TTIP Agreement - don't yawn, it's important!

I understood from one of the links you posted (the War on Want one), dj, that the TTIP negotiations are between the US and the EU. Wouldn't that mean that if the UK were to leave the EU, we would be out of the treaty and would have to negotiate another, separate one, if we wanted to?

I see what you're saying about the Tories wanting TTIP, but the current TTIP won't apply to countries outside of the EU, will it?

Something else I've been pondering is that if TTIP type arrangements are so awful, why do Canada and Mexico already have one with the US? And is there the same feeling against it in those places? And if not, why not?

Durhamjen

Neither being in the EU or out of the EU is guaranteed to stop TTIP .

So as I previously mentioned if TTIP, which has obviously been a subject that you have declared a passionate dislike of, goes ahead in the EU and we are still a member does that not give you cause to have a serious doubt you did the right thing being such an advocate for voting to stay in the EU as you have declared.

You have said on occasions in your posts you watch the t.v coverage of the European Parliament, like myself. You must have therefore witnessed the many arguments that have taken place between the MEP's in the European Parliament and to my mind TTIP will probably prevail in the EU. I remember watching a total fiasco one day when all hell broke loose over something to do with TTIP and voting because the 'platform' ran rough shod over the voting. It was if they didn't like how it was going on the day so the Council made a move.

At least our government has an opposition but the EU Parliament is not the home of democracy if you look hard enough at the way it works.

waronwant.org/media/mps-pressed-over-colombia-investment-deal

"Leaked documents on CETA show the UK is the only member state giving unconditional support for the European Commission in its desire to introduce new powers for business at the expense of democracy and the rule of law.

And another target for the demonstrators will be further international liberalisation, TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement), involving the EU, US, Canada and many other countries.

War on Want executive director John Hilary said: “Civil society across Europe rejects these deals, and we are fighting back on all fronts. We have positive alternatives to this corporate-driven trade model, which is set to undermine peoples' rights, democracy and the environment.” "

The UK is the only member state giving unconditional support.

The paperwork is done. If the UK comes out of the EU, they only need to change two letters, and it's there between the US and UK.

There have been enough warnings. It's just that people are not prepared to listen.
How often do you read things about Canada, Mexico, Columbia, etc?
Not very often, I bet. So to say that people are happy in those countries is rubbish. You just do not read about it in the papers or on the internet.

Hi bags - I'm not very well at the moment so forgive me just adding links, but you may find this answers your query about some Canadians responses to TTIP. canadians.org/transatlantic-trade-deals

Sorry you are not well. Thanks for the link. Just what I was looking for.
Pages 9 and 10 show which companies sue the government/states and what for.

On another forum I was looking at, it shows that the UK has had a number of ISDS threats, over forty, and that's just with the treaties we have now.
If we were out of the EU, we would have to arrange trade treaties with every country separately, and the number of disputes could rise quite rapidly if ISDS was included.
ISDS has always seemed most unfair to me.

sumofus.org/campaigns/canada-is-about-to-sign-onto-tpp/

Canada has signed but it has not been ratified yet. Canada is the most sued nation already.

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/ttip-deal-real-serious-risk-nhs-leading-qc

A QC thinks that TTIP will be a serious risk for the NHS.

Thanks, ga. Hope you feel better soon

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119659

For TTIP to be debated in parliament.

I don't understand why a petition.?

TTIP has been the subject of debates in Parliament, The Lords, and Committee Rooms

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2608488-AIBU-to-ask-if-Lord-Owen-is-right-about-TTIP

Mumsnet seems to have some different viewpoints. Though I cant say I actually understand either thread at all well.

Obama said yesterday that leaving the EU would put Britain "at the back of the queue for a trade deal". I'm thinking this hypothesis should appeal to those worried about the TTIP deal.

Or have I misunderstood?

I feel that the veiled threats Obama made were counterproductive - at least they were as far as I am concerned. I don't know if he meant TTIP but if he did we are well out of it. The subtext of what he said could be interpreted as the US would like the UK to stay in the EU so that it can act as some sort of lacky to speak up for and safeguard the US's interests.

However, on the subject of TTIP, it does seem that whether countries are part of the EU or not the "agenda" is to railroad them into TTIP to give multinational companies even more more than they already have.

I am rapidly losing faith in both sides of the argument - though I do think the side with the most obnoxious characters - Boris Johnson being one of them - is the "Leave" campaign.

Yes I can understand that, but as I argued on another thread, that does not necessarily preclude the UKs interests.

With regard th TTIP. This is a fight the consumer will have with global economics over and over again in one guise or another. As you rightly pointed out the whole world will be subject to these vagaries and it is up to the voter to pusuade the governments. Of course we know from experience how governments are bought by the wealthy so it is quite a fight and one quite frankly I don't think we will win.

There is an article in the Times today, eloethan, that agrees with your assessment that Obama's veiled threats will be counter productive.

I have a temporary subscription to the Times because of the EU referendum. It has good articles arguing on both sides.

The Guardian says the opposite?

I suppose it all depends on how much you respect the US and how much you value the so-called "special relationship" (which, in my view, only seems to come into play when it suits the US).

It is, though, worrying when the US threatens you. As can be seen from history, if countries don't "play ball" the US has the power to destabilise them, and has on occasion done so. I often wonder if, apart from wanting to be best chums with the most powerful man in the world, Blair also feared there would be repercussions if he did not support Bush's war agenda.

It was ever thus with powerful countries. The U.K. has done the same in the past, but reading the history after the WW2 today and the EU, America has always considered it in relation to its interests. The Marshall plan was instigated as a result of the American economy slowing down because of lack of exports. Money was given for European countries to rebuild our economies and thus trade with America. The fact that we signally failed to do so is another story, but Germany did. But the fact this was done by America for America, doesn't detract from the fact that it helped European economies to grow.