TTIP - Looming threat to European national power & democracy.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
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.

**Iron_Captain**

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?)

**Frazzled**

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.

Wait, its not?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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"?

**PhantomViper**

Frazzled wrote:

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!

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

Oy ve! Ya got me!

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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**

Nope, I jumped in when you compared cars to dynamite.

**AlmightyWalrus**

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**

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

**loki old fart**

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.

**Frazzled**

loki old fart wrote:
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.

**reds8n**

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/ttip-eu-citizens-initiative-democracy.html

**Medium of Death**

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.

Here's another article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11127836/Businesses-that-speak-out-for-Britains-EU-membership-will-be-punished-vows-John-Redwood.html

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.

**PhantomViper**

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.

**loki old fart**

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.

Here's another article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11127836/Businesses-that-speak-out-for-Britains-EU-membership-will-be-punished-vows-John-Redwood.html

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.

And this is why I don't vote conservative.

**Medium of Death**

PhantomViper wrote:
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?

**PhantomViper**

Medium of Death wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
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.

**Medium of Death**

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.

**loki old fart**

Concerns rise over US-EU trade talks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29572475

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.

**Sigvatr**

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.

**Aesop the God Awful**

Sigvatr wrote:
- Campaigners, your go-to source for reliable information

As opposed to corporations?

**Sigvatr**

Aesop the God Awful wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
- Campaigners, your go-to source for reliable information
As opposed to corporations?

At the very least, they know what the entire treaty is about. Most campaigners just go HERP DERP COMPANIES EVIL.

**Da Boss**

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.

**Sigvatr**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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...

Interesting times for Scotland...

**purplefood**

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?