FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

TTIP

Jump to newest
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Which candidates are likely to want TTIP, CETA type deals for us? Some politicians love unregulated markets.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

Well UK will now, for sure, go down a TTIP. route, and allow all its services be run, unaccountably, by multinational firms, with almost zero oversight or veto.

Of course, if you had stayed in the EU, you would have been protected by the safeguards that the EU insisted on placing on TTIP, the very safeguards that the UK government , on the instructions of their American masters, were trying to prevent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I agree that we're more vulnerable now. Boris thought TTIP was the best thing since sliced bread and Cameron was all over it.

Pearson is all for full-on free market principles and losing regulation (it worked so we'll in the Financial and Banking sector . So I'm guessing we'll be shafted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well UK will now, for sure, go down a TTIP. route, and allow all its services be run, unaccountably, by multinational firms, with almost zero oversight or veto.

Of course, if you had stayed in the EU, you would have been protected by the safeguards that the EU insisted on placing on TTIP, the very safeguards that the UK government , on the instructions of their American masters, were trying to prevent."

I have seen some rubbish posted on here but that really does take the biscuit ... The EU wants TTIP. The USA wants TTIP. And it is called TTIP because it is a trade deal unique to the EU. Outside the EU we are totally protected because we will not be liable to the EU or the ECJ interpretation of the deal months down the line. And we did not want it because of the possible threat to our NHS which is in an entirely unique position as regards a publicly provided service. We already trade with the USA under a bilateral trade agreement. We can continue with that with the possibility we can now reduce Tariffs to encourage trade. We are the USA's biggest external investor by a long way. The USA is the UK's biggest inward investor. No one is going to jeopardise that and some $114 Billion a year trade because some Yank companies want to have a go at our NHS...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France


"Well UK will now, for sure, go down a TTIP. route, and allow all its services be run, unaccountably, by multinational firms, with almost zero oversight or veto.

Of course, if you had stayed in the EU, you would have been protected by the safeguards that the EU insisted on placing on TTIP, the very safeguards that the UK government , on the instructions of their American masters, were trying to prevent.

I have seen some rubbish posted on here but that really does take the biscuit ... The EU wants TTIP. The USA wants TTIP. And it is called TTIP because it is a trade deal unique to the EU. Outside the EU we are totally protected because we will not be liable to the EU or the ECJ interpretation of the deal months down the line. And we did not want it because of the possible threat to our NHS which is in an entirely unique position as regards a publicly provided service. We already trade with the USA under a bilateral trade agreement. We can continue with that with the possibility we can now reduce Tariffs to encourage trade. We are the USA's biggest external investor by a long way. The USA is the UK's biggest inward investor. No one is going to jeopardise that and some $114 Billion a year trade because some Yank companies want to have a go at our NHS..."

You really don't get it, do you?

The UK is desperate to do a TRIP style deal with the US, and whilst in the EU the UK government was pressing for the " unprotected version".

The EU refused the " unprotected" version, and insisted on transparency and accountability. The EU also insisted on the right for any country to ring fence certain aspects out of the TTIP.

The UK government argued strongly for TTIP, argued against accountability, and against the ability to protect elements from TTIP.

Now you are ( or will be) out of the EU, the UK will almost certainly set up its own version of TTIP, and it will be without the safeguards that the EU would have put on it.

Good luck.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another bitter remainer scare story

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

No, just a fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *piritsonfabCouple
over a year ago

Nottingham

Ttip was one of the main reasons I wanted to stay in the EU.

the way our government voted in2it was a good indication of how they'd like things to go!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olgateMan
over a year ago

on the road to nowhere in particular

TTIP is bad for governments and consumers alike. The EU want TTIP, voting remain would have made us succumbed to a TTIP regime

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

'There is absolutely nothing not to like about the TTIP'

'This pact is a massive potential win for humanity – the closer economic union between two vast territories that share a tradition of democracy, free speech, pluralism: the Western values that are under threat in so many other parts of the world; and where almost everyone has English as a first or second language.

Boris Johnson 19 October 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11173369/This-trade-deal-with-America-would-have-Churchill-beaming.html

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

David Cameron and Boris Johnson have been two of the main drivers for TTIP to become reality in Europe.

It's my opinion that it would be potentially disastrous for the UK and wonderful for the huge corporations. With TTIP, these would be able to take our government and others to secret courts, where we could face massive fines, where those corporations are found to have been disadvantaged by us.

Because the conservative party is so greatly in favour of such a trade deal, then when if we leave the EU we'll likely get flavour of it.

And if we remain a trade partner in the EU, such as with Norway option, then we'll still be subject to the effects of TTIP.

If you're happy to have lower standards, what may be thought of as 'harmonisation', then expect more details, such as -

'The EU scrapped planned pesticide regulations under pressure from US officials over the controversial transatlantic trade deal TTIP, newly published documents have revealed'.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ttip-controversy-eu-drops-pesticide-laws-because-us-says-it-should-10270199.html

We're suffering from major issues with pollution in this country and I despair at the further dangerous decline in safety standards that we would likely be pushed to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've always felt that cognitive dissonance was a prerequisite for far left beliefs but few topics highlight the case better than TTIP. The absolute hysteria on this thread is hilarious.

The fundamental changes in TTIP are marginal. Multinationals already can, and do, sue the government for stupidity. Raytheon took the Home Office for £250m under the careful watch of our new prime minister.

The real reason lefties hate it is because the government would have to compensate companies if it decided to nationalise an industry in future. Personally, I can't think of a single industry that would benefit from nationalisation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've always felt that cognitive dissonance was a prerequisite for far left beliefs but few topics highlight the case better than TTIP. The absolute hysteria on this thread is hilarious.

The fundamental changes in TTIP are marginal. Multinationals already can, and do, sue the government for stupidity. Raytheon took the Home Office for £250m under the careful watch of our new prime minister.

The real reason lefties hate it is because the government would have to compensate companies if it decided to nationalise an industry in future. Personally, I can't think of a single industry that would benefit from nationalisation. "
.

You've never tried getting a gas or electric supply from uu then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've always felt that cognitive dissonance was a prerequisite for far left beliefs but few topics highlight the case better than TTIP. The absolute hysteria on this thread is hilarious.

The fundamental changes in TTIP are marginal. Multinationals already can, and do, sue the government for stupidity. Raytheon took the Home Office for £250m under the careful watch of our new prime minister.

The real reason lefties hate it is because the government would have to compensate companies if it decided to nationalise an industry in future. Personally, I can't think of a single industry that would benefit from nationalisation. .

You've never tried getting a gas or electric supply from uu then "

The energy market is a disgrace because of the ridiculous structure the government has forced upon it that prevents competition. That was a British government decision that the British government could undo.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've always felt that cognitive dissonance was a prerequisite for far left beliefs but few topics highlight the case better than TTIP. The absolute hysteria on this thread is hilarious.

The fundamental changes in TTIP are marginal. Multinationals already can, and do, sue the government for stupidity. Raytheon took the Home Office for £250m under the careful watch of our new prime minister.

The real reason lefties hate it is because the government would have to compensate companies if it decided to nationalise an industry in future. Personally, I can't think of a single industry that would benefit from nationalisation. .

You've never tried getting a gas or electric supply from uu then

The energy market is a disgrace because of the ridiculous structure the government has forced upon it that prevents competition. That was a British government decision that the British government could undo. "
.

Ahh so it's all government fault?.

You don't think that great big corporation uu had anything to do with it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've always felt that cognitive dissonance was a prerequisite for far left beliefs but few topics highlight the case better than TTIP. The absolute hysteria on this thread is hilarious.

The fundamental changes in TTIP are marginal. Multinationals already can, and do, sue the government for stupidity. Raytheon took the Home Office for £250m under the careful watch of our new prime minister.

The real reason lefties hate it is because the government would have to compensate companies if it decided to nationalise an industry in future. Personally, I can't think of a single industry that would benefit from nationalisation. .

You've never tried getting a gas or electric supply from uu then

The energy market is a disgrace because of the ridiculous structure the government has forced upon it that prevents competition. That was a British government decision that the British government could undo. .

Ahh so it's all government fault?.

You don't think that great big corporation uu had anything to do with it?"

They are doing what business do when they aren't forced to compete. Why should anyone create innovative, cheaper supplies of energy when they can't commercialise it because access to consumers is blocked by a retail oligopoly. All your innovation would be is make the big energy companies rich!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Which is why I've always said you'd be better off without government interference and just a decent open transparent regulatory body

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Which is why I've always said you'd be better off without government interference and just a decent open transparent regulatory body"

Agrees, so no need to nationalise which only replaces the problems of the private sector with the greater problems of the public sector

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Which is why I've always said you'd be better off without government interference and just a decent open transparent regulatory body

Agrees, so no need to nationalise which only replaces the problems of the private sector with the greater problems of the public sector"
.

Nationalisation was always about control.

In reality what we want it profit without greed....I think there's a middle ground somewhere in there

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top