We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Another fail by Obama

With the TTIP, the EU and US set out trying to construct a slightly watered down version of the single market – in which corporations would be able to use the courts to force governments to open up their public services to foreign providers. It was doomed to collapse because there is such an obvious asymmetry between the US and the EU on this. The US already has high involvement of private companies in the provision of public services. As for those where the state does still retain a monopoly – like defence – there is no way US courts are going to allow, say, French missile manufacturers to supply weapons. It will be ruled out on grounds of national security.

Europe, by contrast, has a relatively high degree of state involvement in the economy, giving plenty of juicy opportunities for US firms – and plenty of reason for left wing parties in France and Germany to oppose TTIP. Britain may now be at the back of Barack Obama’s queue – though what relevance that has given that it will soon be where we stand in Hilary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s queue that matters. But my money would be on post-Brexit Britain sewing up a trade deal with the US before the EU has managed it.

Ross Clark, having fun at the expense of Barack Obama, whose comment earlier this year that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” in trade deals with Washington if it had the temerity to quit the European Union has, along with so many others, backfired.

We are often told that President Obama was going to bring us an era of smart diplomacy, unlike that that moron Bush, etc, etc. The gap between the promise, and the reality, is wider than ever.

9 comments to Another fail by Obama

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I suspect that the inter-penetration of business and government is not much less in the US than it is in the EU; it’s just that in the US it takes the form of corruption of government, also called “politics as usual”.

  • John B

    Single Market/Unified Market means: Freedom of movement of capital; finance; goods; services; labour (aka immigration).

    UK; France; USA; China are each single markets/unified markets – for example.

    The EU is in principle a single market, but for practical reasons it is not. The precursor to the EU, the EEC upon which the EU single market is built, was a Customs Union, which is a free trade bloc with no internal tariff or non-tariff barriers but with common external tariff and non-tariff barriers.

    Free Trade means: Freedom of movement of goods without tariff or non-tariff barriers across the border of a particular Country. Free trade can be unilateral, bilateral or multilateral.

    It has nothing to do with movement of capital, labour, finance or services, so not about a Single Market.

    In 1860 the Cobden–Chevalier Treaty was signed between the United Kingdom and France. It was NOT a single market. (France ended it in 1892).

    17.5 million voters voted out of the single market – they do not want ‘access’ to it, just free trade.

    It is a worry when our politicians, Government, media, do not know the difference between single market, free trade and customs union. Of course most of the population do not either, but that is why they hire the political slimeballs to represent them who are supposed to know.

  • The Pedant-General

    ” in which corporations would be able to use the courts to force governments to open up their public services to foreign providers.”

    But is it? Or is this just the leftist justification for opposing it? I had understood the court element was to ensure that, when a government breaks the terms of a contract, the resulting dispute is not arbitrated in a court that might be under the (potentially nefarious) control of that government. i.e. the rule of law applies.

  • RRS

    Without consideration of many actions, positions taken, or not taken by representatives of the Obama administration, the impasse on TIPP is indicative of other developments in the EU and its structure.

    The Commissioners (note the reference to real people rather than to the “Commission”) have found themselves subject to unaccustomed monitoring, caviling, and opposition from the root bodies of national politicians from which they have been drawn.

    Whether this is the beginning of the decay of delegated authority from national politicians remains to be seen. But this particular tooth has developed a cavity.

    We may soon see something comparable with the Competition Commissioners (again individuals) and national officials responsible for national revenues and economic development.

    What has been labeled a “Union” will be revealed as a coalition of politicians forming objectives of their own (principally to secure and advance their significance).

    The conflicts that are arising between those coalitions and the interest of politicians at the national levels are now beginning to hasten the fragmentation of the EU bureaucracies.

  • Alisa

    Not a bug. a feature.

  • Paul Marks

    Private companies are being forced OUT of Federal prisons – and companies are fleeing Obamacare (Alisa is correct 0 they were always intended to go). And private companies are being forced out of student loans and even housing (as the government now has taken over mortgages).

    It seems that the idea that private companies can provide tax funded services has not turned out too well for the companies.

    As for TIPP – other than giving the left something to protest about it, there seems to be no point to it. I doubt it was ever a real proposal.

    “Mr Obama is good for us he is going to give us TIPP” yes of course he is, you cretins.

    And Hillary Clinton is going to give the business enterprises who are backing her the Moon and Stars.

    Accept that she is not going to give them anything – apart from higher taxes and regulations to crush them (them being the very business people who are giving her money).

    These “clever” capitalists are not really very bright – at least they do not really understand who they are dealing with.

    The idea that people can take their money, and then cut their throats anyway, does not seem to occur to them.

  • staghounds

    Post Brexit, ha ha ha.

    Brexit will happen just after I win the lottery.

  • staghounds

    And not just a free ticket either, the big prize. Brexit, what a joke.