Brexit or Britin

[Worthy4England]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The actual documents themselves are full of yet to be agreed clauses - [the things that have square brackets around them are generally each parties' drafting position] - so how can the conclusions within the article be supported? I'm not hugely shocked at the moment, but then again I've only had a quick peek.

[bobo the clown]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The actual documents themselves are full of yet to be agreed clauses - [the things that have square brackets around them are generally each parties' drafting position] - so how can the conclusions within the article be supported? I'm not hugely shocked at the moment, but then again I've only had a quick peek.

Yep. But how far off beam has it to be to not be a vey bad thing indeed ?

... and without doubt being held close to chests while the UK vote proceeds.

Not a great moment.

[Worthy4England]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The actual documents themselves are full of yet to be agreed clauses - [the things that have square brackets around them are generally each parties' drafting position] - so how can the conclusions within the article be supported? I'm not hugely shocked at the moment, but then again I've only had a quick peek.

Yep. But how far off beam has it to be to not be a vey bad thing indeed ?

... and without doubt being held close to chests while the UK vote proceeds.

Not a great moment.

There's some significantly different positions in the bits I had a scan through...

I'm sure should we leave, we'll be getting regular weekly updates on the minutiae of our global trade negotiations...the article says (for example) "as well as details of specific threats such as the US plan to end Europe’s ban on genetically modified foods."

The agreement drafting says...[ EU: The Parties recognize that their respective societal choices may differ with respect to public policy decisions affecting agriculture. In this regard, nothing in this Agreement will restrain the Parties from taking measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection, or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity that each side deems appropriate. Both Parties will seek to ensure that the effect of such measures does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade in agricultural goods between them and that the measures are not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill their legitimate objective.]

Now they look like wide apart statements to me...Just one example I looked at...

[bobo the clown]

Meanwhile the pencil biter has just posted this elsewhere..

Thank God Obama's "on our side" in all this. The prick.

"Obama's 'queue' might be getting a bit shorter after this"; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The actual documents themselves are full of yet to be agreed clauses - [the things that have square brackets around them are generally each parties' drafting position] - so how can the conclusions within the article be supported? I'm not hugely shocked at the moment, but then again I've only had a quick peek.

Yep. But how far off beam has it to be to not be a vey bad thing indeed ?

... and without doubt being held close to chests while the UK vote proceeds.

Not a great moment.

There's some significantly different positions in the bits I had a scan through...

I'm sure should we leave, we'll be getting regular weekly updates on the minutiae of our global trade negotiations...the article says (for example) "as well as details of specific threats such as the US plan to end Europe’s ban on genetically modified foods."

The agreement drafting says...[ EU: The Parties recognize that their respective societal choices may differ with respect to public policy decisions affecting agriculture. In this regard, nothing in this Agreement will restrain the Parties from taking measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection, or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity that each side deems appropriate. Both Parties will seek to ensure that the effect of such measures does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade in agricultural goods between them and that the measures are not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill their legitimate objective.]

Now they look like wide apart statements to me...Just one example I looked at...

Any inference that a State will challenge another State's rights on a matter of public policy and would seek legal redress to force trade is both bizarre and worrying (in a BWFCi sort of way).

Frankly I'm not to concerned about GM food. But do find it very odd that someone would seek that course of action ... even as a negotiating position.

Anyway, you'd have to say it's going to lead to some discussions.

[Worthy4England]

It certainly is going to lead to plenty of discussions. That's for sure.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

It'll be reet. Just send Jeremy Hunt in to negotiate on our behalf

[Hoboh]

TTIP leaked

the US position has been clear about suing governments for loss over law making has been known about for a long time.
One of the main fears is restricting the ability of the NHS to 'drop' certain US made drugs or some services, the legal bills alone would damage patient care.
The US corporations, like all the multi-nats have their fingers well and truly in certain places in the EU and are applying pressure left right and centre.
Wonder why Obummer wanted us to stay?

[Worthy4England]

TTIP leaked

the US position has been clear about suing governments for loss over law making has been known about for a long time.
One of the main fears is restricting the ability of the NHS to 'drop' certain US made drugs or some services, the legal bills alone would damage patient care.
The US corporations, like all the multi-nats have their fingers well and truly in certain places in the EU and are applying pressure left right and centre.
Wonder why Obummer wanted us to stay?

I'm sure in this age of enlightenment, you'll be able to point us to where the Agreement that was leaked allows either of those things to occur? (Genuinely - they might be in there but you could save me the time of trying to find them as you seem well versed on this agreement)

For the EU's position in this cloak and dagger affair, the headline positions are on the EU website at the link below. The "Factsheet on Pharmaceuticals" talks to the issues you raise.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ ... fm?id=1230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

TTIP leaked

the US position has been clear about suing governments for loss over law making has been known about for a long time.
One of the main fears is restricting the ability of the NHS to 'drop' certain US made drugs or some services, the legal bills alone would damage patient care.
The US corporations, like all the multi-nats have their fingers well and truly in certain places in the EU and are applying pressure left right and centre.
Wonder why Obummer wanted us to stay?

I'm sure in this age of enlightenment, you'll be able to point us to where the Agreement that was leaked allows either of those things to occur? (Genuinely - they might be in there but you could save me the time of trying to find them as you seem well versed on this agreement)

For the EU's position in this cloak and dagger affair, the headline positions are on the EU website at the link below. The "Factsheet on Pharmaceuticals" talks to the issues you raise.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ ... fm?id=1230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you implied earlier my friend, this is far from the finished deal merely a little appeaser from the EU.

Hardly likely to say anything different are they?

If there is nothing to hide in negotiations, why a thirty year ban on publishing them when concluded?

Out of the rear of a horned cow that is!

[Worthy4England]

TTIP leaked

the US position has been clear about suing governments for loss over law making has been known about for a long time.
One of the main fears is restricting the ability of the NHS to 'drop' certain US made drugs or some services, the legal bills alone would damage patient care.
The US corporations, like all the multi-nats have their fingers well and truly in certain places in the EU and are applying pressure left right and centre.
Wonder why Obummer wanted us to stay?

I'm sure in this age of enlightenment, you'll be able to point us to where the Agreement that was leaked allows either of those things to occur? (Genuinely - they might be in there but you could save me the time of trying to find them as you seem well versed on this agreement)

For the EU's position in this cloak and dagger affair, the headline positions are on the EU website at the link below. The "Factsheet on Pharmaceuticals" talks to the issues you raise.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ ... fm?id=1230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you implied earlier my friend, this is far from the finished deal merely a little appeaser from the EU.

Hardly likely to say anything different are they?

If there is nothing to hide in negotiations, why a thirty year ban on publishing them when concluded?

Out of the rear of a horned cow that is!

Well it is far from a finished deal - go look at all the drafting notes in it. They're hardly likely to say anything different than it's not finished, because it's true. If there's shitloads to hide, why publish their negotiating positions on an EU website?

There doesn't actually seem to be any links to the "30 year ban" that I can find from anywhere - but it wouldn't surprise me - our very own UK Public Records Act, as amended, has the same 30 year timeframe in it. It used to be 50 years.

The "mechanism" by which investors can sue States, is there today. ISDS - it's been around a while...The argument seems to be around whether it should go through a "special" court system to speed up claims.

[Hoboh]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... trade-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There you go, a few days after a 'lubed up Obama' shafts Dave and promises to support his Europhile tendency, Dave keeps the other end of the bargain OB made him promise.

No TTIP? bullshit, it's all in the pipeline awaiting the vote of the sheep, eyes shut unaware of the pack of wolves circling.

Interesting

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/20 ... sks-and-no" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Viva Le France

[Hoboh]

Seems like Trump isn't in favour of TTIP type agreements that sell out the many for the greed need of the few.

But Trump swept his opponents before him in the Hoosier State, clinching 53% of the votes and almost all the delegates as his strident attacks on free trade agreements and immigration appeared to resonate in a midwest state hit hard by globalisation.

[Hoboh]

TTIP, Trough Time for International Profiteers.

Love it!

[Hoboh]

Talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began in the summer of 2013 with officials in Washington and Brussels confident they could iron out any difficulties by the time American voters decide on who should succeed Barack Obama as president in November this year.

Clearly all our elected leaders were party to this, I don't think so, pushed by the Brussels Eurocrats in yes minister style whilst riding the Multi-Corp train.

There are three reasons for that. First, the main barriers to trade between the US and the EU are not traditional tariff barriers, which have been steadily whittled away in the decades since the second world war, but the differing regulatory regimes that operate on either side of the Atlantic. America and Europe have different views on everything from GM food to safety standards on cars so harmonising standards was always going to take a lot of time.

Second, the talks have involved controversial issues and have been taking place when trust in politicians and business has rarely been lower. The main driving forces behind TTIP have been multinational corporations and business lobby groups, who stand to gain from harmonised regulations. With information about the secret negotiations having to be chiselled out by groups hostile to TTIP, voters have drawn the obvious conclusion: the aim of the talks is to enrich big business even if it means playing fast and loose with environmental and health standards.

Those with so much influence and pushing 'remain' upon us!

[Lord Kangana]

The man wants to build a wall between his own country and its nearest neighbours. On balance, I think he'd struggle to spell international trade agreements. So lets not get ahead of ourselves.

[Worthy4England]

I think someone got up and put TTIP into their search engine to see what random stuff it would come back with. but missed the funniest quote

Jenkin said it would be illegal to keep pages on the Gov.uk website during the so-called purdah period in the last few weeks of the campaign. “Expect a letter before action. If we can raise the funds, expect a writ,” he said. Cameron replied: “I’d better get back to the office fast then.”

Instead of all the random quotes that you fart out in our general direction, what are the main problems with TTIP (understanding that in some places both sides have widely differing opinions still in drafting)

How will it differ should we Brexit? Will all these things that you're posting "I don't like" about, go away during a UK/US Trade Agreement negotiation? Or are you saying we should just have no trade agreements?

[Rjs37]

How will it differ should we Brexit? Will all these things that you're posting "I don't like" about, go away during a UK/US Trade Agreement negotiation? Or are you saying we should just have no trade agreements?

Obviously we should have a trade agreement. EU and US already have a trade agreement in place with agreed tariffs. I believe they're considered to be quite low tariffs too.

This is about making it a free trade agreement, but the extra regulations on the EU side make it a rather complicated arrangement. Following Brexit, if the UK rubbished a TTIP-like agreement, then there's no way that the US wouldn't agree to a similar low tariff situation to what they already have in place with the EU.

I think the bigger problem is that the UK government seem to be backing the deal, so following a Brexit I can see them agreeing to a similarly ill-thought free trade deal.

But it would be a lot less messy to agree a deal (whether free trade or not) with the US outside of the EU than inside. Any EU member can veto the TTIP deal, that will set the EU back many years, trying to see what they have to do to appease each of their members. They've already been trying to arrange some sort of deal since 1990. The UK following Brexit would be a single entity, that makes it a lot easier to deal with. I certainly don't see the US throwing their toys out of their pram and refusing to deal with us, I just don't know what deal will be on the table.

[Worthy4England]

How will it differ should we Brexit? Will all these things that you're posting "I don't like" about, go away during a UK/US Trade Agreement negotiation? Or are you saying we should just have no trade agreements?

Obviously we should have a trade agreement. EU and US already have a trade agreement in place with agreed tariffs. I believe they're considered to be quite low tariffs too.

This is about making it a free trade agreement, but the extra regulations on the EU side make it a rather complicated arrangement. Following Brexit, if the UK rubbished a TTIP-like agreement, then there's no way that the US wouldn't agree to a similar low tariff situation to what they already have in place with the EU.

I think the bigger problem is that the UK government seem to be backing the deal, so following a Brexit I can see them agreeing to a similarly ill-thought free trade deal.

But it would be a lot less messy to agree a deal (whether free trade or not) with the US outside of the EU than inside. Any EU member can veto the TTIP deal, that will set the EU back many years, trying to see what they have to do to appease each of their members. They've already been trying to arrange some sort of deal since 1990. The UK following Brexit would be a single entity, that makes it a lot easier to deal with. I certainly don't see the US throwing their toys out of their pram and refusing to deal with us, I just don't know what deal will be on the table.

So in summary - there would still need to be a deal.

It would be struck largely by unelected bureaucrats (Civil Servants largely) on behalf of the Government.
Under UK Law - the detail wouldn't be publically available for 30 years.
It would almost certainly contain ISDS type arrangements as most of the Trade Deals currently in place already do.

Which bits are particularly ill-thought out at the moment - which we would improve upon by being a single entity?

Edit: What's that bit in bold? I thought we were being rail-roaded by the faceless and unelected into this deal? Is that not so? Because that's currently a big argument for the Brexit group at the minute...(despite the fact we always have the sanction that we can leave the EU without any need for a referendum)

[Rjs37]

It would be struck largely by unelected bureaucrats (Civil Servants largely) on behalf of the Government.

Let's agree to disagree there. I feel that the UK public would have a lot more influence over a deal arranged between UK and US than EU and US. There is much less accountability at the EU level. Following Labour's mismanagement of the economy, Conservatives came back into power.

Under UK Law - the detail wouldn't be publically available for 30 years.

That's the physical documents, and they're transitioning that to 20 years. Regardless, a lot of the details of TTIP were already known and being debated upon prior to the document itself being leaked. I think this article is a pretty interesting read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... peace-leak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially the plummeting support of TTIP from the US public.

It would almost certainly contain ISDS type arrangements as most of the Trade Deals currently in place already do.

Most trade deals already contain ISDS? I've struggled to find info on which ones do and don't. I've found NAFTA (where quite a few of the cases have occurred) and the recently signed TPP agreements and also the arrangement between US and Ecuador. Interestingly, all of the winning cases I saw on Wikipedia (yeah I know), have been US companies suing the Canadian government - and Ecuador once (which ended up with a $2.4 billion penalty for Ecuador).

Which bits are particularly ill-thought out at the moment - which we would improve upon by being a single entity?

When public support for these type of trade agreements is plunging, when Clinton, Saunders and Trump have all spoken out against TPP (not sure what their views are on TTIP), it seems ill-thought to try and force through these sort of deals no? It's also asking a lot to try and align consumer and environmental standards across both EU and US.

Edit: What's that bit in bold? I thought we were being rail-roaded by the faceless and unelected into this deal? Is that not so? Because that's currently a big argument for the Brexit group at the minute...(despite the fact we always have the sanction that we can leave the EU without any need for a referendum)

Well it certainly seems to be the EU's agenda to negotiate and push for this deal, though there's certainly a lot of elected politicians who have shown their support for it too. France appear to be one of the few exceptions at the moment. Though I was wrong when I said about any EU member being able to veto the deal. This article seems to explain the situation better than I can:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/05/03/fran ... -hollande/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Worthy4England]

I'm a little confused by the responses - it's easily done. Let me start off by saying I have no notion whether the TTIP deal will be good or bad for us (I've said it before, just repeating it for clarity) - I'd be very surprised if any outers know whether it would be good or bad for us either, because - and this is fairly important - IT'S STILL IN NEGOTIATION WITH SHITLOADS OF CONFLICTING DRAFTING IN IT. Nor have I argued that it should be supported - given that it's incomplete, I don't see how I could. Similarly I don't see (for the same reasons) why Brexit campaign can point to it being particularly bad.

We could spend a week discussing your first assertion, to no end around wider party politics. Do I think the UK would have more direct control over a UK led deal, yes. Do I think it's going to be a better deal, no idea - no one in Brexit has managed to talk to what things might actually look like "out". Will it be largely negotiated by faceless unelected bureaucrats - almost certainly.

I don't get your second point at all - the cry from Brexit is that it's all secret and we don't have access to any documents - it'll all be "hidden" for 30 years....(see Hoboh's rantings for details) - I disagree, I think there's at least the same amount of detail made publically available in similar timeframes as would be the case in a UK deal. There's a website with the EU's negotiating positions on it.

The figure for ISDS suggested in this briefing document suggests there are 3,000 Trade Agreements with ISDS in them http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2 ... 153046.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 1,400 have the EU or an EU Country as a signatory. The OECD has an open consultation on the topic at the moment http://www.oecd.org/investment/internat ... onisds.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So I guess numbers vary - the point is it's not new, and there's a lot of it about.

The bit around Clinton, Saunders and Trump - doesn't actually address the question asked at all - which bits are ill thought out? If folks are going to bellyache against something surely it would be helpful to be able to point out which bits they were bellyaching against? (which is going to be difficult, given that it's not completed its drafting yet)

Last point - Of course it's on the EU Agenda to negotiate a deal - they've not made any secret of it. When it finalises in drafting, it will be voted upon. The UK will get a vote - we can vote for or against based on its merits, if we vote against and the wider vote goes for adoption, we retain the right to withdraw our membership of the EU - why would that be a problem?