If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

BobQ wrote: »

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..

People sign stuff because someone asks them too not because they know !!!!!! it is at any level let alone any depth.

The NHS tenders out contracts for stuff it doesn't want to do in house. For instance the NHS probably (I'm guessing) doesn't build hospital extensions it puts out a contract to have it built. Companies all across Europe can bid for that and its illegal to stop companies across the EU from bidding. You don't have to accept their bid and often it isn't just a matter of price eg you might turn down a lower price bid from a 2 day old company with no experience and track record of building hospital extensions.

So I am still at a loss as to how TTIP is going to be American companies taking over the NHS. Its just an extension of free trade so 29 countries can bid for tenders rather than the 28 countries that can now bid

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

They well may be wrong as I've not spent weeks learning about and thinking through what ttip is and it's impacts

But when the internet offers an explanation of american lizards companies taking over the NHS by bidding for work v the more reasonable explanation that there is nothing more sinister about that free trade deal as the one between the EU28 then I will opt for the latter until you provide something substantial and believable that the American lizards are indeed out to steal the NHS

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

They well may be wrong as I've not spent weeks learning about and thinking through what ttip is and it's impacts

But when the internet offers an explanation of american lizards companies taking over the NHS by bidding for work v the more reasonable explanation that there is nothing more sinister about that free trade deal as the one between the EU28 then I will opt for the latter until you provide something substantial and believable that the American lizards are indeed out to steal the NHS

neither of us acknowledge your nonsense of lizards.

but I'm glad you have acknowledged you know little of TTIP but as usual that doesn't stop you constructing logically plausible but incorrect hypothesis.
I'm surprised you haven't reminded me of they are our cousins just like the Turks and so you wish to spread your wealth with them all equally.

BobQ

cells wrote: »

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?

I doubt they are worried about toilet paper. They are likely to be bidding for Clinical Commissioning Groups or running your local hospital or Academy School.

BobQ

cells wrote: »

.

So I am still at a loss as to how TTIP is going to be American companies taking over the NHS. Its just an extension of free trade so 29 countries can bid for tenders rather than the 28 countries that can now bid

Try reading about it. It is more than an extension of free trade.

The Can-EU deal (for example) allows governments to restrict who can compete in providing government services. So it could restrict them to UK suppliers or suppliers from certain countries or a defined list that meets certain legal requirements. In affect a Government can control market access.

TTIP is likely to enable any supplier to have full market access and mount legal challenges if it thinks it does not have it. The EU is alleged to be arguing for a CETA type clause in TTIP but those are the sorts of issues being discussed.

I would have thought that the Brexit campaigners would favour a policy of allowing national governments to decide who can compete for contracts.

Also it may require us to reduce standards or increase them depending on how they are harmonised under the TTIP.

cells

BobQ wrote: »

I doubt they are worried about toilet paper. They are likely to be bidding for Clinical Commissioning Groups or running your local hospital or Academy School.

Why should I be worried about one more country having the ability to bid. What's safe virtuous and wholesome about the 28 in the EU that can bid today vs the USA that would make it 29 countries that can bid?

cells

BobQ wrote: »

Try reading about it. It is more than an extension of free trade.

The Can-EU deal (for example) allows governments to restrict who can compete in providing government services. So it could restrict them to UK suppliers or suppliers from certain countries or a defined list that meets certain legal requirements. In affect a Government can control market access.

TTIP is likely to enable any supplier to have full market access and mount legal challenges if it thinks it does not have it. The EU is alleged to be arguing for a CETA type clause in TTIP but those are the sorts of issues being discussed.

I would have thought that the Brexit campaigners would favour a policy of allowing national governments to decide who can compete for contracts.

Also it may require us to reduce standards or increase them depending on how they are harmonised under the TTIP.

I have no intention to spend any meaningful time reading about it especially as I suspect most the internet info will be BS. However I am willing to listen to the views and reasonings in this thread

Currently any EU company can tender for any EU public contract. So 28 nations have the ability to bid for NHS or any other state contract.

So how does a 29th country also getting the same rights as 28 countries currently enjoy bring apon us the destruction of civilisation and the NHS as we know it.

I used toilet paper supply as a example to highlight how silly it is but you can use any example. What does the NHS tender out contracts for.


And yes there is the regulations thing. Again why does it have to be a net bad rather than a net good. I'm sure the Americans have fire safety for furniture just as the EU does. Do we need two different sets of regulations? Is a chair in London more likely to combust spontaneously if it is built to regulations acceptable in new York?


Overall I am confident this free trade deal is no more sinister than the EU free trade. Ideals of lizards taking over the NHS are clearly scare mongering

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

neither of us acknowledge your nonsense of lizards.

but I'm glad you have acknowledged you know little of TTIP but as usual that doesn't stop you constructing logically plausible but incorrect hypothesis.
I'm surprised you haven't reminded me of they are our cousins just like the Turks and so you wish to spread your wealth with them all equally.

It's nice and all that you post totally empty posts like the above the finger exercise must have some value even if it has no value to any of the readers.

There are many things I haven't spent many weeks or months studying to come to a conclusion but I am smart enough that more often than not I can figure out using my own mind logic and reasoning.

The anti ttip protesters are basically saying, giving america similar rights to trade and invest in our nation as 27 other nations currently enjoy is going to cause havoc. Put in that honest way the average Jo would question the sanity of the protestors so instead they have to mask it in language and lies of american corporations taking over the NHS

cells

Does ttip give American companies any more rights than EU companies currently enjoy?

Generali

cells wrote: »

Does ttip give American companies any more rights than EU companies currently enjoy?

The main change with TTIP that I can see, apart from the massive extension of free trade which is a wholly good thing, is that it allows US companies to use the courts to seek redress in a similar way to how European companies can use them at present in the EU and EU companies to do the same in the US, e.g. the way that alcohol companies have been able to challenge the validity of minimum unit pricing as they believe it to be illegal.

This is an important step forwards as it prevents Governments enacting anti-trade measures via other means.