How voting against the EU has implications: TTIP?

[L00b]

Would they? In spite of what a lot of people say, we still have one of the best and most diligent work people here.

We may well do...but, and I'm sorry to break it to you if it comes as a surprise, the "best and most diligent work people" is simply not up to scratch where it really matters:productivity.

 

That article is recent, but it's not a new phenomenon. At all.

 

And that's precisely why truman's thingymajig costs £10 to make here, and £5 elsewhere.

[Magilla]

Sorry Magilla, but I agree with tzijlstra, they have failed not just miserably, but in my view completely!

 

Each to their own but I can't seriously see how you can say that with any credibility since they have covered it in some detail if you bother to look.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2015 at 15:15 ----------

 

A quote published last year gives the following:

 

"BBC bias in favour of the EU 'project' has been obvious for years. However, figures on the Financial Transparency website of the European Commission now indicate just how deeply the BBC benefits from the goodwill of the EU elite. Between 2007 and 2013 the BBC was paid more than £22m by the European Union.

 

"These funds are not identified as EU money in the BBC's annual report."

 

Report made by MEPs.

 

The BBC anual report is not made by MEP's, also, the quote to which you refer was by UKIP MEP and Financial Affairs spokes Steven Woolfe, who seems to completely forget to mention the money went to the BBC World Service Trust, BBC's international development charity, and is not used for news gathering activites (despite claiming such in the next sentence that you omitted).

 

Essentially, you've posted a quote from UKIP that wrongly associates EU money with making programs that aren't favourable to UKIP, while trying to make it sound like it's come from a reputable source by associating it with MEPs.

 

How very UKIP of you!

 

In conjunction with L00bs' post, I'm afraid you've been sold a lemon on this one.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Magilla

[Frederick1]

I'm not doubting the diligence or capabilities of British workers but if it costs £10 to make a thingamajig here and £5 to make exactly the same thingamajig to exactly the same quality and with exactly the same reliability somewhere else then what do you think the manufacturer will do?

 

So how do you explain the Chinese investment in Coventry? Toyota? Ford? Nissan?

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 12:25 ----------

 

Essentially, you've posted a quote from UKIP that wrongly associates EU money with making programs that aren't favourable to UKIP, while trying to make it sound like it's come from a reputable source by associating it with MEPs.

 

How very UKIP of you!

 

 

Yes, it was UKIP MEPs made the report, but figures were from the European Commission itself.

[tzijlstra]

So how do you explain the Chinese investment in Coventry? Toyota? Ford? Nissan?

 

Global organisations make decisions like this based on a multitude of factors and generally write hundreds of reports on establishing the most adequate positions for their investment. In the case of Coventry it is probably a lot to do with the fact that the (South) Midlands have an awful lot of expertise in the car-making industry and there are a lot of short supply-chain implications (ie. it is a lot cheaper to get your gearbox from Birmingham than from Tianjin if your factory is in Coventry).

 

In terms of supply-chain process Britain remains an interesting place to settle, in terms of tax-pressure it remains an interesting place to settle, in terms of skill it remains an interesting place to settle. But now think about the following: How many EU immigrants will come to work at that factory? A considerable amount one would guess, 15%? 20%? So what happens when Britain shuts the borders to them? The organisation has to ensure that it can find sufficiently capable and qualified personnel in Britain - a valuable commodity in short supply as it is.

 

Yes, it was UKIP MEPs made the report, but figures were from the European Commission itself.

 

Yes, and they were fully legit figures, the BBC took part in projects co-funded by the EU, and? Only someone looking to damage the EU would project those figures to mean the BBC was pro-EU. If that is the case you'd better start hounding all the universities, road-building companies, financial institutes etc as well.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The BBC should not be pro-EU, they should be unbiased and be prepared to fairly criticise and point out problems caused by Britain being in the EU and the EU in general.

Yes (reading "GB" as "UK").

[truman]

So how do you explain the Chinese investment in Coventry? Toyota? Ford? Nissan?

 

 

As I said before let's see what happens when Nissan need to replace the Qashqai in Sunderland..will they build it here or go cheaper..Haven't Ford recently closed a load of production capacity over here and moved it to Turkey where costs are cheaper?

[swarfendor437]

"When cancer patient Paul Giles heard that the EU-US trade deal known as TTIP might affect health services in the UK, he travelled to Brussels to find out more. But Paul’s questions were met with silence.

 

That’s because the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is being negotiated behind closed doors. In fact, the EU has confirmed that all key documents relating to the agreement will remain closed to the public for 30 years. But why all the secrecy?

 

Governments and big business are relying on lack of public awareness in order to rush through TTIP and seal the deal without too much resistance. But what are they afraid of? They know there would be an outcry if people knew what was in store.

 

If TTIP goes ahead it will cost at least one million jobs. It will pave the way for the introduction of genetically modified food into Europe. It will irreversibly extend the privatisation of key public services such as the NHS. And it will give US corporations the power to sue the UK and other states for loss of profits when these governments introduce public policies designed to protect their citizens.

 

With the EU aiming to get the agreement signed by the end of 2015, we’ve got just one year to halt this atrocious deal. But the problem is, not enough people know about it. It’s not on TV, the mainstream media are hardly covering it, and all the negotiations are happening in secret. That’s where you come in. We need you to help spread the word about the deal set to hand a scary amount of power to big corporations and privatise even more of our public services.

 

With your support, we can stop this devastating trade agreement before it’s too late.

 

We’ll be in touch again soon,

 

John Hilary"

 

https://www.facebook.com/waronwant

 

https://twitter.com/WarOnWant

[tzijlstra]

Or he asked the wrong people. All he had to do was Google it:

 

Have fun reading.

 

On the NHS.

Edited May 7, 2015 by tzijlstra

[L00b]

Timely topic-reminding thread, for any reader who has not yet voted:

UKIP have been consistently blowing hot and cold about TTIP (true to their opportunistic ethos) and, in practical terms at the EU Parliament, where they do wield power and influence, sitting on the fence. UKIP MEPs voting record on TTIP, last 4 votes:

 

Subject: After Recital D, amendment 5: 4 for, 5 absent

Subject: After Recital E, amendment 6: 1 for, 3 against, 5 absent

Subject: Recital H, amendment 9: 4 against, 5 absent

Subject: vote: resolution (as a whole): 1 for, 3 against, 5 absent

 

Lest we forget:

When the anti-EU rationale takes over from the national interest. What follows from the previous findings is that UKIP was partly absent when it could have joined forces with other British MEPs to oppose texts perceived as going against the national interest. This was for instance the case when the EP endorsed the project of FTT enhanced cooperation in May 2012 (2 UKIP non-voters) or when it passed a resolution calling for an increase in the EU’s own resources (3 non-voters).

 

More significantly, UKIP voted against measures considered as ‘British victories’ or at least going in the right direction from a British perspective. By voting against a resolution calling to deepen the internal market for services and against the launch of TTIP talks, UKIP MEPs turned their back on a pillar of British EU politics, namely the aim to limit the EU to a ‘free-trade area’. By refusing to endorse the 2014-2020 MFF deal, they missed the opportunity to express their satisfaction at seeing the EU budget shrinking. Finally, their opposition to the creation of the EEAS in 2010 may not come as a surprise for a party believing in Britain’s exceptionalism. Yet from an institutional point of view, the new body does not encroach an inch on UK sovereignty and only provides member states with new opportunities to team up on the international stage.

 

To sum up, UKIP do not take EU policy debates seriously but rather use the resources and visibility they get in the EP as part of the EFD group in order to pursue their anti-EU campaign. Therefore their influence on the EU’s decision-making is totally insignificant, an attitude that does not reinforce

their governing credentials.

(source)

[swarfendor437]

Or he asked the wrong people. All he had to do was Google it:

 

Have fun reading.

 

On the NHS.

 

Its not just about the NHS - it could also affect people who need texts in Alternative Formats, so that not even the CLA exemption for print-disabled people could be affected:

 

From http://www.gutenberg.org:

 

"News

 

Beware of the TPP!

 

Project Gutenberg is concerned about a new secret international treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This will extend copyright term protection worldwide, thus halting the growth of the public domain. To learn more, and join Project Gutenberg in speaking out against this treaty, visit The Internet Archive

 

http://ourfairdeal.org/