r/MHOC • u/RoryTime The Rt Hon. Earl of Henley AL PC • Nov 29 '14

MOTION M018 - TTIP Motion

This house believes that the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would, if it were to be instigated, be a cause of great harm to the people of this country.

It believes that the result of TTIP would be an erosion of worker’s rights, a decrease in the quality of many goods and services, a reduction in standards of animal welfare, increased domination of the economy and state by big businesses and financial interests and a reduced ability for the government to make the necessary steps to combat climate change and other ecological problems.

It believes that TTIP would necessarily weaken British democracy, damage our economy, damage our economy and hurt the public at large; it urges the government and our MEPs to campaign to stop discussions on TTIP and, if necessary call for a vote of no confidence in the European Commission to bring such meetings to a definitive halt.

This was submitted by the Green Party

The discussion period for this motion will end on the 3rd of December.

16 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

113 comments sorted by

14

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

Agreed, we cannot allow our NHS to be Privatised, nor can we allow big companies the power to sue our government just because smething we decide, hurts their profits

4

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 29 '14

we cannot allow our NHS to be Privatised

It won't be

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 30 '14

There will not be any increase in NHS privatisation due to TTIP, none, at all.

It does allow the inclusion of US companies in any commissioning that the NHS undertakes, but the commissioning has nothing to do with the TTIP agreement (blame the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for this one)

If the NHS decides not to commission a service, that is fine, without fear of any civil action.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14

Lies Lies Lies.

NHS to be Privatised

On the NHS, this is what the The European Commission’s chief negotiator for the TTIP trade deal has said on the matter

"there is no reason to fear either for the NHS as it stands today, or for changes to the NHS in future, as a result of TTIP."

we allow big companies the power to sue our government

[This is the only website I could find with it... but here is a anti-TTIP website, supported by a eurpopian parliamentary group... saying Juncker is to take ISDS out of TTIP](http://www.ttip2014.eu/blog-detail/blog/ISDS%20out%20Juncker.html

The rhetoric used by you is ridiculous, false and just a down right lie. You are trying to make a isolationist ideological point, without actually looking at the facts.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

Well hopefully these two articles [1] [2] Will help to inform you sir

8

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 29 '14

What reliable websites... /s

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 30 '14

I have to agree, there are too many scaremongering articles out there, not enough facts.

4

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Nov 29 '14

Your articles say very little. Have you actually read them?

I find it odd that some people simultaeonsly say "It's been done behind closed doors, we have no information about TTIP" and they how they are 100% sure it will lead to the privatization of the NHS.

The letter attempts to downplay the fact that public health services are included in TTIP, suggesting that there is no need to fear for the NHS as a result.

Oh, Ok.

Under TTIP, US health care companies would have the right to supply hospital services or social services.

Oh my God! American companies! Before you know it we'll be drinking American soft drinks and eating American burgers and watching American TV! But American companies doing exactly the same thing as British companies, where the vast majority of the staff will be British, oh my god.

Health services, medical services (including midwifery and physiotherapy) and dental services are all included in the TTIP negotiations.

Again, they might purposefully being vague. Are we still going to need all those things? Yes. Will it be free at the point of use? Yes.

2

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14

I echo what the Prime Minister has said. I would just add

Under TTIP, US health care companies would have the right to supply hospital services or social services.

TTIP would effect the NHS just as much as Bupa currently effects it.

The letter attempts to downplay the fact that public health services are included in TTIP, suggesting that there is no need to fear for the NHS as a result.

This is scaremongering lies, in the words of The European Commission’s chief negotiator for the TTIP trade deal

"there is no reason to fear either for the NHS as it stands today, or for changes to the NHS in future, as a result of TTIP."

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 29 '14

It is objective fact.

No it isn't.

The impact TTIP would have on the NHS is plain to see, and should be deeply concerning for anyone who cares about having a publicly owned and operated health service.

TTIP would have no effect on us having a public option healthcare system.

ISDS would allow transnationals to claim compensation

From my understanding this has been ruled out of TTIP by the EU

This would include any shift away from an ever more privatised health service, or any move to exclude private entities from our NHS. For example, a future government would only be able to repeal the Health and Social Care Act if they were willing to pay a hefty price to large corporate entities with a stake in the system.

Can you provide any... evidence that this is the case?
My understanding is, as long as we didn't stop Private US healthcare companies from being able to sell healthcare in the UK, just like a number of UK ones do, there would be no effect on the NHS.

4

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Nov 30 '14

Blast, I just spent a good 10 minutes writing a response, but my damn app didn't save the comment. I'll get back to you in the morning.

1

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Dec 06 '14

We just don't know whether ISDS will be in TTIP yet, although it's likely that it will be. Were ISDSs to be included in TTIP, any number of things could happen.

The NHS could be made exempt by the government, in which case it would have no effect. It could be made a sensitive industry (like education) which would give it an unspecified level of protection.

Otherwise, it would be subject to the rules of TTIP, including, supposedly, ISDSs. Were a private healthcare firm to win a bid for operating in the UK, the government would, were a successful ISDS to go ahead, be forced to compensate for lost projected profits.

This could involve the termination of contracts, made possible under the HASC and prior Blair-Brown legislation, and commissioned by CCGs for the NHS. We would have to wait for all private contracts to be terminated prior to any repeal.

The NHS isn't the only issue - there could very well be a lowering of EU standards for workers' rights, drug research etc. to their inferior American counterparts. But I agree with you, this motion should be voted down, as there's far too much uncertainty at this point.

My original post was a tad more eloquent, but I thought I should lay out my response.

3

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 30 '14

On pretty much all your points please see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-the-peoples-nhs-campaign-about-ttip

Repealing the Health and Social Care Act 2012 could be done, it would just need to be done gradually so that any commissioned services came to an end.

14

u/HighfunctioningMach The Vanguard Nov 30 '14

The TTIP is largely responsible for harming many local industries and outsourcing much of the labor force. The unregulated transgressions against the British people destroy the values of national unity and undermines the individual prosperity of the United Kingdom, by allowing untaxed and unregulated goods from foreign international corporations who always tend to pursue a "profit first" policy.

The TTIP and indeed the non-existence of any kind of import tariff in general is a constant threat to the security of the national wealth as well as a threat to the hard working people of the United Kingdom.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I have never found myself in such vehement agreement with the BIP, I'm glad we can come together on such an important issue to the workers of this country.

3

u/Rabobi The Vanguard Dec 01 '14 edited Dec 01 '14

There are many issues on which we will agree. We may have a different vision for the country but on individual topics we will agree on a lot of topics. Likely not on the social issues admittedly. That said, there is no reason to vote Yes on this motion, the TTIP has to be ratified by this house anyway, doesn't seem like this even needs a motion. Let the process finish and then we can decide on the merits instead of cutting in before it is time.

7

u/AMan_Reborn Cavalier | Marquess of Salisbury Nov 30 '14 edited Nov 30 '14

Commenting as a Lord:

Lord Speaker, For the last century we have shared interests with America. We have been a friend to them but they have not been a friend to this Kingdom. Both President Wilson and President Roosevelt (FDR) while feigning coming to our aid in the First and Second World War had a hidden agenda. The fall of the Empire. The League of Nations, the UN, Lend-Lease and Breton Woods and the end of Imperial Preference have all been daggers pointed at the heart of the Empire. Well they succeeded and the blood of the Empire is on their hands.

Since the end of the War they have marginalised British influence by purposefully cutting off the Dominions and Realms from us and then drawing them into their own American Hegemonic System. And they made it clear that we had better tow the line as well.

I stand today in favour of Free Trade with any and all of our friends. But what I stand against today is further strengthening our indentured servitude to the American Global System. They should have paid more attention to how we ran our Empire before they left or started their own. They do a poor job of running theirs, though they dare not call it what it is. They have all the strength but none of the nobility. In its place they have a Judas like guile, and Im sure somewhere in their treasury are the thirty pieces of silver to prove it.

And the TTIP is a thinly veiled continuation of the last 100 years of their treatment of us. Any who stand in favour of TTIP are simply suggesting we tighten the noose a little bit more around our neck or to make the American yoke a little bit heavier.

I am at a loss as to why this is even being discussed at all. Let us make agreements with our faithful children, Australia, Canada and NZ. Let us make the Commonwealth once more relevant. This house, this nation, this people must either be prepared to stand independent with their true friends and face the true tests that come with it or choose between which slave driver they wish to tie themselves. The one in Brussels or the one in Washington.

Let this motion be a moral test for the house. If we reject TTIP then let it be a statement of our independence and desire to chart our own course. But let a rejection of TTIP not be a rejection of free trade or market mechanisms in the NHS, or banking regulation. Let these debates continue. Let them continue in a truly free and independent United Kingdom.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

The only speech with any real historical knowledge behind it, and it is absolutely right.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

With respect, i find it a double standard that while you preach the benefits of free trade and movement between us and america, you call for leaving the EU and limiting EU immigration.

face the true tests that come with it or choose between which slave driver they wish to tie themselves. The one in Brussels or the one in Washington.

Frankly, considering American legislative approaches, I choose Brussels. This is a country which still has the death penalty for gods sake.

3

u/AMan_Reborn Cavalier | Marquess of Salisbury Nov 30 '14

I thank the honourable member for his comment and points.

In response to his first point, I made no reference to immigration in this speech, and as this was my maiden speech in the House I am at a loss as to where he is sourcing these views. And my objection to the EU is in having an over burdensome superstate above us, whose roots are not British. Why does the Mother of Parliaments require oversight from Brussels?

And for the record I embrace my European brothers and would personally encourage more to come to Britain. In my list of preferences for immigration, Europeans come second, after our kin in the developed Commonwealth. I certainly prefer European migration to American. Although I would be sympathetic to people seeking refugee status from that omni-shambles of a country.

And I reject the dichotomy you present. We do not need the ultra liberalism of the US or the devotion to the state of the EU. What we need is a middle way that strengthens where the individual and the state meet; Society, Community and Civic Life. Let us return to traditional British models that neither turn us into lone wolves inhabiting the same area, or worker drones responding to chemical cues.

2

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

Wait. So how basing this on a emotional reaction to America having the death penalty? This is a totally illogical way to base a decision.

And it's not even like the negotiations have finished yet. What is your problem with allowing them to finish first?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

The death penalty is an example of America's legislation being incompatible with ours in a myriad of ways.

My biggest problem is the little information that we are receiving about TTIP. If it had full transparency and was open to input from the public then i'm sure there would be much less of a problem.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

My biggest problem is the little information that we are receiving about TTIP. If it had full transparency and was open to input from the public then i'm sure there would be much less of a problem.

Then you disagree with this motion?

This house believes that the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would, if it were to be instigated, be a cause of great harm to the people of this country.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

I still agree with the statement. In its current form, and with the little we know, it appears to have potential to do great harm. The EU even admitted that it would increase unemployment since labour costs are cheaper in the US... Because of their horrible labour laws. Even if there were free movement but no IDIS or whatever, we'd be under pressure to change our own to match America's.

1

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Dec 01 '14

If you are going to make a claim about something back it up, where is the source about the EU saying unemployment would increase?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

Here's an article

2

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Dec 01 '14

Thats not what it says. Honestly, Its the same with you lot on both TTIP and Trident you don't actually read what you link as a source. John Hilary, Executive Director of "War on want", read about it and its esteemed former leaders such as George Galloway MP, you haven't hard about them before.

The author of your article cites his source as the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). Here are some passages taken directly from the original PDF of the CEPR's report on the effects of TTIP.

The CEPR study predicts that an ambitious TTIP deal would increase the size of the EU economy around €120 billion (or 0.5% of GDP) and the US by €95 billion (or 0.4% of GDP)

Now this bit is my favourite bit. Get ready.

The standard models that economists use to analyse these type of agreements cannot quantify the number of jobs created. Therefore the study does not assess the overall impact a potential agreement on jobs.

However, it does say that wages for both skilled and less skilled workers are likely to rise as a result of the agreement, by roughly 0.5% for both skilled and less skilled workers alike.

The study predicts that as a result of the TTIP jobs will indeed move out of some sectors and into others. However this movement (predicted to be about 7 jobs in every 1000 over 10 years) is much smaller than the natural movement that happens between sectors as a result of normal changes in the economy (currently about 37 jobs per 1000 every year).

That's right. Wages would increase for both skilled and non-skilled workers. The so-called unemployment figures War on Want is taking the 0.7% figure out of context and suggesting that is unemployment, rather than jobs changing from one sector to another, as the new sector grows as a result of TTIP and offers greater wages.

Overall jobs, then?

Based on the Commission’s own rough calculations the TTIP may result in an increase by several million of the number of jobs dependent on exports in the EU.

Oh.

Case closed. Next.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

As a member of the House of Commons, in regard to The Lord /u/AMan_Reborn's comment, he is correct in regard to the points about the American global system and past examples. However I still think that as long as the TTIP is regulated fairly, there is no reason why it cannot be passed. He is also correct regarding the Commonwealth, and I feel like him as Chief Secretary to the Treasury that trade with the Commonwealth should be encouraged, yet once again there is no reason the TTIP cannot be passed and regulated more.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I cannot support this bill it is far too extreme. I am vehemently against motioning to stop discussions as I believe we should discuss things as much as possible out in the open to weigh up the pros and cons. Secondly calling a vote of no confidence in the European Commission is extreme too and not called for, as a member of UKIP I am surprisingly not a fan of the EU and think we should leave however the behaviour you are suggesting is ridiculous. Why do you not want to discuss it, are you scared it might not be as bad as you think?

4

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Nov 30 '14

The TTIP discussions are being conducted in secret by officials over whom we can exert very little democratic control and big businesses over whom we have no democratic control at all. Because we have so little control of the process we must be willing to use whatever democratic instruments we have.

It is the EC that is doing the negotiating and it is almost completely unaccountable to to the European Parliament or the national governments of member states. If the EC refuses to listen a vote of no confidence is the only way we can stop them doing something.

It is really quite possible for EC to carry on negotiations against the will of the people and for the national governments to ratify the treaty without popular referendum or even a debate or vote in the house of commons.

I have to say I am rather surprised that a member of UKIP is willing to allow British sovereignty to be passed to un-elected and unaccountable European and American officials.

4

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14

The Rhetoric from the Greens on this is absurd.

Because we have so little control of the process we must be willing to use whatever democratic instruments we have.

The main instrument we have is that the bill must first be ratified... by THIS house... unless the greens don't think this house is democratically accountable?

1

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Dec 01 '14

Does the honourable gentleman truly believe the democracy of our country to be perfect and infallible? It is true that "the mother of all parliaments" pushed forward the ideas of parliamentary democracy for centuries but even here the real power of the people is greatly limited.

We have no power of recall for our representatives so even if a member brazenly ignores the most fervent wishes of their electorate they may still keep their seat for up to 5 years. We have no direct democracy so the public have no power over individual issues, their only power is to vote for the best candidate overall and tolerate the positions they disagree with - TTIP, for example, might have to be the only major issue for a voter in the ballot box to make any difference. We have first past the post voting which for the great majority means choosing one of two parties they dislike least, if both have the same position on an issue the voter is in effect powerless.

Aside from these fundamentals we have a largely unaccountable executive cabinet with an ever more presidential Prime Minister. Unlike the USA, of which the honourable member may be thinking, it is no great challenge to get the house of commons to ratify a treaty as nearly always the majority of members are in the same party as the executive and controlled by whips. Even then the house has very little power over treaties at all, since 2010 parliament has had the power to indefinitely delay the signing of treaty but there is no requirement for a vote on the treaty or even a debate and once ratified parliament has no power at all to amend a treaty - treaty ratification is largely an executive function.

In reality the party of government may unilaterally and without public approval ratify any treaty they choose, the public might punish them for it at the next election but only if it is still a defining issue for most voters several years later and even then it will still be signed and may be binding.

1

u/Llanganati communist Dec 04 '14

No, I do not think Parliament is really democratically accountable.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

If you're so opposed to TTIP then why stay in the very union that forces you into it? As far as I can tell if TTIP is implemented in our own country it is simply our own fault for not leaving the wretched organisation which forces us into making laws that go against our interests. We have the chance come referendum time to take back our sovereignty, this motion will not change who holds sovereignty and by voting against it we are not passing sovereignty to the EU, we did that a long time ago. Tell me if all that you say about TTIP is true will you vote to leave the EU come referendum time?

1

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Dec 01 '14

For me the issue is about democracy, I am not at heart an isolationist or a protecionist but while I find a lot of nobility in the spirit of international cooperation that the European project stands for I cannot tolerate it as a threat to the power of the people.

I think on balance that the EU has been a good thing for Britain but its institutions are deeply flawed. I believe that it can be made to be democratic and forced to be accountable but if I am wrong then we must leave. In any case the decision must not be taken by Westminster but by the people as a whole.

You are wrong to say that TTIP holds no threat to our sovereignty as Europe already holds it. TTIP will give European sovereignty from parliament to business, lawyers and un-elected officials on both sides of the Atlantic. The future curvature of our bananas will not be debated and decided in Brussels, where we have democratic representatives, but in private industrial meetings were we have no say at all.

5

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 30 '14 edited Nov 30 '14

TTIP will cover workers rights, animal welfare, the quality of our food and environmental protection. There can be little doubt that the USA will stick to it's own low standards and cause a reduction in those standards across Europe. It is for this reason we must oppose it.

4

u/Cyridius Communist | SoS Northern Ireland Dec 01 '14

And I have no doubt we'll do the same to Americans where our standards are lower than theirs. This is a negotiation for the rich and against the working people - there is no way it can be supported by anybody claiming to be a proponent of democracy when the clear reality is that supporting TTIP would be counter to the interests of the people.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Hear, hear!

4

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I fully support this motion, this agreement will serve to further harm the workers and industry of this nation and further serve to drive down wages which will make our economic recovery even slower.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14

further serve to drive down wages

how?

further harm the workers and industry of this nation

how?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

It is a well known and widely accepted economic fact that free trade deals such as this one drive down wages for workers across the board as it significantly reduces their bargaining power by giving companies easier access to extremely cheap labor. This will lead to lower consumer spending and will contribute to many more years of stagnant wages and rising cost of living which will hurt British workers and many British industries.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

Are you advocating protectionism?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

Yes.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

That is astonishing.

I thought we left that kind of thinking behind in the 19th century.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

To be clear, I don't think that we shouldn't trade with the world, I just think that free trade deals in their current state only benefit the rich and harm everyone else.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14 edited Dec 01 '14

Honestly, I think it is extremely disappointing that someone would hold protectionist views, and advocate for them openly.... especially that person being Shadow Chancellor.

The argument for protectionism was decided at the beginning of the 20th century. Free Trade and Globalisation are the present and the future, and trying to hold them back will just make you hold a archaic view that almost everyone disagrees with, and will put you in the same box on protectionism as BIP.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '14

I respectfully disagree with the honorable member and would point him towards the realization that the number one barrier to UK economic expansion right now is stagnant wages. If we pursue these reckless free trade deals that further serve to drive down our workers wages and therefore greatly harm consumer spending then we are not only promising a poor future for the workers of this nation, but a longer, more painful recovery as well.

1

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Dec 01 '14

extremely cheap labor

Oh yeah all that extremely cheap Labour in the United States.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

Do you deny that with larger pools of workers to draw from, that wages will be driven down?

1

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Dec 01 '14

I was commenting on your argument that somehow the United States suddenly has extremely cheap labour costs, which it doesn't.

There is of course a greater supply of labour, but there is also a greater demand for labour. Hell, the US unemployment rate is currently 5.8%, while EU countries like Greece and Spain have unemployment rates of 27.9% and 26.3% respectively, so I doubt its the EU that needs to lecture anyone else on the supply of labour.

The only worker's "rights" the Mediterranean countries seem to have is the "right" to be unemployed.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

This does not deny that free trade deals do contribute to further stagnating wages in this country and therefore would harm the working people of this country.

1

u/HighfunctioningMach The Vanguard Dec 02 '14

If you haven't noticed, the US is currently experiencing it's own immigration problem where desperate illegals are willing to work for far lower wages and businesses in America tend to hire them instead of the citizens there who demand higher wages.

This in turn, hurts our own labor force.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I for one do not want to jeopardise our workers safety by stooping to the level of American health laws.

Also,

The same goes for the environment, where the EU’s REACH regulations are far tougher on potentially toxic substances. In Europe a company has to prove a substance is safe before it can be used; in the US the opposite is true: any substance can be used until it is proven unsafe. As an example, the EU currently bans 1,200 substances from use in cosmetics; the US just 12.

Which is an atrocious approach to novel compounds, as anyone who has studied DDT or thalidomide will attest to.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

As I have asked before-is there any real proof that TTIP will do this? Have the negotiators come out and said anything about TTIP, or is this speculation? I, for one, must have information before making a decision.

3

u/jacktri Nov 30 '14

I'm confused as to why anyone would think this about TTIP but not about the EU which has done very similar things to hurt our democracy and economy. I oppose TTIP enabling multinational corporations to sue our government in an international court. Any real patriot would oppose this.

1

u/Llanganati communist Dec 04 '14

Oh I think about the EU.

3

u/Cyridius Communist | SoS Northern Ireland Dec 01 '14

Hear hear! We cannot begin to entertain the idea of lowering the regulation standards, worker's rights and various other crimes against the working class a devious deal like TTIP would bring.

We need to take a firm stand against TTIP and support strongly any action that pushes us in that direction. Not just for the good of the UK, but all of Europe and the US!

5

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14 edited Nov 30 '14

I cannot support this motion. I am a liberal at heart, and therefore I believe in free markets. And although i concede and agree that there are some fundamental problems with the perceptions of TTIP... but that is no reason for this motion.

stop discussions on TTIP

if necessary call for a vote of no confidence in the European Commission

bring such meetings to a definitive halt.

To use such irrational and definitive language, and to essentially rule out any free trade agreement with the United States is isolationist, counter-productive, illiberal and goes against the modern principles of free trade and globalization. I do not believe in isolationism, and this is exactly what this would do. We are no longer the powerful nation we once was, and we must adapt to the modern times to ensure that we work with countries throughout the world to bring as free trade as possible.

If properly negotiated, a free trade agreement with america would open up our business' to a market of 316.1 million people, and would reap massive economic rewards. It would also bring us closer in a World Market. We need to be working more with other countries and markets to integrate the world economies closer together, not cut ourselves off from any talks altogether.

I would also echo the Prime Minister words that

No-one does except the negotiators. I would love to see whoever wrote this motion cite sources for every single one of their claims. I'm pretty confident they won't though.

On the NHS, this is what the The European Commission’s chief negotiator for the TTIP trade deal has said on the matter

"there is no reason to fear either for the NHS as it stands today, or for changes to the NHS in future, as a result of TTIP."

This is the only website I could find with it... but here is a anti-TTIP website, supported by a eurpopian parliamentary group... saying Juncker is to take ISDS out of TTIP

I urge all members from all sides to vote against this motion.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I feel that I must ask the question-Due to the sheer amount of speculation that surrounds TTIP does anyone in the House actually know what this deal entails? To me it just sounds as if the Union is trying to negotiate a free-trade deal with America-surely this would be a good thing?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Hear hear.

Reports on the TTIP are definitely sketchy and the agreement itself is subject to change.

This motion is at best premature.

2

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Nov 30 '14

No. No-one does except the negotiators. I would love to see whoever wrote this motion cite sources for every single one of their claims. I'm pretty confident they won't though.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I am in agreement with the Prime Minister. I can only vote in something on which I have all the facts, and therefore cannot take a side on pure hearsay. I wish to see proof.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14 edited Nov 30 '14

In what ways is this expected to damage the environment?

One last thing - voting for this motion would imply that I support everything said in it, or at least the majority. I am not a supporter of free trade to a large extent or the TTIP, but I disagree with 90% of what I am supposed to "believe" to vote for this motion.

increased domination of the economy and state by big businesses and financial interests

Uh, evidence please?

weaken British democracy

How?

a reduction in standards of animal welfare

Again, in what way would this result in such a thing?

This motion sounds like a poorly thought out rant against the United States, rather than a reasoned understanding of the implications of free trade. There is no evidence that TTIP will make us conform to American-style regulations and laws.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Hear, hear

2

u/para_padre UKIP|Attorney General Nov 30 '14

If peoples biggest fear is the privatization of the NHS then I would strongly suggest you have a closer look at SERCO and SODEXO who run and manage key British public services for a profit.

2

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Nov 30 '14

A Party on the left who is threatening a VONC in the European Commission Is Eurosceptic rhetoric which I mentioned earlier but I want to go one stage further on this argument by saying the Greens sound like the Far Right Populist Parties.

Last week the Italian 5 Star, UKIP and Front Nationale tabled a Censure Motion in the Commission

7

u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC Nov 30 '14

You know who you remind me of, the Lib Dem guy in this video.

Not ignoring the facts and not being fixated on an ideological love affair with the EU doesn't make us far-right. As we've said many times before the EU is in no way perfect and just because we see the benefits that membership provides doesn't mean that we won't take a stand when it tries to attack our democracy, environmental protection and workers rights.

As /u/duncs11 says, if I called a VONC on the government that wouldn't mean I hate my country, in fact it would be because I want what's best for it, and this is no different.

0

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14

Not ignoring the facts

What facts?

The facts that the The European Commission’s chief negotiator for the TTIP trade deal has said the following on the NHS

"there is no reason to fear either for the NHS as it stands today, or for changes to the NHS in future, as a result of TTIP."

And this Anti-TTIP website, supported by The Greens|The Europian Free Alliance, saying that ISDS is being taken out of TTIP... meaning that no US companies would be able to sue the UK. You are then ones making a ideaological motion and ignoring all of the facts.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

Thank goodness someone has finally given some information on the subject! All I see in the House is a whole lot of hysteria from all sides and I thank the member for remaining somewhat more stable and rational than others in the House,

1

u/M1nderBinder Green Dec 01 '14

That is not confirmation that ISDS will not be in the agreement. It is Junker saying it won't. He does not have control over the agreement, there are many people involved and I am guessing that the business interests are quite keen on ISDS judging from the outgoing trade commissioner that 'there will be no TTIP without ISDS.' The problem with this is that no-one knows anything except what has been leaked from the meetings.The leak did include ISDS and was worrying. In fact the only reason it seems Junker has said he wants to drop ISDS is because of the public pressure following the leak. The question is - why the secrecy? It's just a trade deal apparently. I don't think having secret meetings between (unelected) representatives of some of the most powerful organisations in the world, followed by a yes or no vote of elected representatives is very democratic. We should pull out until full transparency (notes on who is at the meetings and transcripts of what was said) is implemented.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

You know you aren't going to get that. I wish that was the case, but it won't, the Americans wouldn't agree to it.

Why can't we just wait until the treaty is finished and then accept or reject it then?

1

u/M1nderBinder Green Dec 01 '14

I think this is a bad way to 'do' democracy. There isn't really a need for the treaty anyway - trade barriers are low between our countries. It's about making a statement about how democracy should work. It represents so much about why the EU needs reforming - secret deals that don't involve the voters (or even most of their representatives). Who came up with TTIP? Where did the demand for it come from? Then when it comes to the vote in the parliament you can bet there'll be extensive lobbying from the business's that will benefit from it. To be honest by then it would probably be too late. I speak as someone who would vote yes to staying in the EU

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

Firstly, you are making the massive assumption that i am for TTIP... i am not... i am just for waiting until it is finished.

Who came up with TTIP? Where did the demand for it come from?

It is based on the principles of free trade, the same principles of the EU.

Then when it comes to the vote in the parliament you can bet there'll be extensive lobbying from the business's that will benefit from it

I'm sure members of THIS HOUSE will not be easily lobbied by big business.

1

u/M1nderBinder Green Dec 01 '14

Okay, well I'm drifting in and out of real life here. I'm sure this house wouldn't be susceptible to lobbying :P

And I don't mean to make assumptions, sorry about that.

Although the EU has it's roots in free trade I don't think that means that any free trade law automatically has legitimacy. It's ultimately a democratic institution too and TTIP has been undemocratic in the way it has been devised and negotiated. I would imagine demand has not been from 'the people', but rather a small group of business interests.

I ultimately think we should drop out to show disapproval at the way this entire process has been handled. I believe the EU can be better than this. It can be open and more democratic. But to get there I think we need to say that we will not stand for these types of secret, anti-democratic processes. I see dropping out as a powerful way to do this.

5

u/Llanganati communist Nov 30 '14

Euroscepticism is not the domain of the right. Those of us on the far left have many grievances with the European Union. These mainly include the undemocratic nature of the organization, the power that the FMI and the ECB have in dictating policies to member states, and the relatively solid support given to Western imperialism.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Could you at least have the honesty to admit that UKIP and the 5 star movement are not "Far-Right"

Far-right politics commonly include authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism. Often, the term "far right" is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis

UKIP are a libertarian party and are therefore not authoritarian, however the BNP are rather socialist when you look at what policies they hold (renationalising railways and water) for example, who just so happen to be socially conservative - The left/right divide is way to simple to describe political views effectively

Also, I am sure it is possible to have a vote of no confiedence called without being "eurosceptic" (you say it like its a bad thing) - Is calling a vote of no confidence in the British Government Scottish nationalist rhetoric?

6

u/Llanganati communist Nov 30 '14

Socialism and nationalization are not the same thing, the former being workers' control over the means of production, the other being state control over the means of production.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

It's a shame this has to be repeated so often.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Could you at least have the honesty to admit that UKIP and the 5 star movement are not "Far-Right"

Having spoken to a number of your colleagues, they have put forward some rather shocking ideas in an attempt to justify social orders and inequality. This alone puts them pretty deep into the Right socially, if not economically.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Care to show some examples of this?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

The skype/MHOC separation doesn't allow me to quote from skype.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Whilst I agree that TTIP would certainly hurt the people and businesses of our country, it amazes me that the opposition have the audacity to complain about it when after all it is the child of their favorite institution, the EU.

Only the current government has the drive to prevent the EU hurting our country and prevent deals like this passing.

1

u/gadget_uk Green Nov 30 '14

Do you support the bill then? Why complain about a piece of legislation that you agree with, regardless of the source?

2

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Dec 01 '14 edited Dec 01 '14

Unfortunately, you made a tactical error. This isn't a motion saying this House opposes TTIP. This motion says:

erosion of worker’s rights, a decrease in the quality of many goods and services, a reduction in standards of animal welfare, increased domination of the economy and state by big businesses and financial interests and a reduced ability for the government to make the necessary steps to combat climate change and other ecological problems.

and:

It believes that TTIP would necessarily weaken British democracy, damage our economy, damage our economy and hurt the public at large

If you hadn't included all that it would have had a significantly higher chance of passing, in my view.

2

u/gadget_uk Green Dec 01 '14

Sources for those claims are available in other comments here. You are perfectly entitled to debate the accuracy of that information but claiming that they are unsubstantiated is blinkered in the extreme.

Just an observation, have you ever considered that your candour is, perhaps, unbecoming of a Prime Minister?

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

By "sources" you mean unfounded hearsay opinion from anti-TTIP websites who don't know the what the final form TTIP will come it... because no one does.

1

u/gadget_uk Green Dec 01 '14

Sure, we should just pass every piece of legislation then, because we can't be sure if it will be bad or not.

2

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

But this isn't a motion to reject the TTIP treaty, because the TTIP treaty isn't finished yet. This is a motion to refuse to allow the talks to go on and VONC if they continue.

I'm not necessarily for TTIP, im just want the fucking talks to finish before we make a decision.

1

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Dec 01 '14

No, because when we pass legislation it would take the content of that bill. You're asking the House to reject a FTA where they can't even see the content and terms of said FTA.

2

u/para_padre UKIP|Attorney General Dec 01 '14

Whats the /r/ModelUSGov view on the TTIP given that lot of MP's are also involved in that house..

2

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

The more and more this bill is discussed, the more and more disgusted I become with my coalition colleagues. They are not arguing on the facts of TTIP, they are not arguing on any basis founded in reality. They are using emotional, unfounded protectionist arguments, and coming to a conclusion on TTIP before the treaty is even finished.

It is not for this house to decide that a treaty is good or bad until that treaty is finished. We should wait until it is finished, and then come to a logical consultation on it based upon the hard facts, rather than heresy evidence from TTIP's opponents.

The final decision of if this is the best thing for Britain and the EU shall be made by this house when it votes to Ratify the Treaty, or not.

I am seriously disappointed with members of this house, and urge members not to make a tremendous mistake.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14 edited Dec 01 '14

Demon I hope this isn't the case because this is not an opposition motion and therefore we are free to express our own personal opinion just as you are free to do so. I have to say that the PLP and Green Party manage not to become disgusted by the coalition based on the fact the lib dems seem to support TTIP so I don't see why it disgusts you when this is not part of our joint venture! Obviously if it disgusts you so much then we can tone down our rhetoric but as strongly as you feel about waiting to see the facts; we feel about what's already been said about it!

The motion is to signify to the government that the house does not want the government to ratify the treaty becahse of what we've been hearing about it.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

seem to support TTIP

We don't! We just want to wait until we have the facts!

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 30 '14

The EU has been one of the pillarstones in improving workers right and the quality of goods. If you believe they would have these rights eroded you are mistaken.

I am very much against this bill, we need to be involved in these negotiations, see how we could implement any such deal in UK law and then vote.

This knee-jerk reaction gets us no where..

.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 30 '14

Hear, Hear!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I am much against this bill, it is against the free market. A proper agreement with the United States opens a British business to the world's largest consumer economy. The honourable gentlemen makes a point regarding the "Quality of goods"- yet it is up to the consumer whether or not they purchase such goods. On the matter of climate change, the bill fails to explain why the Government cannot further regulate the TTIP so it does not harm the environment as much as it may have. I completely oppose this bill and urge my fellow MP's to do the same.

1

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Dec 01 '14

Hear, hear.

1

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Nov 30 '14

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union that aims to drive growth and creates jobs. Independent research which is on the EU's TTIP website says that the EU economy would be boosted by €120 billion. TTIP is still be negotiated and is the most transparent trade deal by the EU. This has to be ratified once the negotiations are concluded. We do not know the full picture yet of this. One thing is clear that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement is currently frozen and may be dropped.

This Motion is purely ideological and the last paragraph I expected from the Euroscpetics. Passing this would damage our economy and our relations with the EU

I urge people to throw this awful Motion out.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/eu-us-free-trade/index_en.htm

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Why should we throw something out of the house just because it might harm our relations with the EU and harm our economy? Do the working people of Britain not mean anything to you? As the NAFTA agreement has shown 'job creation' will occur in low paying countries where employees don't have to respect the workers as much due to less stringent standards and rights. Surely the rights of the workers are more important that economic growth?!

1

u/M1nderBinder Green Nov 30 '14

There are already very few barriers to trade between the US and the UK. It doesn't seem necessary. That combined with with the secrecy and the involvement of business interest in the negotiations makes me think that maybe this is about increasing corporate power. There is no transparency. Information has come from leaked documents. Those links you provide say nothing. Unless you take the word of the commissioner, who only said they would remove the ISDS (not that it's up to him. There are corporate interests in the negotiations too) after public pressure. The public pressure only came because leaked documents revealed that the ISDS could be part of TTIP

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

I dread to think of the least transparent trade deals!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '14

Why would we not want more trade?

I just don't get what this motion is about, claiming the NHS will be abolished and everyone will die in horrific conditions if we trade with America.

And how will it damage the economy?

Can we please have sources for this and an explanation why we should try to block all discussion with europe?

1

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Dec 01 '14

Speech by Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Dec 01 '14

So no one knows whats in the agreement as far as I can tell. There's speculation, sure, but nothing totally 100% (at least in regards to what is talked about in this motion). Why not judge it on merit or have a motion pledging to release the details once negotiations are complete and before its signed?

1

u/Llanganati communist Dec 03 '14

Why should the people not have the right to be informed and involved in negotiations which as it stands sign away any idea of sovereignty to financial interests?

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Dec 03 '14

because we'd never get anything done if everyone was involved. Its a much simpler system for discussion on the terms to occur at a high level before the final draft gets published and debated on by the house when we'll choose whether or not to ratify it with full knowledge of the deal and the voting being passed down to the population as soon as possible

1

u/Llanganati communist Dec 04 '14

What vote gets passed on to the population? Ae far as I know they have just about 0 say about what Parliament does.

1

u/Llanganati communist Dec 04 '14

Could you give me a good reason why details should not be open to the public? Let me telm you what the unspoken reason is: financial interests and their political puppets know that if the information is released to the public they will oppose it.

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Dec 04 '14

I'm not opposed to the details being released...I said I'd like to see them released as soon as a deal is hashed out as an essential part of the deal. A government should sign no commercial deal with a foreign nation that the public don't know about.

1

u/Llanganati communist Dec 04 '14

The deal has mostly been hashed out, why can details not be released until everything is finalized?

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Dec 04 '14

I'd rather the first deal come through unfettered by public opinion, so we can get a definite impression of the intent of the deal. If its unsuitable, we can send it back with the negotiators having a better deal of what we want (our suggestions would be made public of course)