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

"Springing I have seen quite a few of your posts about the EU or at least seen your admirable in put on them. I have seen interesting debate both ways but sadly, something has gone off with this thread. It does seem as though some childish and immature posters have got the bit in their teeth. I am hoping nearer the time, more interesting debate can be had without the childish name calling."

Well I must be in a parallel universe.

Or was Springing not the one repeatedly saying, "You're voting for Cameron! Yes you are! Voting remain means you're voting for Cameron, you must be a big fan of Cameron, hahahahaha!"...?

And referring to another poster as "an empty vessel" and "an irritating background noise"?

And when I got fed up with her childish antics on the other thread and said I was off, she and Daisy were pretty much saying, "Good, now we can get back to our discussion about how evil the EU is without any irritating remain-ers spoiling our party."

I think you and I must have very different ideas about what constitutes childish behaviour and what constitutes a sensible debate. As you were...

"Buttered - with immigration the number one - hot burning potatoes, do you really really think that some klutz with no imagination would just do us a deal like Norway, which is a totally different set of criteria?"

It will be a deal like Norway, or we will leave the single market altogether. Those will be the two options.

There is no "better deal" to be had where we get to cherry pick the bits we like and get rid of the bits we don't.

If the result is a "leave" vote, this will become apparent very quickly. And I will be sitting on the other side of the channel saying, "I told you so."

I have seen, noticed springings contributions to EU threads and they have been fine, but the level of posters I suppose has been better

I also liked this comment from Lawson

"there's no campaign to love the EU, that is conspicuous by its absence, so all they are trying to do is scare the pants off everybody about leaving, but it is crazy"

Its true, people seem to be passionate about leaving for all sorts of reasons but the only arguments to stay are based on fear or direct personal reasons which skewers ones views.

Stepintothelight, Nigel Lawson is an extremely rich man who lives in France. He has nothing to lose from Brexit. For ordinary people, the stakes are somewhat higher. I've met Nigel Lawson and heard him debate, and I wasn't impressed. The fact that he's a climate change denier should tell you everything you need to know about his grasp on reality.

Lawson says that but fogets to add that most countries are in some kind of localised trading bloc. Oh and he says that and trots back to France to live :) The hypocrite.

I agree that we won't be able to cherry pick a deal that will be beneficial to the UK yet would be detrimental to other countries economies/industries.

If the pound falls sharply following a Brexit vote and all our imports get more expensive, ordinary people all over the UK are going to find that the contents of their shopping trolley are a much bigger strain on their wallet than they used to be. And for the poorest people, that could mean the difference between being able to afford to feed their families, and not being able to afford it. Meanwhile, the price of Nigel Lawson's baguettes and bottles of Chateauneuf du Pape will stay the same because he doesn't even live here!

For ordinary people, the stakes are somewhat higher

Are you trying to claim that only very rich people are in favour of Brexit and that the ordinary working person is more likely to support Remain?

Or that because he is rich and lives in France he is not allowed an opinion on this?

I think you will find a mix on both sides with many ordinary working people with lives adversely affected by the EU voting out.

Thanks lurked. As I said it was a quick glance lots of heavy reading in it.
I guess my next question would be how is this likely to change in the event of Brexit? Would we be able to alter the terms of immigration to accept more of the people who contribute and fewer of those who don't?
I am imagining immigration along the lines of Australia or the American green card, how would this work?

"there's no campaign to love the EU, that is conspicuous by its absence, so all they are trying to do is scare the pants off everybody about leaving, but it is crazy"

Lots of businesses have already released statements saying how beneficial the EU is to them, the remain campaign highlights better economy and job opportunities etc. But far more media time seems to be given to the exit campaign.

No, I'm saying that the high profile people promoting Brexit (Nigel Lawson, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Rupert Murdoch etc.) are all wealthy people whose livelihoods will not be affected if we leave. They're not at risk of losing their jobs (except Farage, but he'll be thrilled about it for obvious reasons) and they have plenty of money in the bank.

They therefore have nothing to lose by convincing ordinary, working-class people that they'll be better off out when that is not necessarily true.

People think that if we can curtail EU immigration there will be more and better paid job vacancies for British people. But if leaving the EU results in less investment in the UK and reduced employment opportunities, this may not be the case. People also think that EU immigration is putting a strain on public services such as the NHS. But the strain on public services is the result of chronic underfunding. The statistics show that EU migrants are net contributors to the economy. If the economy takes a kicking as a result of leaving the EU and tax revenues are down, how are we going to find more funding for these public services?

It is not just as simple as saying, "The EU doesn't benefit me because of immigration."

Little,

As previously said other countries that have EU borders and the largest part of their trade with the EU have had to accept freedom of movement as part of their trade deal. It is unlikely that we would be able to negotiate a deal that didn't have freedom of movement within it.

Also it would be unlikely that in the case of a brexit vote that current immigrants would be told to go home. The study that you've looked at found that non-EU immigrants were far more likely to be unemployed than EU ones too, so again leaving the EU would not effect this.

"It is unlikely that we would be able to negotiate a deal that didn't have freedom of movement within it."

I would be inclined to say impossible rather than unlikely. The only way this could happen would be if all the other member states agreed to just scrap the whole idea of free movement of people across the whole of the EU. As I said in my long post, they are not going to completely re-write the rules of the single market just for us.

Given that we import more than we export to the EU giving us a net loss, why would we want to negotiate a deal with the EU that doesn't give us the right to decide who enters the country. Surely it is in the interest of businesses within the EU to trade with us, or are their government's prepared to lose part of their export market?

"Why don't any of the Brexiters tell us how this will happen?"

Or better still, why doesn't someone who actually understands what the single market is and how it works tell us how this will happen?

littledrummergirl of course we will still trade with them. But without free movement, we won't have access to the single market, and that's that. If they grant us a concession like that, they might as well just call it a day and dismantle the whole EU project altogether. As soon as you let one member have all the benefits without following any of the rules, none of the other members will be prepared to follow any of the rules either and the whole thing will fall apart.

But as we import more than we export to the EU they hold the cards, our businesses and population are far more reliant on EU pyroduced goods than EU consumers are on oursd. In terms of business advantage? EU firms may find that the UK leaving will hit their profits but this is nothing in comparison to the EU not existing, they will back the EU in this action.

The point you make about losing part of the export market is why other EU countries want the UK to remain. The UK will not be able to get this favourable deal that the Brexiters are all discussing because that would encourage other countries to leave and negotiate their own and this overall would lead to negative concequences for all of the EU countries.

Why would we not just import more from countries outside the EU that we already trade with? The trade we are doing with these countries is increasing anyway, why make ourselves so reliant on one partner(the EU) that we have no option but to keep the status quo?
What do we import exclusively from the EU that we can't import from elsewhere?

Out of our top 15 trading partners 9 are in the EU, that is a lot of trade to "replace".

Other countries outside of the EU is a suggestion often made by brexiters but fails to recognise that many other coutries are already in trade blocs, that these goods and services would have to be transported here and that we might have to pay a higher price for our goods if we are not in some kind of trade deal.

It also ignores the fact that our balance of trade shows that historically around 50% of our trade goes to Europe and this would be put at risk through tariffs and quotas.

Given that we import more than we export to the EU giving us a net loss, why would we want to negotiate a deal with the EU that doesn't give us the right to decide who enters the country. Surely it is in the interest of businesses within the EU to trade with us, or are their government's prepared to lose part of their export market?

There is no existing trade deal with any country to access the single market without tariffs (ie join the EEA or EFTA) which hasn't involved signing up to the four freedoms. There is not going to be one. Quite a few EU member states have said they wouldn't sign up to a deal that gave the UK most or all of the advantages of EU membership while avoiding most or all of the costs.

And here's the thing - we have more to lose. If our goods become too expensive for EU consumers, they have a vast array of other countries with whom they can trade tariff-free. If tariffs mean EU goods become too expensive for British consumers outside EFTA - then what?

It's not a negotiating position I'd like to be in full stop. Particularly not if I were seeking to get a very unusual exemption to one of the key principles of free trade with Europe.

Plus, a Britain in the EEA or EFTA would be much less democratic. We'd be subject to a large amount of EU law without having the elected and appointed representatives to vote on those laws that we do now.

^Why would we not just import more from countries outside the EU that we already trade with? The trade we are doing with these countries is increasing anyway, why make ourselves so reliant on one partner(the EU) that we have no option but to keep the status quo?
What do we import exclusively from the EU that we can't import from elsewhere?^

Oh, sure, we can. It won't be free of tariffs, though. The stuff we buy from the EU/EFTA will generally be because that's the cheapest option. So having to go elsewhere will drive up costs.

Yep, what Jessy said.

I've been away for five minutes (been watching some Marx brothers films, Buttered you would habe loved them!) and the fan-boys are having an ego-stroking session. Must be a fan-boy thing.

I wonder how many of them are men? One or two I imagine. At least I am out in the open.

#TeamLurked

Man-splaining to the proles a speciality.

Out of our top 15 trading partners 9 are in the EU, that is a lot of trade to "replace".

So how many of those 9 countries do we import from? Ireland is by far our biggest trading partner within the EU and they have said they want to continue to trade with us.
Of the top 9 countries, how many have said they will not trade with Britain?

Why would other countries not want to trade with us?

I am also not convinced by the food being much more expensive argument. Can any government afford to have people starving in the streets?
I can understand luxury items increasing, I think steps would be taken to keep basic items affordable as the government would not want riots in the street over food.
Luxury items wouldn't affect most of those below the poverty line.