a categorical commitment that publicly-funded health services would be
>> explicitly excluded from a TTIP agreement."
>>
>> Good for her. Presumably You and I and supporters of the NHS everwhere would be
>> pleased with that?
I don't see the issue. As i previously stated, parts of the NHS are already being privatised. Is it really a problem as long as you can still get health care free if you need it?
|
As i previously stated, parts of the NHS are already
>> being privatised
Around 6% last figures I saw.
Is it really a problem as long as you can still get health
>> care free if you need it?
>>
To some very much so.
|
>> To some very much so.
The rail industry is not exactly an advert for the kind of balkanised patchwork privatisation we're seeing in the NHS.
|
>> >> To some very much so.
>>
>> The rail industry is not exactly an advert for the kind of balkanised patchwork privatisation
>> we're seeing in the NHS.
Rail services are far far better than they ever were , with many more passenger miles than they had under public ownership where they were starved of investment.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 17:42
|
>> Rail services are far far better than they ever were , with many more passenger
>> miles than they had under public ownership where they were starved of investment.
That's the propaganda. I could just as well cite Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar as evidence of the wonders of privatisation (and it would be just as invalid).
The railways now receive more public money that they ever did when publicly owned.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998214000416
In fact there is now effectively no private investment in the railway infrastructure since it has been decided that Network Rail, a theoretically private company with £30bn of debt guaranteed by us, will in future just borrow directly from the government because that will be cheaper (for us).
Investment is something you get a financial return on. The railways have not done that in living memory, and only about 70% of costs are covered by sales revenue.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have railways, just that they aren't there to make a profit (if they were, they'd be closed down like the mines). Privatisation hasn't worked any more than it can work in the NHS. Wasn't Miliband saying recently that private contractors must not be allowed to make more than 5% on NHS contracts? That just shows the naivety of politicians - "no point keeping the costs down, we're only allowed to make 5% anyway".
|
>> I could just as well cite Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters
>> Bar as evidence of the wonders of privatisation (and it would be just as invalid).
So why did you when I can hit you with figures that substantially prove rail travel is safer under privatisation?
|
>>
>> >> I could just as well cite Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters
>> >> Bar as evidence of the wonders of privatisation (and it would be just as
>> invalid).
>>
>> So why did you when I can hit you with figures that substantially prove rail
>> travel is safer under privatisation?
I said it was invalid.
Maybe rail travel is better - maybe not, it wasn't much fun standing most of the way back from London recently - but there is more public money going into it, in real terms, so it damn well should be.
|
My point upthread comparing a part privatised NHS with the railways was not particularly a political one.
More about how the costs of policing complex contractual relationships in the railway have more than consumed the theoretical savings.
British Rail was the one privatisation Mrs T fought shy of. The Major government pushed it through but were 'pragmatic' as to how they eventually structured the franchised routes. There's a constant state of indecision over franchise boundaries. Whether London to Birmingham via Northampton is one franchise or a split depends where in the calender of the last quarter century you look.
What might have been achieved if sectorisation, as under the regime of Bob Reid, had been pursued instead of franchising is a legitimate question.
|
>> >> To some very much so.
>>
>> The rail industry is not exactly an advert for the kind of balkanised patchwork privatisation
>> we're seeing in the NHS.
Well its about 10billions times better than that dirty, rubbish, inefficient, discourteous, rude pile of s***e we had as a nationalised industry operated by the lazy, trouble-making unions years ago.
|
>> privatisation we're seeing in the NHS.
And, BTW, the health service here is privatised for the most part. It costs me less than I would have to contribute in the UK for the NHS and loads less than Private Health care costs me in the UK.
And it makes a mockery out of calling the NHS first world heath care. My wife, a vet, and my sister-in-law, a US-based pediatric surgeon, both refused to be treated by the NHS in the UK as being too dirty, the treatment old-fashioned, and the surgeons inept. - and that was only 10 years ago.
So i don;t see any kind of privatisation stands much chance of making it worse.
|
>> And it makes a mockery out of calling the NHS first world heath care. My
>> wife, a vet, and my sister-in-law, a US-based pediatric surgeon, both refused to be treated
>> by the NHS in the UK as being too dirty, the treatment old-fashioned, and the
>> surgeons inept. - and that was only 10 years ago.
>>
>> So i don;t see any kind of privatisation stands much chance of making it worse.
>>
The last studies showed the NHS did pretty well against 10 other countries healthcare systems.
|
|
I couldn't tell you about the survey Sooty, but in my personal experience Chile is far ahead of the UK. Mind you, Brazil is about 100yrs behind.
|
|
Can't say I've any experience of the chile's health care. Personal experiences are bound to vary. I'm open minded but my instinct would be that the nhs would be comparable to any other system.
|
Its difficult to compare like for like but my subjective impression is that the UK could be doing an awful lot better than it is, in customer service, environment cleanliness and medical proficiency and consistency.
That the private system in the UK adds little other than customer service, and is ridiculously expensive considering that.
To try and give you a flavour....
Where I go;
www.clinicalascondes.cl/
Note the ability to book an appointment for any part of the hospital. Note the range of treatments and specialties.
Note the telephone numbers, any of which will be answered immediately.
A little while ago wife need attention. Initial appointment in 24 hours. XRay & scan the next day. Surgery within 5 days.
Last time a child needed A&E, broken ankle, it was first seen in 10 minutes or so, xrayed and plastered within 30 minutes, out in less than an hour.
To give you an idea, insurance for the four of us is around £100PCM total (world wide), which covers everything. There is an excess on drugs, but I can't remember what it is. And whilst I know that our NI payments in the UK cover more than just my healthcare, they are much, much more than that.
Now, there is also public healthcare here (NHS variant) which would be free to use, except I am not poor enough. I was taken to the Hospital Salvador for my alcohol/drug tests after my accident.
It was cleaner than, say, the John Radcliffe, and it seemed ok.
www.hsalvador.cl/
As is always the case, South America is a bad place to be really poor. And I mean poor at a level that doesn't really exist in the UK. (really, it doesn't).
The killer (no pun intended) is the price of drugs. This is a real problem for the poor people.
I use a Ventolin/Aerolin. I don't know what the prescription charge in the UK is at the moment, but they cost me about £1.90 here over the counter at the pharmacy, so that's good. Loads cheaper.
The anti-inflammatory drugs and pain killers that No. 2 had when bitten by a spider a few months ago would have cost me £80 or so for three days' drugs, which is obviously much worse.
Drugs for cancer and the like are prohibitive without insurance.
There is no real comparison to a GP's surgery here, but the hospitals have walk in clinics which are as close as you get. The difference would be that the doctors are much less generalist, so you kind of need to have some idea of what's wrong before you know which doctor.
|
Like you say it's bad to be poor in Chile (and SAmerica in general) I think that's the point. The NHS doesn't worry too much about your income. But like you say it's difficult to compare like for like as your hospital covers only private patients and healthcare wages are lower than the UK?
It's about £7 per item for persciptions, but about 80% are exempt from the charge. But you can buy over the counter cheaper if available. I've never heard of that drug so I don't know the cost in the UK. But then me and the OH are in the 80% anyway.
Personally I've no complaints about the NHS. I think in any like for like comparison it would be as good as any.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 20:32
|
>>and healthcare wages are lower than the UK?
I don't know, but my guess would be;
Doctors at least on a par perhaps paid more. Nurses probably paid about the same. Admin staff probably a bit less. Cleaners, orderlies and other non-medical support staff will be paid a pittance here.
Next time I speak to my Sister in Law (surgeon), I will ask. She trained here.
|
>> >>and healthcare wages are lower than the UK?
>>
I've come late to this...
Yes, compared with rest of Europe, probably.
Down side you will have to pay between 15 and 20% of your monthly salary for health care.
Upside, as a worker, you get priority of the before 9am and after 5pm slots. You don't wait 18 months for an appointment. As soon as you are diagnosed, you MUST see a specialist within 10 working days.
I know there are a lot of coffin dodgers on this site but without the workers where is your pension coming from ? You're not daft enough to think every penny you paid in tax was locked away for you when you retired ?
That's how it works in Germany !!! Don't work? Don't get to enjoy benefits.
|
>> Its difficult to compare like for like but my subjective impression is that the UK
>> could be doing an awful lot better than it is, in customer service, environment cleanliness
>> and medical proficiency and consistency.
>> [[Loads of good stuff snipped to save space]]
>>
Thumb.
An excellent post. Very informative.
|
If the Trade Commissioner succeeds then both 'sides' will claim the credit, that much is certain.
I'd be slightly concerned about just carving out the NHS and calling it a solution. The NHS just an extremely emotive example. There are plenty of other potential exposures where US companies could decide there is a claim - vide the Canadian bridge and the Australian fag packaging decision as examples.
|
>>I'd be slightly concerned about just carving out the NHS and calling it a solution
If there is a problem, then I agree that most certainly is not the answer.
|
>> I don't see the issue. As i previously stated, parts of the NHS are already
>> being privatised. Is it really a problem as long as you can still get health
>> care free if you need it?
>>
What I am arguing is that how we organise the NHS ( totally public, totally privatised, or something in between) is a matter for the UK to decide.
Some people are claiming that TTIP is going to change this "by the back door". I say that these claims are false. I suspect that you and I agree that this is the case.
|
>> Some people are claiming that TTIP is going to change this "by the back door".
>> I say that these claims are false. I suspect that you and I agree that
>> this is the case.
we do.
|
Bell- Again - Bromptonaut
