TTIP Monster Rumbles On

And precisely how does that make them the friend of us or, indeed, anybody?

Do I get to vote on it (or indeed any of the matters thereby raised) afterwards?

Because we weren't the intended targets? Or maybe because it's a recent phenomenon? You sound very credulous.

I am not a nutter. I am extremely intelligent

Considering only two suits have been brought against the UK that is hardly anything to shout about.

Why so few?

Because up to now the ones we have signed have mostly been outward investment. UK investors have sued other countries 43 times - that's once a year since the first such agreement was signed in 1975.

Now, I wonder what the balance of investment between us, and/or other EU states, and the USA will be? Who will be doing the investing, and who will be bearing the brunt of investor dispute lawsuits?

It is another mechanism by which European sovereignty is being surrendered to the American corporations and the state whose policies so permissively facilitiate their activities.

If TTPA (or TTIP) is so good, why does it have to be kept in secrecy? that explains itself.

Yes, it is still something to shout about. We've had two actions brought against us neither of which were successful. That's because we don't get into situations where there is a question of inappropriate discrimination or us failing to follow the law.

We already have plenty of external investment in Britain covered by trade treaties and investor dispute clauses. It's nothing new.

"Track record" is subjective. Most people would agree that American way is the way forward, rather than adding more days of unproductivity.

America has NO maternity leave whatsoever... yeah real role models

These people are invariably international socialists who project their political fantasies onto the EU, in spite of the EU in reality not corresponding in any way with what they crave. Just as the left used to praise everything about Stalinist Russia while turning a blind eye to any "unhelpful" commentary suggesting that all was not milk and honey.

Yes, it is still something to shout about. We've had two actions brought against us neither of which were successful. That's because we don't get into situations where there is a question of inappropriate discrimination or us failing to follow the law.

We already have plenty of external investment in Britain covered by trade treaties and investor dispute clauses. It's nothing new.



How on earth could you conduct a public negotiation on trade? It's really quite obvious that these things have to be negotiated in secret so an agreement can be made.

All government policy is negotiated in secret within the cabinet; all trade deals are negotiated in secret; all public sector contracts are negotiated in secret.

...and can only be revealed after 4 years in exercise.

These people are invariably international socialists who project their political fantasies onto the EU, in spite of the EU in reality not corresponding in any way with what they crave. Just as the left used to praise everything about Stalinist Russia while turning a blind eye to any "unhelpful" commentary suggesting that all was not milk and honey.

This is the Occidental Petroleum case, presumably.

OK, let's consider the facts of this one, well-established. The government broke its contract with Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) in a way that was entirely disproportionate, both according to investment treaties and domestic law.

The Ecudorian government then went about appropriating (ie, stealing) Oxy's assets, raising their offices and seizing their equipment.

We are held to standards in legal conduct when we deal with other people and businesses. Why should a government be able to break contracts with foreign investors with impunity and rob them of their possessions? Because that's what you're proposing.

That's quite normal with trade deals.

You're hardly expecting two negotiators to brief the press and finish it off with 'don't tell the other guy.'

This is pretty much empty rhetoric and extremely tangential. Stalinist Russia has not a dusty **** to do with the modern EU, TTIP, USA etc. Neither does ad-hominem discrediting the left.

Socialism/regulation is what keeps society together. Without it accumulation/redistribution of resources to a small minority happens, and then the rest of the individuals are deprived of the very resources that they need to function.

Neoliberalist philosophy resembles the philosophy of the cancerous cell in this way.

There is a duality betweem socialist regulation and the free market/endless growth, and too much drifting towards either philosophy is unwise. Currently we are too close to the free market extreme.

Capitalism will ultimately destroy itself once it manages to commodify labour and any market which is not fully and tightly controlled will result in drastic inequalities. The less controlled, the faster the inequalities grow.

Only a radical philosophy can bring about true change.

Whereas you are proposing giving multinational corporations, who are already far too large, more powers. Does that even sound like it could be a problem to you?

Which radical philosophy would that be?

You said that neither socialism nor a free market was the way forward. A radical economic philosophy would be either an entirely controlled market or a limited market.

I believe in a free market with limited controls. The one we have and the one that works... for a certain group of people

I believe in a free market with limited controls. The one we have and the one that works

Then you are stupid (depending on what you mean exactly by "limited". Stupid and dumb and dumb and stupid.

The rise in free market fundamentalism, led by Nixon/Thatcher/Reagan et. al. led first to an increase in precancerous bubbles/crises, and eventually directly to the 2007/2008 crash.

You believe in free market ideology, just not in EVIDENCE.

I refuse to believe that anyone who believes in free-market fundamentalist ideology is any more intelligent than Katie Price.