TTIP including TTP, CETA & TiSA

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 11 May 2016, 12:35

woodburner wrote:I'd rather trust Ming thn Cameron, Osbourne, Duncan-Smith or many of the other truth manglers.

Absolutely.

I'm trying to get him over here to talk about TTIP and related 'deals', to keep the pot boiling with local bodies.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 01 Jun 2016, 23:25

The videos in this article are quite funny:

https://www.rt.com/news/344877-us-eu-ttip-emails/

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 02 Jun 2016, 11:00

Guardian reports that a Corbin government would veto TTIP.

Unfortunately the level of interest in the post has crashed the server.

Over 2000 comments already

A few weeks ago the French President, Francois Hollande, said he would veto the deal as it stands and to become law any deal would have to be ratified by each member state. So today we give this pledge, as it stands, we too would reject TTIP – and veto it in government.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Jun 2016, 11:52

Corbyn's anti TTIP speech:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60896.html

oobers · Post by **oobers** » 11 Jul 2016, 18:43

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-policy

Is the French veto of TTIP of any consequence? If TTIP does go forward and this is part of the plan, we are surely better off out of the EU.

I know some green remainers argued we were better in so we could veto TTIP but that appears to be of little use. And would a tory government have vetoed this plan? Probably not. There is too much tories would like in these proposals - unlimited access to US shale gas for a start. Others argue that tories will now form a TTIP on steroids bilateral trade agreement with US and do worse, but at least out of the EU, a subsequent progressive government could reverse that.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Jul 2016, 03:58

As I've said elsewhere we need to see what the new government cabinet looks like to see which direction Mrs May will be taking us. My MP has told me that he wouldn't support any treaty with ISDS in it but he has a record of 100% support for the government. I'll have to ask him if he would actually vote against the government if ISDS were included in the treaty.

There is also the possibility that if ISDS is excluded it could be bought in via the back door at a later date. This is typical of the EU Commission's way of working to get what it wants. It could happen here as well.

I think it was the TISA agreement which was to be bought in three months before we were told that it had been ratified and before we knew what the new law was!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 07 Sep 2016, 14:28

TTIP is not really dead; like Philip Morris, it's always going to come back under another name. Battling these so-called 'agreements' is a life-long war for ordinary people.

We have to succeed every time, they have to succeed only once.

From here.

Biff or one of the moderators: is it an idea to edit the title of the thread to something such as:

CETA/TiSA (was TTIP)

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 07 Sep 2016, 15:12

emordnilap wrote:TTIP is not really dead; like Philip Morris, it's always going to come back under another name. Battling these so-called 'agreements' is a life-long war for ordinary people.

We have to succeed every time, they have to succeed only once.
From here.

Biff or one of the moderators: is it an idea to edit the title of the thread to something such as:

CETA/TiSA (was TTIP)

Thanks for this info E. I have been taking my eye off the ball with this and need to get back up to speed.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 Sep 2016, 15:17

I've changed the name to include all that is going on in this arena. Hope that is OK.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 15 Sep 2016, 16:16

Obama still hoping to f**k the world and get the credit.[/url]

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 16 Sep 2016, 20:12

Typically pro free trade article in the Economist about the Germans not wanting free trade and protesting against TTIP which completely misses the reason why they are protesting.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 26 Jul 2017, 16:55

CETA Without Blinders: How Cutting â€˜Trade Costs and Moreâ€™ Will Cause Unemployment, Inequality and Welfare Losses

CETA will cause unemployment, inequality, welfare losses and a reduction of intra-EU trade.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 26 Jul 2017, 17:45

What is/was good about the EU as a trade agreement was/is that it clearly takes environmental issues and working conditions into account.

I don't necessarily agree with what has been written about CETA, but these sorts of agreements tend to concentrate on trade.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 26 Jul 2017, 18:03

johnhemming2 wrote:... but these sorts of agreements tend to concentrate on trade.

They concentrate our politicians minds on trade to the exclusion of all the disbenefits of globalisation.

I've written to my MP, a big property portfolio owner, on the impossibility of globalising wages without globalising property prices without propelling us into a revolution in the process and only got a reply from his PA. He's a great fan of agreements like TTIP and CETA, although he claims to be onside with CC and GW, so I hope he will that paper on the disbenefits.

Nicholas Stern in his book, Why Are We Waiting, pulls apart how conventional economic models treat CC and GW as they all treat the future as a linear progression of the past ignoring the catastrophes which will occur such as sea level rise and agricultural failures and the concomitant mass population movements. The modelling of these trade agreements makes similar ommissions in order to boost BAU.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 26 Jul 2017, 19:16

kenneal - lagger wrote: a linear progression of the past

The problem is that much of public debate is based upon this assumption.