AIBU to ask if Lord Owen is right about TTIP?

[SpringingIntoAction]

Is former Labour Minister and SDP politician, Lord David Owen right to think that TTIP will be detrimental to the NHS?

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/06/brexit-is-necessary-to-protect-nhs-from-ttip-says-david-owen

You cannot accept 336,000 additional people into the UK in one year alone to rely on existing NHS services and say

He is also wrong about this: "Current levels of migration are causing unsustainable pressures on our public services and we can see that the NHS is creaking under the strain.

You've identitified the issue nicely in your post. It's not increased immigration that invariably puts strain on public services. It's increased immigration without using the tax and NI contributions of those immigrants to increase service provision correspondingly that creates problems.

That's not an EU decision, it's a domestic one.

Hover

I just don't subscribe to giving away my country and living under the rule of the EU superstate. I believe in democracy. I am utterly horrified that anyone believes that their country should not have self-determination.

Jassy

It's a problem that has been forced on us because the EU has removed our ability to limit the amount of EU citizens who chose to make the UK their home. Prior to this the UK conducted a census every 10 years which enabled it to predict the demand for services in the coming years.

With EU migration we have no idea from year to year how many EU citizens may chose to come here to live here. It is therefore almost impossible to build the services that will be needed for an unknown increase in population due to EU migration into the UK.

"With EU migration we have no idea from year to year how many EU citizens may chose to come here to live here. It is therefore almost impossible to build the services that will be needed for an unknown increase in population due to EU migration into the UK."

Which would be a relevent argument if it were not the case that as previously stated most EU immigrants go home, net migration for the EU8 countries is about 42, 000 for the last two years, which means that there are a good number of people going home every year. Migrants are more likely to be young, less likely to use services like hospitals regularly etc, the fact that 25% of all births in the UK are to foreign born mothers statistic takes into account no difference between EU and Non EU immigrants, nor mothers that are married to British fathers.

As previously stated ( and backed by Oxford University and UCL) , the fall in tax reciepts would not be offset by a fall in demand so the pressure on services would actually be worsened.

Many things have caused the pressure to build on services, but as they are coming to a head 6 years in to large cuts, that can be one point, another would be the impact of the ageing population, immgiration does cause an effect on the provision of services but it would be significantly lower than the first two cited. It is a convinient excuse for politicians to blame immigration and not other issues.

But this is just a blatantly emotive lie! We all believe in democracy! Not one of us believes this will lead to an EU Superstate. You are making repeated straw man arguments because you don't have any genuine arguments you can win

When you accuse people of lying you have lost the plot

The EUs entire et hose is 'ever closer union' as stated in the preamble of its Treaty of Rome. EVER. CLOSER. UNION.

The EU now has legal entity. It is a 'thing' in its own right. It can now have all the trappings of a country that it needs and it is setting about securing them. It has applied for UN membership.

The aim of the EU is full political union between its member states.

It is dishonest to attempt to deny that

A lot of that is based on conscious domestic decisions not to monitor (and act on) domestic population levels. And it's definitely a domestic political decision not to increase service provision in line with population.

Much better to allow lots of house/flat building (good) without requiring services to be built to cater for increased housing capacity, which is the way our government likes it - particularly when it comes to schools. Market ideology gone horribly wrong.

Cameron won an agreement that the UK could opt of ever closer union agreements in future, btw,

Well nice to know you've all finally noticed TTIP, after the couple of years I've spent trying to get people to take an interest (including here on MN).

If you think there's been a "media blackout", you've been reading the wrong media. That very Guardian article linked in the OP has links to older articles on TTIP by the Guardian.

There was a debate in Parliament about TTIP getting considerable more scrutiny, which I'm just trying to find the links for.

I've been aware of TTIP and its implications for ages, and yes I agree that the Guardian has been the main media outlet reporting it.

It is a worry, but I don't see how we'd get a better deal out of the US from outside of the EU.

MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels

I tried to have a sensible debate with Springing about the EU the other day and ran out of energy/patience/crayons.

You have my sympathies.

Lurked

It is all very well quoting research but you need to ensure that the research is still relevant.

What you keep quoting are studies of certain demographics conducted in a certain time fame.

Now, just because the studies at that time showed x, y and a doesn't mean that x, y, and a will always be true

So, if you take a study that includes the migrants from certain EU member countries you cannot expect to automatically get the same results when include the additional migrants from other EU member countries who may also have migrants that may come to live on the UK.

Plus the the fact that the original samples on which these pieces of research were conducted will have children, will age, will require care themselves, will die etc.

So the research is a snapshot of a particular period or demonstrates trends that were occurring within a certain demographic within the timescale studied.

The research does not permit anyone to say that 'Migrants will always do X'

It just shows that between this date and that date the group of migrants that were studied did X

You cannot use that research to say that EU migrants from Bulgaria will do X because Bulgaria had not been a. Member for sufficient time within the studies. You cannot predict what migrants from Albania to the UK when Albania joins the EU will do, because Albania and Albanians are a different demographic with different national characteristics to those that the studies examined You can only say that if Albanians follow the pattern of migrants from similar countries they will do x etc.

You also have to consider the passage of time and the fact that a person's net contribution to the economy changes during their lifetime. The migrants that were studied during a productive period in which they were net contributors to the UK may no longer be net contributors and vice versa

That why I am saying that research is useful but using it in an unqualified manner and using to to state what will happen in the future is incorrect.

That's why I keep harping back to the fact that a migrant with a wife and 2 children on minimum wage is not a net contributor to the UK. However a well paid migrant in similar circumstances could be.

Meanwhile, here's what Cameron said about TTIP in November 2014:

"David Cameron has pledged to put "rocket boosters" behind plans for an EU-US free trade deal. The UK prime minister said EU and US leaders had met and all agreed the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) "is a deal we want". Speaking at the G20 summit, he said arguments against TTIP were "weak" and fears over the NHS were "nonsense".

So you can see what MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels is concerned about. The current UK government is extremely pro TTIP.

By the way, from the same BBC article:
Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, has called for the NHS to be excluded from the deal.
...
At their annual conference in September, delegates from UK unions unanimously backed a motion opposing TTIP.

Yep, lurked, although there's been a fair bit in The Independent of blessed memory, and some on the BBC.

But Spring - you're not quoting any research, any findings, any studies, merely unfounded rhetoric! You're hardly in a position to criticise anyone

I am pointing out that research should be quoted in context.

I don't have to back my posts up with research. This is a discussion forum. It's quite possible for people to form their own opinions.

lurked101

"Cameron won an agreement that the UK could opt of ever closer union agreements in future, btw"

Not sure this means much. When the phrase "ever closer union" was first used, the main goals were a shared currency and a passport-free zone. The Euro and Schengen have already happened, and we're not part of either. And whilst I'm sure there are a few super-keen Eurocrats knocking around in Brussels who would love to see a United States of Europe, the reality is that it is never going to happen because there is no political will for it.

So in essence, what David Cameron secured was an opt out from something we actually already opted out of years ago. What a waste of a bargaining chip.

I tried to explain to Springing the other day that rather than freaking out about the words "ever closer union" we should think about what it actually means in practice and take a view about whether it was anything to be scared of or not, but she wasn't having any of it.

David Owen is a very interesting character. He is a great supporter of the NHS, however, unlike that quisling Shirley Williams. TTIP is very worrying, and has been since it was first proposed.

But yet again you present no data yourself, and you continue to say about this migrant with two children point. You seem to think it is a get out clause that allows you to counter anything that is put to you. It isn't

As it stands, it also means that a British national on minumum wage with a wife and two children is of no economic benefit to the UK then, and as most people die in net tax deficit you can't then discuss the fact that "their parents paid for it."

You also ignore the contribution of immigrants, not just in fiscal terms, but to that of the business they work for, and the subsequent multiplier effect of their presence to the UK economy. Now this is the real "hidden" issue, if we were to cut immigration what would happen to demand for goods and services, and if it were to be a fall in consumption the negative effects on the economy would be dire.

As well as ignoring the fact that if Brexit occurs current the likelyhood is that residents in the UK would not be required to go home to their country of origin.

Repeat again, the fall in tax reciepts would be more costly than the fall in demand on UK services would be beneficial.

A really big issue that has not been addressed so far is that we do know that short term BREXIT would be adverse for the UK economy, but we have no idea of what damage this could do in terms of lost skills and lack of investment and the long term effects of this. We do know that the BOE ( and several banks and the economist) have said the long term BREXIT would make the UK worse off.

You have a nfantasy about the strength of the UK position in trading negotiations ( i believe on another thread you proposed joining NAFTA or PIF too _ but these are not based in reality and then subsequently create strawmen to support your argument.

Do i make sense to anyone else btw?

The Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement part of TTIP was suspended in January 2015: "TTIP: Activists triumph as contentious US free trade deal clause suspended"

But I have an idea something has moved on that since, and I can't remember what.

*MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels

I tried to have a sensible debate with Springing about the EU the other day and ran out of energy/patience/crayons.

You have my sympathies*

When you start abusing the poster then you've effectively lost your argument.

I hope people read your comments. It says more about you than it does about me.

You do, lurked, but Springing has made her mind up and I fear your efforts are falling on deaf ears.