It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dr Gregor Venters, a GP from Edinburgh, said:
"TTIP seems set up to help big business.
"Private corporations could use the process to bully governments into dropping legislation to improve food standards, for example.
"It will have a deleterious effect on public health and make privatisation of the NHS not only possible but probable. The least we can expect is the exclusion of health and social care and public health policy from the process."
Dr Henry McKee, a GP from Belfast, was introduced to delegates as being against the motion - but told them it was because "it doesn't go far enough".
"Freedom of information requests of other countries which have entered into such agreements show exactly how damaging this treaty will be to both the social fabric and the health economy of this country," he said.
"If there is anything resembling an NHS by the time this treaty is negotiated it won't survive this treaty.
"The correct motion is to kill this treaty dead, not to tolerate it sneaking in and mugging us."
Such a clause would make it much harder for countries to ban or impose strong regulations on fracking for shale gas and other unconventional fossil fuels, for fear of having to pay millions in compensation.
This would be regardless of the evidence of the environmental harm caused by fracking, and of the opposition by local residents and other citizens.
More broadly, the ISDS clause would likely thwart governments’ efforts to address global warming and reduce dependency on fossil fuels, the report states.
“Giving companies more rights as part of the EU-US trade deal would undermine Europe’s growing resistance to fracking. Energy companies must not be given the power to challenge democratically agreed laws that safeguard the environment and citizen health. Put simply, this puts profits before people, democracy and the planet.”
originally posted by: hawkeyenation
Little off topic but am I the only one that actually reads it in a Jesse Ventura voice? Make for a great read indeed. Intense!
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: JesseVentura
How about this Jesse?
Given the framework of total internet control by the NSA is documented to varying extents, what would stop them from fixing the elections?
Means, motive, opportunity. Why wouldn't they control the elections? What could or would stop them?
originally posted by: JesseVentura
They certainly can as long as you’re electing with this modern equipment that can be hacked into. If you have computerized voting machines, you run the risk of being hacked into and having an election that’s not honest.
I prefer the old-fashioned paper ballot where you mark the candidate of your choice. If someone is incapable of doing that then they shouldn’t be voting anyway. To me, some things don’t improve with technology and in the case with voting. I believe paper ballots and hand counting are the only way to go because then you can have legitimate re-counts if you need them.
originally posted by: Lucas73
I think the USA has a terrible and expensive health system and they seem to want to ruin everybody else's so theirs doesn't look as bad in comparison, all the while their citizens look with lust in their hearts over the border to Canada's health system and its affordable drugs.
originally posted by: jacobe001
Noone I know in the US approves of Big Pharma and Big Insurance and in what they are doing, except for Wall Street Parasites that have seen their stocks go through the roof and Politicians, so we are being held by hostage by these Corporate Fascists.
As an American Consumer, if I can purchase a product elsewhere cheaper such as the generic version, then I should be able to do, anything is protectionist garbage, not Free Trade, with the government as the Big Stick.
originally posted by: lovebuckets
TPP means nothing if you have a garden, solar panels, access to water and a great community of people by your side. But, on the other hand we cant all just leave cities, or can we?
originally posted by: AlexJowls
For the uninitiated, the U.S. presents: The TPP:
● Inability of a member state to change stipulations or withdraw from the agreement without all signatories' mandate -- something very difficult to achieve once the contract is signed
● The facilitation of multinational corporations to sue governments, thereby likely influencing political policy to suit their bent (NB: Even if a win is guaranteed, a corporate court case cost upwards of $10 million - see: Philp Morris vs. cigarette plain packaging - dissuading cash-strapped gov'ts from engaging in legal battles they should otherwise, in their character as the representative of a nation, fight for its people)
● Institution of SOPA-like Internet regulation across participating member states
● Free trade agreements leading to job losses through manufacturing off-shoring and foreign worker influx
● Said FTA's lessen "red tape" and regulation, allowing cheap garbage to flood member states (e.g., contaminated food produce; highly flammable building materials; moisture contaminated refrigerant gases)
● Government effectively lying to its constituency / employers through secrecy and signing them on to contracts they would never approve of by mandate...
Of what we know so far.