TTIP agreement EU and USA

Author
Discussion

steveatesh

Original Poster:

4,893 posts

163 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
The above (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) appears to be one of those things that don't effect the person in the street much, a trade deal being put together by the EU and USA which of course impacts on us too.

However when the government tries to stop information about it being released into the public domain it suggests that there are elements of it they do not want us to know about. I found this interesting:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cameron-desperate-to-...

The article contains some examples of how large American companies have sued national governments for apparently putting their people or environment before profit.

Looks like it comes with being part of the EU of course, so is the TTIP good for the UK or not?


Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
Any company that sues a country because their destruction of the environment being prevented is bad for their profits, should be shut down.

DrDeAtH

3,586 posts

231 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Any company that sues a country because their destruction of the environment being prevented is bad for their profits, should be shut down.
+1

Capitalism eh? Ain't it great....

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
Safe Harbour has been binned after it was shown to be against privacy laws in Germany and other EU countries. From my reading, the UK government wasn't fussed.


gazza285

9,780 posts

207 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
The EU can do what it likes after Brexit.

jurbie

2,339 posts

200 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
The issue here isn't TTIP itself but the ISDS clause it contains however the idea of ISDS is nothing new and has been around for a good long while and is incorporated into many trade deals. It exists to protect businesses from governments who might suddenly change a long standing policy which results in that business losing money.

Here is the other side of the argument which sums it up as

article said:
it’s a mechanism to make sure that governments live up to the laws that they themselves have agreed to. And that’s it. Governments are entirely allowed to change their minds on what those laws are, of course, but they do have to compensate those who lose money as a result of their changing them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/14...

ISDS is actually beginning to fall out of favour a little bit because some companies do take the piss so that needs to be taken into account but I'm not convinced it's the bogeyman that it's being portrayed as.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
jurbie said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/14...

ISDS is actually beginning to fall out of favour a little bit because some companies do take the piss so that needs to be taken into account but I'm not convinced it's the bogeyman that it's being portrayed as.
just a pity it has never been employed unilaterally across all sectors. it would appear it is more a protection mechanism for those of significant means to make sure they can never lose. it certainly does not apply to say small scale uk commercial fishermen,dairy farmers or others in similar situations that have been encouraged down particular routes by uk and eu legislation, only to be shafted a year or two later when the rules change yet again.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
DrDeAtH said:
Jasandjules said:
Any company that sues a country because their destruction of the environment being prevented is bad for their profits, should be shut down.
+1

Capitalism eh? Ain't it great....
have another +1 from me.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 30th January 2016
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
The above (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) appears to be one of those things that don't effect the person in the street much, a trade deal being put together by the EU and USA which of course impacts on us too.

However when the government tries to stop information about it being released into the public domain it suggests that there are elements of it they do not want us to know about. I found this interesting:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cameron-desperate-to-...

The article contains some examples of how large American companies have sued national governments for apparently putting their people or environment before profit.

Looks like it comes with being part of the EU of course, so is the TTIP good for the UK or not?
Just as bad to have the possibility of governments signing contracts with corporations and then implementing policies that, in effect, alter the terms and bases of those contracts. Corporations couldn't do it with other corporations, why should governments be able to? They're hardly the most trustworthy organisations are they?


steveT350C

6,728 posts

160 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
“EU US Trade Deal under threat as Legal advice confirms Investment Court will require Irish referendum” – Matt Carthy MEP....

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/38951

Puggit

48,355 posts

247 months

richie99

1,116 posts

185 months

Monday 29th August 2016
quotequote all
wc98 said:
just a pity it has never been employed unilaterally across all sectors. it would appear it is more a protection mechanism for those of significant means to make sure they can never lose. it certainly does not apply to say small scale uk commercial fishermen,dairy farmers or others in similar situations that have been encouraged down particular routes by uk and eu legislation, only to be shafted a year or two later when the rules change yet again.
Unfortunately the examples you cite have been shafted by their own government, against which they have little appeal. What you have established is that governments are frequently prone to changing the rules under which businesses thought they were investing thus shafting the investors. ISDS is simply intended to give investors an element of protection from this behaviour.

It is not even the most unsavoury governments who are the worst offenders. It is mainly the most protectionist. Following the US/Mexico trade agreement there were far more disputes raised by Mexican companies against the US than the other way round. Any trade agreement with the US which doesn't include ISDS would be a mistake.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Monday 29th August 2016
quotequote all
Puggit said:
"He noted that in 14 rounds of talks, the two sides haven't agreed on a single common item out of 27 chapters being discussed."

Ouch.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 29th August 2016
quotequote all
richie99 said:
It is not even the most unsavoury governments who are the worst offenders. It is mainly the most protectionist. Following the US/Mexico trade agreement there were far more disputes raised by Mexican companies against the US than the other way round. Any trade agreement with the US which doesn't include ISDS would be a mistake.
Quite. Given the scale of fines the US loves to impose on foreign companies it's probably not a bad idea to have some kind of protection in place regarding them moving the goal posts once your companies have invested there.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Monday 29th August 2016
quotequote all
Oh well. I guess we're one closer to the front of the queue now. biggrin

Borghetto

3,274 posts

182 months

Monday 29th August 2016
quotequote all
davepoth said:
Oh well. I guess we're one closer to the front of the queue now. biggrin
My thoughts entirely - it's an ill wind......

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Monday 29th August 2016
quotequote all
fblm said:
richie99 said:
It is not even the most unsavoury governments who are the worst offenders. It is mainly the most protectionist. Following the US/Mexico trade agreement there were far more disputes raised by Mexican companies against the US than the other way round. Any trade agreement with the US which doesn't include ISDS would be a mistake.
Quite. Given the scale of fines the US loves to impose on foreign companies it's probably not a bad idea to have some kind of protection in place regarding them moving the goal posts once your companies have invested there.
Some kind of protection? That 'protection' really works really well for Canada atm. One of the main reasons for TTIP negotiations to take this long was insistence of 'merikens for ISDS to be integral part of the deal.

JMGS4

8,733 posts

269 months

Tuesday 30th August 2016
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
Looks like it comes with being part of the EU of course, so is the TTIP good for the UK or not?
TTIP is rejected by most people in the EU, because of the secrecy surrounding the talks. Even the EU Parliament has been kept in the dark. I cannot see it being any use except to subvert ALL customer protection laws of ANY kind here, whether ecological, genetically modified food, health and safety etc.
This agreement profits ONLY american big business and disadvantages ALL end users IMHO
NO it is of NO USE to the EU or GB!

richie99

1,116 posts

185 months

Tuesday 30th August 2016
quotequote all
JMGS4 said:
TTIP is rejected by most people in the EU, because of the secrecy surrounding the talks. Even the EU Parliament has been kept in the dark. I cannot see it being any use except to subvert ALL customer protection laws of ANY kind here, whether ecological, genetically modified food, health and safety etc.
This agreement profits ONLY american big business and disadvantages ALL end users IMHO
NO it is of NO USE to the EU or GB!
Are you seriously saying that it is reasonable to reject something because it is being discussed in secret?

The secret bit isn't true but let's assume that it is. Surely only a moron would reject something which might be great for them just because they don't know the details of it yet. Just because you can't seen it being any use doesn't mean that it isn't, especially as you don't seem to know anything about it.