Can we talk about TTIP for a bit

[Hoofy]

maffski said:

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

I don't think a parrot is necessary as even if they were pro-TTIP they've gone about it in a terrible way.

Do you have a non-Forbes link? That site asks me to sign up.

[maffski]

Hoofy said:

I don't think a parrot is necessary as even if they were pro-TTIP they've gone about it in a terrible way.

Do you have a non-Forbes link? That site asks me to sign up.

Odd, Forbes has never asked me to sign up (it does stop you if you have an ad blocker however).

Tim also writes on the Adam Smith Institute blog, not sure if it covers exactly the same ground but being an evil exploitative capitalist he probably makes his words work twice as hard - LEN MCCLUSKEY IS NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THE NHS AND TTIP

Actually, looks like he also has his own blog which mentions it

[Hoofy]

maffski said:

Odd, Forbes has never asked me to sign up (it does stop you if you have an ad blocker however).

Tim also writes on the Adam Smith Institute blog, not sure if it covers exactly the same ground but being an evil exploitative capitalist he probably makes his words work twice as hard - LEN MCCLUSKEY IS NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THE NHS AND TTIP

Actually, looks like he also has his own blog which mentions it

Thanks, will have a read.

Edit: right, the contract bit makes sense. So why are people talking about it killing the NHS?

Edited by Hoofy on Monday 2nd May 20:23

[powerstroke]

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.

Oh Right !!! thats the rest of the world outside the EU fked then
yes how would say the brazilians or the Chinese do a deal they would be fked
yeah oh and Austriaia etc all because they aren't in the EU
what a mess for them ...Bugger!!!!! best we stay in then,,,,,

[davepoth]

Hoofy said:

Thanks, will have a read.

Edit: right, the contract bit makes sense. So why are people talking about it killing the NHS?

Edited by Hoofy on Monday 2nd May 20:23

The killing is probably hyperbole, but there's a chance of a very significant effect. While it seems the actual doctoring and nursing is protected, it's not clear that any of the other stuff (logistics, tests, hospital services, food, sanitation, that sort of thing) would be. Until it got tested in one of the "secret tribunals" we can't really be certain.

[JMGS4]

for the latest go to www.ttip-leaks.org

[richie99]

Hoofy said:

Thanks, will have a read.

Edit: right, the contract bit makes sense. So why are people talking about it killing the NHS?

Edited by Hoofy on Monday 2nd May 20:23

Err....because they are lying?

It has amazed me that most in favour of leaving the EU say they want to do so, in part, to trade with the rest of the world, strike our own deals etc. When faced with the reality of doing so, IE a trade deal with the US, Brexiters suddenly come over all coy. This was first noticeable with UKIP prior to the last election. They were revealed as a protectionist party, opposed to free trade, at which point I withdrew any support for them.

As someone who hates the EU, partly because I am in favour of free markets, I am becoming increasingly worried that those sharing my view are at best protectionist. The accusation of little Englander, which I am not, seems to be fair in many cases now.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, TTIP is a trade deal. it is NOT a mechanism to destroy the NHS and overthrow democratic governments, If anything, it is s useful way of reigning in the worst of Brussels regulatory instincts, which anti Eu types rage against,, but don't let consistency get in the way of a good rant.

[FredClogs]

powerstroke said:

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.

Oh Right !!! thats the rest of the world outside the EU fked then
yes how would say the brazilians or the Chinese do a deal they would be fked
yeah oh and Austriaia etc all because they aren't in the EU
what a mess for them ...Bugger!!!!! best we stay in then,,,,,

China hasn't allowed themselves to be infested with American corporatism, they've got their own philosophy of who should be running what.

Australia is caught in the TPP, which is essentially the same thing but for the Pacific region.

I don't know about the trade agreements between the US and Brazil, apart from the number of MMA fighters in the UFC, but I do know Brazil is a corrupted economy and massively reliant on the US, I doubt very much the people of Brazil are getting the best possible deal they could for themselves.

[Hoofy]

richie99 said:

Hoofy said:

Thanks, will have a read.

Edit: right, the contract bit makes sense. So why are people talking about it killing the NHS?

Edited by Hoofy on Monday 2nd May 20:23

Err....because they are lying?

It has amazed me that most in favour of leaving the EU say they want to do so, in part, to trade with the rest of the world, strike our own deals etc. When faced with the reality of doing so, IE a trade deal with the US, Brexiters suddenly come over all coy. This was first noticeable with UKIP prior to the last election. They were revealed as a protectionist party, opposed to free trade, at which point I withdrew any support for them.

As someone who hates the EU, partly because I am in favour of free markets, I am becoming increasingly worried that those sharing my view are at best protectionist. The accusation of little Englander, which I am not, seems to be fair in many cases now.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, TTIP is a trade deal. it is NOT a mechanism to destroy the NHS and overthrow democratic governments, If anything, it is s useful way of reigning in the worst of Brussels regulatory instincts, which anti Eu types rage against,, but don't let consistency get in the way of a good rant.

So... which way should I be voting?

[esxste]

If you're concerned about TTIP to the point it'll swing you're vote then you need to vote to Remain.

If we Leave: The Tories will have us signed up to TTIP or similar right away. They are massive supporters of this deal.

If we Remain; it's not popular here, and it won't be anywhere else. Those countries with a right to referendum will reject it.


So the only way to fight TTIP is to Vote Remain, and lobby your MEP.

[lionelf]

mondeoman said:

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

From what I've read on PH that's a scenario that most posters will be happy with anyway no?

[mondeoman]

lionelf said:

mondeoman said:

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

From what I've read on PH that's a scenario that most posters will be happy with anyway no?

I'm not.

[Welshbeef]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/03/do...


So 3 years of negotiation so far and impasse over so many key areas - France now to veto it as it stands

[FiF]

Just to bump this thread, the current state with TTIP is now a massive problem for the Remain campaign.

There has been a report in FAZ in German language which suggests that the EU will try to change the nature of the agreement from classed as a mixed agreement to an EU agreement.

FAZ said:

“The European Commission is on a collision course with the EU member states over the highly controversial free trade agreements with the United States and Canada. The EU authority wants the agreement with Canada — CETA — to not be described as a “mixed agreement”, but as a pure EU agreement. Neither the Bundestag and Bundesrat nor the parliaments of the other 27 EU member states should therefore have a say in its ratification. The reports in the Saturday edition of the FAZ cite sources close to the EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström. The Commission intends to submit a proposal in early July.

So in essence the EU could, and appears it may be trying, just force this on member states.

[BlackLabel]

"EU says new talks on TTIP unlikely after Trump win
The EU Commission appears to be giving up hope to reach a trade agreement with the US, saying a relaunch of talks on the TTIP pact is unlikely with a president so fundamentally opposed to free trade."

http://www.dw.com/en/eu-says-new-talks-on-ttip-unl...

[Murph7355]

BlackLabel said:

"EU says new talks on TTIP unlikely after Trump win
The EU Commission appears to be giving up hope to reach a trade agreement with the US, saying a relaunch of talks on the TTIP pact is unlikely with a president so fundamentally opposed to free trade."

http://www.dw.com/en/eu-says-new-talks-on-ttip-unl...

With some of the clauses within it I suspect this might be for the better all round. And the EU haven't exactly been setting the world on fire recently...if I were POTUS and looking at the way the Canada deal went, would I really want to have that top of my list of things to sort out? Nah.

Maybe we can set a template with the US that the EU can use later on

[davepoth]

Murph7355 said:

With some of the clauses within it I suspect this might be for the better all round. And the EU haven't exactly been setting the world on fire recently...if I were POTUS and looking at the way the Canada deal went, would I really want to have that top of my list of things to sort out? Nah.

Maybe we can set a template with the US that the EU can use later on

The EU have royally screwed themselves this week. The big takeaway from the campaign is that Trump holds grudges for a long time. He is not going to forget the mean things that the EU has been saying about the new leader of the free world, and frankly neither should he - they've been extremely undiplomatic. At least Theresa May had the sense to say nice things even though she probably didn't mean them.

[///ajd]

BlackLabel said:

"EU says new talks on TTIP unlikely after Trump win
The EU Commission appears to be giving up hope to reach a trade agreement with the US, saying a relaunch of talks on the TTIP pact is unlikely with a president so fundamentally opposed to free trade."

http://www.dw.com/en/eu-says-new-talks-on-ttip-unl...

"....and then I said Brexit would be good for global trade deals! PMSL!"

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 13th November 12:44

[stuthemong]

TTIP is bewildering and risky - given no one seems to really understand the implications, but AFAIK there are elements that are sensible.

I'm a product designer, working in medical devices. One of the biggest benefits of the EU as a trade block is harmonised standards. If I design and test something to be safe in the UK, by and large, all EU member states accept test results and process from the UK to allow us to sell into their regions. The US is quite different.

By way of example, in the EU we have something called RED (radiation emission devices). If I design a bit of kit with electronics in it, I take it to an EMC test house and pay a lot, and spend a lot of time, proving I pass EU limits on emission and immunity. In the US they have FCC. The limits are different, the tests are different. I not only have to repeat tests to prove I'm OK for the US, but the worst bit is knowing which tests I need to do. It's seriously complex the amount of detail / information you need to know..... and it's always changing [ read - you have to pay consultants to stay on top of it all. This is a HUGE overhead for SMALL companies like mine. ]

Large companies developing medical devices have teams of regulatory experts who scout and update process and procedures to make sure all products meet requirements in all regions of the world. Small companies have to pay people to do this quite frequently, and it's expensive stuff. It's even worse as small companies sell less volume/value of kit, so the % overhead for regs is a much larger slice of my R&D/CoGs pie that it would be for a multinational.

So if TTIP means we harmonise medical device, FCC, REF, CFR21 to increase overlap and reduce duplication, it will reduce my product design lifecycle (time and cost), and ease export to US. In many ways it will make smaller companies able to be more agile and more competitive in the US, much as we are to the EU.

So it's not all gloom and doom IMO.

[768]

Is there a need for secret deals for industry standards? Normally they're best done in the open aren't they?