Wednesday 10th June 2015

[ohsocynical]

George Foulkes ‏@GeorgeFoulkes 5 hrs5 hours ago
Cameron says the Commons will decide whether 16 & 17 year olds vote in EU referendum, If they don't agree then I hope the Lords will


bill greig ‏@scotexpress46 5 hrs5 hours ago
And that will require Labour peers and others to achieve it as the SNP choose to avoid the HOL. Lab to the rescue again.

[ohsocynical]

Ann McKechin retweeted
Catherine Stihler ‏@C_Stihler_MEP 9h9 hours ago
Tories vote for postponement, Labour votes for TTIP debate and the SNP are not present. Right win vote by 2 votes. Now no debate on TTIP.

Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage 9 hrs9 hours ago

17 years as an MEP and never seen such public disquiet re: an EU issue. The result? Debate & vote on TTIP suspended. They've got the wind up

[rebeccariots2]

Ann McKechin retweeted
Catherine Stihler ‏@C_Stihler_MEP 9h9 hours ago
Tories vote for postponement, Labour votes for TTIP debate and the SNP are not present. Right win vote by 2 votes. Now no debate on TTIP.

Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage 9 hrs9 hours ago

17 years as an MEP and never seen such public disquiet re: an EU issue. The result? Debate & vote on TTIP suspended. They've got the wind up

Awful outcome of today's vote though Ohso. No debate ... NO DEBATE. The most contentious issue for ages and there's going to be no debate. Where were the SNP MEPs? Was it just them absent or were there others too?

[utopiandreams]

George Foulkes ‏@GeorgeFoulkes 5 hrs5 hours ago
Cameron says the Commons will decide whether 16 & 17 year olds vote in EU referendum, If they don't agree then I hope the Lords will


bill greig ‏@scotexpress46 5 hrs5 hours ago
And that will require Labour peers and others to achieve it as the SNP choose to avoid the HOL. Lab to the rescue again.

Come now, ohso, you're forgetting the eight jaundiced knights to mount their chargers or can Tim Farron squeeze them into his deux chevaux?

[rebeccariots2]

Christopher Hope ‏@christopherhope 1m1 minute ago
BREAKING The Government has started to sell off its 30 per cent stake in Royal Mail - not to taxpayers who own it but big City investors

Gawd ... I can't take much more of this ... but we're facing 5 interminable years of it, at least. I feel all shouty but I haven't got the energy after some hard graft strimming and mowing.

[rebeccariots2]

Nurses to be among first affected by plan to cut skilled migration
Measures to be brought in this autumn will reduce recruitment of skilled workers on tier two visas from outside Europe
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -migration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beyond shouty inside now ... more like hysterical tired hiccupy feeling.

[utopiandreams]

Christopher Hope ‏@christopherhope 1m1 minute ago
BREAKING The Government has started to sell off its 30 per cent stake in Royal Mail - not to taxpayers who own it but big City investors

Gawd ... I can't take much more of this ... but we're facing 5 interminable years of it, at least. I feel all shouty but I haven't got the energy after some hard graft strimming and mowing.

Frightening isn't it, rebecca? It's back to Tory profligacy I'm afraid, sell everything they can while reducing taxes. Rather conveniently ownership mostly ends up in the hands of Tory donors. I'd call it corruption if I hadn't a better use for tin foil. It must be getting increasingly difficult for Dave and George, unlike their mater who had North Sea oil revenues to squander too.

It's all part of their long term economic plan so expect a lot more public asset sales, NHS or similar outsourcing and free schools/academisation. 'And on that note there used to be an independent adjudicator who oversaw any future change of use of school land or buildings, I can't remember the actual position. I wouldn't be surprised if that quietly slipped by the wayside such that academy chains may dispose of assets as they wish with no LEA recompense. (Does RoT know?)

Now what was the name of that nursing home chain that sold all their properties and rented them back? Tories don't invest in the country's future, nowadays they're asset-stripping carpet-baggers.

[LadyCentauria]

Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage 9 hrs9 hours ago

17 years as an MEP and never seen such public disquiet re: an EU issue. The result? Debate & vote on TTIP suspended. They've got the wind up

Awful outcome of today's vote though Ohso. No debate ... NO DEBATE. The most contentious issue for ages and there's going to be no debate. Where were the SNP MEPs? Was it just them absent or were there others too?

After the vote on the TTIP resolution had been postponed yesterday on the basis of article 175 of the rules of procedure, today the Parliament decided by 183 votes in favour, 181 against, and 37 abstentions to postpone the debate as well on the basis of article 152.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... -postponed

There are misunderstandings abounding. The fury (of roughly half) of the MEPs this morning was due to two factors. The first is that, yesterday (I think it was last night,) the executive bit of the Parliament decided to postpone the vote because the number of amendments proposed was too unwieldy to be debated in one session so, I think, the executive council of the EU Parliament (as opposed to the Council of Europe) gets to decide which amendments can be amalgamated and which disallowed until the number is manageable. Secondly, this morning, roughly half of the MEPs (and over 2,000,000 of their constituents) were expecting to hold the debate and were objecting to the imposition of article 152 and wanted the expected timetabled debate to go ahead this morning. They also feel, quite naturally, that MEPs should have the power to decide to debate as many amendments as come forward. Note that, in our own Parliament, when there are a massive number of amendments proposed we hear The Speaker say, "It would be convenient to take amendments 23, 24, 29, 43, and 47, together." It doesn't work that way in the EU Parliament, which is widely felt to have an inbuilt democratic deficit.

The vote on the demand to hold the debate, this morning, was defeated. So, the debate has been postponed and so has the vote.

There will be a debate and there will be a vote, after it. No-one knows when, exactly, yet.

I hope that my attempt at an explanation has not confused further but I'm still trying, pretty hard, to understand quite how the EU Council of Ministers and the tiers between it and the EU Parliament (MEPs) actually work. I hope the me who is living in the parallel-universe in which I did choose, instead, to train as an interpreter (English, French, German, and probably Spanish since no-one seems to speak Gàidhlig there, yet) in the EU has a better understanding of exactly how the heck it all works; and how the heck it needs to be changed to improve democracy within it.

Edit: to insert a 'space'. And formatting. Bumboils™. And to add: If Farage thinks he's never seen such public disquiet over an EU issue he hasn't been paying much attention during his 17 years there. Comes of signing in but failing to attend debates. His party's increased recent presence in the chamber of the EU Parliament (from a starting point of 'hardly ever') is mainly, I surmise, due to the change in the regulations the Parliament voted through that mean if you do not attend debates and votes of at least half the sittings, having signed in, you lose at least half your wages...

[ohsocynical]

Tony McNulty ‏@Tony_McNulty 21 mins21 minutes ago
Labourleadership latest

Burnham 60
Cooper 43
Kendall 37
Corbyn 15
Creagh 7
162/232 declared - 70 yet to nominate, still scope for JC and MC

[rebeccariots2]

Thank you Lady C for that helpful explanation of the fiasco that is the European Parliament and TTIP.

Now - do you think that if TTIP goes ahead with its worst elements such as the right for companies to sue governments if policy interferes with their profits ... it could tip a lot of people who would normally be pro European Union to vote to come out in the referendum?

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

[refitman]

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

Good night cJA.

[ohsocynical]

Tony McNulty ‏@Tony_McNulty 1 hr1 hour ago
Deputy Leadership latest

Watson 54
Flint 35
Healey 21
Eagle 18
Creasy 16
Bradshaw 14
Ali 13
171/232 declared - not all will survive

[ohsocynical]

David Burrows
‏@dbfamilylaw

Criminal #legalaid fees to be cut by 8.75%, confirms Ministry of Justice

http://gu.com/p/49khd/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Eric_WLothian]

Thank you Lady C for that helpful explanation of the fiasco that is the European Parliament and TTIP.

Now - do you think that if TTIP goes ahead with its worst elements such as the right for companies to sue governments if policy interferes with their profits ... it could tip a lot of people who would normally be pro European Union to vote to come out in the referendum?

I found this rather surprising:

since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ttip-icsid

[LadyCentauria]

Thank you Lady C for that helpful explanation of the fiasco that is the European Parliament and TTIP.

Now - do you think that if TTIP goes ahead with its worst elements such as the right for companies to sue governments if policy interferes with their profits ... it could tip a lot of people who would normally be pro European Union to vote to come out in the referendum?

I fear so, rr2, There is protection for 'state enterprises' (eg., health and education) within EU articles and legislation and a duty on the EU (including the Commissioners, etc.,) to write that protection into any treaty they enter into with anyone - which includes TTIP. It also leaves decisions on the ways in which those state enterprises are carried out completely in the competence of each country of the EU. So, it's up to the UK Parliament to decide on whether to contract-out any of those enterprises to the private sector; and the UK Government retains its competence to decide to take a contracted-out (or ALMO or privately-run) enterprise back into full state-control – without any foreign company being able to challenge that Government in the courts.

The only protection for companies involved in such state enterprises is for those already engaged (pre-TTIP, in this case) in a specific contracting- or leasing-out from the Government. For example, this should mean that, should the Government decide to bring ESA Assessments back in-house this year or next, Maximus' current contract would have some legal protection but that legal protection should only extend to them receiving whatever is due under break-clauses for early termination of contracts. Should the Government then swiftly re-let the contract to another company, Maximus might have some additional protections – that should depend on them proving that the Government had acted falsely in its claims – but only because both the Government and Maximus' original contract entitles Maximus to the same protections as UK- or EU-countries' registered companies to the extent that they are treated as EU-companies under its own internal dispute-resolution mechanisms. That is, the dispute would be conducted firstly within the host country then, if either party is still unsatisfied having exhausted the UK legal system, it could be tested under EU trade laws in the EU Court of Justice; and that is where the buck eventually rests. Not with any TTIP-based investor/state dispute resolution mechanism. If that protection is not written into TTIP then the EU will have broken its own rules – which would cause untold damage to it, probably including UK-exit.

Sorry that's not as straightforward as 'everything's fine' or 'everything's awful.' As long as existing EU protections for state's to choose how they run themselves is written into TTIP, there is no mechanism for any company in the world to claim against any EU country on the grounds of 'you once out-sourced a region's physiotherapy service therefore it must remain out-sourced forever and you have to let us tender for it or we'll sue you for damages for refusing to let us make a profit.' I can't necessarily see that message getting through because I don't see that message getting through. Especially if Farage and his ilk are 'explaining' things to this country's people – many of whom don't even know that we're in the EU. However, today's postponement of a debate on part of TTIP raises the feeling that the EU is undemocratic and that the EU Parliament lacks power; and that becomes another stick for the 'anti's to beat it with.

[rebeccariots2]

You are damn excellent at explaining this TTIP evil malarkey Lady C.

Somebody should hire you to do just that ... and probably not only that.

[rebeccariots2]

Thank you Lady C for that helpful explanation of the fiasco that is the European Parliament and TTIP.

Now - do you think that if TTIP goes ahead with its worst elements such as the right for companies to sue governments if policy interferes with their profits ... it could tip a lot of people who would normally be pro European Union to vote to come out in the referendum?

I found this rather surprising:

since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)

Invasions or trade sanctions / boycotts of oil producing countries no longer acceptable or necessary when you can sue the pants off them eh.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ttip-icsid

[LadyCentauria]

Thank you Lady C for that helpful explanation of the fiasco that is the European Parliament and TTIP.

Now - do you think that if TTIP goes ahead with its worst elements such as the right for companies to sue governments if policy interferes with their profits ... it could tip a lot of people who would normally be pro European Union to vote to come out in the referendum?

I found this rather surprising:

since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ttip-icsid

Oh my goodness! I see, now, that things are worse than I'd understood. So, even where there is protection under the state-enterprise-protection clause/article in all EU legislation, the UK might not be able to protect itself from claims by foreign investors under the external treaties it has signed – and actively supports UK companies is suing abroad, albeit officially not doing so. No wonder Farage & Co want us outside the EU. Less protection for us and for the state. Lots of lovely lolly for people like them

[rebeccariots2]

Tim Stanley ‏@timothy_stanley 19m19 minutes ago
Testosterone, racism, cigarettes and "proper f**king lunches". It's another Ukip tell-all http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … great work by @rowenamason

[LadyCentauria]

You are damn excellent at explaining this TTIP evil malarkey Lady C.

Somebody should hire you to do just that ... and probably not only that.

Thank you, m'dear But my little-knowledge could well be a dangerous thing and it's definitely limited, as shown by @Eric_WLothian's link. It might be the case that without a specific TTIP-ISDS agreement (and a very carefully written one, at that!) we're actually at more risk than without it. Hmm

[rebeccariots2]

Ian Katz ‏@iankatz1000 11m11 minutes ago
.@BBCAllegra reports Treasury considering plan to cut £5bn of working tax credits, effectively dismantling Brown's tax credit regime

Bang. There it is - the famous Tory support for working people. 5bn - that is eye watering stuff.

[rebeccariots2]

Jack Dromey MP ‏@JackDromeyMP 3m3 minutes ago
The 'One Nation Party for working people' cuts working families tax credits, pushing 300,000 children into poverty @BBCNewsnight

[Willow904]

You are damn excellent at explaining this TTIP evil malarkey Lady C.

Somebody should hire you to do just that ... and probably not only that.

Thank you, m'dear But my little-knowledge could well be a dangerous thing and it's definitely limited, as shown by @Eric_WLothian's link. It might be the case that without a specific TTIP-ISDS agreement (and a very carefully written one, at that!) we're actually at more risk than without it. Hmm

We can have a trade agreement with the US without an ISDS clause. The question is whether the US is interested in a trade deal without one. I'd like to see the EU propose a deal without one, it could be telling. Positive reasons for having trade deals include things like having the same safety standards or animal welfare rules in various nations which can help make imports and exports cheaper and more efficient because of the need for fewer checks and paperwork. So the idea of a trade agreement isn't bad in itself. The problem is the US has a track record in these agreements that makes people question their motives, for good reason in my opinion. If you look at how the US trade agreement with Canada has enabled US health companies to infiltrate Canadian health markets and push up costs or the legal threats Australia faced when trying to introduce plain cigarette packaging, you have to question in whose interests these deals have been drafted. It works both ways too, unions in the US fear EU access to US public sector contracts could force down wages. Voting to leave the EU to escape TTIP, however, is just nuts. The Tories would just sign a UK/US trade deal that was even worse than anything the EU countries would be willing to agree to! Call me crazy but I'd rather trust Merkel and Hollande to act in my interests than David Cameron any day. The questionable elements of ISDS in previous treaties is the possibility that once a public service has been privatised, the ISDS would prevent it being renationalised full stop. An NHS exemption would reassure on this point but of course Cameron refuses to ask for one. The concerns of other EU countries about public services, however, may ensure the NHS is not at risk in this way. The other problem is that these treaties are written into international law and as such are effectively irreversible. Full, frank debate of its contents is therefore essential. Any attempts to rush it through would ring alarm bells with me. On the other hand, the longer the negotiations go on, the less likely the Americans will manage to slip anything really objectionable through, I suspect.

[Hobiejoe]

Apologies if already mentioned, I've been working up to now, but it seems that new Norwich South MP Clive Lewis has come out swinging.....

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... den-speech




*edit* That's a boxing reference, by the way.

[LadyCentauria]

... It might be the case that without a specific TTIP-ISDS agreement (and a very carefully written one, at that!) we're actually at more risk than without it. Hmm

We can have a trade agreement with the US without an ISDS clause. The question is whether the US is interested in a trade deal without one. I'd like to see the EU propose a deal without one, it could be telling. Positive reasons for having trade deals include things like having the same safety standards or animal welfare rules in various nations which can help make imports and exports cheaper and more efficient because of the need for fewer checks and paperwork. So the idea of a trade agreement isn't bad in itself. The problem is the US has a track record in these agreements that makes people question their motives, for good reason in my opinion. If you look at how the US trade agreement with Canada has enabled US health companies to infiltrate Canadian health markets and push up costs or the legal threats Australia faced when trying to introduce plain cigarette packaging, you have to question in whose interests these deals have been drafted. It works both ways too, unions in the US fear EU access to US public sector contracts could force down wages. Voting to leave the EU to escape TTIP, however, is just nuts. The Tories would just sign a UK/US trade deal that was even worse than anything the EU countries would be willing to agree to! Call me crazy but I'd rather trust Merkel and Hollande to act in my interests than David Cameron any day. The questionable elements of ISDS in previous treaties is the possibility that once a public service has been privatised, the ISDS would prevent it being renationalised full stop. An NHS exemption would reassure on this point but of course Cameron refuses to ask for one. The concerns of other EU countries about public services, however, may ensure the NHS is not at risk in this way. The other problem is that these treaties are written into international law and as such are effectively irreversible. Full, frank debate of its contents is therefore essential. Any attempts to rush it through would ring alarm bells with me. On the other hand, the longer the negotiations go on, the less likely the Americans will manage to slip anything really objectionable through, I suspect.

Very good points, Willow. Yep, I'd rather be in the EU than out even if it means landing up with some of the worse proposed clauses in TTIP – which is certainly not all bad. I certainly don't call you crazy for trusting Merkel and Hollande more with our futures than trusting Cameron 'cause I feel the same way, myself. There's a strong well of feeling against TTIP in the US – and they're battling the TPA, at the same time. And I agree that the longer the negotiations take the more any nasties can be identified, argued against, and defeated.

Yikes! Telegraph say housing market has ground to a halt with fewer houses coming onto the market than in 1978...

[LadyCentauria]

Apologies if already mentioned, I've been working up to now, but it seems that new Norwich South MP Clive Lewis has come out swinging.....

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... den-speech




*edit* That's a boxing reference, by the way.

I caught Clive Lewis' maiden-speech – very good it was, too

[thatchersorphan]

Thank you Lady C for that helpful explanation of the fiasco that is the European Parliament and TTIP.

Now - do you think that if TTIP goes ahead with its worst elements such as the right for companies to sue governments if policy interferes with their profits ... it could tip a lot of people who would normally be pro European Union to vote to come out in the referendum?

The tories support TTIP - so an independent uk is likely to be stuck with a bad trade agreement anyway - and from an out position I presume we'd also have less sway when negotiating new agreements?
Leaving the EU won't protect us anyway, unless we also have a govt that isn't bought by corporate and elite power.