twit of the Week

Quoted from barralad

All Obama did was point out the fact that America is shrewd enough to work out that their need  to maximise their trade will mean that their efforts will go into securing a deal with a trading bloc rather than a single country. The fact that he's had some stick from the Leave campaign suggests that they are worried.
Why put this country in the position of having to negotiate a separate agreement when we already are on the verge of one with the E.U. with no guarantee we could get a better one?
If Obama's intervention is deemed to be sticking his nose in can we expect equal condemnation of the anti E.U Marine Le Pen who is coming to bolster the out campaign?

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a claim waiting to happen and fears are it will strip parts of the NHS away. Also;

This refers to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Normally, trade agreements are enforced by countries taking action against one another. But TTIP is also an investment agreement. These typically allow companies that have invested in a foreign country to claim compensation for breach of the agreement in an arbitration tribunal, instead of taking action in local courts or relying on their government to step in.

ISDS would come into play where a country wants to nationalise something owned by a foreign investor without compensation. But an arbitration tribunal can't force a government to change its laws or policies. It can only award compensation after the event. While this could raise the costs of nationalisation, it doesn't stop the state from doing it.

EU officials have said that a government seeking to nationalise a service currently in private hands would have to respect existing law—on contracts, for instance.

Including ISDS in TTIP could give US companies a choice of whether to use arbitration rather than national courts to seek compensation—but it's also true that under an unlawful nationalisation scheme they would get compensation either way.

It has already been rumoured that big US medical companies are vying for parts of the NHS, If we stay in we'll soon see what it will eventually cost us, we are already seeing buy medical cover adverts, because you aren't getting the treatment as you require it.

Quoted from GrimRob

Yes they do, the clue's in the name - United States. Once upon a time America was a bunch of loosley connected states that joined together into a single economic and political entity, each retaining its own local juristiction. Sound familiar? Play the tape forward and the USA now's what the EU will be like in a few decades time. It might even be called the USE.

A bit like old England, until the counties merged under one flag. Let's bring that up to date as things are now, the USA would never enter an agreement with Canada/Mexico/any other North or South american state and give away the governance we have. Can you image how the Yanks heads would explode if Mexicans could move to the US under the free movement of people as we have over 20 countries that could move here.

We need to control our borders before Turkey joins the EU.

Quoted from Marinerz93

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a claim waiting to happen and fears are it will strip parts of the NHS away. Also;

This refers to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Normally, trade agreements are enforced by countries taking action against one another. But TTIP is also an investment agreement. These typically allow companies that have invested in a foreign country to claim compensation for breach of the agreement in an arbitration tribunal, instead of taking action in local courts or relying on their government to step in.

ISDS would come into play where a country wants to nationalise something owned by a foreign investor without compensation. But an arbitration tribunal can't force a government to change its laws or policies. It can only award compensation after the event. While this could raise the costs of nationalisation, it doesn't stop the state from doing it.

EU officials have said that a government seeking to nationalise a service currently in private hands would have to respect existing law—on contracts, for instance.

Including ISDS in TTIP could give US companies a choice of whether to use arbitration rather than national courts to seek compensation—but it's also true that under an unlawful nationalisation scheme they would get compensation either way.

It has already been rumoured that big US medical companies are vying for parts of the NHS, If we stay in we'll soon see what it will eventually cost us, we are already seeing buy medical cover adverts, because you aren't getting the treatment as you require it.

TTIP is a a further sell out to big business to allow American companies to ride roughshod over Govt and other privately owned/run businesses and is the backdoor for privatising the NHS, with no recourse from the taxpayers of this country and no ability for our Govt to stop it, whichever party is in power. Be scared people because this will effectively remove democray for European GOVTS and put all the power in the hands of big business.

Quoted from Marinerz93

Barack will also be remembered as a hypocrite telling UK voters that we'll be back of the queue if we vote to leave the EU, when the US would never give away the governance we have.

Do as I say, not as I do.

You do realise that the United States is big enough not to need to give away any sovereignty?

Andrew Defreitas

Quoted from Marinerz93

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a claim waiting to happen and fears are it will strip parts of the NHS away. Also;

This refers to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Normally, trade agreements are enforced by countries taking action against one another. But TTIP is also an investment agreement. These typically allow companies that have invested in a foreign country to claim compensation for breach of the agreement in an arbitration tribunal, instead of taking action in local courts or relying on their government to step in.

ISDS would come into play where a country wants to nationalise something owned by a foreign investor without compensation. But an arbitration tribunal can't force a government to change its laws or policies. It can only award compensation after the event. While this could raise the costs of nationalisation, it doesn't stop the state from doing it.

EU officials have said that a government seeking to nationalise a service currently in private hands would have to respect existing law—on contracts, for instance.

Including ISDS in TTIP could give US companies a choice of whether to use arbitration rather than national courts to seek compensation—but it's also true that under an unlawful nationalisation scheme they would get compensation either way.

It has already been rumoured that big US medical companies are vying for parts of the NHS, If we stay in we'll soon see what it will eventually cost us, we are already seeing buy medical cover adverts, because you aren't getting the treatment as you require it.

Anyone who thinks that the only way under this Government that the NHS will be privatised is through TTIP needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Equally as feasible is that in a post E.U. U.K the Tories will offer parts of the NHS to U.S. companies as a sweetener to the much heralded individual trade agreement that the Yanks are apparently going to rush to sign with us.

Quoted from barralad

Anyone who thinks that the only way under this Government that the NHS will be privatised is through TTIP needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Equally as feasible is that in a post E.U. U.K the Tories will offer parts of the NHS to U.S. companies as a sweetener to the much heralded individual trade agreement that the Yanks are apparently going to rush to sign with us.

This also possible

Quoted from barralad

Anyone who thinks that the only way under this Government that the NHS will be privatised is through TTIP needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Equally as feasible is that in a post E.U. U.K the Tories will offer parts of the NHS to U.S. companies as a sweetener to the much heralded individual trade agreement that the Yanks are apparently going to rush to sign with us.

And anyone who fell for Gove's comment that if we pull out we will have an extra £350m a week that we can spend on the NHS. Apart from it not being a £350m gross, and apart from the money that comes back, do people really believe that the balance will be spent on the NHS? Or that the Tories will abandon the farmers and cut the subsidy they otherwise would have got from the EU so that they could give it to other departments.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

And anyone who fell for Gove's comment that if we pull out we will have an extra £350m a week that we can spend on the NHS. Apart from it not being a £350m gross, and apart from the money that comes back, do people really believe that the balance will be spent on the NHS? Or that the Tories will abandon the farmers and cut the subsidy they otherwise would have got from the EU so that they could give it to other departments.

Last year our annual EU membership cost us £17.8 billion but with the rebate we only had to pay £12.9 billion just under £250m a week ( thanks EU) but no doubt this figure will dramatically rise if we stay in the EU to fund country's that are facing bankruptcy, the £350m you mention is based on the contribution before the rebate, this rebate we get back is spent on projects sometimes questionable that are chosen by the EU!

With the Billions we save we could spend the money on the projects we think are right for and yes the NHS could be better funded without doubt and here is the Beauty, if we didn't think this goverment was investing enough of the accountable billions at our disposal we could just vote them out brilliant! That's democracy for you something we will never ever have being a member of the corrupt unaccountable EU super state.

Don't know about twit of the week but the tw@t of the week is former Police Superintended David Duckenfield.