Politics TPIP

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
I don't normally bother with political posts, but I think this one deserves a mention.

Please ignore the Guardian link, and ignore the anti-Tory posturing from the journo http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...unpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade?CMP=fb_gu

the point he makes is still a good one, and I think the various campaigns against this are worth while to put pressure on governments across the EU to not pander to corporate greed.

If you can't be bothered to read, basically their is pressure from EU states to push through a trade deal with the US and Canada that will allow corporations to legislate against governments for lost income without going via the courts. They will instead be able to do so via an arbitration panel of lawyers.

petition here https://stop-ttip.org/
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Been arguing against financial inequality for years now. This is the sort of shit it leads to. And yep, of course it's linked...

Think I signed that one ages ago Ch3t. Good that you brought it to light here, but don't expect much debate on it because this forum's become so right wing it's unbelieveable.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
OMG RECESSION

OMG WE HAVE A NEW THING THAT COULD MAKE YOU ALL RICH

Yeah, I doubt there will be much opposition to this.

Sad but true.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
Right, this might be a really horrible example, but let's say that Starbucks (an American company) operates in say, Denmark, where there's stupidly high corporation tax, so then Starbucks has the right to sue Denmark because they're infringing on their capability to trade in Europe?

Even then, lawyers decide what the outcome is, not a judge?

Because Lawyers will stick to the 'law' whilst a judge will have the countries best interests at heart? (In effect.)
 

Poag

m00?
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
2,411
I'd heard something about this sometime ago, but then it slipped off the radar. Done my bit, signed and professed to my fellow office people that they need to read some articles and profess there dislike.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Been arguing against financial inequality for years now. This is the sort of shit it leads to. And yep, of course it's linked...

Think I signed that one ages ago Ch3t. Good that you brought it to light here, but don't expect much debate on it because this forum's become so right wing it's unbelieveable.

I am not sure what debate you would like on this (its a stupid thing) but why not have a rant with someone back and forth about evil capitalists and tax dodgers for a few pages so that people avoid it like the plague. :p
 

Nate

FH is my second home
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
7,454
Can someone explain like I'm 5 please?
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
Can someone explain like I'm 5 please?

Basically rich corporations have lobbied for a trade agreement that also gives said corporations the right to sue national governments if they infringe on their ability to make profit. The get to sue said government via an arbitration panel made up of lawyers who could be emplyed nu said corporation.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
- basically it's about fixing the courts. Corporations can already sue governments. This is about special courts that mean that the corporations will pretty much always win.
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
This is basically the US trying to push through a bullying bill to allow their corporations stupid rights for a long fucking time, it's bad and it needs to die.
 

Nate

FH is my second home
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
7,454
So the government are being asked to fuck themselves over? Why would the government who is supposed to be "for the people" do this?
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
So the government are being asked to fuck themselves over? Why would the government who is supposed to be "for the people" do this?
My mate made that point, and yeah, it is a fair point -why-?

I suppose it's because 'who actually runs the Government?'
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
My mate made that point, and yeah, it is a fair point -why-?

It's clear that "the elite" are bored with their low-level democracy experiement and are gradually changing the laws across the planet to suit a more authoritarian approach.

Our governments only govern the population, whilst preserving the profits of the rich - who really "run" the whole shebang through enlightened self-interest (not conspiracy).

By run, I mean take simple actions that increase their own wealth and power.
 

Nate

FH is my second home
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
7,454
GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS ON MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
You saying rich people don't try to make themselves richer @Nate?

Why do they pay lobbyists? Or fund both sides of the political spectrum (Look at Goldman Sachs & AT&T- ask yourself - why would you do that?)?

It's not like it's not public knowledge (or even remotely surprising)...
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,270
Let me see. The Grauniad and Moonbat don't like it.

Going by their previous records, must be a fucking great idea!

Disclaimer: I don't actually give too much of a shit either way. An elite group of powerful people trying to get more power. Sounds awfully like human nature to me, and has been present in just about any political system you care to mention. C'est la vie as our garlic smelling socialists across the water would say.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
You're so clearly a UKIP voter who's hiding it for fear of ridicule :p
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,270
The only party I'm less likely to vote for than UKIP is Labour. Not ashamed to say I normally vote Tory, sadly as a least worst option. After one group of Nationalists tear my home country apart, I have no intention of helping them do it down here either.
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
@Bodhi did you bother to read what this was about or just jump all over the guardian link?

Do you really think it's a good idea for corporate entities to be able to take tax payers money outside if the established legal framework?
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
So the TUC have managed to get employers to pay workers holiday overtime rates.
The fuckin 70's are sneaking back and if that fucking anteater with the flu gets in we'll all be fucked.
Did is say fuck
 

Nate

FH is my second home
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
7,454
Who was that guy who loved conspiracies around here? He had a name for it and got fed up of everyone saying he's a conspiracy maniac then left.

Joor that was him
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
TPP/TPIP = ACTA. everyone hated that, and it was ultimately rejected. then "they" did it again.
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
TPP/TPIP = ACTA. everyone hated that, and it was ultimately rejected. then "they" did it again.
Yes, if this fails it will just be re packaged and attempted again. But it can be fought off each time as long as people don't get complacent.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Meh, it will go through one way or another.

The only way things will change is be military revolution.
 

Poag

m00?
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
2,411
Dear Mr Poag,

Thank you for your email about the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

I think an agreement that breaks down trade barriers and encourages economic growth must surely be a good thing and worth supporting, however as I have always supported fairness, I have always argued that markets must behave in a responsible way which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.

The estimated benefits to both the European Union (EU) and United States economies are significant, independent research shows that this trade agreement could boost the EU's economy by 120 billion euros and the American economy by 90 billion euros. TTIP could be worth an extra £10 billion to the UK economy each year, and be the biggest free trade agreement in history.

It is clear that whilst offering opportunities for development and growth, international trade has unfortunately often failed to deliver for those most in need. The Lib Dems and I have therefore argued strongly for the EU’s trade policy to deliver on environmental, development and social issues, particularly for example by supporting the inclusion of International Labour Organisation standards to ensure that workers are properly protected.

I think there are a lot of issues that we must watch carefully and I have particular concerns with certain provisions. However, much of the criticism of TTIP that I have read has been excessive and not based on facts, whether about the Investor to State Dispute Mechanism (ISDM), the NHS or legal harmonisation.

There has been considerable discussion on the ISDM which in effect protects out of country investors from actions by the state's government if they bring in universal changes to ownership or rules that affect this investment. A lot of things have been attributed to these ISDM that are fanciful, and I will watch the progress of the rules on these very carefully. We must ensure that whatever is agreed as the process for adjudicating these decisions, they are done fairly and with full transparency. We must also be sure that all changes into the rules for foreign investors apply equally to all investors and do not constitute back door protectionism. But the bottom line is we cannot allow ISDM mechanisms to interrupt the democratic right of a government to change laws, likewise we should offer investors some assurance that their investments are safe. In any event, I understand as things currently stand it now looks likely that the ISDM will not form part of TTIP and may form part of a separate agreement.

Regarding the NHS, allowing a market into the supply of equipment and the delivery of medical services by private undertakings is not new, as most of the supplies are provided by private companies, other than clinical services. What must remain is that it is free at the point of delivery. Other countries in the EU also have their own medical services to protect, and I can assure you I do not know anyone whose aim is to copy the US system of health care, and therefore will not agree to this type of health service by the back door. The UK Trade Minister, Lord Livingston has said TTIP would not have any impact on the NHS and the idea that this will lead to privatisation of the NHS is not true.

I am aware the European Commission has previously tried to reassure those with concerns about harmonisation. TTIP is not mean to result in us in Europe sacrificing our higher standards, any economic gains that the agreement could offer must respect our existing high standards in the areas of the environment, health and safety, privacy, consumers’ and workers’ rights. The Commission have said our high levels of protection are not on the negotiating table.

I am pleased to confirm that only last week the EU declassified the negotiating directives for TTIP, which strongly welcome as it significantly raises the level of transparency around this potential agreement.

I hope this response on my views and the current position of TTIP helpful, however I am continuing to monitoring the negotiations on TTIP and I am demanding answers to the concerns being raised with me. Please feel free to contact me again about this or any other European matter in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Bearder MEP
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
There has been considerable discussion on the ISDM which in effect protects out of country investors from actions by the state's government if they bring in universal changes to ownership or rules that affect this investment. A lot of things have been attributed to these ISDM that are fanciful, and I will watch the progress of the rules on these very carefully. We must ensure that whatever is agreed as the process for adjudicating these decisions, they are done fairly and with full transparency.

I.E. Yes. We're going to change the law so corporations can use special courts to sue governments, rather than normal courts, which they currently use frequently.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom