SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the good-news-for-some-bad-news-for-others dept.
EU ministers demand complete restart of the controversial trade deal that has sparked mass protests across the continent. European Union ministers today admitted that a giant EU-US trade deal is dead in its current form, with drastic change needed to salvage any hope of a deal going ahead.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [TTIP] has sparked a widespread backlash and now lies in tatters in the wake of massive protests across the continent.
Austrian Economy Minister Reinhold Mitterlehner said that the pact now has, "such negative connotations", that the best hope was to "completely relaunch with a new name after the US elections. Mitterlehner also demanded "more transparency and clearer objectives." Negotiations for the free-trade zone have so far been held behind closed doors.
Slovak economy minister Peter Ziga, was similarly pessimistic, saying that a "new start or some new approach [was] needed, while EU trade commissioner " Cecilia Malmstroem said the likelihood of a deal was "becoming smaller and smaller", as she entered the talks.
Several EU representatives blamed US intransigence for the gridlock. The deal now has "only a small chance of success unless the United States starts to give a bit of ground," Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders said.
Public services, especially the NHS [National Health Service], are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe's public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS. The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP. However, according to The Huffington ost, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table
[...] The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower. It has even advised EU members to draw on European support funds to compensate for the expected unemployment. Examples from other similar bi-lateral trade agreements around the world support the case for job losses. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico caused the loss of one million US jobs over 12 years, instead of the hundreds of thousands of extra that were promised
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 26 2016, @04:53AM
The argument can be made that by forcing everyone (though you can't stop people from leaving the country), including the rich, to use the public system, they'll be more in favour of supporting it. And of course the opposite, when the rich can go to private, they won't want to support the public system.
There is some truth in this argument, both for healthcare and education.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @05:55AM
This is the same crap argument they put forward for banning homeschooling, private schools, alternative schools, charter schools and just about every other proposal people put forward for something, anything other than the shitty public schools they didn't want ruining their kids' futures.
It's also the same anti-minority argument every time.
People want private schools? ELITIST RICH FILTH!
Alternative schools? CRAZY HIPPY FILTH!
Homeschooling? RELIGIOUS NUTCASE FILTH!
Charter schools? ANTIESTABLISHMENT FILTH!
You don't want to be one of those nasty, filthy people, do you?
And so on and so forth. All the stigmatising and shamegaming didn't work in the end, because people kept on wanting their kids to be well educated, and the public system wasn't serving their needs. (I'm talking about the USA here, not Finland. Obviously.)
And every time the various shills for the system do stand up, they wring their hands, and through barely suppressed tears tell sad, sad stories about almost bankrupt teachers spending their own pitiful salaries to supply their pupils when in actual fact that's an argument for there being massive misallocation of funds, given that the US of A spends more per child than any other nation on earth, with the possible exception (depending on where you draw the line on things like trade schools, and purchasing power parity) of Switzerland. (Very, very expensive place to live, in case you were wondering.)
So, explain to me again how putting the same geniuses that spend money like drunken sailors, can't get value for that money, and can't suppress the massive swell of discontent and disengagement in charge of healthcare will make it all so much better?
Take your time. Write a whole book explaining how this time will be different. I will read it.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Monday September 26 2016, @06:55AM
I'm often surprised that people can understand the abuses of monopoly in business can turn around and support them for government. Somehow moving to a different country or getting 150 million of your countrymen to agree on a course of action is better than crossing state lines or changing companies.
For nearly any public service, it would be nice government systems were responsive to the demands of the public, but especially in the case of the poor government serves as an effective bulwark against change.
The most effective means for keeping monopoly power in check is choice, whether it is healthcare or schooling or even government.
It is more a question of ensuring a fair field of play than exclusively rich vs. poor.