TTIP Monster Rumbles On
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality
Not content with running African Countries dry, the large corporations now have countries like Australia and the UK in their sights. Obama, Cameron et. al. are fully behind it and no, they are not your friends, they are politicians and they are not to be trusted.
UK Media reporting on TTIP is almost non-existent (it gets coverage only (almost) in the Guardian) so I thought I'd post it here. The TPP and the TTIP are similar.
Not only are most of the people involved in the negotiations either (a) corporate representatives or (b) unelected by anybody, we also cannot read what the deal consists of.
It *is* known however, that the corporations are pushing for powers to sue governments for things like raising the minimum wage.
Since the media and politicians will not report on this behind-the-scenes move towards unrestricted, unregulated greed, we must do it ourselves.
Not content with running African Countries dry, the large corporations now have countries like Australia and the UK in their sights. Obama, Cameron et. al. are fully behind it and no, they are not your friends, they are politicians and they are not to be trusted.
UK Media reporting on TTIP is almost non-existent (it gets coverage only (almost) in the Guardian) so I thought I'd post it here. The TPP and the TTIP are similar.
Not only are most of the people involved in the negotiations either (a) corporate representatives or (b) unelected by anybody, we also cannot read what the deal consists of.
It *is* known however, that the corporations are pushing for powers to sue governments for things like raising the minimum wage.
Since the media and politicians will not report on this behind-the-scenes move towards unrestricted, unregulated greed, we must do it ourselves.
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Raiden10
We elected them, thanks very much.
Not only are most of the people involved in the negotiations either (a) corporate representatives or (b) unelected by anybody, we also cannot read what the deal consists of.
That's because it is being negotiated. There is no 'deal' yet. And yes, European Commission civil servants are largely unelected - just like civil servants anywhere. The Commission is accountable to the elected European Parliament.
It *is* known however, that the corporations are pushing for powers to sue governments for things like raising the minimum wage.
Completely false. No investor dispute mechanism in the world allows for that. The UK is already party to a great many investor-state dispute settlement agreements. We have never been successfully sued under any of them. Why? Because we are a country with the rule of law - we compensate private owners when property is appropriated and don't discriminate unlawfully.
You've bought into a wacky conspiracy theory.
Original post by L i b
We elected them, thanks very much.
.
.
And precisely how does that make them the friend of us or, indeed, anybody?
Original post by L i b
That's because it is being negotiated. There is no 'deal' yet.
That's because it is being negotiated. There is no 'deal' yet.
Do I get to vote on it (or indeed any of the matters thereby raised) afterwards?
Original post by L i b
And yes, European Commission civil servants are largely unelected - just like civil servants anywhere.
And yes, European Commission civil servants are largely unelected - just like civil servants anywhere.
Good point.
Original post by L i b
Completely false.
Completely false.
Oh.
Original post by L i b
No investor dispute mechanism in the world allows for that. The UK is already party to a great many investor-state dispute settlement agreements. We have never been successfully sued under any of them. Why?
Because we weren't the intended targets? Or maybe because it's a recent phenomenon? You sound very credulous.
These people don't get to the position they are in by giving less than they get...
(I will continue to debate this btw. I am not a nutter. I am extremely intelligent and so are the people protesting in Bavaria).
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by L i b
Completely false. No investor dispute mechanism in the world allows for that. The UK is already party to a great many investor-state dispute settlement agreements. We have never been successfully sued under any of them. Why? Because we are a country with the rule of law - we compensate private owners when property is appropriated and don't discriminate unlawfully.
You've bought into a wacky conspiracy theory.
Completely false. No investor dispute mechanism in the world allows for that. The UK is already party to a great many investor-state dispute settlement agreements. We have never been successfully sued under any of them. Why? Because we are a country with the rule of law - we compensate private owners when property is appropriated and don't discriminate unlawfully.
You've bought into a wacky conspiracy theory.
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.
(edited 8 years ago)
Don't know about TTIP but i am dead oppose to TTPA. The entire trade deal is negotiated in complete secret, and its terms are not revealed until it is implemented 4 years.
This is the complete opposite of transparency and accountability.
If TTPA (or TTIP) is so good, why does it have to be kept in secrecy? that explains itself.
This is the complete opposite of transparency and accountability.
If TTPA (or TTIP) is so good, why does it have to be kept in secrecy? that explains itself.
Original post by Raiden10
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality
It *is* known however, that the corporations are pushing for powers to sue governments for things like raising the minimum wage.
It *is* known however, that the corporations are pushing for powers to sue governments for things like raising the minimum wage.
A proposed new EU-US trade deal could allow American multinationals to sue a future Government for loss of profits if it raised the minimum wage, one of the country’s leading trade union leaders has said.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/ictu-warns-state-may-be-sued-by-us-firms-if-minimum-wage-raised-1.2011836
Why do TTIP opponents tend to be EU supporters and vice-versa? The logic behind TTIP is identical to that behind the EU.
A lawyer involved in ISDS writes in the Guardian today about how his own industry is out of control. He reports that Ecuador has been forced to pay £1.8bn - the size of its yearly health budget - to some grasping multinational corporation for refusing to allow them to pillage their country of oil. And that corporations are beginning to use their outstanding claims against states as leverage to take out loans.
Do not believe the credulous and the apologists, such as L i b here. It is testament to the way our media decides the subjecta we hear about that people are not out on the streets protesting, as in Germany, a grown-up country where this has been a live debate for some years.
Because, despite being a foul snake-pit of neo-liberal traitors, the EU at least has basic protections in the realm of human and workers' rights that on recent form I don’t trust British politicians to have the slightest interest in retaining.
TTIP is by far the best reason for leaving the EU, but what's the point when our own politicians would take us in even more enthusiastically? I can't see the Tories, and regrettably neither can I see Labour, making a big fuss about ISDS clauses in a trade deal with America like the EU has: they haven't got the clout for starters.
Do not believe the credulous and the apologists, such as L i b here. It is testament to the way our media decides the subjecta we hear about that people are not out on the streets protesting, as in Germany, a grown-up country where this has been a live debate for some years.
Original post by Observatory
Why do
TTIP opponents tend to be EU supporters and vice-versa? The logic behind TTIP is identical to that behind the EU.
TTIP opponents tend to be EU supporters and vice-versa? The logic behind TTIP is identical to that behind the EU.
Because, despite being a foul snake-pit of neo-liberal traitors, the EU at least has basic protections in the realm of human and workers' rights that on recent form I don’t trust British politicians to have the slightest interest in retaining.
TTIP is by far the best reason for leaving the EU, but what's the point when our own politicians would take us in even more enthusiastically? I can't see the Tories, and regrettably neither can I see Labour, making a big fuss about ISDS clauses in a trade deal with America like the EU has: they haven't got the clout for starters.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Because, despite being a foul snake-pit of neo-liberal traitors, the EU at least has basic protections in the realm of human and workers' rights that on recent form I don’t trust British politicians to have the slightest interest in retaining.
TTIP is by far the best reason for leaving the EU, but what's the point when our own politicians would take us in even more enthusiastically? I can't see the Tories, and regrettably neither can I see Labour, making a big fuss about ISDS clauses in a trade deal with America like the EU has: they haven't got the clout for starters.
TTIP is by far the best reason for leaving the EU, but what's the point when our own politicians would take us in even more enthusiastically? I can't see the Tories, and regrettably neither can I see Labour, making a big fuss about ISDS clauses in a trade deal with America like the EU has: they haven't got the clout for starters.
Both the TTIP and EU are about harmonisation of regulation, not increasing or removing it. That is, regulating them the same way as one another, but not necessarily regulating them either more or less than they are now.
Now it's true that the EU rules out some free market reforms, like allowing a fifty hour work week, but it also mandates some free market reforms, like privatisation of utilities. Any realistic agreement will require both give and take, if it is to appeal to members who would independently take different positions on these issues.
You have cited minimum wages and worker rights. The US federal government imposes a minimum wage on the entire country, while six EU states do not have a minimum wage. Some US states permit closed shop unions; the UK does not. Both the US and UK recognise a right to union association which is radically different (and much less restrictive) to that recognised in German-speaking and Scandinavian countries.
If you look at this document, you will see that it is the American position to base the labour agreement on "Internationally recognised worker rights (e.g. working hours, safety and health at work, minimum wages)"; in other words, on a culturally Anglocentric interpretation of what labour rights are, meaning minimum wages and closed shop unions, instead of collective bargaining by corporatist industry-specific unions that have a legal right to board representation, as is more common on the continent.
It is by no means clear that the result of this agreement would be US corporations suing EU countries for having too high minimum wages. The US federal minimum wage would be the eighth highest in the EU. Many US states have higher minimum wages. By 2017 Seattle will have a higher minimum wage than any EU country, including Luxembourg. It is much more likely that a US company would sue Bulgaria for undercutting them with a minimum wage of $1.10/hour, or Sweden for not having a minimum wage at all.
Now I can respect an argument that these sorts of trade-offs should be made on a rolling basis by democratically elected parliaments, and not locked-in via treaties almost no one understands and which have enormous barriers to exit. It's in fact an argument that I agree with. But that same argument applies to everything the EU does, too.
(edited 8 years ago)
Where are UKIP on all of this? What are labour doing? When did the parties campaign around this issue in the election? They didn't (well Green did but no one cares what they say as everyone knows they are a nutty fringe party). They all agree with each other. Democracy is non existent on this issue. There is no choic, TTIP is outside the spetrum of acceptable debate.
This is trend that has been goign on for decades. Democracy is being taken out of the economic sphere. We are not to concern ourselves with such matters. We are to submit to what get called markets (they couldn't be further away from the kind of markets their god Adam Smith thoerised about)
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pages/ttip_more_information
This is trend that has been goign on for decades. Democracy is being taken out of the economic sphere. We are not to concern ourselves with such matters. We are to submit to what get called markets (they couldn't be further away from the kind of markets their god Adam Smith thoerised about)
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pages/ttip_more_information
(edited 8 years ago)
[video="youtube;Y4OQeekSD6s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4OQeekSD6s[/video]
Original post by Observatory
Why do TTIP opponents tend to be EU supporters and vice-versa? The logic behind TTIP is identical to that behind the EU.
The EU can refuse to comply.
NAFTA happened between Mexico and the USA and there was no EU analog. UKIP want our own version of TTIP if we leave the EU.
Government isn't inherently the problem. The problem is government in bed with economic powers that want to run the world. Government structures can stand up against these powers, potentially. We are in a cage (the government) but outside that cage is dangerous man eating animals. To dismantle the cage is sheer stupidity, but we can widen the floor of the cage to give us more breathing room whilst working out how to deal with the man eating animals in the long run.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
And the UK can leave the EU.
I am asking why [most] people who think the EU should not sign TTIP believe that the UK should not leave the EU.
I'm in favour. Free trade and unified regulations are great.
Original post by SotonianOne
I'm in favour. Free trade and unified regulations are great.
Sigh, more dogma.
Original post by Observatory
Both the TTIP and EU are about harmonisation of regulation, not increasing or removing it. That is, regulating them the same way as one another, but not necessarily regulating them either more or less than they are now.
Now it's true that the EU rules out some free market reforms, like allowing a fifty hour work week, but it also mandates some free market reforms, like privatisation of utilities. Any realistic agreement will require both give and take, if it is to appeal to members who would independently take different positions on these issues.
You have cited minimum wages and worker rights. The US federal government imposes a minimum wage on the entire country, while six EU states do not have a minimum wage. Some US states permit closed shop unions; the UK does not. Both the US and UK recognise a right to union association which is radically different (and much less restrictive) to that recognised in German-speaking and Scandinavian countries.
If you look at this document, you will see that it is the American position to base the labour agreement on "Internationally recognised worker rights (e.g. working hours, safety and health at work, minimum wages)"; in other words, on a culturally Anglocentric interpretation of what labour rights are, meaning minimum wages and closed shop unions, instead of collective bargaining by corporatist industry-specific unions that have a legal right to board representation, as is more common on the continent.
It is by no means clear that the result of this agreement would be US corporations suing EU countries for having too high minimum wages. The US federal minimum wage would be the eighth highest in the EU. Many US states have higher minimum wages. By 2017 Seattle will have a higher minimum wage than any EU country, including Luxembourg. It is much more likely that a US company would sue Bulgaria for undercutting them with a minimum wage of $1.10/hour, or Sweden for not having a minimum wage at all.
Now I can respect an argument that these sorts of trade-offs should be made on a rolling basis by democratically elected parliaments, and not locked-in via treaties almost no one understands and which have enormous barriers to exit. It's in fact an argument that I agree with. But that same argument applies to everything the EU does, too.
Now it's true that the EU rules out some free market reforms, like allowing a fifty hour work week, but it also mandates some free market reforms, like privatisation of utilities. Any realistic agreement will require both give and take, if it is to appeal to members who would independently take different positions on these issues.
You have cited minimum wages and worker rights. The US federal government imposes a minimum wage on the entire country, while six EU states do not have a minimum wage. Some US states permit closed shop unions; the UK does not. Both the US and UK recognise a right to union association which is radically different (and much less restrictive) to that recognised in German-speaking and Scandinavian countries.
If you look at this document, you will see that it is the American position to base the labour agreement on "Internationally recognised worker rights (e.g. working hours, safety and health at work, minimum wages)"; in other words, on a culturally Anglocentric interpretation of what labour rights are, meaning minimum wages and closed shop unions, instead of collective bargaining by corporatist industry-specific unions that have a legal right to board representation, as is more common on the continent.
It is by no means clear that the result of this agreement would be US corporations suing EU countries for having too high minimum wages. The US federal minimum wage would be the eighth highest in the EU. Many US states have higher minimum wages. By 2017 Seattle will have a higher minimum wage than any EU country, including Luxembourg. It is much more likely that a US company would sue Bulgaria for undercutting them with a minimum wage of $1.10/hour, or Sweden for not having a minimum wage at all.
Now I can respect an argument that these sorts of trade-offs should be made on a rolling basis by democratically elected parliaments, and not locked-in via treaties almost no one understands and which have enormous barriers to exit. It's in fact an argument that I agree with. But that same argument applies to everything the EU does, too.
Minimum wages form the main part of your argument; I didn't mention them, did I? What I would probably be more concerned about in terms of day-to-day workers' rights would be statutory holiday, statutory sick pay, statutory maternity leave, insecure employment models. None of which America has a great track record on compared to Europe.
Your source talks about how the US has only signed two of eight ILO provisions on basic workers' rights whule Europe is on board with the whole thing (not that they are all that).
I prefer the corporatist unions with a seat on the board. It is more co-operative. I am not interested in maintaining an Anglocentric approach to anything related to the labour market other than some absolute minimum wage (which Western European countries all have by now) and the provision of universal or income-based benefits to the unemployed (which, to its shame, Western Europe does not do).
The thing is it binds democratic government. It stops us changing any of this in the future if we should need to. We are supposed to implement EU directives if we want to stay in but we are an important part of their economy so they can't really punish us. America will force us to pay up as they are more powerful.
Original post by scrotgrot
Minimum wages form the main part of your argument; I didn't mention them, did I? What I would probably be more concerned about in terms of day-to-day workers' rights would be statutory holiday, statutory sick pay, statutory maternity leave, insecure employment models. None of which America has a great track record on compared to Europe.
"Track record" is subjective. Most people would agree that American way is the way forward, rather than adding more days of unproductivity.
Original post by Observatory
And the UK can leave the EU.
I am asking why [most] people who think the EU should not sign TTIP believe that the UK should not leave the EU.
I am asking why [most] people who think the EU should not sign TTIP believe that the UK should not leave the EU.
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.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Oliver James Online Models SoHo Fashion Studio has anyone else been scammed here
- Study Participants Needed!!
- breakfast ideas?
- Frankenstein coursework
- The Halloween Hurt/Heal Game
- Social anxiety
- Favourite anime of all time - remove 4 and add 4 from the last poster
- OCR English Lit A Level Contextual Comparative Study 2021/2022
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- English Literature Coursework CCEA
- Books
- Best Anime?
- Can bad people do good things?
- Descriptive writing
- Silver idea award maker
- Story
- GCSE English Literature
- can someone plz mark my story for english lang
- Do I have anxiety?/Exam stress/Panic
- woahhhhhh story of undertale
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Got Red Light Penalty Notice - First Time Offender - Course EligibilityLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official Newcastle University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 11 minutes ago
Zoom to Zoology? Uni open days, applications & more 2021-Present - a parents takeLast reply 19 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 26 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
852
Last reply 30 minutes ago
The Official Funding questions/moans/possible joy ThreadPosted 31 minutes ago
Student Finance applications for Part Time studentsPosted 35 minutes ago
Better Uni for Master decree in Business SustainalibityLast reply 37 minutes ago
I want to quit physio, maybe to start a career in ITLast reply 41 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 41 minutes ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
