[finbarrr]

Governments control multi-nationals, not the other way around and this will no nothing to change that dynamic.

I really can't tell when you are trolling and when you are serious (if ever) (for both options)

[Sloper]

Mexico is f--ked largely because of the Mexican system of government.

If anyone thinks that governments are controlled by multinations then I'd suggest that they don't really understand how government (in functioning democracies works) or indeed how multinationals operate.

Opposing the the TITP is just an up to date version of Luddite fuckwittery with added conspiracy theorist bolloks and lefty drivel.

[Fultonius]

Most of the comment I have read has been focussed on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The rest of the partnership is probably reasonably positive.

I really don't think it is lefty conspiracy drivel to be concerned that making governments weaker when faced with pressure for big companies to make profits at all costs is a good thing.

Can you give a few clear reasons why you think ISDS is a good thing for the general populace?

[slackline]

Mexico is f--ked largely because of the Mexican system of government.

Mexico has a lot of problems, but this won't have helped them at all.  What about the state of Quebec being sued for $250 million  by a private multi-national company because a referendum by the people who live there chose not to permit fracking (as highlighted in the video)?

If anyone thinks that governments are controlled by multinations then I'd suggest that they don't really understand how government (in functioning democracies works) or indeed how multinationals operate.

Opposing the the TITP is just an up to date version of Luddite fuckwittery with added conspiracy theorist bolloks and lefty drivel.

I've not suggested that governments are controlled by multinationals but allowing private companies to sue governement in this manner does not sit well with me, and allowing scope for such actions under the TTIP would I think be a very bad idea.

It also seems to erode workers/employees rights, which have been hard won over the years in the UK at least (not sure about other EU countries), simply because the US doesn't have such regulations.

These are in my opinion more important issues than "promoting trade across the pond".  Could the US not adopt the workers rights in place under EU law?  I think I know why they wouldn't (it would be too expensive for them to do so).

[Sloper]

Most of the comment I have read has been focussed on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The rest of the partnership is probably reasonably positive.

I really don't think it is lefty conspiracy drivel to be concerned that making governments weaker when faced with pressure for big companies to make profits at all costs is a good thing.

Can you give a few clear reasons why you think ISDS is a good thing for the general populace?

One of the major barriers to economic developemnt (with the consequential benefits that it brings) is the risk in some states to allow for the appropriation of property or the retrospective variation in laws which result in a contract or joint venture being, in effect a nulity. In such cirrcumstances investors will simply not invest.  While there are significant numbers of bi and multilateral agreements reform of this area is likely to be a 'good thing' if it provides greater security to investors who would otherwise lack the means to recover for a brech of contract.

Nothing in this makes governments weaker or undermines their democratic legitimacy (provided they have that in the first place) what it does do obliquely is put external pressure on governments to abide by principal(s) of the rule of law.

Of course Argentina's government has the democratic right to, with intenral effect, in essence sequestrate the assets of an oil company (was it the Spanish joint venture?) but this should not preclude the wronged party seeking recompense.

So, in conclusion, the consequences will be greater investment in the areas of need with the benefits flowing from that investment.

[fatdoc]

Does this mean I get to import bikes from the USA without paying a truck ton of import duty?

[Sloper]

Mexico is f--ked largely because of the Mexican system of government.

Mexico has a lot of problems, but this won't have helped them at all.  What about the state of Quebec being sued for $250 million  by a private multi-national company because a referendum by the people who live there chose not to permit fracking (as highlighted in the video)?

If anyone thinks that governments are controlled by multinations then I'd suggest that they don't really understand how government (in functioning democracies works) or indeed how multinationals operate.

Opposing the the TITP is just an up to date version of Luddite fuckwittery with added conspiracy theorist bolloks and lefty drivel.

I've not suggested that governments are controlled by multinationals but allowing private companies to sue governement in this manner does not sit well with me, and allowing scope for such actions under the TTIP would I think be a very bad idea.

It also seems to erode workers/employees rights, which have been hard won over the years in the UK at least (not sure about other EU countries), simply because the US doesn't have such regulations.

These are in my opinion more important issues than "promoting trade across the pond".  Could the US not adopt the workers rights in place under EU law?  I think I know why they wouldn't (it would be too expensive for them to do so).

That's where you're wrong.  The imposition of some external controls on the corrupt regime will directly benefit the people of Mexico.

In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.

By the way, from memory I think the power of a company to sue a state goes back to the mid 19th Century, the last significant case I can recall from the top of my head was the 'Burmah Oil' case which is certainly 50 or so years old.  So in principle and taking the number of bilateral agreements this is not either new or a significant expansion.

Just in case I've made a comment without a pejorative statment I should add as a footnote 'bed wetting liberal retard'/

[Fultonius]

But but but, this is a deal between the the EU and the US.

I can see why these protections (ISDS) could be considered a "nice to have" if you're trying to invest in, say, Iraq. But this is the EU and the US. It's totally overkill. I just don't think it's necessary and the risks, while maybe overstated in some places, are real and outweigh any potential benefits.

Why should investors not saddle their own risk? I think companies (including banks) should carry the full burden of their own investments. Why should we, the public, carry the burden of risk when we don't make the profit? And don;t give me any of your right wing trickle down nonsense. Only the rich will become richer out of the TTIP. Why else would they be lobbying for it so hard?

[slackline]

In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.

Perhaps after you answer my question about Quebec being sued because the result of the referendum wasn't to the liking of a US company which you've chosen to ignore. 

For clarification I do not think the state of Quebec should have been sued do you?

And this isn't a question as to whether they were legally allowed to do so, its a question of whether the law (or trade agreement if you like) should permit them to do so and I don't think it should because the people who live in a country decide via their own electoral systems and referendums what they want to happen there, it shouldn't be possible for foreign companies to sue a government (or subsiduary body thereof) because it has acted to represent the people it elected.

[Sloper]

In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.

Perhaps after you answer my question about Quebec being sued because the result of the referendum wasn't to the liking of a US company which you've chosen to ignore. 

For clarification I do not think the state of Quebec should have been sued do you?

And this isn't a question as to whether they were legally allowed to do so, its a question of whether the law (or trade agreement if you like) should permit them to do so and I don't think it should because the people who live in a country decide via their own electoral systems and referendums what they want to happen there, it shouldn't be possible for foreign companies to sue a government (or subsiduary body thereof) because it has acted to represent the people it elected.

Yes I do think it was right that the state got sued.

If the state entered into a contract then that contract should stand, that there's a referendum frustrates that contract then subject to the T&C and contract law in that jurisdiction then the company should not only have the right to puruse its claim but do so.

[Fultonius]

Interesting article in Forbes...not you average left-wing conspiracy source...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/

[Jaspersharpe]

Good article.

[slackline]

In respect of worker's rights, I don't see that the TITP has any effect on the domestic law and regulation of employment issues, perhaps you could site the part of the draft agreement which imposes extra-jurisidictional regulations / standards.

Perhaps after you answer my question about Quebec being sued because the result of the referendum wasn't to the liking of a US company which you've chosen to ignore. 

For clarification I do not think the state of Quebec should have been sued do you?

Yes I do think it was right that the state got sued.

If the state entered into a contract then that contract should stand, that there's a referendum frustrates that contract then subject to the T&C and contract law in that jurisdiction then the company should not only have the right to puruse its claim but do so.

Firstly I don't think the state of Quebec entered into the contract rather the nation of Canada did, but thats beside the point, which is (enlarged as you seemed to miss it in my last post)...

And this isn't a question as to whether they were legally allowed to do so, its a question of whether the law (or trade agreement if you like) should permit them to do so and I don't think it should because the people who live in a country decide via their own electoral systems and referendums what they want to happen there, it shouldn't be possible for foreign companies to sue a government (or subsiduary body thereof) because it has acted to represent the people that elected them.


The TTIP appears to permit this.  I do not think it should, could you explain to me why you think it should and why it is a good idea because I can't see any advantage to it.


And to answer your questions with regards workers rights...

I represented myself poorly in this regards, my apologies.  There are however indirect consequences.  The EU (and individual countries within) has a number of legislations in place to protect workers, things like minimum wage and safety standards.  There are hardly any equivalent standards in the US, so labour is cheaper.  Where will market forces direct manufacturing when presented with a choice between the two and what are the consequences to those who lose out (invariably those with the higher labour costs).

[Sloper]

So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?

That really doesn't end well for the citizens of that state.

What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?

[Fultonius]

So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?

That really doesn't end well for the citizens of that state.

What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?

Absolutely yes, if there's a good reason for it (environmental etc.).

[Sloper]

Interesting article in Forbes...not you average left-wing conspiracy source...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/

Let's just look at those reasons.

1. Multinational companies are big enough to accept the risk.  This ignores the point that not all companies are able to take the risk etc

2. Is I would suggest logically flawed.

3. It would allow companies to offshore which in my view is a good thing.

4. Seems to miss the point entirely, the whole point is that the treaty is extra jurisdictional

5. Hmm US laws being challenged . . . sauce for the goose . . . sauce for the gander.

6. lawyers might be involved f--k me only in america.

7. lefties don't get it.

8. politically it would be easier to let it go.

In short a far from compelling critique.

[Sloper]

So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?

That really doesn't end well for the citizens of that state.

What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?

Absolutely yes, if there's a good reason for it (environmental etc.).

Let's have a little thought experiment shall we?

Let's say there's a Green Party government in office after the next election and they have a mandate to ban cars which emit >99g of CO2 per x distance and also prevent the manufacture of such vehicles.  So they seize the assets of Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar Land Rover, Lotus, and so on and refuse to pay compensation.

Now what a. happens to all those people who rely on the manufacture and sale of those cars?  The answer is they're f--ked.

Now consider the owners of other companies who might manufacture or sell things that the Greens don't like, i.e. Rolls Royce aero & turbines, anyone in the arms / defence industry, manufacturers of soft drinks etc do you think they're going to hang around and wait for the asset seizure?  No, they're going to fuck off asap.

The companies who might stay aren't going to invest because they're much less certain about the future.

The result a fucked up economy which Zimbabwe would be proud of

[slackline]

So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?

  No, what I've written but seem to have failed to convey to you is that I don't think that the contract should have permitted the company the ability to sue in the first place, thats very different than "riding roughshod over contracts".  Similarly I don't think the TTIP should permit foreign companies the scope to sue EU governments.

I'm getting the impression you've not watched the video I linked to the end to see what point is being made, so here are a couple of links to articles on the matter that can be ignored too....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/03/quebec-fracking-ban-lawsuit_n_4038173.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ilana-solomon/lone-pine-sues-canada-over-fracking_b_4032696.html

What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?

I've no objection to the rule of law at all, nor have I expressed one as far as I can tell from reading back through it.  What I've objected to is some things being made legal in the first place, big difference there.

[Sloper]

A little bit of basic knowledge might assist.

1. Contractual terms are, in the sort of contracts we're talking about a matter between the parties, if they can't agree t&c then there's no contract.

2. There are already provisions in place for EU member states to be the subject of litigation both within the jurisdiction and without both in the EU and elsewhere.

3. The right to bring proceedings is the very foundation of the rule of law.

4. The common law legal tradition is very loosely, that everything is legal other than that which is prohibited.

By the way that was the outcome of the litigation in Canada, just because proceedings are issued doesn't mean that the claimant wins.

[Sloper]

The Lone Pine dispute is going to arbitration. Note arbitration is not the same as mediation.

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/lone-02.pdf

[hamsforlegs]

If there is a problem with agreements of this nature, isn't it to do with the way in which they bind future governments to a regulatory and legislative framework that might not be fit for purpose in the future?

For instance, it is fairly obvious that many governments might be compelled in the future to introduce very restrictive regulations on technologies/industries that use fossil fuels, whether for reasons of scarcity, geopolitics or environmental protection. Even if, over time, it becomes clear that this is in everyone's interests, there will be enormous financial and legal pressure on governments bound by some trade/investment treaties to take inadequate action so as to limit their exposure.

If you believe that the specific policy issue (use of fossil fuels) is not one to worry about, this looks great. People are being saved from their own silly neuroses by having their government's options narrowed.

Alternatively, you could say that the future government is being forced to sacrifice the welfare of its people to allow a fast-buck to be made by the governments and investors around at the time when the agreement is made (ie before the need for a different policy/regulatory climate was urgent).

A more free-market approach is to say that investors should be forced to think about the likely policy and regulatory risks of the future, and governments should be forced to think about the economic (and electoral) risks of imposing sweeping new restrictions on private sector activity.

Trade agreements that make it easy or expected for companies to seek redress from governments for new policy tend to tilt the field. It is tilted in favour of the guys who have money to invest right now. Perhaps it's OK to trade off democratic control, rule of law, future welfare etc in return for economic growth. I'm not convinced that this should simply be accepted as the right choice, though, either in principle or because in practice the benefits of that growth tend to accrue to a small number of people. That they can then insulate themselves from many of the effects of a degraded environment or society exacerbates the danger of this approach.

All that said, these are questions of degree, and I don't object to agreements that will ensure proper time and communication in advance of major legislative changes. I certainly don't object to agreements that encourage standards and tariffs to be brought in line to encourage trade.

Interesting topic...

[Sloper]

This is not trading off 'democratic control, rule of law, future welfare etc in return for economic growth'.

Legislation and treaties change and as a matter of convention do not bind future governments.

The benefits of economic growth and development benefit us all.  Yes there has been a short term trend for the '1%' to take a greater share of the cake, but that doesn't mean that we haven't as well.

[Sloper]

A good example of where bringing an action against the state is the right and just thing to do.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/dutch-liable-srebrenica-massacre-deaths

[Sloper]

and one for the greens.

BREYER GROUP PLC & ORS v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE : FREE POWER FOR SCHOOLS LP v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE : HOMESUN HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE : TOUCH SOLAR LTD v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE (2014)



[2014] EWHC 2257 (QB)

QBD (Coulson J) 09/07/2014

Small-scale producers of low-carbon electricity who had abandoned installations when the government made unlawful proposals to reduce the rate of the feed-in tariff were entitled to claim damages against the Department of Energy and Climate Change under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 art.1. Contracts which they had concluded prior to the proposal being issued, which could not be performed because of it, were "possessions" within the meaning of Protocol 1 art.1 and the proposal was an unlawful interference which was incapable of justification.

The claimants (S) against the defendant government department arising from a proposal which reduced the rate of the feed-in tariff for small-scale solar panel installations.

The feed-in tariffs enabled S to be paid at a particular rate for energy produced by installations commissioned before April 1, 2012. In October 2011, the Department decided that the rate was too generous and proposed to bring the cut-off date forward to December 2011. However, in January 2012, the Court of Appeal found the October proposal to be unlawful. S's case was that by the time of the January ruling, thousands of installations which they would otherwise have completed by April 2012 had been abandoned because of the Department's change of policy. S alleged that the October proposal amounted to an unjustified interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

HELD: (1) Concluded contracts were assets and, therefore, possessions under Protocol 1 art.1, regardless of any contractual terms governing termination. Whether a claimant was contractually entitled to obtain relief from the other party if the contract was not performed was immaterial to the question whether it could be characterised as an asset.

Termination provisions might have a bearing on the residual value of the contract, but they did not affect the protection provided by Protocol 1 art.1. Loss of marketable goodwill could be a possession; loss of future income could not.

Contracts entered into by S, which became incapable of performance as a result of the October proposal represented an element of the marketable goodwill in S's businesses and were protected possessions. Loss of non-concluded contracts, even if affecting S's goodwill, was irrecoverable (paras 67-75, 84-86).

Contracts concluded prior to the October proposal gave rise to a claim based on interference with a legitimate expectation.

In order to establish that there had been an interference, it was necessary to identify some form of state action causing material economic consequences. The making of the government proposal satisfied that requirement because it prevented concluded contracts from being fulfilled. The fact that it was a mere proposal did not stop it from being an action of the state. There had, therefore, been an interference with S's possessions

The interference was unlawful because it was a legally impermissible action which prevented S from obtaining that to which they were legally entitled. The Department's argument that it was not its underlying intention that was unlawful, only the means by which it had interfered, was artificial: as a matter of principle, an unlawful interference could not be justified. The fact that S deliberately made the decision to abandon the installations so as to avoid the impact of the proposal did not mean that they had not been directly affected by it, nor did it mean that the chain of causation had been broken (152-159, 161).

Judgment for claimants

[finbarrr]

statement from some learned men with serious concerns:

https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html