UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: Fultonius on May 20, 2014, 06:18:18 pm
-
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.
-
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).
-
This gives an outline: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/eu-us-trade-deal-no-threat-democracy-monbiot-transatlantic-partnership (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>?
-
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.
-
Something for the tin foil hat brigade to get upset about.
-
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... ::)
-
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)
-
Is that the sequel to Monsters Inc. and Monsters University?
-
more of a post-apocalypse spin-off than a sequel
Neil Gaiman oversaw the screen writers and Gene Roddenberry was the main executive producer
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
Bill Hicks on politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U#)
You two should go for a drink sometime. :popcorn:
-
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...
Bill Hicks on politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U#)
You two should go for a drink sometime. :popcorn:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
:lol:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The point is, when Parliament legislated for equal suffrage it was in the face of quite trenchant public opposition, same for decriminalistation of homosexuality &, same for abolition of capital punishment etc
None of these things would have happened at the time that they did (or at all) if the decision had been made by referendum rather than in Parliament.
PS Sam isn't a hammer, he's a very naughty boy (and I think a troll and I should know!)
-
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
I can give you a reading list too. Neither of us is going to read the other's, but if you suggest one book I might actually put it on my to-read list.
I'd agree that it's difficult to devolve tax policy and would suggest that it's the spending of the taxes that is more ripe for devolving. As for the situation in Switzerland not 'working', well it does, but I understand that it's stretching the limitations of a nation-state and that it's difficult to operate outside of that paradigm in a globalised world, but there are various levels and mechanisms of stability available. Membership of the EU for instance (not saying I'm a fan). Having to operate in the current international paradigm is a crippling disadvantage for anyone wanting real democracy, so compromises are necessary unless withdrawal is an option (I hear Catholics are fans). Which would probably be reasonably cataclysmic. Or worse in our case.
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
I wouldn't suggest introducing deliberative democracy overnight. I'd suggest a process in which education and wealth were gradually equalised (somewhat, not totally) and corporate media was reined in, all the while increasing democratic participation. Failing that, I'd say fuck liberalism, let's get on with democracy and live with the fallout.
-
The point is, when Parliament legislated for equal suffrage it was in the face of quite trenchant public opposition, same for decriminalistation of homosexuality &, same for abolition of capital punishment etc
None of these things would have happened at the time that they did (or at all) if the decision had been made by referendum rather than in Parliament.
..
Don't be naughty. The point is we're talking about today in this context, not 1920s suffrage in the UK. And if there were referendums today then obviously women would be represented.
-
..
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
..
Have you considered that part of the reason they hold so much sway over what people read might be becasue there are a huge number of perhaps stupid, perhaps lazy, perhaps everyday people in the world who, no matter how well-intentioned your motives, will never want anything more than a bit of idle titillation and some knee-jerk reaction to dumbed down issues to pass their lives with? Thinking that we can all be informed right-on citizens with sensible views seems to me as delusional as trying to oppress everyone.
-
The point is, when Parliament legislated for equal suffrage it was in the face of quite trenchant public opposition, same for decriminalistation of homosexuality &, same for abolition of capital punishment etc
None of these things would have happened at the time that they did (or at all) if the decision had been made by referendum rather than in Parliament.
..
Don't be naughty. The point is we're talking about today in this context, not 1920s suffrage in the UK. And if there were referendums today then obviously women would be represented.
Hmmmmm...
Not if they hadn't been granted Sufferage.
-
Don't know how else I can make the point that, today, women have the vote and would therefore be represented in any referendum held - which was the original point being made.
We used to do lots of things that we no longer do. How far back do you want to go? Bloody Romans etc.
-
Don't forget Sloper is a dyed in the wool Right Wing Libertarian so doesn't believe in any form of regulation especially when it comes to the market.
So you could hardly expect him to argue against the TTIP and is doing a good job of laying down a smokescreen.
What's your view on the 1855 Classification Slopes? And should foie gras be regulated or should it fuck the geese?
-
Don't know how else I can make the point that, today, women have the vote and would therefore be represented in any referendum held - which was the original point being made.
We used to do lots of things that we no longer do. How far back do you want to go? Bloody Romans etc.
Yes,, but if it wasn't for Parliament acting against the predominant view they wouldn't have had the vote.
The majority of 'progressive' legislation has been enacted in the face of wide spread social opposition; it is only a generation thereafter that society has accepted the change, this is a very strong argument for representative democracy rather than participative democracy, which would have maintained the status quo.
-
..
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
..
Have you considered that part of the reason they hold so much sway over what people read might be becasue there are a huge number of perhaps stupid, perhaps lazy, perhaps everyday people in the world who, no matter how well-intentioned your motives, will never want anything more than a bit of idle titillation and some knee-jerk reaction to dumbed down issues to pass their lives with? Thinking that we can all be informed right-on citizens with sensible views seems to me as delusional as trying to oppress everyone.
Yes, I've considered that. There's real issues in correctly attributing causal direction. One imagines there's a degree of causal feedback of course.
I've also worked a variety of fairly menial roles including barman and care worker. I've had customers who are alcoholics, racists, the lot. And I've found that actually even those with low IQs and poor education aren't stupid and lazy when it comes to politics. They're generally interested and opinionated. Could they be better introduced to the world of politics via education? Quite possibly. Are they misled by narrow life-experience and the trash they call a newspaper? Perhaps. But given low expectations I've almost universally been impressed by the effort people put in to at least try to understand politics a little by the time they're 30. Perhaps, given more opportunities they would rise to it.
And of course, having some lazy people isn't necessarily a huge issue. Not everyone has to participate. While it's beneficial to have it open to everyone, you only really need a representative sample at any one time.
-
..
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
..
Have you considered that part of the reason they hold so much sway over what people read might be becasue there are a huge number of perhaps stupid, perhaps lazy, perhaps everyday people in the world who, no matter how well-intentioned your motives, will never want anything more than a bit of idle titillation and some knee-jerk reaction to dumbed down issues to pass their lives with? Thinking that we can all be informed right-on citizens with sensible views seems to me as delusional as trying to oppress everyone.
Yes, I've considered that. There's real issues in correctly attributing causal direction. One imagines there's a degree of causal feedback of course.
I've also worked a variety of fairly menial roles including barman and care worker. I've had customers who are alcoholics, racists, the lot. And I've found that actually even those with low IQs and poor education aren't stupid and lazy when it comes to politics. They're generally interested and opinionated. Could they be better introduced to the world of politics via education? Quite possibly. Are they misled by narrow life-experience and the trash they call a newspaper? Perhaps. But given low expectations I've almost universally been impressed by the effort people put in to at least try to understand politics a little by the time they're 30. Perhaps, given more opportunities they would rise to it.
And of course, having some lazy people isn't necessarily a huge issue. Not everyone has to participate. While it's beneficial to have it open to everyone, you only really need a representative sample at any one time.
Looking at UKIPs rise in this election, I'd have to go with Pete.
Utter fiction, I know, but I found Ben Elton's "Blind Faith" summed up my darkest fears of such Populist Government (See his "Wembley Law").
There is a good reason we have evolved our current parliamentary system, warts and all, and that I suspect is to slow the passage of legislation.
To mitigate the whims of individuals and mass hysteria, that would see us lurching from extreme to extreme.
Can you imagine the country today, if during the panic about Vaccines, a referendum had abolished their use?
So Sloper has a point, as do Pete, Sam, Graham et al. Because the reality lies somewhere in the middle.
I suspect both Sam and Sloper would be bitterly disappointed in their ideal worlds should either come to fruition...
-
We're pretty much living in my ideal world, a liberal democratic society with effective rule of law and a capitalist system.
Note, there's no such thing as a wholly free market and democracy, freedom of speech & etc all have 'down sides' as well as the self evident benefits.
What would I want to change? The playing of music in public so that others can hear it (minimum sentence 3 years and 50 strokes), people saying 'can I get a latte' 15 strokes and a £50 fine, work houses for the proles and compulsary pipe smoking lessons on the national curriculum (girls must learn to properly iron a shirt).
-
:lol: How about jumpers for goalposts?
Oh yeah... suffrage, 1920s whatsit etc. = A snapsot of a moment in time - not a justification for always and only sticking with representative doodah, but neither is there justification for always and only having participative doodah. Each has its merits blah blah. Although the more I think about it (and in light of recent events) the less I want the citizens of the UK making stupid legislation.
-
You're missing the point; representative democracy can take what at the time are unpopular and controversial decisions which the absecne of the legislated change would be seen in future generations to be bizzare, i.e. letting women vote.
Representational democracy very, very rarely results in changes to the status quo.
It is for this reason that representative democracy is categorically superior to democracy with a very highly significant participatory element.
-
Ignoring all the massively :offtopic: bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!
-
- Get Your Signatures IN!
Where do we do that?
-
Ignoring all the massively :offtopic: bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!
No, having read a bit about it, I'm all for it.
The opposition is mainly ill informed, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and lefty bollocks (to be read disjunctively although there is a substantial degree of cross over).
-
Ignoring all the massively :offtopic: bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!
No, having read a bit about it, I'm all for it.
The opposition is mainly ill informed, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and lefty bollocks (to be read disjunctively although there is a substantial degree of cross over).
I had a longer read of it today, but I was short on time. Can you point me to the bits that you think are good?
-
- Get Your Signatures IN!
Where do we do that?
You'll need to register with them I think. I got it though an email. You can also reply to the public consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ISDS (http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ISDS)
-
Ignoring all the massively :offtopic: bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!
No, having read a bit about it, I'm all for it.
The opposition is mainly ill informed, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and lefty bollocks (to be read disjunctively although there is a substantial degree of cross over).
I had a longer read of it today, but I was short on time. Can you point me to the bits that you think are good?
Ohh, improving 'free trade', moves towards the reduction in barriers to trade, making state protectionism more difficult, improving the efficacy of the rule of law in respect of investments, access to markets, reduction in state monopolies, subsidies and so on. Is that enough for a flavour of why I'm in favour?
-
Ohh, improving 'free trade', moves towards the reduction in barriers to trade, making state protectionism more difficult, improving the efficacy of the rule of law in respect of investments, access to markets, reduction in state monopolies, subsidies and so on. Is that enough for a flavour of why I'm in favour?
Are there really that many barriers to EU/US trade? Is most of this trade not just going to be financial based trade? Personally I think less barriers in this area can only be a bad thing...
Even if there are some benefits from this, is it worth loosing out on the ability for governments to stand up to the big multi-nationals?
-
Yes, there are significant barriers between the EU and the US. take for example an EU domiciled Corp trading with Cuba or Iran, remember the US Govt threatening to impose tariffs on Cashmere and Whisky following the release of Al Megrahi (sp?)
Governments control multi-nationals, not the other way around and this will no nothing to change that dynamic.
-
Yes, there are significant barriers between the EU and the US. take for example an EU domiciled Corp trading with Cuba or Iran, remember the US Govt threatening to impose tariffs on Cashmere and Whisky following the release of Al Megrahi (sp?)
Why can't the US be more flexible then rather appearing to want to impose their conditions on everyone else? :shrug:
-
It's called politics, who'd thunk it ;)
-
Why can't the US be more flexible then rather appearing to want to impose their conditions on everyone else? :shrug:
L O L
-
Lets hope that if this goes ahead the EU won't be fucked over in the same manner as Mexico and Canada were, not holding my breath though. :wank:
What is the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4OQeekSD6s#ws)
-
Governments control multi-nationals, not the other way around and this will no nothing to change that dynamic.
I really can't tell when you are trolling and when you are serious (if ever) (for both options)
-
Mexico is f--ked largely because of the Mexican system of government.
If anyone thinks that governments are controlled by multinations then I'd suggest that they don't really understand how government (in functioning democracies works) or indeed how multinationals operate.
Opposing the the TITP is just an up to date version of Luddite fuckwittery with added conspiracy theorist bolloks and lefty drivel.
-
Most of the comment I have read has been focussed on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The rest of the partnership is probably reasonably positive.
I really don't think it is lefty conspiracy drivel to be concerned that making governments weaker when faced with pressure for big companies to make profits at all costs is a good thing.
Can you give a few clear reasons why you think ISDS is a good thing for the general populace?
-
Mexico is f--ked largely because of the Mexican system of government.
Mexico has a lot of problems, but this won't have helped them at all. What about the state of Quebec being sued for $250 million by a private multi-national company because a referendum by the people who live there chose not to permit fracking (as highlighted in the video)?
If anyone thinks that governments are controlled by multinations then I'd suggest that they don't really understand how government (in functioning democracies works) or indeed how multinationals operate.
Opposing the the TITP is just an up to date version of Luddite fuckwittery with added conspiracy theorist bolloks and lefty drivel.
I've not suggested that governments are controlled by multinationals but allowing private companies to sue governement in this manner does not sit well with me, and allowing scope for such actions under the TTIP would I think be a very bad idea.
It also seems to erode workers/employees rights, which have been hard won over the years in the UK at least (not sure about other EU countries), simply because the US doesn't have such regulations.
These are in my opinion more important issues than "promoting trade across the pond". Could the US not adopt the workers rights in place under EU law? I think I know why they wouldn't (it would be too expensive for them to do so).
-
Most of the comment I have read has been focussed on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The rest of the partnership is probably reasonably positive.
I really don't think it is lefty conspiracy drivel to be concerned that making governments weaker when faced with pressure for big companies to make profits at all costs is a good thing.
Can you give a few clear reasons why you think ISDS is a good thing for the general populace?
One of the major barriers to economic developemnt (with the consequential benefits that it brings) is the risk in some states to allow for the appropriation of property or the retrospective variation in laws which result in a contract or joint venture being, in effect a nulity. In such cirrcumstances investors will simply not invest. While there are significant numbers of bi and multilateral agreements reform of this area is likely to be a 'good thing' if it provides greater security to investors who would otherwise lack the means to recover for a brech of contract.
Nothing in this makes governments weaker or undermines their democratic legitimacy (provided they have that in the first place) what it does do obliquely is put external pressure on governments to abide by principal(s) of the rule of law.
Of course Argentina's government has the democratic right to, with intenral effect, in essence sequestrate the assets of an oil company (was it the Spanish joint venture?) but this should not preclude the wronged party seeking recompense.
So, in conclusion, the consequences will be greater investment in the areas of need with the benefits flowing from that investment.
-
Does this mean I get to import bikes from the USA without paying a truck ton of import duty?
-
Mexico is f--ked largely because of the Mexican system of government.
Mexico has a lot of problems, but this won't have helped them at all. What about the state of Quebec being sued for $250 million by a private multi-national company because a referendum by the people who live there chose not to permit fracking (as highlighted in the video)?
If anyone thinks that governments are controlled by multinations then I'd suggest that they don't really understand how government (in functioning democracies works) or indeed how multinationals operate.
Opposing the the TITP is just an up to date version of Luddite fuckwittery with added conspiracy theorist bolloks and lefty drivel.
I've not suggested that governments are controlled by multinationals but allowing private companies to sue governement in this manner does not sit well with me, and allowing scope for such actions under the TTIP would I think be a very bad idea.
It also seems to erode workers/employees rights, which have been hard won over the years in the UK at least (not sure about other EU countries), simply because the US doesn't have such regulations.
These are in my opinion more important issues than "promoting trade across the pond". Could the US not adopt the workers rights in place under EU law? I think I know why they wouldn't (it would be too expensive for them to do so).
That's where you're wrong. The imposition of some external controls on the corrupt regime will directly benefit the people of Mexico.
In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.
By the way, from memory I think the power of a company to sue a state goes back to the mid 19th Century, the last significant case I can recall from the top of my head was the 'Burmah Oil' case which is certainly 50 or so years old. So in principle and taking the number of bilateral agreements this is not either new or a significant expansion.
Just in case I've made a comment without a pejorative statment I should add as a footnote 'bed wetting liberal retard'/
-
But but but, this is a deal between the the EU and the US.
I can see why these protections (ISDS) could be considered a "nice to have" if you're trying to invest in, say, Iraq. But this is the EU and the US. It's totally overkill. I just don't think it's necessary and the risks, while maybe overstated in some places, are real and outweigh any potential benefits.
Why should investors not saddle their own risk? I think companies (including banks) should carry the full burden of their own investments. Why should we, the public, carry the burden of risk when we don't make the profit? And don;t give me any of your right wing trickle down nonsense. Only the rich will become richer out of the TTIP. Why else would they be lobbying for it so hard?
-
In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.
Perhaps after you answer my question about Quebec being sued because the result of the referendum wasn't to the liking of a US company which you've chosen to ignore.
For clarification I do not think the state of Quebec should have been sued do you?
And this isn't a question as to whether they were legally allowed to do so, its a question of whether the law (or trade agreement if you like) should permit them to do so and I don't think it should because the people who live in a country decide via their own electoral systems and referendums what they want to happen there, it shouldn't be possible for foreign companies to sue a government (or subsiduary body thereof) because it has acted to represent the people it elected.
-
In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.
Perhaps after you answer my question about Quebec being sued because the result of the referendum wasn't to the liking of a US company which you've chosen to ignore.
For clarification I do not think the state of Quebec should have been sued do you?
And this isn't a question as to whether they were legally allowed to do so, its a question of whether the law (or trade agreement if you like) should permit them to do so and I don't think it should because the people who live in a country decide via their own electoral systems and referendums what they want to happen there, it shouldn't be possible for foreign companies to sue a government (or subsiduary body thereof) because it has acted to represent the people it elected.
Yes I do think it was right that the state got sued.
If the state entered into a contract then that contract should stand, that there's a referendum frustrates that contract then subject to the T&C and contract law in that jurisdiction then the company should not only have the right to puruse its claim but do so.
-
Interesting article in Forbes...not you average left-wing conspiracy source...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/)
-
Good article.
-
In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.
Perhaps after you answer my question about Quebec being sued because the result of the referendum wasn't to the liking of a US company which you've chosen to ignore.
For clarification I do not think the state of Quebec should have been sued do you?
Yes I do think it was right that the state got sued.
If the state entered into a contract then that contract should stand, that there's a referendum frustrates that contract then subject to the T&C and contract law in that jurisdiction then the company should not only have the right to puruse its claim but do so.
Firstly I don't think the state of Quebec entered into the contract rather the nation of Canada did, but thats beside the point, which is (enlarged as you seemed to miss it in my last post)...
And this isn't a question as to whether they were legally allowed to do so, its a question of whether the law (or trade agreement if you like) should permit them to do so and I don't think it should because the people who live in a country decide via their own electoral systems and referendums what they want to happen there, it shouldn't be possible for foreign companies to sue a government (or subsiduary body thereof) because it has acted to represent the people that elected them.
The TTIP appears to permit this. I do not think it should, could you explain to me why you think it should and why it is a good idea because I can't see any advantage to it.
And to answer your questions with regards workers rights...
I represented myself poorly in this regards, my apologies. There are however indirect consequences. The EU (and individual countries within) has a number of legislations in place to protect workers, things like minimum wage and safety standards. There are hardly any equivalent standards in the US, so labour is cheaper. Where will market forces direct manufacturing when presented with a choice between the two and what are the consequences to those who lose out (invariably those with the higher labour costs).
-
So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?
That really doesn't end well for the citizens of that state.
What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?
-
So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?
That really doesn't end well for the citizens of that state.
What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?
Absolutely yes, if there's a good reason for it (environmental etc.).
-
Interesting article in Forbes...not you average left-wing conspiracy source...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/)
Let's just look at those reasons.
1. Multinational companies are big enough to accept the risk. This ignores the point that not all companies are able to take the risk etc
2. Is I would suggest logically flawed.
3. It would allow companies to offshore which in my view is a good thing.
4. Seems to miss the point entirely, the whole point is that the treaty is extra jurisdictional
5. Hmm US laws being challenged . . . sauce for the goose . . . sauce for the gander.
6. lawyers might be involved f--k me only in america.
7. lefties don't get it.
8. politically it would be easier to let it go.
In short a far from compelling critique.
-
So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?
That really doesn't end well for the citizens of that state.
What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?
Absolutely yes, if there's a good reason for it (environmental etc.).
Let's have a little thought experiment shall we?
Let's say there's a Green Party government in office after the next election and they have a mandate to ban cars which emit >99g of CO2 per x distance and also prevent the manufacture of such vehicles. So they seize the assets of Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar Land Rover, Lotus, and so on and refuse to pay compensation.
Now what a. happens to all those people who rely on the manufacture and sale of those cars? The answer is they're f--ked.
Now consider the owners of other companies who might manufacture or sell things that the Greens don't like, i.e. Rolls Royce aero & turbines, anyone in the arms / defence industry, manufacturers of soft drinks etc do you think they're going to hang around and wait for the asset seizure? No, they're going to fuck off asap.
The companies who might stay aren't going to invest because they're much less certain about the future.
The result a fucked up economy which Zimbabwe would be proud of
-
So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?
:wall: No, what I've written but seem to have failed to convey to you is that I don't think that the contract should have permitted the company the ability to sue in the first place, thats very different than "riding roughshod over contracts". Similarly I don't think the TTIP should permit foreign companies the scope to sue EU governments.
I'm getting the impression you've not watched the video I linked to the end to see what point is being made, so here are a couple of links to articles on the matter that can be ignored too....
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/03/quebec-fracking-ban-lawsuit_n_4038173.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/03/quebec-fracking-ban-lawsuit_n_4038173.html)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ilana-solomon/lone-pine-sues-canada-over-fracking_b_4032696.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ilana-solomon/lone-pine-sues-canada-over-fracking_b_4032696.html)
What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?
I've no objection to the rule of law at all, nor have I expressed one as far as I can tell from reading back through it. What I've objected to is some things being made legal in the first place, big difference there.
-
A little bit of basic knowledge might assist.
1. Contractual terms are, in the sort of contracts we're talking about a matter between the parties, if they can't agree t&c then there's no contract.
2. There are already provisions in place for EU member states to be the subject of litigation both within the jurisdiction and without both in the EU and elsewhere.
3. The right to bring proceedings is the very foundation of the rule of law.
4. The common law legal tradition is very loosely, that everything is legal other than that which is prohibited.
By the way that was the outcome of the litigation in Canada, just because proceedings are issued doesn't mean that the claimant wins.
-
The Lone Pine dispute is going to arbitration. Note arbitration is not the same as mediation.
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/lone-02.pdf (http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/lone-02.pdf)
-
If there is a problem with agreements of this nature, isn't it to do with the way in which they bind future governments to a regulatory and legislative framework that might not be fit for purpose in the future?
For instance, it is fairly obvious that many governments might be compelled in the future to introduce very restrictive regulations on technologies/industries that use fossil fuels, whether for reasons of scarcity, geopolitics or environmental protection. Even if, over time, it becomes clear that this is in everyone's interests, there will be enormous financial and legal pressure on governments bound by some trade/investment treaties to take inadequate action so as to limit their exposure.
If you believe that the specific policy issue (use of fossil fuels) is not one to worry about, this looks great. People are being saved from their own silly neuroses by having their government's options narrowed.
Alternatively, you could say that the future government is being forced to sacrifice the welfare of its people to allow a fast-buck to be made by the governments and investors around at the time when the agreement is made (ie before the need for a different policy/regulatory climate was urgent).
A more free-market approach is to say that investors should be forced to think about the likely policy and regulatory risks of the future, and governments should be forced to think about the economic (and electoral) risks of imposing sweeping new restrictions on private sector activity.
Trade agreements that make it easy or expected for companies to seek redress from governments for new policy tend to tilt the field. It is tilted in favour of the guys who have money to invest right now. Perhaps it's OK to trade off democratic control, rule of law, future welfare etc in return for economic growth. I'm not convinced that this should simply be accepted as the right choice, though, either in principle or because in practice the benefits of that growth tend to accrue to a small number of people. That they can then insulate themselves from many of the effects of a degraded environment or society exacerbates the danger of this approach.
All that said, these are questions of degree, and I don't object to agreements that will ensure proper time and communication in advance of major legislative changes. I certainly don't object to agreements that encourage standards and tariffs to be brought in line to encourage trade.
Interesting topic...
-
This is not trading off 'democratic control, rule of law, future welfare etc in return for economic growth'.
Legislation and treaties change and as a matter of convention do not bind future governments.
The benefits of economic growth and development benefit us all. Yes there has been a short term trend for the '1%' to take a greater share of the cake, but that doesn't mean that we haven't as well.
-
A good example of where bringing an action against the state is the right and just thing to do.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/dutch-liable-srebrenica-massacre-deaths (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/dutch-liable-srebrenica-massacre-deaths)
-
and one for the greens.
BREYER GROUP PLC & ORS v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE : FREE POWER FOR SCHOOLS LP v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE : HOMESUN HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE : TOUCH SOLAR LTD v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE (2014)
[2014] EWHC 2257 (QB)
QBD (Coulson J) 09/07/2014
Small-scale producers of low-carbon electricity who had abandoned installations when the government made unlawful proposals to reduce the rate of the feed-in tariff were entitled to claim damages against the Department of Energy and Climate Change under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 art.1. Contracts which they had concluded prior to the proposal being issued, which could not be performed because of it, were "possessions" within the meaning of Protocol 1 art.1 and the proposal was an unlawful interference which was incapable of justification.
The claimants (S) against the defendant government department arising from a proposal which reduced the rate of the feed-in tariff for small-scale solar panel installations.
The feed-in tariffs enabled S to be paid at a particular rate for energy produced by installations commissioned before April 1, 2012. In October 2011, the Department decided that the rate was too generous and proposed to bring the cut-off date forward to December 2011. However, in January 2012, the Court of Appeal found the October proposal to be unlawful. S's case was that by the time of the January ruling, thousands of installations which they would otherwise have completed by April 2012 had been abandoned because of the Department's change of policy. S alleged that the October proposal amounted to an unjustified interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
HELD: (1) Concluded contracts were assets and, therefore, possessions under Protocol 1 art.1, regardless of any contractual terms governing termination. Whether a claimant was contractually entitled to obtain relief from the other party if the contract was not performed was immaterial to the question whether it could be characterised as an asset.
Termination provisions might have a bearing on the residual value of the contract, but they did not affect the protection provided by Protocol 1 art.1. Loss of marketable goodwill could be a possession; loss of future income could not.
Contracts entered into by S, which became incapable of performance as a result of the October proposal represented an element of the marketable goodwill in S's businesses and were protected possessions. Loss of non-concluded contracts, even if affecting S's goodwill, was irrecoverable (paras 67-75, 84-86).
Contracts concluded prior to the October proposal gave rise to a claim based on interference with a legitimate expectation.
In order to establish that there had been an interference, it was necessary to identify some form of state action causing material economic consequences. The making of the government proposal satisfied that requirement because it prevented concluded contracts from being fulfilled. The fact that it was a mere proposal did not stop it from being an action of the state. There had, therefore, been an interference with S's possessions
The interference was unlawful because it was a legally impermissible action which prevented S from obtaining that to which they were legally entitled. The Department's argument that it was not its underlying intention that was unlawful, only the means by which it had interfered, was artificial: as a matter of principle, an unlawful interference could not be justified. The fact that S deliberately made the decision to abandon the installations so as to avoid the impact of the proposal did not mean that they had not been directly affected by it, nor did it mean that the chain of causation had been broken (152-159, 161).
Judgment for claimants
-
statement from some learned men with serious concerns:
https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html (https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html)
-
statement from some learned men with serious concerns:
https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html (https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html)
They must be wrong, Sloper's not a signatory. :clown:
-
Yes, because it's wholly unreasonable for people to take a different view on matters, from the ahrd left to the lunatic feminists, an academic paper is not in an of itself of meaningful value.
It's also not unheard of for people's views to affect their assessment and commentary, for example my views on workshouses and top roping are well rehearsed.
I think that this is a fair assessment.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/130710/LDM_BRI(2014)130710_REV2_EN.pdf (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/130710/LDM_BRI(2014)130710_REV2_EN.pdf)
I am sure that if you trawl the internet you can find plenty of academics who support the treaty/its rationale.
-
Most ( well, near all) of this is above my head... Does it leave us with no import duty from the states as private individuals? Coz their sporting goods across the board are near as pounds for dollars, and I want a new bike..
-
Yes, because it's wholly unreasonable for people to take a different view on matters, from the ahrd left to the lunatic feminists, an academic paper is not in an of itself of meaningful value.
It's also not unheard of for people's views to affect their assessment and commentary, for example my views on workshouses and top roping are well rehearsed.
I think that this is a fair assessment.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/130710/LDM_BRI(2014)130710_REV2_EN.pdf (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/130710/LDM_BRI(2014)130710_REV2_EN.pdf)
I am sure that if you trawl the internet you can find plenty of academics who support the treaty/its rationale.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png) (http://xkcd.com/386/)
:clown:
I know that what you write above is a truer reflection of yourself in so much as you are accepting of others points of views, but you don't come across that way when you post. The pointless derogatory slurs centred around of left v's right/tory v's labour/etc. whilst often meant in jest do nothing to help.
-
Part of the problem is that the debate is often if not generally (from the lefty fringe i.e. most on here) rather lacking in reason or fact: take the thread about Gove's policies being bat shit crazy when push cam to shove there was an almost total absence response when folk were asked to say which policies were BSC and this is generally the response.
I am more than willing (and indeed able) to engage in considered, thoughtful and reasoned debate but sadly the opportunity for dialogue is lacking.
As for being derogatory with regard the lefties & etc, poor little things, goodness maybe it's about time someone told them they were talking shite.
-
Part of the problem is that you often jump on what are genuinely valid points of concern (even if they are 'lefty' or however you wish to categorise them) and polarise arguments when in reality a compromise is the most likely outcome.
Take the below discussion, I'm critiquing one aspect of the TTIP, yet that seems to have been interpreted by you as though I am somehow opposed to the whole thing, which is not what I wrote.
Another example is the discussion about the rushed DRIP bill. I'm not alone in failing to understand why it was rushed through in about a week when there had been three months since the EU court ruling to sort it out. You failed to realise that it was the rushed nature of the bill to which I was objecting and started off saying that it was needed for security blah, blah, blah, dragging the discussion in a different direction. You asked in that thread if I understood democracy, well yes I do, and rushing through bills isn't democratic, nor is ignoring the concerns of a portion of the populace, and quite a few people objected to the rushed nature, simply because they hold a different point of view.
I'd expect a lawyer to be able to discern the subtle points of such arguments and stay on topic, but frequently you go off on an idealistic tangent and ignore half of what people write (evidenced below). This is neither considered, thoughtful or reasoned.
-
'twas forever thus. Why I've given up trying.
-
'I'd expect a lawyer to be able to discern the subtle points of such arguments and stay on topic, but frequently you go off on an idealistic tangent and ignore half of what people write (evidenced below). This is neither considered, thoughtful or reasoned'
Yes, but this is the internet and a diversion and hence it is more appropriate to go in swining at the crux of a matter rather than discuss the whole in an academic, detailed and considered matter.
Ohh, I also like a good argument/fight.
Now wouldn't it be tedious if we all came out with the same flaccid new labouresque claptrap?
-
One thing I find amusing is how much you think we all love Labour...
-
'I'd expect a lawyer to be able to discern the subtle points of such arguments and stay on topic, but frequently you go off on an idealistic tangent and ignore half of what people write (evidenced below). This is neither considered, thoughtful or reasoned'
Yes, but this is the internet and a diversion and hence it is more appropriate to go in swining at the crux of a matter rather than discuss the whole in an academic, detailed and considered matter.
Yet you seem to contradict yourself having written yesterday...
I am more than willing (and indeed able) to engage in considered, thoughtful and reasoned debate but sadly the opportunity for dialogue is lacking.
Perhaps you could enlighten others as to what you feel is a considered, thoughtful and reasoned way of presenting alternative points of view to those that you hold so that we can engage in dialogue without forcing you to feel you have to go in swinging at what you perceive to be the crux of the matter.
Or is that futile because in reality you're not interested in engaging in dialogue because the internet is simply a diversion for you to come and have a bit of an argument on?
(I'm not a Labour fanboi either)
-
I am interested in debate, but have to confess that a lot of the time it's merely the prospect of a 5 minute argument rather than the former that attracts.
PS I know you're really a tory (even if you don't know it yet)
-
PS I know you're really a tory (even if you don't know it yet)
Isn't everyone?
:kiss2:
-
Jasper's in denial, although he does call himself Milton at the weekend, I swear I've got a picture of him wearing a twin set and pearls holding a copy of The Road to Serfdom.
-
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c04576/2d4cc37e/4b186043/4647303d/2306279734/VEsD/
Petition Vince Cable to oppose or amend, if you care to.
-
Seems like some folk were interested
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/british-government-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade?CMP=twt_gu (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/british-government-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade?CMP=twt_gu)
-
Sorry but there's a lot of ill informed bollocks spouted about TTIP, sometimes by those who should know better and some that are a variant on a theme of the 'new world order' conspiracy theorist nutters.
Companies cannot sue for a state or state entity refusing to grant a license or permit, or refusing to sell state assets, what the relevant parts of the treaty provides for is that if a contract is signed (without vitiation by fraud & etc) then it is binding and a claim for a breach of contract can follow.
The case cited in the article, re El Salvador is here http://www.italaw.com/cases/783 (http://www.italaw.com/cases/783) and the argument is technically not about the role and decisions of the of the state but the contents of the agreement between the parties and how those ought be given effect. p.14 of the respondent's rejoinder of the merit, El Salvador accept that there was 'an agreement', the question is however the terms of the same & etc.
It is not the case that a company can simply rock up and say, you won't allow me to sell crack cocaine to babies and I'm going to sue you for everything you've got. This isn't small claims track litigation and the idea that companies will pursue claims of the likes described up by the more lurid of anti TTIP commentators is simply risible.
I know it's not the done thing to pollute threads like this with, er facts, rather than a series of Zeno like links to other articles that support the premises of the former piece, but it's important that we understand what this proposal is about: it's about strengthening the international rule of law and by extension increasing globalised investment and development, which I think everyone but the ill informed tin foil hat wearing chorus of morons agrees (see 1066 & etc) is 'a good thing'.
-
Fair disclaimer - I don't understand the issues at all, and so don't claim to have a personal opinion. However, for the purposes of maintaining my stance of disagreeing with you every time you post something...
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html (http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html)
Is a collection of "a hundred prominent scholars from all over Europe and across the globe with expertise in trade and investment law, public international law and human rights, European Union law, global political economy, comparative law, public law and private law" fairly characterised as an "ill informed tin foil hat wearing chorus of morons", however funny the phrase may be?
-
Monbiot's main point in the article is what's wrong with courts, why do they need the tribunals? Here's another article that you may use big and/or latin/greek words to describe http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration)
-
Fair disclaimer - I don't understand the issues at all, and so don't claim to have a personal opinion. However, for the purposes of maintaining my stance of disagreeing with you every time you post something...
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html (http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html)
Is a collection of "a hundred prominent scholars from all over Europe and across the globe with expertise in trade and investment law, public international law and human rights, European Union law, global political economy, comparative law, public law and private law" fairly characterised as an "ill informed tin foil hat wearing chorus of morons", however funny the phrase may be?
Yes, I think that's the same article you cited before.
I forget who's "law" it is which says that no matter how ridiculous the proposition you can always find a professor to support it, and given the politicised nature of the subject I'm not surprised that there's a wide body of academics (who are more likely to be left leaning than practitioners) who argue against it.
But let's look at the first page of the article which sets out the concerns: my responses in italics
Fails to exclude acquisitions of sovereign debt instruments from the scope of the Treaty, most bonds arue issued with a jurisdictional clause, for example the Argentine govt chose to issues their bonds with a New York jurisdiction as to do so made them appear more secure, as such if you're brining public international agencies into private national law then the treaty which allows for a private resolution of public // private disputes appears, at least to me, to make some sense
Allows anyone with a substantial business activity in the home state who holds any ‘interest’ in an enterprise in the host state to bring a claim. of course, if you hold 60% of the shares in a Co then you have the right to compel the Co to act
Fails to spell out legal duties of investors in host states. this would be an unwarranted intrusion on the sovereignty of the participant states and a grossly intrusive intervention of the property rights of individuals and therefore this criticism is wholly unfounded, in practice would you want TTIP to tell you you have to sell your BP shares?
Fails to control the expansion of investment arbitration to purely contractual claimsI'm not sure that they're saying here, if they're seeing that claims can be founded on existing treaties then is a wholly misplaced critique
Fails to protect the ‘right to regulate’ as a general right of states alongside the many elaborate rights and protections of foreign investors, let alone as a component of the FET and Expropriation standards since contracts are established in the rule of law of the chosen forum, not necessarily the host, (I recently had to agree a contract within the jurisdiction of the Santa Monica Court in California) I can't see the "right to regulate" providing that is within the constitutional framework of the host and recognised by the chosen forum, being an issue.
Allows for unwarranted discretion for arbitration tribunals in various ‘necessity’ tests difficult that having Courts and tribunals with discretion <sarcasm>
Fails to further the stated principle of favoring domestic court proceedings as noted above many contracts specify the jurisdiction of another state, while it is beneficial in many circumstances to specify the forum where the deal is done, there will be many circsumstances where you want to specify another fora, for example one with a reputation for maintaining the rule of law and with judicial independence i.e. why so many deals are done with E&W being the jurisdiction of choice..
Fails to regulate conflicts of interest in the adjudicative process dealing with conflicts of interest is in integral part of any proper judicial process, they might as well criticise it for not dealing with the rejection of bribes
Fails to formulate a policy on appellate mechanisms with any precision a very valid criticism and one that needs addressing
Fails to formulate a policy on avoiding ‘Treaty shopping’ with any precision the concept of forum shopping and forum non conveniens is well established and I doubt in practice does need addressing particularly as many contracts / agreements will have a forum clause in place
and Fails to formulate a policy on third party submissions with any precision. as indicated by the El Salvador case cited above, it appears accepted practice for their to be inter-veneers in cases, so I don't see the absence of a strict format for how can intervene and how to be a massive problem
-
Monbiot's main point in the article is what's wrong with courts, why do they need the tribunals? Here's another article that you may use big and/or latin/greek words to describe http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration)
Tribunal, in this context, is just another word for Court.
These tribunals are set up to hear this sort of dispute, most Courts (I would say almost all) Courts are not, also as Courts are within a jurisdiction there is a risk (almost a certainty in some jurisdictions) that the Court will not be impartial, fair or properly qualified. Who would want their dispute considered in a Zimbabwean Court
-
Yes, I think that's the same article you cited before.
I forget who's "law" it is which says that no matter how ridiculous the proposition you can always find a professor to support it, and given the politicised nature of the subject I'm not surprised that there's a wide body of academics (who are more likely to be left leaning than practitioners) who argue against it....
Thanks for the detailed response. My first post on this thread, actually, but I see finbarr posted it before and I don't expect you to be able to keep track whilst dealing with the frothing of a thousand incoherent and ignorant tools.
-
Apologies, I recognised the document and incorrectly assumed you had posted it before. As for my ability to keep track on the incoherent ravings of drivelling idiots, it is of course limited (and presently focused on the gift that keeps giving, the leadership of the Labour party (i've given up on the Tories for the moment).
Incidentally I did a bit more reading on the article and it seems that some of their points are very minor and academic indeed, i.e. varying definitions of reasonableness.
The broad brush opposition to TTIP is that it allows corporations to take over from democratic governments and quite simply this is not the case.
-
I admit to being a bit of a luddite and very thick when it comes to these things, so found this useful
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/free-trade-explained-in-an-excellent-comic/ (http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/free-trade-explained-in-an-excellent-comic/)
-
I wonder if they do one on nuclear physics?
A slightly more informed view can be obtained here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/1846684307 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/1846684307)
-
Yeah I'm sure it is, but the bit where it says "560 pages" kind of dampens my enthusiasm a tad.
-
don't let the length put you off it is very well written and not 'heavy' at all, in fact if you're interested I'll send it to you (If you will send it back when you're finished reading it)
-
UN Experts condemn human rights costs of secret trade agreements (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/ten-un-experts-condemn-human-rights-costs-secret-trade-agreements)