1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TTIP and why you should care.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Corky42, 18 Oct 2014.

  1. moose67

    moose67 Member

    Joined:
    22 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    358
    Likes Received:
    7
    This needs fighting till the bitter end!

    We are all being sold out and we should be concerned. Glad to see others are taking notice :thumb:
     
  2. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Isn't the trying something different approach what's got us in this mess in the first place, every government for the last 30+ years have tried something different with the NHS, all it's lead to is ever increasing levels of governance, ever increasing levels of bureaucracy.

    The most recent changes have seen us go from 10 strategic health authorities and 152 primary health care trusts (152 bodies), too 1 NHS commission board, 4 regional offices, 50 local offices, and 212 care commissioning groups (267 bodies). Apparently both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor allegedly "failed to realise the explosive extent of plans drawn up by Andrew Lansley"

    That i can agree on, TTIP wouldn't just effect the NHS.

    Safety standards would change, environmental safe guards, workers rights, TTIP would impact everything. In the EU a chemical has to be proven to be safe before it can be used in a product, in the US any chemical can be used in a product until it can be proven to cause harm, TTIP will, from what i can tell, lead to massive deregulation on both sides of the Atlantic.


    I can tell you i was none to pleased, but then it happened so fast we didn't have much chance to object. I would disagree that the privatisation of RM is worse than the NHS, one deals with letters and parcels, the other deals with people lives.

    I understand what you're saying, but the ferocity doesn't surprise me.

    After all when the public have objected in the past those objections tend to fall on deaf ears, British Rail, British Steel, British gas, British telecom, Royal Mail. I have probably forgotten many others but i think it goes to show why people ferociously defend the NHS, after all we aren't dealing with how we make a train journey, get our gas, or send a letter, we are dealing with how people get treated for life changing illnesses.
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,259
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Corky45 has already pointed out how governmental changes have increased complexity and bureaucracy in the NHS exponentially. Moreover to try and implement £20 billion in efficiency savings on an existing system while at the same time trying to change it into an entirely different system is pure crazy.

    It is also about duty of care and accountability. The NHS has a legal duty of care; private companies don't. If things go wrong there is a formal complaints process and you can also sue the NHS. Private companies can skirt responsibility by disbanding and reforming under a different name --or simply disavowing liability. It then takes the patient/family deep pockets and a lot of time and effort to go up against company lawyers.

    The market competition model has been known to be inappropriate for health care since the 1990's. It would be a long post explaining why.

    Because most people don't know. And access to affordable health care lies closer to people's heart than the price of a stamp.

    It's the thin end of the wedge. And European models are not better than the NHS, so why pursue them?

    Actually, that research has found that the NHS is the most efficient way to deliver health care in the world. It is the best system there is. Yet still the government is hell-bent on changing it.
     
    Last edited: 19 Oct 2014
  4. G0UDG

    G0UDG helping others costs nothing

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,255
    Likes Received:
    504
    I was In London on Saturday marching against this crap and the other crap from this idiot Condem goverment
     
  5. mrlongbeard

    mrlongbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    357
    Not so.
    If it were we'd not have the ever amending REACH regulations, specfically annex XVII & SVHC's wouldn't have the banned BPA in baby feeding bottles, wouldn't have had the ongoing temporary bans on phthalates up until 2005 when they were finally knocked on the head in toys.

    Germany banned / restricted the use of Cr VI in leather goods, this will be rolled out EU wide and be enforceable from next year.

    France banned foam play mats over a concern over formamide, restrictions will probably go EU wide soon
     
  6. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    I willing to be shown otherwise, but everything i have read seems to indicate TTIP would change what is allowed to be used in cosmetics.
    It maybe that i got it wrong with how chemicals are approved for use in products on either side of the Atlantic, i can't say I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to how it's done.

    Although just looking at the differences in what is and isn't allowed on either side does make me wounder that if TTIP is meant to harmonizse standards to allow easier free trade, who is going to lose out ?

    Is it going to result in more chemicals being banned in the US, or is it going to lead to less being banned in the EU, my guess it would be the latter, especially as TTIP is being driven by big business.

    EDIT: Just done some reading up on how chemicals are approved for use on either side of the pond, looks like i was wrong when i said a chemical has to be proven to be safe before it can be used in the EU.

    Going on what i read here. The EU uses what it calls "precautionary principle"

    "This principle, in the words of the European Commission, “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative” decision-making. In other words, it says that when there is substantial, credible evidence of danger to human or environmental health, protective action should be taken despite continuing scientific uncertainty."

    EDIT2:
    Sure can, the link was in the part that where i said "everything i have read"
    If you can't follow the link i got it from http://www.beuc.eu/blog/325/
     
    Last edited: 20 Oct 2014
  7. mrlongbeard

    mrlongbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    357
    No idea on how it happens over the pond, but federal bans don't take in the whole picture, not when you deal with state requirements and proposition 65 :jawdrop:

    Can you link me the info regarding
    I'd like a look see as it doesn't quite sit right with my understanding.

    Never mind found it, those banned chems are banned for use in cosmetics, doesn't mean they aren't in any other everyday item which you regularly use.
    To say they are banned full stop is somewhat disingenuous.
     
  8. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Sorry.
    Edited the original post to make it clear that those banned chemicals are in cosmetics, and not all products.

    EDIT: The article in the OP, on The Independent web site says, under the heading of Food and environmental safety, that "In Europe a company has to prove a substance is safe before it can be used; in the US the opposite is true: any substance can be used until it is proven unsafe."

    So i was going on that, apologies if i was being misleading or disingenuous, it wasn't intentional.
     
    Last edited: 20 Oct 2014
  9. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    95
    I think the NHS issue has just been pushed up by the usual anti-trade lobby to scare people.

    Free trade will always hurt a few companies in a nice niche without competition, but will benefit far more people in general to a smaller degree. If some NHS suppliers face a bit more competition and have make a better offering that's good in mybook.
     
  10. mrlongbeard

    mrlongbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    357
    S'cool, chems is an area in which I dabble around the periphery so it piqued my interest on a subject (TTIP) which I had yet to come across.
    Interesting read and with regards to chems, TTIP & REACH;
    http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/october/tradoc_152820.PDF
     
  11. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Interesting in so much as that appears to be a typical politicians answer to peoples concerns.

    While the answers given by Karel De Gucht address the concerns raised he fails to answer any of them sufficiently (IMHO). He claims TTIP under no circumstances would lower environmental and health standards and while that maybe true, he fails to answer who is going to bear the costs of paying international companies when they sue a government because they have lost out on profits.

    If i can't sell my shampoo in the UK because they have banned the use of a chemical that's in it i can sue them for future lost profits, us TAX payers are going to be paying those fines.

    If the EU was debating a ban on something like neonicotinoids, that debate would be shut down before it even started, or negotiated between the EU's precautionary principle and the US's very high bar for the proof of harm.
    When such a situation occurs i can't see the precautionary approach winning out over a high bar for proof of harm, especially when the people making that decision would be business lawyers in secret meetings.
     
  12. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    95
    The point about companies suing is that otherwise you had the situation that a company A from one country A creates a great product and wants to sell in in country B. But theri competitior in country B thinks, we're not as good at making stuff but we do know lots of politicans. So they get country B to pass a regulation banning the new product for some reason or other. It's a lot cheaper to lobby politicians and tell them about how many local jobs will be lost (over a large lunch) than actually research a better product or cut their prices.
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,259
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    That doesn't mean there's nothing to be scared about. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
     
  14. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Good point.

    But it seems like a double edged sword, what happens when a country passes a regulation banning something because of public health or environmental concerns. While it may prevent governments passing regulations to protect local business it also prevents them passing regulations meant to protect the public.
     
  15. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    95
    Sure. And I'm sure in fifteen years time the Labour party will be tellign us that the Conservatives are going to "Privatise the NHS" as they have since 1979 or so.
     
  16. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    ...Yet. :worried:
     
  17. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    6,376
    Likes Received:
    744
    No one will be taking Labour seriously in 15 years time, Milicreep is too busy destroying Labour from the inside.
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,259
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    In fifteen years' time NHS will be private.
     
  19. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    95
    But what do you mean by "private"? Seeing as no politicians are proposing to end the principal of free care at the point of need.

    Is this about free healthcare for the population? Or about public sector jobs and pensions for NHS employees?

    But in any case I can't see anything coming that will move all the NHS-employed doctors and nurses in to private companies. But Labour will fight every election claiming that only they can "Save the NHS", with is "The envy of the world", though I haven't yet met a German, Italian or Frenchman telling me how they envy it!
     
  20. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Yea, because it's not like any other party claims the NHS is safe in their hand, or how only they can save the NHS.

    Ohh wait, that's exactly what Mr Cameron said in his 2006 election campaign, "He [also] warned against rushing out policies".

    I'm guessing DRIP, reform of the NHS in a single term, and the many other rushed through polices don't count because he's in a coalition, he can forget about what he said in the 2006 election campaign.

    Let's face it, all politicians are cut from the same cloth, they rank up there with journalists and bankers as the least trustworthy people in the UK, perhaps the world.
     
    Last edited: 21 Oct 2014

Share This Page