>Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.
Hahaha!! Always laughing at other countries aren't you Australia! Not any more - we laugh at you now!!
A M U S I N G
For the URL to work you need to change "baka" back to s.m.h
DAMN YOU JACKIE 4CHAN
Go back to sleep Orban, this is our one chance to meme Australia and you want to throw it away
>But we are one of the countries which will benefit the most from TTIP
go to sleep John, what you're saying is complete nonsense. Europe has very little to gain by signing TTIP, and much, much to lose that protects people from corporate abuse.
Now now friends, this is a very fair deal that will benefit all of us very evenly.
>britain seeking the help of a manlet with napoleon complex who leads a poor and powerless country in a desperate attempt to protect its interest in a Union which they are one the largest members of
how the mighty have fallen
It won't benefit you either you dipshit. It'll benefit a select group of wealthy interests, as well as the politicians on their payroll. All this autistic countryball roleplaying is cringeworthy.
Seppos LITERALLY do worse out of it than the convicts
Well the American and Australian economies are way betteer develoved than Vietnam or Malaysia, so in absolute numbers tey probably still win.
Also i could imagine that the world bank makes optimistic reports for smaller, less developed countries to convince them better
NAFTA devalued by parents home value by about 25% not accounting for inflation and it still hasn't recovered some 20-odd years later. That wealth basically went into the pockets of transnational corporations. If the jobs destroyed by NAFTA were still around, wages wouldn't be depressed, and thus the home would be worth more.
No one really even knows how the TTIP will affect our economies. It prob won't even be a noticeable change either. This is just a deal to weaken china, no one will really notice a difference.
There always is the exception which confirms the rule.
Probably there is a reason behind this, like they have a special ressource they can sell quite well.
Anyway, roughly the developement of the economy determines the position in this ranking
Except corporations can sue individuals for a whole list of supposed "infractions" as well as sue our governments for any policy they enact which has the potential to reduce their profits. These will be deliberated in a private court not answerable to any government. Fucking Orwellian.
It's not really about what will change if anything, it's about the loopholes in it and possible abuse of them by rich multinationals. I'm opposed to it simply from principle. I don't like it that a corporation can override a national legislation and sue a country for damages in a court where the judges and lawyers are all on their payroll. A cherry on top is that those judges won't be elected democratically to safeguard people's interests but appointed by the same multinationals that hammered TTIP and TTP through
TTIP has some potential for fucking shit up though.
Europarliament already called for transparency in this but it can go either way in final treaty.
will there be another ACTA piggybacking the general trade treaty?
non-tariff barriers are quality standards, safety standards and definitions that need to be harmonised or recognized. How detrimental will it be for our food? Least invasive would probably be a sticker "This was done to EU/US standards".
generally a good thing to have in the interest of increasing business efficiency, but here we have separate social and welfare systems and no(?) compensation/renumeration mechanism that would allow the less competitive countries to restructure without being first drained of wealth and entrenching them in poverty.
Generally speaking liberalising trade leads to higher overall yields and efficiency, but these benefits are not evenly distributed. Some will end up worse off, and it won't necessarily only be local monopolists and rentseekers.
Liberalising isn't always the best thing to strive for. Remember that 2008's implosion was the effect of two decades of deregulation of the financial markets and neoliberal economics.
There is a Hong Kong owned tobacco corporation in the middle of suing the government in private hearings right now, over plain packaging because apparently selling people cancer is fair and shouldn't have restrictions on profits. All this passing will only make it easier for that shit to happen.
Apparently it puts NHS under pressure and messes with bank regulations. So Americanized healthcare and you get to bail out the banks even more.
The new pipeline law suit might change that.
We've also sued you on a number of cases for not following the free trade thing properly and apparently won most of the cases but you keep fucking us over anyways. The TPP will probably be another expensive set of damage to my country with no benefits. I wish our politicians weren't such corrupt traitors.
It was an important contributor but by far the determining one. Responsibility for fraud still lies with banks, and the system being allowed to bloat to the unstable mess is consequence of weak regulation.
Trying to whitewash bank involvement for "just doing what's rational" is like saying that if my job requires me to have an iPhone then I am justified in stealing one.
Actually it was not that, it was the government backed lending banks giving out cheap loans and driving the whole mortgage market rates down.
Then when interest rates went up the whole housing market slowed.
Do you not remember .55 USD to a CAD in 2001? The dollar was way stronger 1999-2003.
I see all this bitching about currency fluctuations when it is essentially pointless. The amount of shit you buy from overseas is no greater now than it was then, so the gain you got from temporary currency strength is negated by temporary currency weakness. You end up at zero either way.
Also, this is the fault of your central banks not raising rates.
Liberalization of the economy almost without fail leads to the lower classes getting buttfucked.
How can the average American household still be poorer now than in 1990 if Globalization and free trade is so good? Yet the rich are nearly 4 times richer.
When it comes to this, I guess I like what Bernie and Trump say on economics.
In case anyone doubts me
>TTIP will not change the way that the NHS, or other public services, is run. Access to NHS services will continue to be based on patients’ needs, not ability to pay. Local NHS commissioners will remain in charge of deciding who should provide services in the best interests of patients. The European Commission is following our approach that it must always be for the UK to decide for itself whether or not to open up our public services to competition.
The dairy thing will apparently allow American cancer milk into our country despite it being banned. It just allows more of our own laws to be ignored so out side businessmen can threaten and sue us into buying lower quality products for more money because of shit currency exchange rate.
We'll see how it shakes out, they'll probably throw a label on it or hop on the organic bandwagon. American milk does tastw weird though.
>or hop on the organic bandwagon
Organic milk doesn't add extra vitamins so it doesn't really help. It's technically better to drink the normal store stuff. We'd need GMO labeling kind of things.
Food industries are also extremely resistant to labels and any attempts tend to get locked up in red tape for years.
UK government. That is not a source I believe in.
>The second point is that the ‘protection' highlighted to the BBC relates only to how US corporations will be treated once they are already providing health services. In the jargon, this is the ‘national treatment' provision that requires foreign companies to be treated at least as well as domestic firms once they are operating in the local economy. The protection does not apply to whether the market should be opened to them in the first place, or whether we can bring it back into public hands. Any such protection would have to be written into the ‘market access' column of the schedule of commitments that the BBC has published, which it isn't.
There is a reason they keep the negotiations secret, and use the state propaganda organs to lie about them.