Governments control multi-nationals, not the other way around and this will no nothing to change that dynamic.
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.
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?
Quote from: Sloper on July 16, 2014, 12:53:37 pmMexico 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)?Quote from: Sloper on July 16, 2014, 12:53:37 pmIf 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).
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.
Quote from: Sloper on July 16, 2014, 02:03:48 pmIn 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.
Quote from: slackline on July 16, 2014, 02:18:28 pmQuote from: Sloper on July 16, 2014, 02:03:48 pmIn 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.
Quote from: Sloper on July 16, 2014, 02:03:48 pmIn 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?
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'?
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/
Quote from: Sloper on July 16, 2014, 04:10:01 pmSo 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.).
So your position is then that a state can simply ride roughshod over contracts when it has a 'democratic' mandate to do so?
What's so hard to understand about the rule of law being a 'good thing'?