I do. TTIP will not only affect health.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )
- Thread starter rascal
- Start date
- Status
I do. TTIP will not only affect health.
cant recall the name of the man leading the talks for us, but when asked about it Bruce , he said it had been brought up(by the USA side) but nothing had been settled as of this moment, i might be wrong but it left the impression that once gone it could not be brought back inside, ie when one contract ended it went out to tender to private industry again, even if the goverment of the day wanted it bringing back inside the NHS.
so we would be left in a situation of the goverment of the UK being told what to do by private intrests, rather than its own people , who might have elected them on a platform to do that very thing.
I am not agaist anybody being brough in to do a better job than the current setup, but this seems a step to far.
Yes, that would be a bizarre thing to concede. There isn't really much value in doing so. I'd be amazed if that kind of clause found its way into any final treaty.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
http://www.thejournal.ie/sinead-oconnor-sinn-fein-1823616-Dec2014/
Oddest political story of the day.
Oddest political story of the day.
The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
ISDS clauses are very common in bi-lateral trade agreements. Germany and Pakistan agreed the first ISDS in 1959.
The issue here is that both the European and American legal systems are robust enough to deal with any compensation claims through the normal process of law. ISDS is only normally used when there is concern over the legal process in one or more countries.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Been posted before but worth posting again. This is what we should be fighting. It isn't immigrants who are the problem with today's Britain; it is inequality and all its ramifications.
UKIP, incidentally, is run by and funded by that 1%, pretty much.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Well it's been seven hours and fifteen days since the last one.........
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
Couple of videos on the TPP, similar to TTIP but for the Pacific region.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Not dodgy at all, then.
toffee matt
Player Valuation: £60m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30417955
Miliband admitting Labour will make cuts if they win the election now too
Seems like the cuts are here to stay whoever wins in May
Miliband admitting Labour will make cuts if they win the election now too
Seems like the cuts are here to stay whoever wins in May
Basil Fawlty
Player Valuation: £35m
The worst thing is that New Labour aren't just resigned to continue the austerity program, they're fully with it. Most of Millibands new policies are designed to differentiate them from the "nasty party" and to ensure that traditional labour voters vote for him. To be fair I will vote for them in may but only as a vote against the Tories as anything else would be just a vote for them imo
The writers at the Economist clearly read GOT
http://www.economist.com/news/europ...rybody-yet-it-still-may-not-happen-ships-pass
LIFE for modern Europeans is marked by endless hardships, not least their inability to buy Hog Island oysters. Farmed in a bay north of San Francisco, these plump, succulent specimens rival anything in Normandy or the Languedoc. Yet there is no transatlantic trade in oysters to speak of. Why? Because of incompatible safety regimes: America tests oyster waters for bacteria while the European Union examines the molluscs themselves. Both methods are sound, but neither side recognises the other’s.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), an ambitious planned trade deal between America and the EU, is intended to iron out such wrinkles. Unlike classic free-trade arrangements, TTIP focuses on regulatory and other non-tariff barriers, because levies on most products traded across the Atlantic are already close to zero (exceptions include running shoes and fancy chocolate). Negotiators dream of a world in which pharmaceuticals are subject to the same testing regimes, standards on everything from car design to chemical labelling are harmonised or mutually recognised, and the transatlantic oyster trade is finally liberated. The potential benefits are hard to estimate, but one reasonable guess is that an “ambitious” TTIP could raise America’s GDP by 0.4% and the EU’s by slightly more.
That would be a welcome boost to Europe’s austerity-choked economies and sluggish global trade (see article). It involves neither the political agony of structural reforms nor more public spending. TTIP could also ensure that Europe and America, which account for half of global output, set standards that the rest of the world then has to follow. Officials add that it would cement the transatlantic relationship just as Europeans are getting twitchy about Russia: some speak of an “economic NATO”. This matters especially for east Europeans who have been unnerved by Barack Obama’s strategic “pivot” towards Asia.
And yet TTIP is floundering. Little has been achieved in the 18 months since talks began, and the two sides have sniped at each other for ring-fencing favoured sectors. Delay is not unusual—the EU’s new trade deal with Canada took five years to sew up, a change of the guard has consumed Brussels for months and America has just had mid-term elections. This week Cecilia Malmstrom, the new trade commissioner, was all smiles as she visited Washington, DC, promising a “fresh start”. Trade, she notes, is one of the few areas where the Republican-controlled Congress might offer Mr Obama its co-operation.
The difficulty is that many Europeans would prefer a clean kill to a fresh start. TTIP, cry naysayers, is a Trojan horse that will allow American multinationals to undercut tough European standards that their lobbyists have failed to overturn, or to buy up Britain’s National Health Service. Surprisingly, opposition is strongest in Germany, not previously a bastion of anti-trade activists. For much of the year it has focused on Chlorhühnchen (chlorine-soaked chicken), an example of the horrors that TTIP’s opponents say would be forced down European throats if doors were opened to American products. Chancellor Angela Merkel insists they should not worry. More recently critics have concentrated on the “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) process, a provision to allow foreign investors to seek arbitration and compensation in the event of expropriation or other governmental misdeeds. Lurking behind all this, say some, is the revival of atavistic anti-Americanism on the German left, spurred in part by revelations that American spies have tapped Mrs Merkel’s phone.
European officials shrug off these teething troubles. TTIP may be the most ambitious trade deal in the EU’s history; little wonder it rubs some up the wrong way. But privately there is frustration at the turn the discussions have taken. The strength of feeling over ISDS has forced the EU temporarily to remove it from the talks while it works out how to proceed. Officials say it is possible to reform the process, perhaps introducing an appeal mechanism and protections against frivolous lawsuits, without killing the deal.
But there is worry on the American side. TTIP is less of a priority for the Obama administration than the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade deal it is pursuing with 11 Asian-Pacific countries. Officials say they are capable of conducting two sets of talks at the same time. But the more Europe drags its feet, the more some will ask if American energies would be better deployed elsewhere. “Quite frankly, we’re puzzled why Europe isn’t gagging for this,” says one American official. A failure to deliver TTIP could also feed adversely into a putative British EU referendum, since those arguing for “Brexit” often claim that Britain on its own would find it easier to strike trade deals with America.
Malmstrom vs the chlorinated chickens
There are signs of a thaw. Last month Sigmar Gabriel, leader of Germany’s Social Democrats and Mrs Merkel’s vice-chancellor, announced his support for the Canadian deal, just two months after saying he could not defend its ISDS provisions. Mrs Merkel herself has become more vocal in her support. American officials say the debate has calmed in recent weeks. They speak warmly of Mrs Malmstrom, and are enthused over Frans Timmermans, a Dutch commissioner seeking to sort out the ISDS issue.
Yet TTIP’s supporters still struggle to make a positive case, forced instead to battle Chlorhühnchen and other myths. Unlike most previous EU trade deals, TTIP may have to be ratified by national parliaments (as well as the European one), so political critics cannot be ignored. One American cheerleader for the deal says he has learned not to promise Europeans that it will provide jobs and growth; nobody believes this. More effective is a piece of flattery: that TTIP is essentially an extension of the EU’s single market to a friendly partner. Supporters might try mentioning oysters, too, for TTIP needs all the help it can get.
http://www.economist.com/news/europ...rybody-yet-it-still-may-not-happen-ships-pass
LIFE for modern Europeans is marked by endless hardships, not least their inability to buy Hog Island oysters. Farmed in a bay north of San Francisco, these plump, succulent specimens rival anything in Normandy or the Languedoc. Yet there is no transatlantic trade in oysters to speak of. Why? Because of incompatible safety regimes: America tests oyster waters for bacteria while the European Union examines the molluscs themselves. Both methods are sound, but neither side recognises the other’s.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), an ambitious planned trade deal between America and the EU, is intended to iron out such wrinkles. Unlike classic free-trade arrangements, TTIP focuses on regulatory and other non-tariff barriers, because levies on most products traded across the Atlantic are already close to zero (exceptions include running shoes and fancy chocolate). Negotiators dream of a world in which pharmaceuticals are subject to the same testing regimes, standards on everything from car design to chemical labelling are harmonised or mutually recognised, and the transatlantic oyster trade is finally liberated. The potential benefits are hard to estimate, but one reasonable guess is that an “ambitious” TTIP could raise America’s GDP by 0.4% and the EU’s by slightly more.
That would be a welcome boost to Europe’s austerity-choked economies and sluggish global trade (see article). It involves neither the political agony of structural reforms nor more public spending. TTIP could also ensure that Europe and America, which account for half of global output, set standards that the rest of the world then has to follow. Officials add that it would cement the transatlantic relationship just as Europeans are getting twitchy about Russia: some speak of an “economic NATO”. This matters especially for east Europeans who have been unnerved by Barack Obama’s strategic “pivot” towards Asia.
And yet TTIP is floundering. Little has been achieved in the 18 months since talks began, and the two sides have sniped at each other for ring-fencing favoured sectors. Delay is not unusual—the EU’s new trade deal with Canada took five years to sew up, a change of the guard has consumed Brussels for months and America has just had mid-term elections. This week Cecilia Malmstrom, the new trade commissioner, was all smiles as she visited Washington, DC, promising a “fresh start”. Trade, she notes, is one of the few areas where the Republican-controlled Congress might offer Mr Obama its co-operation.
The difficulty is that many Europeans would prefer a clean kill to a fresh start. TTIP, cry naysayers, is a Trojan horse that will allow American multinationals to undercut tough European standards that their lobbyists have failed to overturn, or to buy up Britain’s National Health Service. Surprisingly, opposition is strongest in Germany, not previously a bastion of anti-trade activists. For much of the year it has focused on Chlorhühnchen (chlorine-soaked chicken), an example of the horrors that TTIP’s opponents say would be forced down European throats if doors were opened to American products. Chancellor Angela Merkel insists they should not worry. More recently critics have concentrated on the “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) process, a provision to allow foreign investors to seek arbitration and compensation in the event of expropriation or other governmental misdeeds. Lurking behind all this, say some, is the revival of atavistic anti-Americanism on the German left, spurred in part by revelations that American spies have tapped Mrs Merkel’s phone.
European officials shrug off these teething troubles. TTIP may be the most ambitious trade deal in the EU’s history; little wonder it rubs some up the wrong way. But privately there is frustration at the turn the discussions have taken. The strength of feeling over ISDS has forced the EU temporarily to remove it from the talks while it works out how to proceed. Officials say it is possible to reform the process, perhaps introducing an appeal mechanism and protections against frivolous lawsuits, without killing the deal.
But there is worry on the American side. TTIP is less of a priority for the Obama administration than the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade deal it is pursuing with 11 Asian-Pacific countries. Officials say they are capable of conducting two sets of talks at the same time. But the more Europe drags its feet, the more some will ask if American energies would be better deployed elsewhere. “Quite frankly, we’re puzzled why Europe isn’t gagging for this,” says one American official. A failure to deliver TTIP could also feed adversely into a putative British EU referendum, since those arguing for “Brexit” often claim that Britain on its own would find it easier to strike trade deals with America.
Malmstrom vs the chlorinated chickens
There are signs of a thaw. Last month Sigmar Gabriel, leader of Germany’s Social Democrats and Mrs Merkel’s vice-chancellor, announced his support for the Canadian deal, just two months after saying he could not defend its ISDS provisions. Mrs Merkel herself has become more vocal in her support. American officials say the debate has calmed in recent weeks. They speak warmly of Mrs Malmstrom, and are enthused over Frans Timmermans, a Dutch commissioner seeking to sort out the ISDS issue.
Yet TTIP’s supporters still struggle to make a positive case, forced instead to battle Chlorhühnchen and other myths. Unlike most previous EU trade deals, TTIP may have to be ratified by national parliaments (as well as the European one), so political critics cannot be ignored. One American cheerleader for the deal says he has learned not to promise Europeans that it will provide jobs and growth; nobody believes this. More effective is a piece of flattery: that TTIP is essentially an extension of the EU’s single market to a friendly partner. Supporters might try mentioning oysters, too, for TTIP needs all the help it can get.
On an unrelated note, I popped along to the Digital Health Pit Stop event in Euston on Friday. Some interesting people there, including
https://www.myhometouch.com/
http://www.veloscient.com/minotz.html
https://figure1.com/
http://www.cupris.com/
Was sat next to one of the managers of the facility (which is endorsed and supported by government) who was tearing her hair out at the rhetoric being used by politicians these days over the 'privatisation' of the NHS and the unnecessary divide its causing.
https://www.myhometouch.com/
http://www.veloscient.com/minotz.html
https://figure1.com/
http://www.cupris.com/
Was sat next to one of the managers of the facility (which is endorsed and supported by government) who was tearing her hair out at the rhetoric being used by politicians these days over the 'privatisation' of the NHS and the unnecessary divide its causing.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Multinationals are already too powerful. I believe the long-term political and social cost of TTIP will be far too high a price to pay. Free trade is not a be all and end all.
I'm still not at all sure what to believe regarding the TTIP to be honest. The comments to the Economist piece above point out a host of other things about it that weren't in the article itself. History does suggest that whatever ends up being signed will be far more complex than originally planned and containing a whole lot of hodgepodges that probably render the original intention useless.
On an unrelated note, I was reading about a thing called Socrative the other day. It's an educational thing for instantly testing pupils. Have you come across it in your travels or is it mainly US based?
- Status