If we vote for Brexit what happens

Shakethedisease

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - day 3 of Obama saying exactly what the Remain camp have written for him - could this be overkill and lead to a backlash or is that just wishful thinking?

The '10 years for a trade deal' is top story for the BBC again, the continuing protests against the TTIP deal that we will get if we vote to remain are relegated to a small story on the business page.

The newspapers and pundits all loved it. The people... meh.

New YouGov research reveals that British people don't welcome Mr Obama's contribution to the debate, however. The majority (53%) say it was inappropriate for the President to express a preference on how Britain should vote while 35% say it was appropriate.

Although these views are likely to coincide with one's position on the EU referendum – pro-EU Labour voters tend to say Obama's intervention was appropriate while eurosceptic over 60s say it was not – the percentage who criticise the President outstrips the current Brexit vote share.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/public-obama-eu-debate/

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - day 3 of Obama saying exactly what the Remain camp have written for him - could this be overkill and lead to a backlash or is that just wishful thinking?

The '10 years for a trade deal' is top story for the BBC again, the continuing protests against the TTIP deal that we will get if we vote to remain are relegated to a small story on the business page.

As I posted elsewhere on MSE yesterday this is a flawed argument.

TTIP is is favoured by the UK Conservatives. I know that recently the opportunists in Leave have latched on it to as a reason to leave but consider this:

Boris Johnson has dismissed critics of a controversial US-EU trade deal as "numskulls" and "left-wing misery guts globalisation campaigners".

The London Mayor used his Telegraph column this week to deride the "panic" and "fears" surrounding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which has garnered controversy as critics say it would herald the "irreversible privatisation" of the NHS.

"There is absolutely nothing not to like about the TTIP. As [Winston] Churchill might have said, it is altogether un-sordid," wrote Johnson, who has recently written a biography of the wartime leader. "And yet virtually the only commentary we have been offered is absurdly hostile and misinformed."

The talks aimed at thrashing out TTIP, which David Cameron said could be the "biggest trade deal in history", have seen hundreds of people take to the streets earlier this month in protest, complaining that the deal would let corporations "bulldoze through our public services and sue the government for loss of profits if they didn’t make enough money."

Johnson poured scorn on these protests, writing: "I do not wish in any way to inflame these numskulls (sic), but it is not just that their fears are overdone. They are talking rubbish. Almost every single objection to the current proposals is based on pure superstition."

He praised the "Churchillian" trade talks, adding: "If we can get the EU-US free trade pact done in the next 12 months, we will boost the British economy by about £10 billion per year, and boost the whole of the EU by £100 billion. That is not to be sneezed at – not when the eurozone is once again dangling over the lip of a downturn.

"This pact is a massive potential win for humanity – the closer economic union between two vast territories that share a tradition of democracy, free speech, pluralism: the Western values that are under threat in so many other parts of the world; and where almost everyone has English as a first or second language."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/20/boris-johnson-ttip_n_6012958.html

That was in 2014, now he is on the anti-TTIP bandwagon. What a conversion?

There is considerable scepticism in the EU and the US about the current form of the TTIP draft. This is the reason for the delays. These issues are not about free trade but are about harmonising national laws on regulation, contracting, health and safety etc.

Cameron and Johnson are in favour of it as they see it as route to more privatisation of the NHS, Education etc. Johnson's change of heart is political opportunism at its worst.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/what-is-ttip-and-why-does-cameron-want-to-sign-the-biggest-trade-agreement-in-history-10247456.html

cells

BobQ wrote: »

As I posted elsewhere on MSE yesterday this is a flawed argument.

TTIP is is favoured by the UK Conservatives. I know that recently the opportunists in Leave have latched on it to as a reason to leave but consider this:


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/20/boris-johnson-ttip_n_6012958.html

That was in 2014, now he is on the anti-TTIP bandwagon. What a conversion?

There is considerable scepticism in the EU and the US about the current form of the TTIP draft. This is the reason for the delays. These issues are not about free trade but are about harmonising national laws on regulation, contracting, health and safety etc.

Cameron and Johnson are in favour of it as they see it as route to more privatisation of the NHS, Education etc. Johnson's change of heart is political opportunism at its worst.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/what-is-ttip-and-why-does-cameron-want-to-sign-the-biggest-trade-agreement-in-history-10247456.html

how does having one set of say fire safety on bed mattresses regulations rather than two morph into a corporate lizard conspiracy to take over the NHS?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

how does having one set of say fire safety on bed mattresses regulations rather than two morph into a corporate lizard conspiracy to take over the NHS?

you mean the ability of US companies to sue the government if they are not allowed to tender (or are unsuccessful) for NHS contracts?

BobQ

cells wrote: »

how does having one set of say fire safety on bed mattresses regulations rather than two morph into a corporate lizard conspiracy to take over the NHS?

I never said it did. But I am convinced that the Conservatives favoured TTIP as it would allow US firms to compete to provide NHS services. Many of the 3m+ people who signed the petition did so for this reason.

The point is that TTIP contains many things and this is the reason for the delays in the agreement. One aspect is harmonisation of laws and regulations. US do not want EU H&S but neither does the EU want US banking regulations.

The fact that Johnson was so dismissive of objections to TTIP 2 :years ago and now sees it as a reason to leave demonstrates that his views are unreliable. Then you have Chris Graying in Parliament less than 6 months ago. Now fully behind the anti-TTIP views of the Leave campaign, then calling it a left wing conspiracy no undermine TTIP.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record, and they will have been heard by the Minister sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). He is of course welcome to stay for the debate. He is right that there has been a huge amount of inappropriate scaremongering about TTIP; it is being used by left-wing pressure groups as a vehicle to make an anti-Government campaign more widespread. It is about time those groups acted more responsibly and stopped telling people things that are simply not true.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

you mean the ability of US companies to sue the government if they are not allowed to tender (or are unsuccessful) for NHS contracts?

well already the UK and all other EU nations have no option but to let all of the EU compete for procurement of public contracts

So what is massively different if a US company can also bid to supply toilet paper to the NHS rather than Just a German or French or Spanish company?

How are we worse off? If the USA company is willing to supply the toilet paper cheaper than the Spanish company is the UK worse off?

cells

BobQ wrote: »

I never said it did. But I am convinced that the Conservatives favoured TTIP as it would allow US firms to compete to provide NHS services. Many of the 3m+ people who signed the petition did so for this reason.

The point is that TTIP contains many things and this is the reason for the delays in the agreement. One aspect is harmonisation of laws and regulations. US do not want EU H&S but neither does the EU want US banking regulations.

The fact that Johnson was so dismissive of objections to TTIP 2 :years ago and now sees it as a reason to leave demonstrates that his views are unreliable. Then you have Chris Graying in Parliament less than 6 months ago. Now fully behind the anti-TTIP views of the Leave campaign, then calling it a left wing conspiracy no undermine TTIP.

I have this crazy idea that most of our MPs are just as stupid an uninformed as the general public. Half of them would probably sign this petition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw




When the public sector wants to procure goods or services they tender it out and any company in the EU can bid for it. The lowest bid doesn't always win often they have various things they consider.

So right now there are 28 countries which can bid freely to supply the NHS with toilet paper. How does the NHS or UK lose out if now 29 countries can bid to supply the NHS with toilet paper?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

well already the UK and all other EU nations have no option but to let all of the EU compete for procurement of public contracts

So what is massively different if a US company can also bid to supply toilet paper to the NHS rather than Just a German or French or Spanish company?

How are we worse off? If the USA company is willing to supply the toilet paper cheaper than the Spanish company is the UK worse off?

glad you have changed your argument to a more rational one

although you have so many for each season it's not so difficult I suppose

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

glad you have changed your argument to a more rational one

although you have so many for each season it's not so difficult I suppose

So what do you have against american companies suinng the government if they are not allowed to bid to supply toilet paper to the NHS when 27 EU countries companies have that right today

Of course the government won't bar american companies from putting in bids to supply toilet paper to a hospital there is no benefit reason or logic to put in place a free trade agreement and then discriminate against one of the trading partners. Just as of would be stupid for the NHS to put out a tender and say only French Italian Spanish companies can bid and not German or Polish companies


So what's all this nonsense about american companies taking over or selling the NHS

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

So what do you have against american companies suinng the government if they are not allowed to bid to supply toilet paper to the NHS when 27 EU countries companies have that right today

Of course the government won't bar american companies from putting in bids to supply toilet paper to a hospital there is no benefit reason or logic to put in place a free trade agreement and then discriminate against one of the trading partners. Just as of would be stupid for the NHS to put out a tender and say only French Italian Spanish companies can bid and not German or Polish companies


So what's all this nonsense about american companies taking over or selling the NHS

no, as usual your well argued examples, are simply wrong.