Jump to content

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - TTIP


Xann

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

.... of course they are changing  (or will)  these back now the Lib Dems can't tit for tat and stop them )

They're not "changing them back", but regardless, they are changing them in a way that will (unsurprisingly) benefit themselves, while simultaneously doing all they can to make sure as many students and mobile younger people in particular are not registered to vote for all those nasty lefty parties.

I suppose you could envisage a case where if the EU referendum ends up as a "leave", then Cameron has to resign, or gets hoofed out and one of the real drooling barm-pots becomes PM, and then because they're so swivel eyed mad, maybe, just maybe come a English general election the tories would then lose, or split into two parties and eventually implode like the SDP did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

They're not "changing them back", but regardless, they are changing them in a way that will (unsurprisingly) benefit themselves, while simultaneously doing all they can to make sure as many students and mobile younger people in particular are not registered to vote for all those nasty lefty parties.

your splitting hairs slightly though it was my mistake with the word "back" so that's my fault   , but as I previously pointed out Boundary change isn't anything new ...  but where is this evidence of a plot to stop young people registering as voters  ? at the last election the under 25's vote was up from 52% to 58%

 

polls and studies also seem to suggest that more young people are voting Tory than previously , I suspect though they don't admit it publicly as they will get screeched at by raving left wing militants  :P

 

but we are going a little OT here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

where is this evidence of a plot to stop young people registering as voters  ?

Here and may other places - just mooney your phrase 

Quote

The government has rejected the advice of its own elections watchdog and will close down existing electoral registers a year earlier than planned....

The Electoral Commission chairman Jenny Watson said ... "Taking into account the data and evidence which is available to us at this point, and the scale and importance of the polls scheduled for next May, we still recommend that the end of transition should take place in December 2016 as set out in law"....Katie Ghose, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said: "There are nearly two million people left on the old register who are at risk of being completely excluded if the government refuses to give enough time to transfer to the new register. Private renters and young people - who move around most - could be most at risk.

"Holes in the register of this scale are not good news for the boundary-drawing exercise, especially when the completeness of the register is such an important issue."

She described the decision as a "travesty for democracy" and called for a "revolution" in voter registration to make it "as easy as voting itself".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MORI

 

 

Voting         Change since 2010
  Con Lab LD UKIP Green Oth Con
lead
over Lab
 Turn-
out
Con Lab LD Turn-
out
Con-
Lab
swing
  % % % %     ± %   ± % ± % ± % ± % %
All 38 31 8 13  4 6 7 66% +1 +1 -16 +1 0.35
Gender                          
Male 38 30 8 14 4  6 8 67% 0 +2 -14 +1 1
Female 37 33 8 12  4  6 4 66% +1 +2 -18 +2 0.5
Age                          
18-24 27 43 5 8 8 9 -16 43% -3 +12 -25 -1

7.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here and may other places - just mooney your phrase 

 

from your article

But John Turner, chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, backed the government's decision.

He said: "It is crucial to have the most accurate register possible and have confidence that everyone on the register is who they say they are. For those reasons, the Association of Electoral Administrators supports the transition to Individual Electoral Registration ending in 2015."

I'm not sure why this move penalises young people , other than the fact your basically stereotyping young people as lazy or stupid ..or both  :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Yes the UK (as per America and much of the rest of the world) is really controlled and run for the benefit of big business and multi-national finance.

I'm not sure I agree with your proposed "solution" though. I think the TTIP is an absolute abomination and the way that it's being progressed within the EU is appalling. Trouble is, the "people" bringing this to our attention are not UK politicians - where's the outcry, such as there is one coming from? Pretty much from Greens and left wing and left-ish MEPs and pressure groups. By and large mainstream UK parties are not addressing TTIP in ways other than to passively ignore it (Labour), support it, but say little (tories), or meekly respond to the odd question by picking on a small part of it that suits their agenda (UKIP).

UK politicians mostly are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Splitting from the EU would likely see the break up of the UK as Scotland wants to stay in. We'd be left with an England with a  permanent tory Gov't. Unfortunately the tories are the most supine, fat cat friendly pro big business and multi-national finance party you could possibly conceive of. leaving the EU would expose us to worse, not better "resistance" to being ever more walked over by corporations.

The whole Europe/EU thing is like choosing between two unappealing punishments. Either way you get a beating

Couple of points in there, first I don't think Scotland would vote to leave in any second referendum given that it would amount to financial suicide. Even when oil bounces back it is now pretty much capped at $60-70 per barrel because at that level US shale is in gravy and there's an awful lot of it. 

Second I agree about the UK political scene, the Tories are (ironically) classless toads and the Labour Party would coagulate were it any thicker. In a prior post I pointed out that Brexit is a step on a journey that must include the atomisation of both parties and their replacement with values based organisations. 

Regarding having more protection in the EU from the money men I really don't see it. As the loathsome trout quoted on page one stated, she doesn't get her mandate from the peoples of Europe. That's true, but our politicians do and if beget ousting on our behalf would be directly accountable to us.

Were Parliament reinvigorated by a return of national sovereignty I think this realignment of politics would be forced up from below as people sought alternatives that really represented their views. It wouldn't happen overnight but I do think it would happen.

It's easy to be cynical but we have form in this country for making the political weather when it comes to new ideas. We all broadly recognise the unsustainability of current economic and social models and I think UK could again be at the leading edge of constructive and progressive change.

Chris questioned whether Brexit would lead to Utopia Britannia, which as a mythical and unobtainable state of being answers itself.  That said it could be an awful lot better than resigning ourselves to the corporate nirvana of an anti-democratic EU.

I could go on but (mercifully) won't, other than to ask what the risks of remaining are? Europe is in rather deep trouble economically with a declining share of the global market, a ruinous single currency, imperial ambitions and increasing social instability. 

The migrant crisis has barely begun and what is to come will make 2015 look like an easy year.  That will cause massive political problems and the rise of the far right again in Europe (incidentally it will be interesting to see what pejorative the left employ against that having devalued the words 'racist' and 'fascist' to the point of irrelevance through sustained and unjustified over use), social unrest and more economic trouble.

Being entirely selfish from a national point of view I'd rather we didn't have an open border to that impending mess. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Awol said:

The migrant crisis has barely begun and what is to come will make 2015 look like an easy year.  That will cause massive political problems and the rise of the far right again in Europe ..., social unrest and more economic trouble.

Far from a UK vote to leave the EU just insulating us from things like TTIP and isolating us sufficiently in 'border terms' from that impending mess, perhaps the timing of such a vote and the distinct possibility that, long drawn out and probably unproductive negotiations with the EU notwithstanding, we may seem to be coping with exit (both economically and politically) might help to magnify those issues on the continent.

As removed as we might like to make ourselves from issues on the continent, we can't if they become sufficiently grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm not sure why this move penalises young people , other than the fact your basically stereotyping young people as lazy or stupid ..or both  :D

A significant percentage of young people go to University and so stay in halls of residence, rent shared accomodation and so on. They were taken off the register end Dec 15. They each need to individually register from their temporary address (HoR/ shared house), rather than one form can cover everyone in the address. this has led (as google shows) to around 1 million people being de-registered. The Gov'ts own electoral watchdog said that Dec 15 was too soon a cut off date, and that the change from Dec 16 to Dec 15 left many councils suddenly short of time to inform voters of the new system, at a time when their budgets have been cut. It is a fact that while some will agree and some disagree with what the Gov't did, it has resulted in around 1 million people no longer being registered to vote. So whetehr it's referendum on EU, votes on TTIP or whatever, the field is rigged.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Awol said:

We all broadly recognise the unsustainability of current economic and social models and I think UK could again be at the leading edge of constructive and progressive change.

I dunno about this, Jon. I can't think of anyone who is likely to get in power in the UK who actually is in favour of dumping the current model and making constructive and progressive change. The Conservatives by nature and instinct are the exact opposite. They love it as it is and want to make it worse. Greens and Labour won't get in. UKIP are (sorry) mental and not constructive or progressive.

The rest of your post, I don't agree with, really, but it's got every bit as much of a chance as being right or wrong as any of mine. Thanks for replying.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're talking about wargaming, leaving the EU, trade deals and so on, I found this article interesting (the article doesn't really reflect the headline very well):

EU war games: Brexit feasible but talks will be messy

 

The City of London destroyed. Scotland departed. The British economy in ruins. Not a party political broadcast for the Stronger In campaign, but a gimlet-eyed prophecy from Britain’s European Union partners of what could happen if Britain votes for Brexit.

On Monday, the think-tank Open Europe convened various members of the great and good to role-play two scenarios – in the morning, David Cameron’s attempts at getting a new EU deal, and in the afternoon, the negotiations that would follow the British public’s rejection of it. The first half was a debate. The second was a lynch mob.

The day began with protestations of goodwill all round. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, playing Britain, set out the main areas that Cameron hopes to make progress in. The representatives for Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ireland, Sweden and the EU institutions (played by a variety of similarly experienced figures, including Enrico Letta, former Italian PM, and John Bruton, former Irish Taoiseach), expressed their love for the UK, and their certain belief that a deal could be done.

It soon turned out, however, that the theme of the morning would be taken from Meat Loaf: “I would do anything for love, but I won’t do that.” We were told that many of the specifics of Cameron’s deal would either have unforeseen consequences, or were simply impossible, or that our European friends couldn’t really understand what we were on about.

The symbolic commitment to ditching “ever closer union”, for example – why did Britain keep raising this ludicrous idea of a superstate? A “red card” or “emergency brake” for national parliaments – this, said Germany, was a “crazy” idea, so “please take that off the table”. Others rushed to agree: wouldn’t it dilute the power of the European Parliament? (Well, yes.) And wasn’t it more likely to be used against Britain, rather than by it – for example in blocking moves to extend the free market in services, where the UK is Europe’s dominant player? (A rather better point.) Within 20 minutes, they were practically banging on the table.

It all seemed rather rancorous – but as Sir Malcolm pointed out, this is how international diplomacy gets done. Everyone has a bit of a shout at each other, and tells each other how their ideas are impossible, and then somehow things are worked out at the end. What we in the audience were seeing, he said, was a compressed version of that.

The organisers had done their best to create a sense of drama: as the participants sat clustered around a table, spotlight amid the gloom, the effect was a hybrid of Question Time and Dr Strangelove. But it could have benefited from simultaneous translation from Eurocrat into English. During the discussion over how to change benefit rules (which seemed to boil down to Britain moving to a contributory system rather than carving out special exemptions) someone brought up the 150,000 Belgians who commute in and out of Luxembourg every day – wouldn’t a new deal need to take account of them? Sir Malcolm ventured a joke about a new “Luxembourg compromise” being needed. Mild hilarity ensued.

The abiding sense was that a wholesale, treaty-changing review of Britain’s EU membership is not on the table. But then, we knew that already. Likewise, that those in Europe can’t quite grasp that Britain has no philosophical commitment to European integration – that its relationship is primarily transactional. But in general, even if there was quarrelling over the specifics, there was a clear sense that a deal can be done – even if it ends up pretty close to the status quo.

That, however, wasn’t the box office bit. That came after lunch, when Sir Malcolm was replaced by Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor, with a mandate to negotiate the terms of Brexit.

He set out what, to many British Eurosceptics, will seem like a rather weak set of demands. Britain would ask for a simple and comprehensive free trade deal covering manufactures, goods and services – including the City of London. To simplify matters, and to ensure that a deal could be completed in the next decade or so, the acquis communautaire – the existing body of EU law and regulation – would be taken as a given. On immigration, there could be preferential access for EU citizens under whatever deal is reached. Britain would continue to cooperate on matters of defence and security – and would also chip into the EU budget, as a gesture of goodwill (something bound to infuriate those who have been told that Leave means an end to the streams of cash being sent to Brussels).

And then the bloodbath began. France said it could only offer a vanilla free trade agreement – nothing else. Germany said Britain’s “cherry-picking” approach would not be tolerated: “We are not so keen, after you showed us the torture instruments, to give you a warm welcome.” The Netherlands predicted an effort to channel investment to Scotland, in an effort to peel it off from the rest of the UK.

Lord Lamont was compared by the moderator (in the world’s least likely metaphor) to Errol Flynn, fighting his corner with flashing blade. But enough of the blows got through.

The harshest words came from John Bruton, playing Ireland. Brexit, he said, would be a “devastating decision” for Ireland – “I would regard it as an unfriendly act… a huge, self-imposed, politically generated shock to our economy.” It would undo much of the work of the peace process, and create huge questions over borders and labour market access. Out of pure self-interest, Dublin would probably try to grab whatever financial services from London hadn’t been stolen by Frankfurt. Indeed, there was unanimous agreement that the EU would do everything in its power to avoid its financial capital lying outside its borders, and regulatory reach. France, for example, would surely lean on its banks to move their operations back home.

You can argue that this was all posturing – that in reality, European countries would come round and act in their own self-interest to make sure there was a deal everyone could live with. But one thing that emerged from the talks is that European countries have electorates, too. And after Britain leaves, those electorates might not be terribly keen on immediately granting it access to the single market, carte blanche for the City of London, preferential treatment for British visitors to the Continent and so on. Also, Poland pointed out, there will be a temptation to come up with the most punitive terms possible – to avoid other countries following Britain’s lead.

What would change after a Brexit vote, in other words, is not so much the rules as the mood. It may not seem like it from the outside, but at the moment, the other players in the game feel they are doing what they can to keep Britain in the club. After a Brexit vote, they will put themselves first – informed not by a spirit of vengeance, but basic political logic.

Some of what was said was surely an exaggeration: for example, that Britain will have to take its place in the queue for trade deals behind Mexico or Indonesia. But the non-British participants – who have been around long enough to know their stuff – were clear that after a Brexit, there will be zero goodwill towards Britain, and that its needs and demands will come very low down the priority list. And no matter how much our partners try to be reasonable, there will inevitably be an irrational desire to punish us for having rejected them.

None of this is to say that Brexit is an impossibility: the argument of the Leave camp has always been that Britain could stand on its own two feet perfectly well. But what is clear is that those who want that to happen need to prepare a worst-case as well as a best-case version of that scenario. There is a vision of Brexit that is often mooted which sees us getting all of the benefits of leaving and paying none of the costs. But on this showing, untangling Britain from Europe will – at least in the short term – be like so many other divorces: messy, painful and drawn-out.

http://capx.co/eu-war-games-brexit-feasible-but-talks-will-be-messy/

 

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Far from a UK vote to leave the EU just insulating us from things like TTIP and isolating us sufficiently in 'border terms' from that impending mess, perhaps the timing of such a vote and the distinct possibility that, long drawn out and probably unproductive negotiations with the EU notwithstanding, we may seem to be coping with exit (both economically and politically) might help to magnify those issues on the continent.

As removed as we might like to make ourselves from issues on the continent, we can't if they become sufficiently grave.

In it's very basic form the decision isn't about whether or not Brexit means the UK economy will be 2% of GDP larger or smaller by 2030 (and I know you haven't even mentioned it but the economy is taking centre stage at the moment), it is really about whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in an independent country called the United Kingdom, or be a province subsumed within an EU  Superstate. That's not hyperbole, it is the stated intention of the European Federalists who dominate the EU institutions.

It is the reason democratic referenda across Europe have been resolutely ignored for over a decade. The will of the people cannot hold back the project, a deeply sinister and prevailing view across the Euro elites. 

For very many unsexy reasons relating to democracy, law, security, tradition, identity, etc. I strongly believe we are custodians of fundamental freedoms that were won, guarded and handed to us by generations of our forebears. Furthermore it is our responsibility to ensure those same rights are handed by us to our children, and as a none religious person that task is the closest thing to a sacred duty I can imagine. In recent years we have not done a good job of that and we should be far more mindful of our responsibilities.

Others clearly do not share that view as is their perogative but we should, IMO, argue it out on that basis.

I absolutely reject the notion that such a decision should be based on how it might affect other countries in the EU or the EU itself, anymore than the Scottish worried about the effect its referendum would have on the rest of the UK. 

The EU is neither a nation or country united by shared language, culture, history and values. In extremis it is that sense of togetherness and unity that can make the difference between sinking or swimming and history is replete with examples. 

We do not need to sacrifice our independence of thought and action as a country on the basis of a customs union hijacked by ideological zealots with a "vision" of a united Europe.  To date they've been proven wrong 100% of the time. 

Vive la difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

For very many unsexy reasons relating to democracy, law, security, tradition, identity, etc. I strongly believe we are custodians of fundamental freedoms that were won, guarded and handed to us by generations of our forebears. Furthermore it is our responsibility to ensure those same rights are handed by us to our children, and as a none religious person that task is the closest thing to a sacred duty I can imagine. In recent years we have not done a good job of that and we should be far more mindful of our responsibilities.

Surely it's the EU that is protecting us and the Conservative Government that is threatening us in this regard. Snooper's charters, curbing Union right to protest, determining to do away with the Human Rights Act. The EU has over the years imposed protection on air quality, water quality, pollution and so on - protecting the right to live in a toxin free (ish) environment. the removal of lead from petrol, all that kind of stuff. All EU. All things which benefit "little people" and protect us from big business. We have European arrest warrants and police co-operation and inter nation corruption assistance - all helped or down to the EU.

There's much wrong with it, but on all the things you mention in the bit quoted, I think we're better off in Yurp than out of it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

We do not need to sacrifice our independence of thought and action as a country on the basis of a customs union hijacked by ideological zealots with a "vision" of a united Europe.  To date they've been proven wrong 100% of the time. 

This to me is also complete hyberbolics. You appear to be calling up EU "thought police" (sacrificing our independence of thought - really? to who? ) as a means to persuade people of a point of view, is like listening to a UKIP spokeshater. Talking about " whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in an independent country..or be a province subsumed within an EU  Superstate" is more complete hyperbollex.

Parts of the EU might have been heading that way, parts have always been against that. It's fair enough to raise these "ever closer integrationists" as a faction, but they have basically lost the argument. the Scandi nations, UK, Ireland, Greece, Poland, other Eastern nations - not interested in a "superstate". Not going to happen. Not a risk. Pure Hyperbollex.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Awol said:

In it's very basic form the decision isn't about whether or not Brexit means the UK economy will be 2% of GDP larger or smaller by 2030 (and I know you haven't even mentioned it but the economy is taking centre stage at the moment), it is really about whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in an independent country called the United Kingdom, or be a province subsumed within an EU  Superstate. That's not hyperbole, it is the stated intention of the European Federalists who dominate the EU institutions.

It is the reason democratic referenda across Europe have been resolutely ignored for over a decade. The will of the people cannot hold back the project, a deeply sinister and prevailing view across the Euro elites. 

For very many unsexy reasons relating to democracy, law, security, tradition, identity, etc. I strongly believe we are custodians of fundamental freedoms that were won, guarded and handed to us by generations of our forebears. Furthermore it is our responsibility to ensure those same rights are handed by us to our children, and as a none religious person that task is the closest thing to a sacred duty I can imagine. In recent years we have not done a good job of that and we should be far more mindful of our responsibilities.

Others clearly do not share that view as is their perogative but we should, IMO, argue it out on that basis.

I absolutely reject the notion that such a decision should be based on how it might affect other countries in the EU or the EU itself, anymore than the Scottish worried about the effect its referendum would have on the rest of the UK. 

The EU is neither a nation or country united by shared language, culture, history and values. In extremis it is that sense of togetherness and unity that can make the difference between sinking or swimming and history is replete with examples. 

We do not need to sacrifice our independence of thought and action as a country on the basis of a customs union hijacked by ideological zealots with a "vision" of a united Europe.  To date they've been proven wrong 100% of the time. 

Vive la difference.

I'm assuming that as we speak you are on your way to Buckingham palace to free your fellow downtrodden Englishmen (and ladies!)... Beware, I've heard Lizzy is a dab hand with a cutlace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blandy said:

 Surely it's the EU that is protecting us and the Conservative Government that is threatening us in this regard. Snooper's charters, curbing Union right to protest, determining to do away with the Human Rights Act. The EU has over the years imposed protection on air quality, water quality, pollution and so on - protecting the right to live in a toxin free (ish) environment. the removal of lead from petrol, all that kind of stuff. All EU. All things which benefit "little people" and protect us from big business. We have European arrest warrants and police co-operation and inter nation corruption assistance - all helped or down to the EU.

There's much wrong with it, but on all the things you mention in the bit quoted, I think we're better off in Yurp than out of it.

Arrest warrants and intelligence sharing - Interpol. EU not required.  Environmental regulation  is done by the EU because the competency for it has been centralised away from Parliament to Brussels. I see no reason why it can't be managed domestically - the caricature Tories aside.

TTIP gives the lie to the notion that the EU protects the little guy from big business, it is the waiter bringing the little guy on a platter  to the table. You know that!

As for domestic legislation on Union rights etc it is just that, domestic. If one government passes legislation it can be thrown out and struck down by the next. It's called democracy and that's the flipping point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, villakram said:

I'm assuming that as we speak you are on your way to Buckingham palace to free your fellow downtrodden Englishmen (and ladies!)... Beware, I've heard Lizzy is a dab hand with a cutlace!

Oh yeah, Errol Flynn me mate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

This to me is also complete hyberbolics. You appear to be calling up EU "thought police" (sacrificing our independence of thought - really? to who? ) as a means to persuade people of a point of view, is like listening to a UKIP spokeshater. Talking about " whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in an independent country..or be a province subsumed within an EU  Superstate" is more complete hyperbollex.

Parts of the EU might have been heading that way, parts have always been against that. It's fair enough to raise these "ever closer integrationists" as a faction, but they have basically lost the argument. the Scandi nations, UK, Ireland, Greece, Poland, other Eastern nations - not interested in a "superstate". Not going to happen. Not a risk. Pure Hyperbollex.

Independence of thought on a national level, foreign policy etc. if you don't think that's where this is heading then why does the EU have it's own Foreign Service?  Sorry if I didn't spell it out in sufficient detail but I know that is hardly necessary with you.

As for the superstate federal agenda being bollix you need to watch more of what goes on and is said in the EU Parliament. It is a journey with a very clear destination, ever closer union is a political religion not a sound bite.  To pretend otherwise is frankly more than a bit disingenuous, they are admirably open about it because in the EU it is not treated as a dirty secret but a lofty cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Awol said:

ever closer union is a political religion 

I think I should agree to disagree on this stuff. Instead, I completely see massive flaws in the EU - the accounts not being signed off, year after year. CAP, fisheries, coherent immigration policies, borders, an element of unelected people holding too much power and being isolated from the people of the EU. The expansionism towards Ukraine, Turkey etc. TTIP and secrecy around it

The problem i have with it all is that here in the UK "we" broadly don't see these things talked or argued about. Instead it's more about notions of sovereignty, about we pay a net contribution of 8.5 billion pounds a year (in 2015/16) and how that's terrible  [it's 4% of GDP ]. Or it's about immigration to the UK, or benefits for immigrants. It's about petty things, not major things.

The EU is flawed, TTIP is appalling. The UK Gov't is flawed, they're also cool with TTIP. I think the EU reigns in some of the worse extremes of the tories. I'd rather try and reform the EU and stay in, than strop off over not getting an artificial concession about EU immigrant benefits. TTIP is showing up the absolute worst of the EU and of the UK major Parties

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Awol said:

It's easy to be cynical but we have form in this country for making the political weather when it comes to new ideas. We all broadly recognise the unsustainability of current economic and social models and I think the UK could again be at the leading edge of constructive and progressive change.

Would love this to be true. I'd hoped my generation would do something positive, but it appears that we're more ****** up than ever.

 

There may be a handful of Tory peers that think leaving Europe will make us great again.

Others would gleefully take advantage of a more exploitable workforce governed by more draconian laws.

 

Having said that - This thread is about TTIP - A lot of different political views here, does anyone think it's a good idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â