Can we talk about TTIP for a bit

[Welshbeef]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/01/le...

Could TTIP be the nail in the stay in Campaign?
Do we all really know what TTIP is and what if means?
How much power will we lose?
What hard negotiated animal welfare and environmental issues will have to be ignored
What competitive advantage will it give US companies over EU
Why are we all being kept in the dark about it yet in Germany people are in the light and protesting hard against it.

[Hoofy]

It should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmWN5LBe7eo

[franki68]

Welshbeef said:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/01/le...

Could TTIP be the nail in the stay in Campaign?
Do we all really know what TTIP is and what if means?
How much power will we lose?
What hard negotiated animal welfare and environmental issues will have to be ignored
What competitive advantage will it give US companies over EU
Why are we all being kept in the dark about it yet in Germany people are in the light and protesting hard against it.

I was listening to a date about this (have no knowledge of it myself) ,it does seem to be something designed by large American businesses to give them even more power.
But more worryingly was neither side in the debate seemed to know exactly what it means.

[Hoofy]

franki68 said:

I was listening to a date about this (have no knowledge of it myself) ,it does seem to be something designed by large American businesses to give them even more power.
But more worryingly was neither side in the debate seemed to know exactly what it means.

I'll keep it simple as this is the key thing as I understand it: imagine a US-developed drug that is passed in the US as being safe, but we deem it unsafe. Under TTIP, if the NHS refuses to use it, the US drug company can sue the NHS for millions.

[Welshbeef]

Hoofy said:

I'll keep it simple as this is the key thing as I understand it: imagine a US-developed drug that is passed in the US as being safe, but we deem it unsafe. Under TTIP, if the NHS refuses to use it, the US drug company can sue the NHS for millions.

I've kind of listed the negatives as far as I'm aware no doubt countless more. But what are the pro's?
Personally I think we rightly have some good laws on ethical issues and environmental - but I'd caveat that with there is a very very long way to go for the away to improve on these laws too but the USA would be a big backward step.

One thing the US is good at is its emissions v our Diesel.

[John145]

Can the EU sign for TTIP on our behalf and then impose it upon us?

[davepoth]

John145 said:

Can the EU sign for TTIP on our behalf and then impose it upon us?

In effect, yes. FTAs are agreed at the European Council level on a Qualified Majority Vote basis, so providing that 62 percent of the EU's population's leaders vote in favour it'll be put through.

Some countries will likely require a referendum, the UK will not. In any case, the UK will almost certainly vote in favour.

[maffski]

Hoofy said:

franki68 said:

I was listening to a date about this (have no knowledge of it myself) ,it does seem to be something designed by large American businesses to give them even more power.
But more worryingly was neither side in the debate seemed to know exactly what it means.

I'll keep it simple as this is the key thing as I understand it: imagine a US-developed drug that is passed in the US as being safe, but we deem it unsafe. Under TTIP, if the NHS refuses to use it, the US drug company can sue the NHS for millions.

This is horrific. Any evidence for it? Because it doesn't match my understanding.

It doesn't force one side to accept things they deem unsafe, it's about harmonizing regulation where practical (ie where we have sufficient agreement) - this reduces costs and is a good thing (for example, make a car and get it European type approval and you can sell it throughout Europe, make a light aircraft and you need to get approval in each country, this costs too much for the potential market so people don't bother).

Second, it doesn't force the NHS to use a US drug (even if it had appropriate UK approvals), NICE can approve/reject a drug on the NHS just as it does now. What TIPP does say is that the US company can't be treated differently to a UK one.

[Gogoplata]

Bizarrely a lot of Corbyn supporters that I know are against TTIP, but are going to vote "in" so that the UK can fight TTIP from inside the EU once it's imposed upon us. Apparently this is better than voting "out" where the Tories would sign up to the TTIP straight away & the UK would have no choice in the matter...

No wonder Obama wants the UK to stay in the EU, I'm guessing that the numbers that are being thrown around as to how much the EU & US are going to benefit from this deal won't quite be as high if the UK isn't part of it.

[davepoth]

Gogoplata said:

Bizarrely a lot of Corbyn supporters that I know are against TTIP, but are going to vote "in" so that the UK can fight TTIP from inside the EU once it's imposed upon us. Apparently this is better than voting "out" where the Tories would sign up to the TTIP straight away & the UK would have no choice in the matter...

No wonder Obama wants the UK to stay in the EU, I'm guessing that the numbers that are being thrown around as to how much the EU & US are going to benefit from this deal won't quite be as high if the UK isn't part of it.

The crux of the argument against TTIP is that it's going to give US corporations (and since they wield the power in the US that means the US Government) power to affect policy decisions in the EU - forcing it to run its regulatory regimes in a more US-friendly manner.

Without the UK's help it's likely the deal wouldn't go through at all.

[markh1973]

davepoth said:

Gogoplata said:

Bizarrely a lot of Corbyn supporters that I know are against TTIP, but are going to vote "in" so that the UK can fight TTIP from inside the EU once it's imposed upon us. Apparently this is better than voting "out" where the Tories would sign up to the TTIP straight away & the UK would have no choice in the matter...

No wonder Obama wants the UK to stay in the EU, I'm guessing that the numbers that are being thrown around as to how much the EU & US are going to benefit from this deal won't quite be as high if the UK isn't part of it.

The crux of the argument against TTIP is that it's going to give US corporations (and since they wield the power in the US that means the US Government) power to affect policy decisions in the EU - forcing it to run its regulatory regimes in a more US-friendly manner.

Without the UK's help it's likely the deal wouldn't go through at all.

If we vote out and agree a trade deal with the US isn't that likely to be along TTIP lines?

[JMGS4]

davepoth said:

Without the UK's help it's likely the deal wouldn't go through at all.

AND that's the reason Ohbummer came over and stuck his nose into Britains referendum.....
so that US multis can dictate to the EU what and what not can be done/sold.....
the most undemocratic treaty ever...
we kowtow to Microst, goople, apdle and other such degenerate companies,
never mind US genetically modified foods, chlorinated chicken, and otehr such US junk!!!!
Buck Ofama with TTIP!!!!

[davepoth]

markh1973 said:

If we vote out and agree a trade deal with the US isn't that likely to be along TTIP lines?

Probably not; the US is very comfortable with our legal system and the agreement would be much more one sided, so the most contentious parts of TTIP (Investor-State dispute resolution and the suggested regulatory intervention) would likely not be suggested.

[Hoofy]

maffski said:

Hoofy said:

franki68 said:

I was listening to a date about this (have no knowledge of it myself) ,it does seem to be something designed by large American businesses to give them even more power.
But more worryingly was neither side in the debate seemed to know exactly what it means.

I'll keep it simple as this is the key thing as I understand it: imagine a US-developed drug that is passed in the US as being safe, but we deem it unsafe. Under TTIP, if the NHS refuses to use it, the US drug company can sue the NHS for millions.

This is horrific. Any evidence for it? Because it doesn't match my understanding.

It doesn't force one side to accept things they deem unsafe, it's about harmonizing regulation where practical (ie where we have sufficient agreement) - this reduces costs and is a good thing (for example, make a car and get it European type approval and you can sell it throughout Europe, make a light aircraft and you need to get approval in each country, this costs too much for the potential market so people don't bother).

Second, it doesn't force the NHS to use a US drug (even if it had appropriate UK approvals), NICE can approve/reject a drug on the NHS just as it does now. What TIPP does say is that the US company can't be treated differently to a UK one.

Have a look at that video I posted.

I was under the impression that under TTIP, because NICE/NHS is now affecting a company's profit by rejecting a drug that is approved in the US, they will then be able to sue. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

[davepoth]

It's a bit murky. We don't know the final wording yet but if it works in a similar way to the draft EU-Canada agreement there will be a derogation for services that a government provides, and especially health services.

However, that's just the regulation, and it will be down to the dispute resolution tribunal to decide how it applies. There's no way of knowing whether they'll treat health services as "everything the NHS does" or "just the doctors and nurses" or somewhere in between. What we can be certain about is that the US drug companies will really want to be able to sell very high priced drugs in the EU.

The more worrying implication is that support services (running hospital services, logistics, anything not medical in a hospital) are potentially up for grabs to the highest bidder from the US as it's much more likely that those would not fall under the protection that's suggested to be in the treaty.

[Smokehead]

Now I understand why the USA wants Great Britain to stay in the EU.

[mondeoman]

http://youtu.be/6fDCbf4O-0s?t=1h4m21s

An hour of your time well spent....

4 little reasons why TTIP is bad for us, and great for globocorp aka USA, and why it will lead to privatisation of the NHS

[FredClogs]

Golden rule always applies in business, might is right is a axiom of law and always has been.

The idea that the UK would be in any position to negotiate in their favour if out of the EU shows a distinct misunderstanding of corporate enterprise and the state of world economics.

[maffski]

Hoofy said:

Have a look at that video I posted.

I was under the impression that under TTIP, because NICE/NHS is now affecting a company's profit by rejecting a drug that is approved in the US, they will then be able to sue. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

Haven't they got the titles wrong? That's a reboot of The Day Today isn't it?

Here an alternative view from Forbes Tim Warstall - The NHS Is Not Under Threat From TTIP: It's Nonsense To Say It Is

In fact, am I due a Parrot?

RT.com said:

...Jonathan Pie, a spoof reporter created by British actor and comedian Tom Walker...
Link

[davepoth]

FredClogs said:

Golden rule always applies in business, might is right is a axiom of law and always has been.

The idea that the UK would be in any position to negotiate in their favour if out of the EU shows a distinct misunderstanding of corporate enterprise and the state of world economics.

On the contrary. The reason it's so troubling EU wide is that the EU is pushing for derogations across a lot of sectors, since a lot more sectors have state involvement in the EU than they do in the US - one of the main holdups is the French and their media industry, which depends heavily on government rules limiting the amount of foreign media on French TV and radio. Since our demands are so broad, we're not able to push them very hard.

Compared with the UK, the only real difference is in healthcare. Pretty much everywhere else we're aligned with what the government does in the US, so the only thing we'd want to secure an opt out for would be healthcare - which would mean we could push it very hard indeed.

I think we'd actually have more luck concluding a trade deal on terms that would be favourable to the UK from outside of the EU because of that ability to focus on the few issues we have concerns about, and not the ones that are upsetting the rest of the EU.