[Fultonius]

Ok brains of UKB enlighten me. I've just had an email in from 38 Degrees about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I quick read has been ... scary!

It seems that there will be very little, if not no benefit to the general populace but there are hugely worrying articles such as:

- Allow companies to sue governments if they make decisions which negatively affect big business’ potential profits (like capping energy prices, or introducing plain packet cigarettes.) [2]

- Stop future governments from rolling back privatisation of our public services, such as the NHS, energy companies, or the Post Office. [3]

- Relax the rules which protect consumers, our environment, our welfare and health services, to much weaker US levels. [4]

Big corporations have far too much power and influence as it is, and this will only make things worse. Please sign up, or tell me why you won't.

[slackline]

I read about this several months ago and have a vague recollection I posted about it on here (can't remember where, probably Da News thread or something).

From what I recall its basically the US trying to impose their preferred standards on Europe and all sounded pretty wank (not navigated to 38degrees site yet to read what you have quoted from).

[petejh]

This gives an outline: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/eu-us-trade-deal-no-threat-democracy-monbiot-transatlantic-partnership
Ken Clarke responding to George Monbiot's piece about TTIP, in the comments are Monbiot's response to the response.

I'd be interested to hear Farage's views about TTIP becasue it's similar concept to what he claims to be so dead against, i.e. 'foreign interference in the lives of people in the UK'. If he so than he must be as against TTIP as he's against the EU.
Or is it just EU legislation he's against <because it's an easy emotional trigger/vote winner>?

[Jaspersharpe]

I'd be interested to hear Farage's views about TTIP

I'm not interested in hearing what Farage says about anything...... but I get your point and you're right.

[Sloper]

Something for the tin foil hat brigade to get upset about.

[petejh]

For clarity are you using 'tin foil hat brigade' in relation to the UK or the US meaning of 'Brigade'? Because there's a difference, same song sheet and all that...   

[Sloper]

I couldn't give a feck how many US battalions there are in a brigade vs UK battalions. 

It's the monstrous regiment we need to be concerned about. (at least 1/4)

[Jaspersharpe]

Is that the sequel to Monsters Inc. and Monsters University?

[lagerstarfish]

more of a post-apocalypse spin-off than a sequel

Neil Gaiman oversaw the screen writers and Gene Roddenberry was the main executive producer

[psychomansam]

Something for the tin foil hat brigade to get upset about.

Darling, tin hats are a response to an imagined enemy or threat. This threat is real and tangible, available in written form.

Corporations are self-interested profit-motivated power structures. Truly democratic governments are demos-interested and people-motivated power structures. Subjection to the former is unjustifiable oppression. Subjection to the latter is somewhat better.

[ghisino]

that's a worrying issue.

weirdest thing about this: all euro-enthusiast parties that i know of (in italy and france) either don't mention it or defend it with sketchy arguments (something in the lines of: in order for everyone to be able to do a onearmer, pullup bars with pulley systems should be installed at every bus stop, an european strenght institute should be opened, and the TTIP must be approved as quickly as possible)

This sadly seems to include leftist parties of all kinds. I take this as further evidence that their focus has shifted away from defending popular and mid classes' interests.
They now defend elite's interests with some political marketing twists that should hit different voting targets than the traditional right wing parties.
(Eg: "civil rights" campaigns about any niche issue that can be labeled as the illuminate defense of a minority and has nothing to do with labour market, healtcare, pension, instruction)

The only ones talking about the TTIP in an openly negative manner are euro skeptical parties which, equally sadly, all seem to have post-fascist or negatively populist roots of some sort. (most prominent example: Front National in France)

All of this makes me thing of a famous aphorism by an italian journalist, that while declaring his voting intentions in favour of a "stinky" party, advised his readers to "hold their noses" in the voting room. 
Hold your noses and vote xxxxxxx

[AJM]

It seems that there will be very little, if not no benefit to the general populace but there are hugely worrying articles such as:

The little or no benefit doesn't seem to tally with the sorts of uplifts to GDP that had been suggested in some other places - the one I recall is the Economist so maybe worth a look at that to get a measure of what supporters of the deal say?

- Allow companies to sue governments if they make decisions which negatively affect big business’ potential profits (like capping energy prices, or introducing plain packet cigarettes.) [2]

- Stop future governments from rolling back privatisation of our public services, such as the NHS, energy companies, or the Post Office. [3]

- Relax the rules which protect consumers, our environment, our welfare and health services, to much weaker US levels. [4]

Big corporations have far too much power and influence as it is, and this will only make things worse. Please sign up, or tell me why you won't.

I have a half memory that some of the stuff about sueing relates to if governments un-level the playing field between foreign and domestic firms (common market should equate to level playing field)? If so I can see it as the kind of thing you have to do in order to unlock the investment that actually makes the whole thing worthwhile - you won't get the full benefits if people are scared to invest because they think you might slip back into protectionist tactics when it suits you. But that's only a half memory, and I don't have time to check if its actually right or not.

I'm also not sure what the difference between this and the WTO being able to impose fines for unfair tariffs or state support or whatever is except that in the WTO countries effectively sue each other (often on the prompting of national champions, Boeing and so on and so forth) whereas in this case the corporations can do it directly without having to persuade their national government to do it for them? Anyone know more?

[Sloper]

Something for the tin foil hat brigade to get upset about.

Darling, tin hats are a response to an imagined enemy or threat. This threat is real and tangible, available in written form.

Corporations are self-interested profit-motivated power structures. Truly democratic governments are demos-interested and people-motivated power structures. Subjection to the former is unjustifiable oppression. Subjection to the latter is somewhat better.

You seem to (wilfully) misundertand the relationship between 'corporations' and 'government' in a democratic environment; in a democratic environment corporations, while able to exert influence, do not wield power as if the government changes they lose their favoured status (or however you wish to describe it) however in a non democratic environment coporations can control government by offering bribes @ etc.

The notion of 'truth' i.e. the necessary quality of 'truly' democratic governments is also a fallacy oft rolled out by the left in that the 'government' limits freedom because so to do is in the interest of 'the people'; true from Mao through to Miliband; although the later would probably not have quipped 'and how many divisions does the Pope have'.

[psychomansam]

Something for the tin foil hat brigade to get upset about.

Darling, tin hats are a response to an imagined enemy or threat. This threat is real and tangible, available in written form.

Corporations are self-interested profit-motivated power structures. Truly democratic governments are demos-interested and people-motivated power structures. Subjection to the former is unjustifiable oppression. Subjection to the latter is somewhat better.

You seem to (wilfully) misundertand the relationship between 'corporations' and 'government' in a democratic environment; in a democratic environment corporations, while able to exert influence, do not wield power as if the government changes they lose their favoured status (or however you wish to describe it) however in a non democratic environment coporations can control government by offering bribes @ etc.

The notion of 'truth' i.e. the necessary quality of 'truly' democratic governments is also a fallacy oft rolled out by the left in that the 'government' limits freedom because so to do is in the interest of 'the people'; true from Mao through to Miliband; although the later would probably not have quipped 'and how many divisions does the Pope have'.

Sigh. If arguing with dailymail readers, I might expect them to mention stalin, mao or the like constantly in arguments. Do you read the dailymail?

Corporations in this environment wield plenty of power over all the political parties who wish to appeal to anything like the (perceived) center, since they have a high degree of sway over the media (ownership and advertising) as well as party funding and any other less kosher methods they can cook up behind the scenes. The odd bit of tit-for-tat, fancy being on a retainer when you retire, scratch my back shit plays it's part. Money is power. And I'm sure you're aware of the reasons why those parties in the (perceived) center are at an advantage, e.g. median voter theory.

And I'm afraid I have no apologies for thinking that getting the chance to elect one of a small selection of rich, upper class white guys every 5 years, who are chosen and funded by centralised parties and made or unmade by the mores of the monopolistic British media, so that they can make governmental decisions without consulting me, or more realistically sit and be told what to do by a party whip and a cabinet or shadow cabinet of millionares, while building their own personal wealth, spending an increasing amount of time in the capital and increasingly offering no representation to their token allotted portion of the demos... doesn't really strike me as democracy. And I'll be fucked if that makes me Mao, Milliband, Marx or the fairy fucking godmother.

[Sloper]

The Mail? no I read the Guardian.

You really need to take your head out of your arse.

Corporations do not hold sway over politicians in democratic states in any meaningful way compared to non democratic states.  Your understanding is as flawed as the old trope about the Jewish conspiracy used by fascists wearing both red and brown (and in many ways wholly consistent with the fascist myths).

You also need to understand the way in which government works; do you really think that 'you' or the 'people' should be 'consulted' via referenda on a routine basis?

There are lots of small socialist parties out there standing in elections; and in real terms they receive precisely no support.  There are the greens, PC, SNP, UKIP, SF, UDP. MRLP as well as the three main parties; there is no abr to standing in an election (bar the deposit).

Your problem with democracy is that you don't like the outcome and lust after a fantasy version of socialism which you neither understand nor appreciate.

[psychomansam]

The Mail? no I read the Guardian.

You really need to take your head out of your arse.

Corporations do not hold sway over politicians in democratic states in any meaningful way compared to non democratic states.  Your understanding is as flawed as the old trope about the Jewish conspiracy used by fascists wearing both red and brown (and in many ways wholly consistent with the fascist myths).

You also need to understand the way in which government works; do you really think that 'you' or the 'people' should be 'consulted' via referenda on a routine basis?

There are lots of small socialist parties out there standing in elections; and in real terms they receive precisely no support.  There are the greens, PC, SNP, UKIP, SF, UDP. MRLP as well as the three main parties; there is no abr to standing in an election (bar the deposit).

Your problem with democracy is that you don't like the outcome and lust after a fantasy version of socialism which you neither understand nor appreciate.

Since we appear to be making it personal, your problem is that you're too comfortably monied and entrenched in your own socioeconomic boundaries to do anything other than butt-guzzle the system that got you there.

You apparently accept some black/white distinction between democratic and non-democratic states. Utter tripe, made up by the modern neo-corporo-capitalist empire-states to justify their own bullying and oppressions internal and external. We have a token modicum of democracy in this country. Yes, it's much better than some. Yes, I'm glad for what we have. But the notion that we should sit down and accept a total balls-up of a situation in which a tiny minority of people are working their arses off to please party donors and media moguls and trying to twist it round to at least not scandalise the people they were supposed to be representing, that notion sir, is bollocks.

There are a range of ways we could progress from here. Yes, one of them would be referenda and direct democracy. You talk about it like it's preposterous. You've obviously never heard of Switzerland. That might, pragmatically, be one way to progress, but I prefer deliberative democracy, and the way to progress in that direction would be greater localisation of powers (and not in the current governments understanding which is to de-fund public services and then 'localise' responsiblity for said service with zero funding, so as to avoid blame for the inevitable cuts. It also makes national media coverage difficult. Divide and conquer.) with deliberative public participation in the process of government. It happens a bit in America. It's been used in a variety of places for public spending decisions.
So perhaps that would be a good start. But we'd still have representative democracy, which I oppose, incredibly opaque government, 5-year government terms, media monopolies which need breaking and a public broadcaster which is spending our money to suck up to the cabinet.

I don't like what you call democracy because it isn't democratic. It isn't fit for purpose, unless you're one of the 1%, which, let's remember, is who parliament was created for - to protect their wealth against the king.

A couple of thousand years ago, the citizens got together once a month, discussed issues, voted on decisions and called it democracy. 2000 years of progress and you tick a box every five years for your choice of.... Oh fuck off, I've said it 3 times already.

[slackline]

You apparently accept some black/white distinction between democratic and non-democratic states. Utter tripe, made up by the modern neo-corporo-capitalist empire-states to justify their own bullying and oppressions internal and external. We have a token modicum of democracy in this country. Yes, it's much better than some. Yes, I'm glad for what we have. But the notion that we should sit down and accept a total balls-up of a situation in which a tiny minority of people are working their arses off to please party donors and media moguls and trying to twist it round to at least not scandalise the people they were supposed to be representing, that notion sir, is bollocks.

I think Hicks puts it more succinctly on this topic...




You two should go for a drink sometime. 

[psychomansam]

You apparently accept some black/white distinction between democratic and non-democratic states. Utter tripe, made up by the modern neo-corporo-capitalist empire-states to justify their own bullying and oppressions internal and external. We have a token modicum of democracy in this country. Yes, it's much better than some. Yes, I'm glad for what we have. But the notion that we should sit down and accept a total balls-up of a situation in which a tiny minority of people are working their arses off to please party donors and media moguls and trying to twist it round to at least not scandalise the people they were supposed to be representing, that notion sir, is bollocks.

I think Hicks puts it more succinctly on this topic...




You two should go for a drink sometime. 

Brilliant. I think the one worthwhile thing that should be said here (apologies for the distraction of my argument with a card-carrying member of the petit-bourgeois) is that the only party that properly opposes TTIP is the Greens. And with proportional representation, voting for them counts.

[Jaspersharpe]

I've said it before but it's worth repeating. In real life Sloper isn't really a Tory at all. He just likes the caricature.

[Sloper]

Jasper, that's bollocks and you know it is, I haven't voted tory today because they're bed wetting hand wringing light weights.  We need  proper nutter tory bastard government.  I want a Tory policy that supports the reintroduction of hunting with dogs, hanging work houses and corporal punishment in schools.

[slackline]

 

[Sloper]

The Mail? no I read the Guardian.

You really need to take your head out of your arse.

Corporations do not hold sway over politicians in democratic states in any meaningful way compared to non democratic states.  Your understanding is as flawed as the old trope about the Jewish conspiracy used by fascists wearing both red and brown (and in many ways wholly consistent with the fascist myths).

You also need to understand the way in which government works; do you really think that 'you' or the 'people' should be 'consulted' via referenda on a routine basis?

There are lots of small socialist parties out there standing in elections; and in real terms they receive precisely no support.  There are the greens, PC, SNP, UKIP, SF, UDP. MRLP as well as the three main parties; there is no abr to standing in an election (bar the deposit).

Your problem with democracy is that you don't like the outcome and lust after a fantasy version of socialism which you neither understand nor appreciate.

Since we appear to be making it personal, your problem is that you're too comfortably monied and entrenched in your own socioeconomic boundaries to do anything other than butt-guzzle the system that got you there.

You apparently accept some black/white distinction between democratic and non-democratic states. Utter tripe, made up by the modern neo-corporo-capitalist empire-states to justify their own bullying and oppressions internal and external. We have a token modicum of democracy in this country. Yes, it's much better than some. Yes, I'm glad for what we have. But the notion that we should sit down and accept a total balls-up of a situation in which a tiny minority of people are working their arses off to please party donors and media moguls and trying to twist it round to at least not scandalise the people they were supposed to be representing, that notion sir, is bollocks.

There are a range of ways we could progress from here. Yes, one of them would be referenda and direct democracy. You talk about it like it's preposterous. You've obviously never heard of Switzerland. That might, pragmatically, be one way to progress, but I prefer deliberative democracy, and the way to progress in that direction would be greater localisation of powers (and not in the current governments understanding which is to de-fund public services and then 'localise' responsiblity for said service with zero funding, so as to avoid blame for the inevitable cuts. It also makes national media coverage difficult. Divide and conquer.) with deliberative public participation in the process of government. It happens a bit in America. It's been used in a variety of places for public spending decisions.
So perhaps that would be a good start. But we'd still have representative democracy, which I oppose, incredibly opaque government, 5-year government terms, media monopolies which need breaking and a public broadcaster which is spending our money to suck up to the cabinet.

I don't like what you call democracy because it isn't democratic. It isn't fit for purpose, unless you're one of the 1%, which, let's remember, is who parliament was created for - to protect their wealth against the king.

A couple of thousand years ago, the citizens got together once a month, discussed issues, voted on decisions and called it democracy. 2000 years of progress and you tick a box every five years for your choice of.... Oh fuck off, I've said it 3 times already.

If we're going to make it personal you'd better ask a grown up how to come up with some proper insults, try sending a pm to Peter Andre.

The rest of your lower VIth drivel barely deserves a response, but since we're making it personal I'll entertain you with a response, I hope you can read it with your one eyed myopia.

Firs toff (not a typo) you really ought to read some political history, I'd recommend that you start with the Rusells, The Crisis of Parliaments and Hailsham's the Dilemma of Democracy, also Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England and Cotterrrell's The Politics of Jurisprudence.

Until you have a good grasp of the subject, you're simply unable to engage in a mature debate.

As for not having heard of Switzerland, yes I have heard of it, I am familiar with their constitutional structure and use of referenda, which include devolution of tax policy to units smaller than the cantons (I can't remember what the equivalent of a county is) however in many ways the situation in CH doesn't work, its just that their socaial cohesion and wealth are able to sustain the weakness in their system(s).

If we had participative democracy in the UK we'd be out of the EU, have capital punishment and homosexuality would in all probability still be a criminal offence, women would not have the vote and so on.

AS for there being a media monolpoly, yeah I heard that Murdoch owns the BBC, the Guardian, The Telegraph, this website (Although Bubba should have asked more more than £3.00) The Socialist Worker, Al Jazera and so on.

Really, I would say 'could do better' but I'm not sure you can.e

[GraemeA]

Jasper, that's bollocks and you know it is, I haven't voted tory today because they're bed wetting hand wringing light weights.  We need  proper nutter tory bastard government.  I want a Tory policy that supports the reintroduction of hunting with dogs, free foie gras (for me and my chums) and corporal punishment for benefit scroungers.

I believe every word.

[Sloper]

Well if you're not motivating the skivers with a financial incentive then regular beatings is quite simply the only option.

There is no alternative.

[petejh]

Loving this collision of socialist hammer and Sloper anvil. Can I just butt in:

If we had participative democracy in the UK we'd be out of the EU, have capital punishment and homosexuality would in all probability still be a criminal offence, women would not have the vote and so on.

Well, not if participative democracy were to be introduced today. Duh.


Carry on.