JenniferEccles What do you mean when you refer to a "daft rumour"?
The Portsmouth News printed this report re the amendment:
"The vote was split across party lines, with no Conservative MPs voting for the amendment to protect the NHS from outside control in any future trade deals.
"The "nos" were made up almost entirely of Conservative MPs, with one Independent also voting the amendment down.
"All Labour MPs present voted in favour of the amendment, along with members of other political parties like the SNP and Liberal Democrats.
"As well as protecting the NHS from foreign control in any trade deal, the amendment also proposed protecting other elements of the NHS. This included:
"Ensuring that the ability to provide a “comprehensive and publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery” was not jeopardised by any trade deal
"Protecting the quality and safety of health and care services
"Regulating pricing and control of medicines
"Protecting NHS staff from having their employment terms changed, including their rights at work or pay
"Protecting patients from having their data sold off
"Protecting the NHS from investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) clauses which would allow foreign investors to sue governments for any measures that harm their profits"
If there is no chance of any of the above happening, why would the Conservatives not vote for the amendment?
The Access Now website says this about ISDS clauses (which apparently the Australian government has refused to be subject to):
"Through ISDS, foreign investors are empowered to sue governments if changes in law affect their profits — or at least, the profits they “expected” — on a particular project. By giving companies equal standing with governments, ISDS empowers corporations to directly enforce a trade agreement, undermining the balance of power between the state and the private sector. While states are the ones negotiating and ratifying a treaty, through ISDS, companies have the ability to interpret and enforce it.
"Disputes under ISDS take place in secretive tribunals with no institutional independence, enabling corporations to skirt domestic courts. Specifically, most of the disputes brought under ISDS are heard in the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Both international arbitration bodies dedicated to only hearing ISDS complaints operate with similar rules and procedures which exclude the public and do not allow human rights or consumer advocates to intervene. Disputes are heard and interpreted by three private sector attorneys designated as arbitrators. The nomination of arbitrators by both parties involved in a claim result in a lack independence and impartiality as arbitrators tend to focus more on pleasing the nominating parties in order to ensure that they are re-appointed in future cases. This situation has lead to a growth in the number of challenges to arbitrators, as they have been often perceived as “biased or predisposed.”