I agree Nfk.
Similar ISDS (investor state dispute settlement) arrangements contained in previous trade agreements have been and are being used to sue governments. Tobacco companies tried and failed to get compensation through the Australian High Court regarding the passing of plain packaging legislation and its effect on future profits. So another approach was tried. A Hong Kong-Australia Investment Treaty is still in existence from 1993, so Philip Morris moved some of its investments to Hong Kong to enable it to use that agreement to sue the Australian government through the international investment tribunal. Even if the Australian government wins, the legal costs will be enormous. There are many more examples.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), is believed to be the likely model for the TTIP Agreement. NAFTA was presented as an agreement that would increase employment and stability in the countries which were party to it. However, it in fact massively increased unemployment, impoverished small farmers in Mexico and led to rising illegal immigration between Mexico and the US.
I hope that the anti-TTIP campaigners are not satisfied with an assurance that the NHS will be protected. The whole agreement should be opposed, particularly in view of the fact that EU and US citizens (and most politicians) are being denied any information about the agreement and no input or influence on what is being decided.
It's bacon baps week, year 6! 🥓 😋
This weather is getting me down. Is it May or March?

