The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) also known as the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) is a proposed free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. Proponents say the agreement would result in multilateral economic growth,[1] while critics say it would increase corporate power and make it more difficult for governments to regulate markets for public benefit.[2] The U.S. government considers the TTIP a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.[3] After a proposed draft was leaked, in March 2014 the European Commission launched a public consultation on a limited set of clauses.
The TTIP free trade agreement could be finalised by the end of 2014.[4][5]
So if that isn't making your flesh crawl already. Read this.
There is something rotten in the state of Europe when an unelected, unaccountable EU body can glibly inform millions of us that we no longer have the right to question its most dangerous and unpopular policies.
This is exactly what has just happened, as the European Commission has announced that it will not allow a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to challenge the secret trade talks it is holding with the US government, supposedly on our behalf.
The ruling is a slap in the face for the 230 civil society organisations from across Europe that have lined up behind the initiative, and the millions of European citizens they represent. The ECI is the only vehicle available to us to challenge the shadowy bureaucrats of the European Commission. Now even this seems to be too much scrutiny for them.
Opinion Former News
OECD proposals ‘a significant step’ towards new international tax rules
Google sets up 'right to be forgotten' form after EU ruling
NOAH welcomes release of Commission’s proposals package for revised legislation for veterinary medicines and medicated feed
Opinion Former Video
BFAWU video: Why join our trade union?
BFAWU logo
The negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have become one of the hottest political topics across Europe. TTIP is effectively a new bill of rights for multinational corporations, granting them unprecedented powers and undermining vital labour, environmental and food safety standards in the name of 'free' trade.
TTIP is also a direct threat to our democracy, as the European Commission seeks to allow companies to challenge future policies introduced anywhere in Europe that could jeopardise their bottom line. The ECI, by contrast, was a fully democratic response. And the Commission has blocked it.
There are already huge movements of opposition to TTIP in most European countries. Trade unions and global justice groups have joined forces with environmental, consumer and digital privacy campaigners to confront the common threat that the negotiations pose.
The European Commission is well aware of the strength of this resistance, as it has been forced to suspend negotiations on one of the most controversial aspects of the agreement: the new ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ powers that companies will win through TTIP to sue host states when their profits come under threat.
That mechanism has been questioned by the German and French governments, as it effectively raises transnational capital to the status of the nation state itself. The new powers are already being used elsewhere under other treaties, as in the billion-dollar challenge being brought by Philip Morris against the Australian government for loss of profits as a result of the country's public health requirement that all cigarettes be sold in plain packaging.
Under similar provisions in the Energy Charter Treaty, the Swedish energy company Vattenfall is suing Germany for €3.7 billion (£2.94 billion) over its decision to phase out nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. French company Veolia is even suing the Egyptian government for threatening its profits by raising the minimum wage. And there are countless other equally shocking examples stretching back over the past 20 years.
As always, the UK government is a major part of the problem. Leaked documents from internal EU discussions over the parallel EU-Canada trade talks (CETA) reveal that the UK is the only member state providing unconditional support for the European Commission in its desire to introduce these new powers for business, at the expense of democracy and the rule of law.
Yet just this week, the British trade union movement came out in full opposition to the introduction of all investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in EU trade deals, with a unanimous vote to stop the EU-US talks in their tracks.
Not only is TTIP predicted to cost at least one million jobs between the EU and USA, but it will also make it impossible for any future government to repeal the Health & Social Care Act and bring the NHS back into public hands.
I am one of the seven people who make up the European citizens' committee for the ECI against TTIP and CETA that the Commission has rejected. With fellow representatives from France, Germany, Finland, Romania, Luxembourg and Portugal, we were responsible for raising one million signatures in favour of the initiative within a year.
Given the massive opposition that exists to TTIP across Europe, we were confident of meeting the target well within the required time. The European Commission obviously thought the same, hence its decision to strangle the initiative at birth.
This is by no means the end of the story. We have legal advice to suggest that the European Commission is on thin ice in its attempt to prevent the ECI from going ahead, and we can take our appeal direct to the European Court of Justice in order to get the block lifted.
The fight against TTIP will continue regardless of whether we overcome the Commission's opposition to the ECI. But the Brussels bureaucrats need to be careful as to the long-term consequences of their contempt for democracy.
The European parliament elections this May saw an unprecedented surge in the number of voters rejecting the European project in its entirety. Ukip won more seats than any other UK party, the Front National topped the poll in France and some of our continent's nastiest far-right extremists now enjoy the legitimacy of EU parliamentary representation.
Jean-Claude Juncker, newly appointed as president of the European Commission, has been talking of his desire to see 'fairness and democracy' at the heart of Europe. He would do well to clean out his own stables first.
The UK doesn't share the currency Frazz and it's a member.
You also seem to be implying that America wouldn't force us all to use the dollar if they became a member.
Seriously though I think more and more people are becoming aware of this. Hope we can get out of it. There's no problem trading with the USA as it stands, I just don't think their corporations should have free reign on our public services.
Ya know... on the one hand, having a unilateral trade agreement CAN be a good thing, as instead of having to negotiate tariffs/trade agreements with England, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, etc. etc. the "EU" and the USA can negotiate one agreement.
Of course, the manner in which this is being done just feels very wrong and a bit like someone is trying to force a Gene Roddenberry world on us sooner rather than later (by this I mean TNG era... one "country" on Earth, everyone somehow gets along, no money society, etc)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Of course, the manner in which this is being done just feels very wrong and a bit like someone is trying to force a Gene Roddenberry world on us sooner rather than later (by this I mean TNG era... one "country" on Earth, everyone somehow gets along, no money society, etc)
It's more like, say, Alien or Blade Runner where megacorps run things given how it's going to mess with Government policy.
The more cynical among us might suggest it's more a case of acknowledging what really happens in writing.......
loki old fart wrote: Seems from the lack of replies no one cares, or no one understands whats at stake.
The article answers this question, the UK can throw its toys out of the pram all it wants but France and Germany don't want it so the TTIP is never going forward.
Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.
My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.
This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.
Da Boss wrote: Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.
My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.
This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.
Da Boss wrote: Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.
My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.
This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.
this is one of many reasons why I despise the EU and want Britain to leave it.
Da Boss wrote: Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.
My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.
This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.
this is one of many reasons why I despise the EU and want Britain to leave it.
Don't worry, most of us wan't the UK to leave Europe as well, you guys are nothing but a blocking force in favour of US interests instead of European ones.
Also, in case you haven't read the article, the major proponent for the TTIP is the UK government.
Da Boss wrote: Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.
My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.
This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.
this is one of many reasons why I despise the EU and want Britain to leave it.
Don't worry, most of us wan't the UK to leave Europe as well, you guys are nothing but a blocking force in favour of US interests instead of European ones.
Also, in case you haven't read the article, the major proponent for the TTIP is the UK government.
What makes you think that I agree with and support what my government is doing? "You guys"? More like "Your government. I don't like the US anymore than I like the EU. And the thing is, I actually like Europe. I just hate having a one size fits all bureaucracy imposing the laws onto countries that are vastly different in terms of culture and legal traditions.
Countries like Greece and Germany should never have been in a political union frankly.
And if you think the EU represents "European interests" you're deluded. The EU represents nothing but the interests of a corrupt bureaucratic elite.
What makes you think that I agree with and support what my government is doing? "You guys"? More like "Your government. I don't like the US anymore than I like the EU. And the thing is, I actually like Europe. I just hate having a one size fits all bureaucracy imposing the laws onto countries that are vastly different in terms of culture and legal traditions.
Countries like Greece and Germany should never have been in a political union frankly.
And if you think the EU represents "European interests" you're deluded. The EU represents nothing but the interests of a corrupt bureaucratic elite.
The "cultural and legal traditions" of the southern European countries are a joke and just serve to foster widespread corruption through all the rungs of society. I would be ecstatic if all the laws in my country were made and enforced by Germany.
Also the EU allowed my country to rise from a mostly agricultural economy and 3rd world like levels of development into a (mostly) modern nation and society in a short time frame of about 20 years (and it did the same for Greece and Spain and Italy). That "corrupt bureaucratic elite" has been the single most effective entity in fostering prosperity and peace in Europe since the fall of the Roman empire!
Is it perfect? Not by a longshot. Is there waste and corruption in it as well? Absolutely! But its still the best thing that happened in the European continent in 2000 years.
So be sure to thick that 'Yes' box when the referendum comes for the UK to leave the EU, so that the rest of the countries that actually wan't to be in this union be able to finally move towards a true political Federation.
Da Boss wrote: Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.
My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.
This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.
O.o
But, but... 'Murrica is da bestest ever!
taint so bad here...
I'm sure the US is a grand place to live, but I wouldn't choose to live there myself. I want the EU regulations to stay intact, not to be taken apart, US style regulation is great for the US, where people want it, but I do not want it here, I haven't voted for it, and I do not appreciate it being forced through to serve commercial interests.
Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.
The European Commission and Canada have unveiled the details of a new trade liberalisation agreement.
Under the deal almost all customs tariffs will be eliminated and markets for services will be opened up.
But the agreement still needs approval from the EU parliament and faces particular opposition from Germany.
Critics say the deal restricts the power of democratic governments in relation to big business.
Business benefits
It's not just maple syrup. Traded products, in both directions, range from machinery, chemicals and transport equipment to services such as insurance and communications.
The European Commission has said the deal would boost bilateral trade by 23%. And a A joint EU-Canadian study has put the combined annual economic gains at about 20bn euros although those figures were published six years ago.
However a provision included in the deal to bolster the rights of foreign investors, known as Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) could still prevent the deal being approved.
Campaigners say it gives big business too much power in relation to democratically elected governments wishing to introduce new policies.
Analysis: economics correspondent, Andrew Walker One thing could still derail the deal.
The Germans don't like the proposal that's included for a new system of tribunals, under what's knows as ISDS. If foreign investors feel they've been mistreated they can turn to these tribunals and even in some cases apply for compensation.
ISDS has actually been around for years. But recently campaigners have begun to argue that it is undemocratic because of the constraints it puts on elected governments.
For example the tobacco company Philip Morris is taking legal action against Australia over its plain packaging laws - there has been no ruling yet on this case.
Other cases have involved regulation of energy prices, disputes over patents and alleged wrongful criminal prosecution.
The German economy minister Sigmar Gabriel has said he would reject the Canada deal if the ISDS elements remain.
That has cast new doubt on whether the deal will ever come into force and it suggests an uphill struggle for other trade negotiations still being hammered out behind the scenes.
Campaigners have called the ISDS "a powerful corporate weapon to delay, weaken and kill regulation."
Nick Dearden, director for the World Development Movement says of the EU Canada deal: "If it is agreed, it will undermine the power of democratically elected governments to make decisions in the public interest".
CETA is the best thing happening in the last few years. Yes, I am extremely biased because my company, and therefore my family, vastly profit by it. It's an important step in the right direction to shift economical decision power away from individual states and back to where it belongs: companies. The more power companies hold, the better. They will always look for the best in terms of profit and guarantee a stable and strong economy. States / individual governments do not know anything about how economy works.
The biggest problem is that a government has to satisfy its potential voters and most voters have absolutely no idea of economics. At all.
CETA is awesome. Our entire little family and our friends have been dancing, throwing flowers around in joy. And - this isn't about Canada. Got a problem with someone in the US / EU? Sue them remotely via a Canadian subsidary.
...and Sigmar Gabriel is a stupid leftist anyway with noone caring about what he says.
Sigvatr wrote: CETA is the best thing happening in the last few years. Yes, I am extremely biased because my company, and therefore my family, vastly profit by it. It's an important step in the right direction to shift economical decision power away from individual states and back to where it belongs: companies. The more power companies hold, the better. They will always look for the best in terms of profit and guarantee a stable and strong economy. States / individual governments do not know anything about how economy works.
The biggest problem is that a government has to satisfy its potential voters and most voters have absolutely no idea of economics. At all.
CETA is awesome. Our entire little family and our friends have been dancing, throwing flowers around in joy. And - this isn't about Canada. Got a problem with someone in the US / EU? Sue them remotely via a Canadian subsidiary.
...and Sigmar Gabriel is a stupid leftist anyway with noone caring about what he says.
Yeah... sorry, I don't want companies to have the power to over rule regulations. And certainly don't want them to have more power then elected governments. I like that you actually admit that it directly benefits you, but do you know how many people will get shafted for "you".
This treaty can go to hell.
Private companies are beholden only to making money and they often trample over everyone else to get it. I don't want a government being sued simply because it isn't willing to throw its populace under the bus for someone else's profit.
I use Poe's law when someone says something I find insane enough that I cannot tell if they are joking. So yeah basically I am since I obviously disagree with him. However, since extremism is subjective everyone else does as well.
With CETA being there to stay, TTIP is just at your doorstep.
You are crowing about getting more money when there are millions in the EU about to suffer for this. How many healthcare systems are going to suffer because private hospital groups in the US decide they can't compete with a healthcare system that doesn't screw people? This isn't about individuals, this isn't about a single country, it's about the entire EU. Millions of people will suffer if this comes into effect. Companies should not be allowed the power to sue a government because it looks after its populace. Companies will not act purely in the interest of others because it's not in their interest to do so. There are isolated incidents of a company looking after its workers or others when it didn't have to but those are either decades ago or isolated incidents.
Wow, what an awful perspective. I think we can all find numerous examples of companies trampling over individual rights, the common good and everything in between in pursuit of a quick buck.
Sigvatr, I couldn't be more opposed to your viewpoints.
Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.
But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.
What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.
That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.
Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.
But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.
What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.
That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.
This. ^
I'd like to keep British Parliamentary democracy, as crap and unfit for purpose as it is.
Europe, you can keep your bureaucrats' paradise Superstate.
As for trade...doesn't Britain import more from Europe than we export to Europe? If we were to leave, it'd be in continental Europe's best interests to maintain a good trade relationship.
Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.
But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.
What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.
That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.
This. ^
I'd like to keep British Parliamentary democracy, as crap and unfit for purpose as it is.
Europe, you can keep your bureaucrats' paradise Superstate.
As for trade...doesn't Britain import more from Europe than we export to Europe? If we were to leave, it'd be in continental Europe's best interests to maintain a good trade relationship.
The UK isn't required to be a part of the EU to maintain good trade relations and even import / export tariff exemptions. So kindly write your parliamentary representatives and let them know that you want out of the EU, this way we can all move forward without you guys trying to push American interests on the rest of us.
Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.
But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.
What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.
That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.
I think a federal solution is perfectly workable without trampling all over individual states traditions, it just requires certain things to be centralised and a fairly drastic overhaul of the structures in place.
My frustration with the UK comes primarily from the idiocy and bias in the UK media against the EU, which infects public discourse in Ireland since most of our tabloid newspapers are thinly disguised reskins of your tabloids. The shrill wailing of the eurosceptics is heard here, and pushes opinion towards euroscepticism, despite the fact that small nations like Ireland, generally, do well out of the EU.
On another level, British refusal to integrate has held us back when we would have liked to. For example, the british refusal to take part in the Schengen area reforms means that we can't take part either, as you guys are the most common point of travel and it would interfere with our own travel agreements with you. So your intransigence in that regard has actually negatively impacted my life, as I have to carry my passport with me around Europe instead of a nice convenient ID card. And it is an example of British blocking having an effect outside of the UK against the wishes of the populace of that country.
I could go on, but suffice it to say I am pretty frustrated with the situation, and reckon if you guys want out, get out. Otherwise, start co-operating and being constructive, rather than obstructive.
The EU does seem to annoy me quite a bit, some of the policies they try and force onto other nations is a joke.
Take transport, sports cars are a hobby of mine, I like to work on them myself, upgrade them and drive briskly (when its safe to do so).
However the powers of EU would love nothing more than to stop joe public working on their cars, instead you have to take it to a main dealer and pay through the nose, not put anything on your car that isnt OEM and worst of all fit a black box so the fuzz know where you are what your doing and at what speed!!
Its pretty much a case of France and Brussels saying Jump and everyone else saying how high, the irony is that a French chap 200 years ago tried the same and yet everyone was rather against that
Da Boss wrote: God forbid you might have to obey the speed limit, how unreasonable.
Its not just that though, its the fact all the information is on hand, so your pretty much being monitored at all times. Like I said I do travel quickly when it is safe to do so, I dislike computers taking away common sense.
I think a federal solution is perfectly workable without trampling all over individual states traditions, it just requires certain things to be centralised and a fairly drastic overhaul of the structures in place.
But this is the thing, there's protecting 'traditions', and protecting 'sovereignty'. The ability to maintain an independent control of your borders, currency, taxation, right to make laws, and so on. Protecting the former is not protecting the latter.
As things stand, Brussels regularly makes moves every five to ten years to usurp that little bit of extra authority from governments, and re-appropriate that power to themselves. The EU was originally meant to be a trade institution, an economic trade zone. It was NOT proposed to the British public as an alternative to Government.
You say that a federal solution is perfectly workable, and I agree, because it works in the US. But the issue is not whether a federal state is impossible, the issue is that nobody was asked if they wanted one.
My frustration with the UK comes primarily from the idiocy and bias in the UK media against the EU, which infects public discourse in Ireland since most of our tabloid newspapers are thinly disguised reskins of your tabloids. The shrill wailing of the eurosceptics is heard here, and pushes opinion towards euroscepticism, despite the fact that small nations like Ireland, generally, do well out of the EU.
Does receiving benefit from something mean you are obligated to like it? I mean, seriously, if you tell me that I personally would be £5000 a year better off if America takes control of Britain, I still wouldn't have necessarily said it was a good thing or that I wanted it to happen.
On another level, British refusal to integrate has held us back when we would have liked to. For example, the british refusal to take part in the Schengen area reforms means that we can't take part either, as you guys are the most common point of travel and it would interfere with our own travel agreements with you. So your intransigence in that regard has actually negatively impacted my life, as I have to carry my passport with me around Europe instead of a nice convenient ID card. And it is an example of British blocking having an effect outside of the UK against the wishes of the populace of that country.
I can understand your personal annoyance about the necessity of carrying passports in a foreign country, paperwork is annoying. That said, I'm not really sure that Irish travelling rights should overrule the sovereign right of a different country with a population thirteen times the size to determine their border control policy.
I could go on, but suffice it to say I am pretty frustrated with the situation, and reckon if you guys want out, get out. Otherwise, start co-operating and being constructive, rather than obstructive.
We don't want out. We want what we signed up for. A free trade zone, and a small amount of judicial co-operation. Not to be subsumed into a new undemocratic, unaccountable superpower. Is that really so bad?
If you come to an agreement with your neighbour about your kids sharing lawn space, and then over the next few years receive progressive letters where he claims the right of his other neighbours to also use your lawn space, his right to garden your lawn space, his ownership of your lawn space, and finally his ownership of you and your kid, it's not really too suspect when you turn around, and go, 'What?'The first two are reasonable/low key enough that you accede, but then they start pushing on the following ones, and you have to either turn around and say, 'Please stick to our original agreement'.
If Europe's response is, 'Either we own your lawn space, or we cancel the entire agreement', then so be it. But we'd much rather just have what we started with, because the reason we agreed it was because it worked for everyone. We just don't want the add-on packages.
You are, from my perspective, twisting the argument. You make out that the transition to a more federal europe is some how dishonest.
In reality, the two points of view were both there at the start and are still there now.
As to your point on travelling rights, I hope you'll admit the population argument is a bit of a red herring. I certainly respect britain's right to decide how it runs it's borders, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed about it .
I find your lawn analogy pretty specious I've got to say. However, I find most British arguments against the EU to be kind of hysterical so perhaps my strong pre-existing bias is coloring my perspective, so I will come back and look again when I feel less grumpy
I mean, I think this trade treaty is exactly the sort of thing I'd like those eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss over and block, but instead it seems to fit snugly with british interests. More Europe when it suits us, less when it is politically convenient is how it appears to me.
Which is of course fine and pragmatic, until you get the point that we are fast approaching, where your neighbours have become frustrated with you to the point that they hope you'll just finally decide to pack it in.
Da Boss wrote: You are, from my perspective, twisting the argument. You make out that the transition to a more federal europe is some how dishonest.
In reality, the two points of view were both there at the start and are still there now.
Really? If so, I'd be obliged if you could point out in the original agreement forming the EU, or in the document of Britain's joining, where we submitted to joining a federal institution. If you can, I'll gladly concede the point, but I don't believe its the case.
As to your point on travelling rights, I hope you'll admit the population argument is a bit of a red herring. I certainly respect britain's right to decide how it runs it's borders, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed about it .
The population of the respective countries could have become tangential depending on how the discussion proceeds on this point, so I thought I'd slip it in at the start.
To generalise a bit, relations between countries always impact upon other unrelated countries. Relations between the Soviet Union and America impacted upon affairs between most states in most of the world (if you were pro-America, you were anti-Soviet, and vice versa). Alternatively, our trade with China in low cost goods affects our need to trade with India or South Korea for low cost goods. The fact at the end of the day though, is that those relations are between those two other powers, and whilst you're certainly entitled to complain about the impact it has on you, your opinion has nothing to do with their debates/issues, and will never be taken into account by them. And that applies for all negotiations to which you are not a part, and always will do.
To show where I was linking the population, sometimes a nation is large and powerful enough to try and force its way into negotiations (think Germany in Morocco). But Ireland does not have the size or status required in order to necessitate that sort of consideration by other powers.
I find your lawn analogy pretty specious I've got to say. However, I find most British arguments against the EU to be kind of hysterical so perhaps my strong pre-existing bias is coloring my perspective, so I will come back and look again when I feel less grumpy
Fair enough.
More Europe when it suits us, less when it is politically convenient is how it appears to me.
Is that surprising? I mean, we joined the EU in the first place, so we're clearly not anti-EU with regards to specific free-trade concepts. We just object to what it's become, and where it's going.
Which is of course fine and pragmatic, until you get the point that we are fast approaching, where your neighbours have become frustrated with you to the point that they hope you'll just finally decide to pack it in.
The funny thing is that nobody actually wants us to leave. The Germans want to keep up as one of the strongest economies (as they'll end up bankrolling everything if we go). The French need us as a counterbalance to stop Germany dominating the EU. And more or less everyone accepts that losing the City of London would result in a serious blow to their military capacity, high tech sector, financial capabilities, and political clout. We're joint top partners in the EU. The only ones who can rival us at this stage of the game, quite frankly, are Germany. If we leave, it could precipitate the entire EU economy starting to crumble like a house of cards.
So the odds are, they'll give us what we want, i.e. we'll keep shovelling spadefuls of money into the gaping maw of Brussels whilst retaining our sovereignty, and everyone will be happy.
Well, maybe not the Eastern Europeans who have to put up with a revised Schengen agreement getting in the way of getting over here for work, but everyone else will be alright.
Da Boss wrote: God forbid you might have to obey the speed limit, how unreasonable.
I find it mildly ironic that you'd say that... But being from Germany, and my having lived there for a period of time give me a better idea where you're coming from. (I say ironic because you do have the Autobahn, which is roughly 60% "speed free" zones)
I see the argument being made that people who want to modify/work on their cars being "forced" into putting what is basically a Lojack system into their vehicles.
But, let's take this line of reasoning in a different direction a bit... Let's say that I own a "fast" car, but I want to make it "faster" so that, on Saturday/Sunday, when I take it out to Nurburgring, or Silverstone, or the Local Track (wherever that may be) and race it. Why should I be forced to put some monitoring equipment in my vehicle? Again, using my experience of Germany, I know that being pulled over by the Polizei is almost none due to the safety concerns for the officers, but that there are quite a few permanent cameras, as well as the temporary speed trap cameras placed around at various points of the road system; So I am very reluctant/wary of speeding in an area with a speed limit sign.
Frankly, I'd welcome everyone having the same roadway laws and systems in place... Personally, I'm in favor of EVERYONE in the EU getting the German treatment in regards to Autobahn/ "interstate" roadways, however some places are speed averse (based on watching Top Gear, Switzerland is notoriously "slow" as if they are deathly afraid of speed), so it'd be a tough fight. Plus, other countries that either don't have the funds, or just don't take care of roads the same way as Germany would have to adjust their ways, etc.
Frankly, I'd welcome everyone having the same roadway laws and systems in place... Personally, I'm in favor of EVERYONE in the EU getting the German treatment in regards to Autobahn/ "interstate" roadways, however some places are speed averse (based on watching Top Gear, Switzerland is notoriously "slow" as if they are deathly afraid of speed), so it'd be a tough fight. Plus, other countries that either don't have the funds, or just don't take care of roads the same way as Germany would have to adjust their ways, etc.
Daston wrote: Like I said I do travel quickly when it is safe to do so, I dislike computers taking away common sense.
Why can't I play with dynamite when it's perfectly safe, then?
Your comparison of dynamite to a car is terrifyingly ignorant of things mechanical. Thats ok Mr. Nanny State. The unelected Brussels government is there to help. Now pick up that can citizen, but fill out this can picking up permission slip first.
Daston wrote: Like I said I do travel quickly when it is safe to do so, I dislike computers taking away common sense.
Why can't I play with dynamite when it's perfectly safe, then?
Your comparison of dynamite to a car is terrifyingly ignorant of things mechanical. Thats ok Mr. Nanny State. The unelected Brussels government is there to help. Now pick up that can citizen, but fill out this can picking up permission slip first.
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
You'll also note that I'm not sat calling the US a fascist, every-man-for-himself hellhole, so I'd thank you to show some courtesy as well.
Soladrin wrote: So remind me again, why did we invent the European Union?
Mostly to prevent a unified Germany from growing too powerful and dominating Europe (which Germany did anyways), and of course to make sure Germany doesn't start giving funny looks to France again. (so far Germany has denied having any plans to steal Alsace-Lorraine, so maybe it works?)
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
You'll also note that I'm not sat calling the US a fascist, every-man-for-himself hellhole, so I'd thank you to show some courtesy as well.
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Is water and sunlight man-made all of a sudden?
EDIT: You're honestly arguing that telling people to obey speed limits is "Orwellian"?
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Considering that people that live in the EU are on average, happier, healthier, live longer lives, earn more money, are better educated, etc than those that live in the US, I think that I prefer to live over here than over there.
Also "Orwellian nightmare"? From a guy that lives in the US with all the illegal surveillance scandals that have come to light in the recent past? With the killing your own citizens without a fair trial and secret jails where people are imprisoned without any formal accusation and all that other stuff you guys got going there? That is a whooper right there!
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Both water and oxygen are regulated. Take a look at the laws on storing and transporting oxygen cylinders, the laws regarding medical grade oxygen, even oxygen used in industrial processes. Drinking water is generally regulated, as is waste water, water used in industrial processes, etc.
Pretty much everything is regulated, either directly or under the umbrella of something else.
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Is water and sunlight man-made all of a sudden?
EDIT: You're honestly arguing that telling people to obey speed limits is "Orwellian"?
No I'm arguing that mandating they go back to the OEM is stupid-not Orwellian, but more Kafkaesque crony capitalism.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Considering that people that live in the EU are on average, happier, healthier, live longer lives, earn more money, are better educated, etc than those that live in the US, I think that I prefer to live over here than over there.
Proof please.
How many countries has Germany had to bail out in the EU? How many riots in Sweden and France? What's Spain's unemployment again? Is it true Leichtenstein is secretly doping the water with fluoride to gain total EU control?
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Both water and oxygen are regulated. Take a look at the laws on storing and transporting oxygen cylinders, the laws regarding medical grade oxygen, even oxygen used in industrial processes. Drinking water is generally regulated, as is waste water, water used in industrial processes, etc.
Pretty much everything is regulated, either directly or under the umbrella of something else.
Respond to the argument instead of going all ad hominem on me. There's a reason speed limits exist, just as there's a reason laws governing the use of dynamite exist. We don't get to ignore the law just because we feel we know better.
When used properly, dynamite goes BOOM. Under British Common Law, explosives are a strict liability standard.
When used properly, a vehicle gets you safely from one place to another, preferably in a cool or at least humorous fashion.
When used incorrectly, dynamite kills people.
When used incorrectly, vehicles kill people.
There's a reason both are regulated, even if it is to differing extents.
When used incorrectly oxygen and water can both kill you. Should that be regulated as well? How about sunlight?
What kind of Orwellian nightmare do you want to live in?
Is water and sunlight man-made all of a sudden?
EDIT: You're honestly arguing that telling people to obey speed limits is "Orwellian"?
No I'm arguing that mandating they go back to the OEM is stupid-not Orwellian, but more Kafkaesque crony capitalism.
You started arguing against me when I said speed limits exist for a reason. I haven't even mentioned the OEM thingie, so no, you're not.
Frazzled wrote: Nope, I jumped in when you compared cars to dynamite.
Yes, in the context that, just as there exists limitations on how you're allowed to use dynamite, there exists limits to what you're allowed to do with your car.
Also, I just realized that I'm only assuming that "liking to drive fast when safe" means ignoring speed limits when one feels like it, which is obviously a stupid assumption. Derp.
Brennonjw wrote: While it's a step in the right direction to world-wide free trade. the execution of the thing is so shoddily done. good intention, gakky execution
Giving companies that much power is never a step in the right direction.
@ Frazz
How many European tent cities ?.
How often do you hear of people been shot by gangs in Europe. It has happened, but not often.
Brennonjw wrote: While it's a step in the right direction to world-wide free trade. the execution of the thing is so shoddily done. good intention, gakky execution
Giving companies that much power is never a step in the right direction. @ Frazz How many European tent cities ?. How often do you hear of people been shot by gangs in Europe. It has happened, but not often.
How many American gypsies? How many religious based riots in the US?
Agreed on the giving companies power thing. This is the opposite of what you want to do.
I had a post about that suspected Latvian murderer but I closed my window and lost it like a pro.
Basically I feel this is going to be another thing that leads the UK out of the EU with UKIP using it to stoke their support. Really, really, really need to get some decent reforms going in the EU.
I don't want to live in a country dominated by multinational corporations that sit gloriously on the corpse of our NHS.
Businesses that speak out for Britain's EU membership will be punished, vows John Redwood
Leading Tory eurosceptic says companies who publicly back staying in EU will pay 'very dear economic and financial price", with executives potentially losing their jobs
John Redwood has vowed to punish businesses who speak out in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union.
Mr Redwood, one the most senior Tory Eurosceptics, said companies who did not stay silent on the country's EU membership would pay a "very dear economic and financial price".
Chief executives who decide to take a corporate position on the issue could lose their jobs while those campaigning against membership would ensure there were financial consequences, Mr Redwood warned.
The former Welsh secretary demanded firms "keep out" of the debate and "beware" not to "meddle in politics".
Mr Redwood told a fringe event about Britain's place in the EU that "the only answer for all concerned is for big business to keep out and not express a corporate view".
He added: "If they don't understand that now they will find those of us organising the 'get out' campaign will then make life difficult for them by making sure that their customers, their employees and their shareholders who disagree with them - and there will be a lot who disagree with them - will be expressing their views very forcefully and will be destablising their corporate governance.
"This is absolutely crucial that these people get this. That it will be deeply disruptive to their businesses, and maybe even to their own tenure of their jobs, if a chief executive with a handful of shares thinks he can put the voice of a multi-national corporation behind a highly intense political argument in one country in which they operate.
"It would be extremely foolish and we must make sure they have to pay a very dear economic and financial price were they to try that ill-judged thing."
The controversial intervention echoes similar remarks by Jim Sillars, former deputy leader of the SNP, about a "day of reckoning" for Scottish businesses who spoke out against independence before the referendum.
Mr Sillars faced a backlash after suggesting just days before the vote that companies like BP and Scottish banks would be punished with tough economic measures after independence because they expressed concerns about the impact on their businesses.
Mr Redwood said one business leader who spoke out about the impact of Scottish independence was now struggling to bring together a workforce divide by the referendum and the company's decision to speak out.
Mr Redwood, Wokingham MP and former shadow trade and industry secretary, also said that big business had been "completely wrong" on Europe in the past and blamed their advice on helping put the Conservatives out of office for more than a decade.
"It was their bad advice and judgement that took this country into the Exchange Rate Mechanism [ERM] and we, Conservatives, should be particularly angry about that. There were very few of us who spoke against it before we went in.
"We not only destroyed our country's economy for a long time and did great damage to our national interest - the most important thing - but it actually destroyed our party's chances of ever winning a general election between then and now.
"Lets hope we can discover in 2015 we can now win a general election. But be in no doubt, ladies and gentlemen. It was the pledge to the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the economic damage that did which took us out of office in 1997 and has kept us out of office ever since."
He added that big business was also "completely wrong on the euro" and questioned why no companies had publicly apologised on television for suggesting joining Europe's single currency.
Medium of Death wrote: I had a post about that suspected Latvian murderer but I closed my window and lost it like a pro.
Basically I feel this is going to be another thing that leads the UK out of the EU with UKIP using it to stoke their support. Really, really, really need to get some decent reforms going in the EU.
I don't want to live in a country dominated by multinational corporations that sit gloriously on the corpse of our NHS.
And again, its your government that is pushing for the TTIP. If the UK leaves the EU, the TTIP will be implemented in the UK much, much faster than it will ever be in the EU.
Medium of Death wrote: I had a post about that suspected Latvian murderer but I closed my window and lost it like a pro.
Basically I feel this is going to be another thing that leads the UK out of the EU with UKIP using it to stoke their support. Really, really, really need to get some decent reforms going in the EU.
I don't want to live in a country dominated by multinational corporations that sit gloriously on the corpse of our NHS.
Businesses that speak out for Britain's EU membership will be punished, vows John Redwood
Leading Tory eurosceptic says companies who publicly back staying in EU will pay 'very dear economic and financial price", with executives potentially losing their jobs
John Redwood has vowed to punish businesses who speak out in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union.
Mr Redwood, one the most senior Tory Eurosceptics, said companies who did not stay silent on the country's EU membership would pay a "very dear economic and financial price".
Chief executives who decide to take a corporate position on the issue could lose their jobs while those campaigning against membership would ensure there were financial consequences, Mr Redwood warned.
The former Welsh secretary demanded firms "keep out" of the debate and "beware" not to "meddle in politics".
Mr Redwood told a fringe event about Britain's place in the EU that "the only answer for all concerned is for big business to keep out and not express a corporate view".
He added: "If they don't understand that now they will find those of us organising the 'get out' campaign will then make life difficult for them by making sure that their customers, their employees and their shareholders who disagree with them - and there will be a lot who disagree with them - will be expressing their views very forcefully and will be destablising their corporate governance.
"This is absolutely crucial that these people get this. That it will be deeply disruptive to their businesses, and maybe even to their own tenure of their jobs, if a chief executive with a handful of shares thinks he can put the voice of a multi-national corporation behind a highly intense political argument in one country in which they operate.
"It would be extremely foolish and we must make sure they have to pay a very dear economic and financial price were they to try that ill-judged thing."
The controversial intervention echoes similar remarks by Jim Sillars, former deputy leader of the SNP, about a "day of reckoning" for Scottish businesses who spoke out against independence before the referendum.
Mr Sillars faced a backlash after suggesting just days before the vote that companies like BP and Scottish banks would be punished with tough economic measures after independence because they expressed concerns about the impact on their businesses.
Mr Redwood said one business leader who spoke out about the impact of Scottish independence was now struggling to bring together a workforce divide by the referendum and the company's decision to speak out.
Mr Redwood, Wokingham MP and former shadow trade and industry secretary, also said that big business had been "completely wrong" on Europe in the past and blamed their advice on helping put the Conservatives out of office for more than a decade.
"It was their bad advice and judgement that took this country into the Exchange Rate Mechanism [ERM] and we, Conservatives, should be particularly angry about that. There were very few of us who spoke against it before we went in.
"We not only destroyed our country's economy for a long time and did great damage to our national interest - the most important thing - but it actually destroyed our party's chances of ever winning a general election between then and now.
"Lets hope we can discover in 2015 we can now win a general election. But be in no doubt, ladies and gentlemen. It was the pledge to the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the economic damage that did which took us out of office in 1997 and has kept us out of office ever since."
He added that big business was also "completely wrong on the euro" and questioned why no companies had publicly apologised on television for suggesting joining Europe's single currency.
Medium of Death wrote: I had a post about that suspected Latvian murderer but I closed my window and lost it like a pro.
Basically I feel this is going to be another thing that leads the UK out of the EU with UKIP using it to stoke their support. Really, really, really need to get some decent reforms going in the EU.
I don't want to live in a country dominated by multinational corporations that sit gloriously on the corpse of our NHS.
And again, its your government that is pushing for the TTIP. If the UK leaves the EU, the TTIP will be implemented in the UK much, much faster than it will ever be in the EU.
Medium of Death wrote: I had a post about that suspected Latvian murderer but I closed my window and lost it like a pro.
Basically I feel this is going to be another thing that leads the UK out of the EU with UKIP using it to stoke their support. Really, really, really need to get some decent reforms going in the EU.
I don't want to live in a country dominated by multinational corporations that sit gloriously on the corpse of our NHS.
And again, its your government that is pushing for the TTIP. If the UK leaves the EU, the TTIP will be implemented in the UK much, much faster than it will ever be in the EU.
That's my point?
I misread your post then. It reads like you were saying that the UK wants to leave the EU because there is a chance that the TTIP might be implemented... My bad.
Basically there's been a murder of a 14 year old girl in London. The main suspect is a Latvian with a previous conviction for murder and an arrest, with no charge, for indecent assault against a 14 year old girl. I'm wagering that this will be spun into another anti-EU point by UKIP/Conservative and the rag press.
I do think the EU is in need of reforms but would like to stay part of it. Criminals with convictions for murder, rape or any other sexual/violent crime have no business being able to travel freely within the EU.
There are rising concerns in Europe over negotiations to liberalise trade with the United States.
The project, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, aims to remove a wide range of barriers to bilateral commerce.
Opponents are planning demonstrations and protests across Europe on Saturday, with large numbers of events in Germany, France, Spain and Italy,
In Britain, events are planned in at least 15 cities and towns.
One campaigner involved in planning the day of action said she expected at least 400 local actions in about 24 European countries.
The EU and the US launched the negotiations last year and the aim is to stimulate more trade and investment, and, in the process, to produce more economic growth and employment.
It has proved to be extremely controversial.
Food safety
One aim of the negotiations is to reduce the costs to business of complying with regulations. A firm in, say Europe, that wants to export to the US often has to comply with two sets of rules.
Critics say the result of this would be lower standards of protection for workers, consumers and the environment. Food safety is a particular concern among European opponents of the negotiations.
In the EU, campaigners say that consumers could be faced with more genetically modified food, hormone treated beef and chicken meat that has been rinsed with chlorine.
Another major concern is the provisions under discussion to enable foreign investors - for example American firms investing in the EU - to sue a host government in some circumstances if they are hit by a change in policy.
That turned out to be so controversial that the European Commission decided to hold a public consultation. There were 150,000 responses which the Commission is still analysing.
The conduct of the negotiations is also contentious. Campaigners say they are secretive and undemocratic. They also dispute TTIP advocates' claims about the economic benefits.
The European Commission rejects these criticisms. It insists that standards will be maintained and that the negotiations are accountable and transparent.
Analysis: Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst
The UK government has called a meeting with environmental groups on Monday to quell their opposition to TTIP.
The groups are worried that the plan would allow American industry too much influence over the setting of standards for improved efficiency of goods.
The environmentalists are also disturbed by plans for a dispute settlement procedure. They say it could be used by multi-national corporations to block moves to protect the environment.
The government meeting - at the Foreign Office - has been called by the climate change minister Amber Rudd.
She will say that removing trade barriers to green goods and services, like solar panels, will benefit the environment by helping reduce costs and encouraging innovation. She says she looks forward to hearing the groups' views.
Tom Burke from the environmental organisation body e3g will tell her that the deal will be unacceptable unless it guarantees that the highest possible standards will always apply.
In the EU, campaigners say that consumers could be faced with more genetically modified food, hormone treated beef and chicken meat that has been rinsed with chlorine.
- Campaigners, your go-to source for reliable information
TTIP is going to happen, whether people like it or not. Time's on our side. It's time the power goes back to where it belongs.
Sigvatr wrote: In the EU, campaigners say that consumers could be faced with more genetically modified food, hormone treated beef and chicken meat that has been rinsed with chlorine.
- Campaigners, your go-to source for reliable information
TTIP is going to happen, whether people like it or not. Time's on our side. It's time the power goes back to where it belongs.
"Whether people like it or not"
Good to see you're on board with the democratic process there, Sigvatr.
I'm going to see if I can join any of these protests.
TTIP has the potential to split the United Kingdom. For some strange reason, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that prominent Conservative MPs have links to US healthcare companies
the conservatives have not made the UK's health service exempt from TTIP provision. Because the NHS is part privatized in England (as opposed to state monopolies in other EU countries) American health companies would be able to snap up chunks of the NHS ...
What has this to do with Scotland. Well, the Scottish NHS is devolved to the Scottish parliament, and control lies in Edinburgh. But, with Scotland having voted to be a region of the UK, then the Scottish NHS will be fair game as well, something, which will be highly unpopular with many, especially as they enjoy free prescription charges as it is...
Sigvatr wrote: Democracy is good and well, but I don't see the point of having a "vote" on a thing most people do not understand. Or want to, for that matter.
And hey, I am biased as hell on this one.
Yeah we know. You've got yours. That's all that really matters right?
Sigvatr wrote: Democracy is good and well, but I don't see the point of having a "vote" on a thing most people do not understand. Or want to, for that matter.
And hey, I am biased as hell on this one.
Yeah we know. You've got yours. That's all that really matters right?
No, it's a good thing for everyone. Or, rather, a huge part of everyone. TTIP forces countries to get closer to companies again instead of pretending to not like them in public. A lot of political parties, especially German ones, want to use companies as a scapegoat for pretty much everything while at the same time, they are well aware of them being the one institution that actually holds everything together. With TTIP in place, they better double-check their attitude since power is shifted back where it belongs.
A good example for the aforementioned problem has been the introduction of minimum wages in Germany. Which isn't a bad idea at all. German politicians, however, thought that it was a genius idea to do their own thing and openly refuse the economy's offer to get together and find a compromise. Minimum wages were introduced and everyone was like "Yeah! Minimum wages! That's awesome and fair for everyone!". You don't bite the hand that feeds you. In return, at a lot of places and as an answer to this, people were simply fired and any bonus payments have been removed resulting in people now, in some places, gaining LESS than before. And what happens now? The very same politicians are now crawling back and want to strike deals. And those deals will be better for the economy's side.
Politics need to realize that they need to cooperate with the economy or else any attempt is doomed to fail. TTIP is a very important step in giving the economy the power back and forces politicians to wake up.
No, it's a good thing for everyone. Or, rather, a huge part of everyone. TTIP forces countries to get closer to companies again instead of pretending to not like them in public. A lot of political parties, especially German ones, want to use companies as a scapegoat for pretty much everything while at the same time, they are well aware of them being the one institution that actually holds everything together. With TTIP in place, they better double-check their attitude since power is shifted back where it belongs.
A good example for the aforementioned problem has been the introduction of minimum wages in Germany. Which isn't a bad idea at all. German politicians, however, thought that it was a genius idea to do their own thing and openly refuse the economy's offer to get together and find a compromise. Minimum wages were introduced and everyone was like "Yeah! Minimum wages! That's awesome and fair for everyone!". You don't bite the hand that feeds you. In return, at a lot of places and as an answer to this, people were simply fired and any bonus payments have been removed resulting in people now, in some places, gaining LESS than before. And what happens now? The very same politicians are now crawling back and want to strike deals. And those deals will be better for the economy's side.
Politics need to realize that they need to cooperate with the economy or else any attempt is doomed to fail. TTIP is a very important step in giving the economy the power back and forces politicians to wake up.
I disagree with you quite a bit here.... Sure, that's how things may have gone in Germany/Europe, but if you want to see an example of corporations/ the "economy" having too much power over government, just look at the US. When companies both large and small can change policies at the mere threat of something negative happening, that is generally bad.
Of course, this CAN sometimes be a good thing. For instance, look at Magpul and Colorado. Ruger USA and Maryland, Springfield Armories and Massachusetts, etc.
whembly wrote: I'm confused... why would TTIP threaten European power / democracy?
Because, amongst other things, the TTIP wants to give the corporations the right to sue governments if any government decision impacts their profits.
But like it was stated several times, both the French and the German governments are against it so the chances of it ever being approved are slim and none, respectively.
whembly wrote: I'm confused... why would TTIP threaten European power / democracy?
Because, amongst other things, the TTIP wants to give the corporations the right to sue governments if any government decision impacts their profits.
But like it was stated several times, both the French and the German governments are against it so the chances of it ever being approved are slim and none, respectively.
So... wait... companies can't sue "the people" (ie, the government?)
whembly wrote: I'm confused... why would TTIP threaten European power / democracy?
Because, amongst other things, the TTIP wants to give the corporations the right to sue governments if any government decision impacts their profits.
But like it was stated several times, both the French and the German governments are against it so the chances of it ever being approved are slim and none, respectively.
So... wait... companies can't sue "the people" (ie, the government?)
O.o
Well... that's different.
No, companies sue governments in Europe all the time already, what the TTIP proposes is an broadening of the conditions in which the companies can sue the government.
For example, if the TTIP is passed and a country passes a new law lowering the maximum emission values of car exhausts, the car makers could sue the government because they would have lower profits due to the costs of implementing the new law. The same thing for pharmaceutical companies with new drug regulations, food companies if some additive or genetic modification was banned, that sort of thing.
And not only that but these lawsuits would not be conducted in American or European courts of law, but in special "private" courts presided over by panels of international corporate lawyers that would exist outside any type of jurisdiction and would be completely unaccountable to anyone...
No, companies sue governments in Europe all the time already, what the TTIP proposes is an broadening of the conditions in which the companies can sue the government.
For example, if the TTIP is passed and a country passes a new law lowering the maximum emission values of car exhausts, the car makers could sue the government because they would have lower profits due to the costs of implementing the new law. The same thing for pharmaceutical companies with new drug regulations, food companies if some additive or genetic modification was banned, that sort of thing.
And not only that but these lawsuits would not be conducted in American or European courts of law, but in special "private" courts presided over by panels of international corporate lawyers that would exist outside any type of jurisdiction and would be completely unaccountable to anyone...
Anyone else getting a real strong Shadowrun vibe from this proposed law?
whembly wrote: I'm confused... why would TTIP threaten European power / democracy?
To give an example, there are things present in certain foodstuffs on sale in America, that are banned in the EU: GM food, hormones, certain ingredients etc etc
whembly wrote: I'm confused... why would TTIP threaten European power / democracy?
Europeans are terribly afraid of our utter dominance of tasty processed "foods." Someone also allegedly threatened France with something called "Tex Mex droppedfrom B17s flown by wiener dog air crews." I have no knowledge of who that could be.
Wikileaks has released a new draft of the intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, revealing that the US is still pushing for draconian measures on copyright infringement.
“By publishing this text we allow the public to engage in issues that will have such a fundamental impact on their lives,” says Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange.
The US has all along wished to introduce features of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), such as compelling ISPs to alert customers who are accused of illegal downloads and, possibly, take the infringing material down. If they failed to do so, they would themselves be liable for any copyright infringement by their customers.
But the latest draft goes even further: the US wants to see these rules covering not just ISPs, but anyone providing internet services. And, as Alberto Cerda of Georgetown University Law Center points out to TorrentFreak, this means that coffee shops could potentially be held liable for copyright infringement by their customers.
Meanwhile, the copyright itself could be enforced for longer. While the previously-leaked draft showed that some countries were proposing flexibility on copyright terms, it seems that all are now agreed that there should be a universal minimum term, whether life-plus-50-years, life-plus-70 or life-plus-100.
The US is also calling for criminal sanctions for copyright infringement, even where the infringement isn’t being carried out for commercial reasons.
“If the US gets its way, then criminal penalties will apply even against users who were not seeking financial gain from sharing or making available copyrighted works, such as fans and archivists,” write Jeremy Malcolm and Maira Sutton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “Such a broad definition is ripe for abuse.”
Indeed, a similar provision in a free trade agreement between Columbia and the US led to copyright laws that saw a Columbian graduate student arrested for posting another student’s academic paper online without permission.
But while the last leaked draft of the TPP, dated November 2013, showed strong international opposition to this criminalization plan, Canada now seems to be the only serious hold-out.
This may, suggests James Love of Knowledge Ecology International, be because this new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won’t necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions.
“Developing countries are being asked to accept very restrictive standards for intellectual property in return for transition periods that defer the harm until current governments are now longer held accountable,” he says. “This will be a short-term benefit in exchange for a long term harm.”
The draft calls for countries to introduce criminal penalties for unauthorised access to, misappropriation of or disclosure of trade secrets “by any person using a computer system”. This would apply where the actions led to commercial advantage or financial gain; where they were directed by “a foreign economic entity”; or where they were detrimental to a country’s economic interests, international relations, national defence or national security.
These are very broad provisions, and don’t allow any exceptions in the public interest, such as journalism or whistleblowing.
“This text goes far beyond existing trade secrets law, which in the United States and other common law countries is usually a matter for the civil not the criminal courts,” write Malcolm and Sutton of the EFF.
“No public interest exception, such as for journalism, is provided. In practice, this could obligate countries into enacting a draconian anti-hacking law much like the Criminal Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) that was used to prosecute Aaron Swartz.”
These changes matter all the more because of the inclusion in the trade agreement of so-called Investor -State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – a system that allows corporations to sue governments for decisions that result in a loss of profits. UN figures uncovered by the Independent newspaper recently revealed that US companies have already made billions of dollars from suing foreign governments under similar ISDS agreements.
The good news is that the US appears to be fairly isolated in some of its more extreme requests, with Canada pushing back hard: indeed, according to Wikileaks, Canada has registered its opposition to proposals 56 times, more than any other country. Canada’s recently enacted its own copyright legislation, and is working hard to keep it: and while it now looks like the only country still putting up much of a fight against the US, this latest leak could work in its favor.
The next round of negotiations is due to take place in Australia at the end of this month.
On Thursday, October 16th Wikileaks released a second chapter from the Trans-Pacific Partnership documents regarding Intellectual Property. The last time they released leaked documents about Intellectual Property from the TPP was November 2013.
The press release from WikiLeaks says:
“The 77-page, 30,000-word document is a working document from the negotiations in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, dated 16 May 2014, and includes negotiator’s notes and all country positions from that period in bracketed text. Although there have been a couple of additional rounds of talks since this text, little has changed in them and it is clear that the negotiations are stalling and that the issues raised in this document will be very much on the table in Australia this month.
The last time the public got access to the TPP IP Chapter draft text was in November 2013 when WikiLeaks published the 30 August 2013 bracketed text. Since that point, some controversial and damaging areas have had little change; issues surrounding digital rights have moved little. However, there are significant industry-favouring additions within the areas of pharmaceuticals and patents. These additions are likely to affect access to important medicines such as cancer drugs and will also weaken the requirements needed to patent genes in plants, which will impact small farmers and boost the dominance of large agricultural corporations like Monsanto.
Nevertheless, some areas that were highlighted after WikiLeaks’ last IP Chapter release have seen alterations that reflect the controversy; surgical method patents have been removed from the text. Doctors’ groups said this was vitally important for allowing doctors to engage in medical procedures without fear of a lawsuit for providing the best care for their patients. Opposition is increasing to remove the provision proposed by the US and Japan that would require granting of patents for new drugs that are slightly altered from a previous patented one (evergreening), a technique by the pharmaceutical industry to prolong market monopoly.
The new WikiLeaks release of the May 2014 TPP IP text also has previously unseen addendums, including a new proposal for different treatment for developing countries, with varying transition periods for the text to take force. Whilst this can be viewed as an attempt to ease the onus of this harsh treaty on these countries, our diplomatic sources say it is a stalling tactic. The negative proposals within the agreement would still have to come into force in those countries, while the governments that brought them in would have changed.
Despite the United States wanting to push to a resolution within the TPP last year, this bracketed text shows there is still huge opposition and disagreement throughout the text. At this critical moment the negotiations have now stalled, and developing countries are giving greater resistance. Despite the huge lobbying efforts, and many favourable proposals for big pharmaceutical companies, they are not getting entirely what they wish for either.”
Julian Assange said:
The lack of movement within the TPP IP Chapter shows that this only stands to harm people, and no one is satisfied. This clearly demonstrates that such an all-encompassing and divisive trade agreement is too damaging to be brought into force. The TPP should stop now.
Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. “, the press release continued.
In addition Julian Assange had this to say:
“The selective secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, which has let in a few cashed-up megacorps but excluded everyone else, reveals a telling fear of public scrutiny. By publishing this text we allow the public to engage in issues that will have such a fundamental impact on their lives.”
The Full Chapter concerning Intellectual Property leaked from the TPP negotiations can be viewed here.
TTIP: Cameron pledges support for EU-US trade deal David Cameron has pledged to put "rocket boosters" behind plans for an EU-US free trade deal.
The UK prime minister said EU and US leaders had met and all agreed the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) "is a deal we want".
Speaking at the G20 summit, he said arguments against TTIP were "weak" and fears over the NHS were "nonsense".
Many opponents are concerned about TTIP giving firms power to sue governments if they are hit by policy changes.
Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, has called for the NHS to be excluded from the deal.
The EU is currently analysing responses to a consultation on a controversial element of TTIP which would allow foreign investors to go to an international tribunal for compensation if a government breaks the rules in a way that harms the company's interests.
'No threat'
Mr Cameron said he "sensed an enthusiasm" from EU leaders and US President Barack Obama during a meeting in Brisbane earlier, and was now "hopeful of progress" on TTIP.
The UK prime minister said the deal could be supported by the "classic free trade argument for growth and jobs and investment".
"The opportunities for Britain of trading more with the United States of America are clear," he said.
Protests took place last month in the UK and other countries including Germany and France
Critics say TTIP's powers for companies to sue governments are anti-democratic
Speaking about concerns over disputes between companies and countries, Mr Cameron said: "We've signed trade deal after trade deal and it's never been a problem in the past."
On the NHS, he said: "Some people argue in some way this could damage the NHS. I think that is nonsense. It's our National Health Service. It's in the public sector, it will stay in the public sector. That's not going to change. It will remain free at the point of use.
"There's no threat, I believe, from TTIP to the National Health Service and we should just knock that on the head as an empty threat."
Anti-TTIP protests were held last month in the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
At their annual conference in September, delegates from UK unions unanimously backed a motion opposing TTIP.
Many unions focused on the potential impact on the NHS, saying TTIP would allow private firms to sue the government if it chose to return privately run services to the public sector.
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey accused David Cameron of "riding roughshod" over objections and "trying to brush the threat of TTIP under the carpet".
He asked: "If it is not a threat then why doesn't David Cameron just make an explicit commitment to use his veto in Europe to get the NHS out TTIP?"
He drew comparisons with steps taken by the French government to exempt their film industry from the agreement.
Food safety fears
One aim of the negotiations is to reduce the costs to business of complying with regulations.
Critics say this could lead to lower standards of protection for workers, consumers and the environment, with food safety a particular concern for some.
But Mr Cameron said TTIP would give the EU and the US a joint interest in areas like food and environmental standards
)
