Since 2014 lack of transparency over the TTIP negotiations has led to much doubt about what is included and what is not. Labour MEP's have been actively involved in the negotiations attempting to ringfence certain aspects, ie the NHS, alongside ISDS (interstate dispute settlements).
"as it currently stands, the NHS would not be fully secured in TTIP: while no trade deal can force the privatisation of any public services, loopholes could be used to prevent a future Labour government from renationalising services that have already been tendered out....
"Labour MEPs have been pressing the European Commission and UK government for a full exclusion of all public services from TTIP, not just the NHS.... The government is trying to dodge having to reveal the truth about TTIP to the British people. Disclosing this information should not be a concern for the government unless they intend to disregard the legal advice they have received. There is significant public opposition to TTIP, and in order to make a convincing case in support of TTIP the government needs to prove to the public that the NHS will be safe.”
Artful Dodgers. It would seem the purpose of TTIP is for legally binding trade agreements that cannot be overturned by future Governments. The UK Brexit referendum and claims over sovereignty still remains open to the 'small print' ... would any future Government be able to overrule or overturn the referendum? With or without the 'small print' obviously once out... the UK would be forced to reapply:
"“The UK’s withdrawal from the EU would mean unravelling all the rights and obligations – from access to the single market, to structural funds for poorer regions, to joint action on sanctions – that the UK has acquired both during our accession to the EU and over our 40-year membership. As well as negotiating its withdrawal, the UK would also want to negotiate its post-exit arrangements with the EU,” the officials claim. "
A UK Brexit has also being 'condemned' by the less economically challenged : http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21679814-prime-ministers-raising-s...
And, with 6 weeks before the small print is likely to be published, and the 'official' offal offensive begins ... give or take Eurovision it is all getting slightly 'boring'. Has the Brexit peaked too soon, has Corbyn peaked too soon...
http://www.islingtontribune.com/corbynbrexit "Speaking exclusively to the Tribune, the Islington North MP acknowledged his historically lukewarm personal feelings towards the European Union, but said: “Labour Party policy is to try and get the best deal out of Europe for this country and a social Europe for everybody.” However, Mr Corbyn expressed concern about the EU’s “democratic deficit”, the economic strategy of the European Central Bank (ECB) and its power over austerity-stricken countries like Greece."
Slightly exciting? Hmmmm ... the plot thickens:
Argentina to repay $95bil in bonds: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35690833 "The agreement is a victory for Mauricio Macri, who was sworn in as Argentina's president in December. He reversed the non-payment stance taken by his predecessor. Daniel Gallas, BBC South America Business Correspondent, said there was still a lot of work to be done. He said that after winning over the hedge funds Mr Macri must now convince his own congress that this is a good deal for the country. "The previous administration of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner had approved a 'lock law' which forbids Argentina from paying out hedge funds in the terms that were negotiated today," he said."
Locked and loaded? http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/elliott-management-vs-the-republic-of-a...
"Plaintiffs in these forty-nine actions hold bonds issued by defendant, the Republic of Argentina. In October 2015, the court issued injunctions in these actions. Due to a pending appeal, the court does not presently have jurisdiction over the injunctions.
The Republic now moves for a Rule 62.1 Indicative Ruling that this court would vacate the injunctions if the Court of Appeals were to remand for that purpose. The motion under Rule 62.1 allows the court to state that it would grant a motion to vacate if it had the power to do so. Some plaintiffs support the Republic’s motion to vacate; others do not. The court must therefore decide whether it would vacate the injunctions on remand.
Elliott Management vs The Republic Of Argentina – Background
The court has often recounted the history of this prolonged litigation. A brief summary will suffice.
1. The Default
In 1994, the Republic began issuing bonds pursuant to a Fiscal Agency Agreement (“FAA”), which contains the famed pari passu clause:
The Securities will constitute . . . direct, unconditional, unsecured and unsubordinated obligations of the Republic and shall at all times rank pari passu and without any preference among themselves. The payment obligations of the Republic under the Securities shall at all times rank at least equally with all its other present and future unsecured and unsubordinated External Indebtedness…
After the Republic suffered an economic crisis in 2001, it defaulted on its debts, including the FAA bonds. In an attempt to cure this default, the Republic twice invited bondholders to exchange their FAA bonds for new bonds worth only 25–29% of the FAA bonds’ value. In all, roughly 93% of the Republic’s creditors ultimately accepted these exchange offers, and the Republic began making payments to the “exchange bondholders.”
To buttress the first exchange offer, the Republic enacted Law 26,017— the “Lock Law”—which prohibited “any type of in-court, out-of-court or private settlement” with FAA bondholders who could have participated in the exchange offer but chose not to. Then, in 2009, the Republic enacted Law 26,547, which barred the Republic from giving FAA bondholders who had filed lawsuits “more favorable treatment than what [was] offered to those who have not done so.” Finally, in 2013, the Republic passed Law 26,886, which again forbade bondholders who had filed lawsuits from getting any settlement worth more than the prior exchange offers.
For many years, the Republic never paid anything on the FAA bonds. Plaintiffs who held beneficial interests in those bonds began filing actions against the Republic in this court. Many obtained money judgments for the outstanding principal and interest. The Republic refused to pay, and the plaintiffs tried—usually in vain—to attach Argentine assets to satisfy their money judgments. See, e.g., EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 865 F. Supp. 2d 415, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (observing that the Republic has “usually prevail[ed] in defeating the plaintiffs’ attempts to recover” through attachment). "
Reads like 'greek' or an 'asset management' issue... (small print)
Of interest, and with regard to Brexit, how much, exactly is the UK 'bonded' ....
Clean out the Queen ... hmmm
The Irish Brexit Conundrum continues ...
No Four leafed clovers required :- http://northeastlabour.eu/uk-government-blocks-steel-reform#st_refDomain...
Wasn't she off to Mars?
Reform : "For months, UK Ministers have claimed that they are doing everything possible to address the deep crisis in our steel industry. This submission to the committee working on the reform of trade dumping measures shows that these have been crocodile tears... The UK government rather than supporting much needed action has been delaying and blocking it. They have corralled other member states to build a blocking minority which has left our steel industry and the tens of thousands of steelworkers and their communities virtually defenceless in the face of aggressive steel dumping from China, Russia and other global producers... As national steel ministers return to the EU negotiating table on Monday, they should know that MEPs and steel communities will not accept any more excuses.”