TTIP? Latest EU deal threatens our NHS

[WetAugust]

Heard of TTIP?

I hadn't until this morning when a nice lady pushed a flyer into my hand at the local farmers market.

She wasnt a swivel-eyed loon and neither were the other dozen or so people who were leafletting with her.

TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

It sounds quite useful and benign.

Until you look into it and understand that it's a deal that is being negoiated by the EU with the US (so it is a deal that UK will automatically be signed up to) that has very bad consequences for us.

This TTIP will

permit private corporations to sue our Government if it passes laws that could damage those corporations profits. Laws such as the minimum wage or the plain wrappers on cigarette packets

permit US healthcare companies to sue our UK government should our government try to halt NHS privitisation.

TTIP will take even more power away from the democratic process and give it to the EU and private comapnies.

If the EU's recent law banning certain tyoes of vacumn cleaning had you laughing now is the time to stop and start to understand just how our lives are being adversely affected by deals that are being done behind our backs by the EU.

You can find out more at secure.38degrees.org.uk/pages/ttip_more_information

Wrt NHS, I'm sure someone with specific knowledge will chip in to the thread, for other sectors, similar trade agreements have already led to the governments of other countries being legally challenged when they have wanted changed the law (to protect the health of their citizens), as the importing companies were unhappy that this would affect their profits (google Philip Morris, Australia packaging laws, for one example). TTIP will give American companies investing here the right to seek legal redress if we (the uk/eu change our laws, including as I understand it, employment laws and minimum wage etc in a way that harms their business). The company itself can seek legal redress (and/or lobby to stop us making the changes). The company isn't required to get the American authorities to do this via trade talks.

As for foodstuffs, agriculture, animal welfare - there is a very long list of chemicals, additives and animal husbandry practices which are in widespread use in America but which are banned from sale in Uk/eu, Canada and Australia. With some things, these are not allowed to be implored here at all (milk and meat produced with hormone injections for example), others, such as GMO containing food, is required by law to be labelled in the EU.

There is huge financial pressure (ie by restricting import of some of our goods) to force the eu/uk to not only allow the import of foods containing additives banned here, or using hormone injected meat/milk (also banned here), and GMO ingredients... and to not label these products.

I'd say that was certainly a threat- to my right to know what is actually in the food I'm eating, for a start.

Also, our farmers will be competing against cheaper to produce imports, produced to lower welfare standards.

Whoops double post !

As far as the NHS goes this is the start of the government running down the NHS. It will bring it to it's knees, make it ripe fir private companies to make further inroads and then declare it a success story.

It's inevitable.

TheBogQueen ... isn't that the Labour & SNP 'boogy man' story wheeled out at elections times to frighten their voters, when the FACTS show the NHS is in more danger socialists throwing money at the NHS, creating mass inefficiencies, leaving it UNABLE to compete with the private sector in the first place?

What was the original budget of the Labour NHS IT system, what did it come in at, and why didn't it do what originally thought it should do?

When Labour formed Hospital Trusts, how come this government has toasted about 20,000 Managers we apparently didn't really need, and put that money back into the 'front line' - and still be accused of "running down the NHS"?

And when Labour tries to use the private sector it is a disaster.

“Tony Blair has defended the spread of private finance initiatives under Labour as seven NHS trusts face administration as they struggle to repay large debts from PFI deals.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9356942/Blair-defends-PFI-as-NHS-trusts-face-bankruptcy.html

“Six other NHS trusts face joining South London Healthcare in "administration" as they have taken on projects viewed by ministers as "unsustainable", it has emerged.”

“South London Healthcare NHS Trust will be the first in the country to be put under the control of a special administrator tasked with securing its finances.”

“The schemes saw private firms building hospitals, leaving the NHS with an annual fee to pay over around 30 years.”

“The total value of the NHS buildings built by Labour under the scheme is £11.4bn. But the bill, which will also include fees for maintenance, cleaning and portering, will come to more than £70bn on current projections and will not be paid off until 2049."

Some trusts are spending up to a fifth of their budget servicing the mortgages.

“Across the public sector, taxpayers are committed to paying £229bn for hospitals, schools, roads and other projects with a capital value of £56bn.”

Surely the main problem with using the private sector involved in the NHS, are the half-wit politicians signing OFF on these deals, having NO experience of commercial contracts in the outside world.

No wonder the incompetents are worried about a TTIP, which as far as I see just formalizes the private sectors recourse against incompetent government changing their minds on what they signed - when those companies would still go through the courts anyway, for any Breech of Contract.

If TTIP makes governments both efficient and wary of throwing taxpayers money at the private sector, in order to spent above their annual budgets and/or boost their poll ratings, it can't be all bad.

If this government/coalition is spending more ££££ using the private sector than Labour, does anyone have the figures for us to look at?

TTIP is still being negotiated. We don't know what it will say. All we have is a leaked draft dated July 2013, the EU negotiating mandate and a statement from the US setting out its objectives. Whilst campaigners claim it will have the negative effects stated in the OP I cannot see anything in the leaked draft to support that view.

I have only just found out about TTIP. I am posting here to keep the discussion going. There should be more information about it than there is.

The only 'new' bit of info I recently picked up, was that EU companies would be allowed to compete in the much larger U.S. private health care market, which in theory could create some jobs here and add to UK companies profits and tax payments to the Exchequer.

But I'm still at a loss to why this TTIP is flagged as an 'NHS danger' reform, as to me, historically, the REAL NHS danger is numb-nut politicians in government BADLY USING/CONTRACTING the private sector for electoral gains (better described on another thread) "a long-term drain on resources out of all proportion to the short-term gains."