TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

[boabinoban]

The only thing I've seen from the SNP is that TTIP would be a positive thing, but would veto it if it endangered the NHS.Given the potential scale of TTIP this looks to be going nowhere near far enough. Again though there is just zero information made to the public on this, which says to me it's going to get swept through regardless of who is in power.

[boabinoban]

There's shed loads of information, it's just that most of it is incredibly boring: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230

There may be information on it but it's not being made public knowledge and no political party seems to be against it. It's all very hush hush for my liking.

Cheers for that link BTW.

[welshbairn]

In fairness I wouldn't say that no one is against it; many individuals and organisations have expressed concern. What I've failed to verify is the ratification/veto options for member states.

According to the British Chambers of Commerce link I posted above:

The actual talks will probably span over a couple of years. After that, the agreement will have to

be approved by the European Parliament, all EU Member States and the US Congress.

[Thumper]

I could be wrong, and may have picked this up wrong, but my Mrs said to me the other day that the US Senate has blocked TTIP.

Is this right?

Yes. Senate Democrats opposed it, Republicans supported it. Elizabeth Warren has been very vocal in her opposition to it.

It'll eventually get passed, because the Democrats are roughly as principled as their Liberal colleagues over here, but this was an unexpected hurdle.

[Fide]

Yes. Senate Democrats opposed it, Republicans supported it. Elizabeth Warren has been very vocal in her opposition to it.

It'll eventually get passed, because the Democrats are roughly as principled as their Liberal colleagues over here, but this was an unexpected hurdle.

Cheers for clearing that up. Colour me astonished that the Republicans supported it.

[Granny Danger]

According to the British Chambers of Commerce link I posted above:

Cheers. There is an onus on all political parties to start drawing attention to this now. The most strongly worded statement I've seen in a Scottish context is from the Greens.

[Ad Lib]

TTIP is, quite simply, the end result of politicians bowing down to business interests. Any doubt that the so-called democratic leaders of the "free" world are anything but shills for commercial concerns disappears with any progress on this scheme. Privatisation of the NHS, schools, prisons, security services.... Welcome to the endgame of Capitalism, boys and girls.

Funny how we didn't see much of this in the election campaigns, don't you think?

There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that TTIP will cause the NHS to be privatised.

https://fullfact.org/law/does_ttip_mean_privatisation_nhs-38681

[Ad Lib]

Why is it being done under a cloak of secrecy then? As to the SNP's position, given they are excluded from the negotiations and are also, therefore, largely in the dark, they seem to be rightly cautious: http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-candidate-ttip-deal-an-attack-on-democracy-1-3731921

It isn't being done "under a cloak of secrecy". It's one of the most prolonged and open processes of trade negotiation in living memory. It's got a draft head of terms, is heavily based on another trade deal with Canada almost all of whose finer details are in the public domain, and it will only come into force once ratified by every EU member-state following scrutiny by national governments and/or legislatures.

Compared to most international trade deals, such as those conducted by the WTO, this is a case of almost sycophantic transparency.

[Granny Danger]

It isn't being done "under a cloak of secrecy". It's one of the most prolonged and open processes of trade negotiation in living memory. It's got a draft head of terms, is heavily based on another trade deal with Canada almost all of whose finer details are in the public domain, and it will only come into force once ratified by every EU member-state following scrutiny by national governments and/or legislatures.Compared to most international trade deals, such as those conducted by the WTO, this is a case of almost sycophantic transparency.

There are some politicians that disagree with you. Real politicians; ones that actually won their seats.

[Ad Lib]

There are some politicians that disagree with you. Real politicians; ones that actually won their seats.

And there are a lot of politicians, elected to the UK Parliament and EU Parliament, who agree with me. And independent observers, journalists and commentators. And distinguished EU civil servants and Council of Ministers representatives, who have repeatedly been scrutinised in public hearings about the progress and contents of TTIP.

[Granny Danger]

And there are a lot of politicians, elected to the UK Parliament and EU Parliament, who agree with me. And independent observers, journalists and commentators. And distinguished EU civil servants and Council of Ministers representatives, who have repeatedly been scrutinised in public hearings about the progress and contents of TTIP.

On my original point the same could be said for both sides.

Surprised you took the bait tbh.

[Ad Lib]

On my original point the same could be said for both sides. Surprised you took the bait tbh.

Could you provide some *actual evidence* in support of the claim that this has been secretive, given more information in this proposed trade deal has been in the public domain, and for longer, than pretty much any WTO trade deal ever? Didn't see you asking for more transparency on the Bali Package.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that TTIP will cause the NHS to be privatised.

https://fullfact.org/law/does_ttip_mean_privatisation_nhs-38681

Oh do grow up. What it boils down to is privateers being able to sue National governments for "restraint of trade". Please feel free to explain how you expect the NHS, to take the most obvious example, to survive if that survival means an additional burden of legal costs on top of its current operating budget?

[JogaBonito]

(RT but still, it's on the NHA parties yt channel)

[welshbairn]

Oh do grow up. What it boils down to is privateers being able to sue National governments for "restraint of trade". Please feel free to explain how you expect the NHS, to take the most obvious example, to survive if that survival means an additional burden of legal costs on top of its current operating budget?

The only difference that I can see is that US firms could compete on equal terms with European firms for NHS contracts, and if the Government reneged on a contract the US company would have the option of going for international arbitration instead of suing in a UK court as happens now. Similarly British companies operating in America could have the option of avoiding the sometimes biased against foreign companies US legal system by going for more neutral international arbitration.

[ICTChris]

If the government decides to open up healthcare to competition or outsource certain services, why would you want to restrict this to companies from a certain country? Surely you want the best company to do it, whether they are from Canada, Scotland or Bulgaria?

Also, free trade has huge benefits, it's important not to lose that in this discussion.

[Jambomo]

The only difference that I can see is that US firms could compete on equal terms with European firms for NHS contracts, and if the Government reneged on a contract the US company would have the option of going for international arbitration instead of suing in a UK court as happens now. Similarly British companies operating in America could have the option of avoiding the sometimes biased against foreign companies US legal system by going for more neutral international arbitration.

I think that one of the big differences is that once its gone from being classes as a protected state provided service to a private industry then it cannot be renationalised again or the state can be sued.

[welshbairn]

I think that one of the big differences is that once its gone from being classes as a protected state provided service to a private industry then it cannot be renationalised again or the state can be sued.

The same would happen now if we tried to renationalise the railways.

[Jambomo]

The same would happen now if we tried to renationalise the railways.

I don't know, do they have that kind of agreement in place with the airways? Even so, that's no reason to throw away the NHS now.

[welshbairn]

I don't know, do they have that kind of agreement in place with the airways? Even so, that's no reason to throw away the NHS now.

If you sign a 15 year contract with a company to run the trains in Scotland and they start ordering new rolling stock etc, they're going to be a bit rightfully miffed if you rip it up a year later, and you'll have to pay substantial compo. The NHS is already outsourcing, the only difference will be that US companies will be able to bid too, on a level playing field. There's no reason to think TTIP will make the Tories privatise the NHS anymore quickly than they already plan.