[slackline]

statement from some learned men with serious concerns:

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

They must be wrong, Sloper's not a signatory.

[Sloper]

Yes, because it's wholly unreasonable for people to take a different view on matters, from the ahrd left to the lunatic feminists, an academic paper is not in an of itself of meaningful value.

It's also not unheard of for people's views to affect their assessment and commentary, for example my views on workshouses and top roping are well rehearsed.

I think that this is a fair assessment.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/130710/LDM_BRI(2014)130710_REV2_EN.pdf

I am sure that if you trawl the internet you can find plenty of academics who support the treaty/its rationale.

[fatdoc]

Most ( well, near all) of this is above my head... Does it leave us with no import duty from the states as private individuals? Coz their sporting goods across the board are near as pounds for dollars, and I want a new bike..

[slackline]

Yes, because it's wholly unreasonable for people to take a different view on matters, from the ahrd left to the lunatic feminists, an academic paper is not in an of itself of meaningful value.

It's also not unheard of for people's views to affect their assessment and commentary, for example my views on workshouses and top roping are well rehearsed.

I think that this is a fair assessment.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/130710/LDM_BRI(2014)130710_REV2_EN.pdf

I am sure that if you trawl the internet you can find plenty of academics who support the treaty/its rationale.

I know that what you write above is a truer reflection of yourself in so much as you are accepting of others points of views, but you don't come across that way when you post.  The pointless derogatory slurs centred around of left v's right/tory v's labour/etc. whilst often meant in jest do nothing to help.

[Sloper]

Part of the problem is that the debate is often if not generally (from the lefty fringe i.e. most on here) rather lacking in reason or fact: take the thread about Gove's policies being bat shit crazy when push cam to shove there was an almost total absence response when folk were asked to say which policies were BSC and this is generally the response.

I am more than willing (and indeed able) to engage in considered, thoughtful and reasoned debate but sadly the opportunity for dialogue is lacking.

As for being derogatory with regard the lefties & etc, poor little things, goodness maybe it's about time someone told them they were talking shite.

[slackline]

Part of the problem is that you often jump on what are genuinely valid points of concern (even if they are 'lefty' or however you wish to categorise them) and polarise arguments when in reality a compromise is the most likely outcome.

Take the below discussion, I'm critiquing one aspect of the TTIP, yet that seems to have been interpreted by you as though I am somehow opposed to the whole thing, which is not what I wrote.

Another example is the discussion about the rushed DRIP bill.  I'm not alone in failing to understand why it was rushed through in about a week when there had been three months since the EU court ruling to sort it out.  You failed to realise that it was the rushed nature of the bill to which I was objecting and started off saying that it was needed for security blah, blah, blah, dragging the discussion in a different direction.  You asked in that thread if I understood democracy, well yes I do, and rushing through bills isn't democratic, nor is ignoring the concerns of a portion of the populace, and quite a few people objected to the rushed nature, simply because they hold a different point of view. 

I'd expect a lawyer to be able to discern the subtle points of such arguments and stay on topic, but frequently you go off on an idealistic tangent and ignore half of what people write (evidenced below).  This is neither considered, thoughtful or reasoned.

[SA Chris]

'twas forever thus. Why I've given up trying.

[Sloper]

'I'd expect a lawyer to be able to discern the subtle points of such arguments and stay on topic, but frequently you go off on an idealistic tangent and ignore half of what people write (evidenced below).  This is neither considered, thoughtful or reasoned'

Yes, but this is the internet and a diversion and hence it is more appropriate to go in swining at the crux of a matter rather than discuss the whole in an academic, detailed and considered matter.

Ohh, I also like a good argument/fight.

Now wouldn't it be tedious if we all came out with the same flaccid new labouresque claptrap?

[Fultonius]

One thing I find amusing is how much you think we all love Labour...

[slackline]

'I'd expect a lawyer to be able to discern the subtle points of such arguments and stay on topic, but frequently you go off on an idealistic tangent and ignore half of what people write (evidenced below).  This is neither considered, thoughtful or reasoned'

Yes, but this is the internet and a diversion and hence it is more appropriate to go in swining at the crux of a matter rather than discuss the whole in an academic, detailed and considered matter.

Yet you seem to contradict yourself having written yesterday...

I am more than willing (and indeed able) to engage in considered, thoughtful and reasoned debate but sadly the opportunity for dialogue is lacking.

Perhaps you could enlighten others as to what you feel is a considered, thoughtful and reasoned way of presenting alternative points of view to those that you hold so that we can engage in dialogue without forcing you to feel you have to go in swinging at what you perceive to be the crux of the matter.

Or is that futile because in reality you're not interested in engaging in dialogue because the internet is simply a diversion for you to come and have a bit of an argument on?


(I'm not  a Labour fanboi either)

[Sloper]

I am interested in debate, but have to confess that a lot of the time it's merely the prospect of a 5 minute argument rather than the former that attracts.

PS I know you're really a tory (even if you don't know it yet)

[slackline]

PS I know you're really a tory (even if you don't know it yet)

Isn't everyone?

 

[Sloper]

Jasper's in denial, although he does call himself Milton at the weekend, I swear I've got a picture of him wearing a twin set and pearls holding a copy of The Road to Serfdom.

[mrjonathanr]

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c04576/2d4cc37e/4b186043/4647303d/2306279734/VEsD/

Petition Vince Cable to oppose or amend, if you care to.

[Stubbs]

Seems like some folk were interested
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/british-government-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade?CMP=twt_gu

[Sloper]

Sorry but there's a lot of ill informed bollocks spouted about TTIP, sometimes by those who should know better and some that are a variant on a theme of the 'new world order' conspiracy theorist nutters.

Companies cannot sue for a state or state entity refusing to grant a license or permit, or refusing to sell state assets, what the relevant parts of the treaty provides for is that if a contract is signed (without vitiation by fraud & etc) then it is binding and a claim for a breach of contract can follow.

The case cited in the article, re El Salvador is here http://www.italaw.com/cases/783 and the argument is technically not about the role and decisions of the of the state but the contents of the agreement between the parties and how those ought be given effect. p.14 of the respondent's rejoinder of the merit, El Salvador accept that there was 'an agreement', the question is however the terms of the same & etc.

It is not the case that a company can simply rock up and say, you won't allow me to sell crack cocaine to babies and I'm going to sue you for everything you've got.  This isn't small claims track litigation and the idea that companies will pursue claims of the likes described up by the more lurid of anti TTIP commentators is simply risible.

I know it's not the done thing to pollute threads like this with, er facts, rather than a series of Zeno like links to other articles that support the premises of the former piece, but it's important that we understand what this proposal is about: it's about strengthening the international rule of law and by extension increasing globalised investment and development, which I think everyone but the ill informed tin foil hat wearing chorus of morons agrees (see 1066 & etc) is 'a good thing'.

[Stu Littlefair]

Fair disclaimer - I don't understand the issues at all, and so don't claim to have a personal opinion. However, for the purposes of maintaining my stance of disagreeing with you every time you post something...

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

Is a collection of "a hundred prominent scholars from all over Europe and across the globe with expertise in trade and investment law, public international law and human rights, European Union law, global political economy, comparative law, public law and private law" fairly characterised as an "ill informed tin foil hat wearing chorus of morons", however funny the phrase may be?

[Stubbs]

Monbiot's main point in the article is what's wrong with courts, why do they need the tribunals? Here's another article that you may use big and/or latin/greek words to describe http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration

[Sloper]

Fair disclaimer - I don't understand the issues at all, and so don't claim to have a personal opinion. However, for the purposes of maintaining my stance of disagreeing with you every time you post something...

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

Is a collection of "a hundred prominent scholars from all over Europe and across the globe with expertise in trade and investment law, public international law and human rights, European Union law, global political economy, comparative law, public law and private law" fairly characterised as an "ill informed tin foil hat wearing chorus of morons", however funny the phrase may be?

Yes, I think that's the same article you cited before. 

I forget who's "law" it is which says that no matter how ridiculous the proposition you can always find a professor to support it, and given the politicised nature of the subject I'm not surprised that there's a wide body of academics (who are more likely to be left leaning than practitioners) who argue against it.

But let's look at the first page of the article which sets out the concerns: my responses in italics

Fails to exclude acquisitions of sovereign debt instruments from the scope of the Treaty, most bonds arue issued with a jurisdictional clause, for example the Argentine govt chose to issues their bonds with a New York jurisdiction as to do so made them appear more secure, as such if you're brining public international agencies into private national law then the treaty which allows for a private resolution of public // private disputes appears, at least to me, to make some sense

Allows anyone with a substantial business activity in the home state who holds any ‘interest’ in an enterprise in the host state to bring a claim. of course, if you hold 60% of the shares in a Co then you have the right to compel the Co to act

Fails to spell out legal duties of investors in host states. this would be an unwarranted intrusion on the sovereignty of the participant states and a grossly intrusive intervention of the property rights of individuals and therefore this criticism is wholly unfounded, in practice would you want TTIP to tell you you have to sell your BP shares?

Fails to control the expansion of investment arbitration to purely contractual claimsI'm not sure that they're saying here, if they're seeing that claims can be founded on existing treaties then is a wholly misplaced critique

Fails to protect the ‘right to regulate’ as a general right of states alongside the many elaborate rights and protections of foreign investors, let alone as a component of the FET and Expropriation standards since contracts are established in the rule of law of the chosen forum, not necessarily the host, (I recently had to agree a contract within the jurisdiction of the Santa Monica Court in California) I can't see the "right to regulate" providing that is within the constitutional framework of the host and recognised by the chosen forum, being an issue.

Allows for unwarranted discretion for arbitration tribunals in various ‘necessity’ tests difficult that having Courts and tribunals with discretion <sarcasm>

Fails to further the stated principle of favoring domestic court proceedings as noted above many contracts specify the jurisdiction of another state, while it is beneficial in many circumstances to specify the forum where the deal is done, there will be many circsumstances where you want to specify another fora, for example one with a reputation for maintaining the rule of law and with judicial independence i.e. why so many deals are done with E&W being the jurisdiction of choice..

Fails to regulate conflicts of interest in the adjudicative process dealing with conflicts of interest is in integral part of any proper judicial process, they might as well criticise it for not dealing with the rejection of bribes

Fails to formulate a policy on appellate mechanisms with any precision a very valid criticism and one that needs addressing

Fails to formulate a policy on avoiding ‘Treaty shopping’ with any precision the concept of forum shopping and forum non conveniens is well established and I doubt in practice does need addressing particularly as many contracts / agreements will have a forum clause in place

and Fails to formulate a policy on third party submissions with any precision.  as indicated by the El Salvador case cited above, it appears accepted practice for their to be inter-veneers in cases, so I don't see the absence of a strict format for how can intervene and how to be a massive problem

[Sloper]

Monbiot's main point in the article is what's wrong with courts, why do they need the tribunals? Here's another article that you may use big and/or latin/greek words to describe http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration

Tribunal, in this context, is just another word for Court.

These tribunals are set up to hear this sort of dispute, most Courts (I would say almost all) Courts are not, also as Courts are within a jurisdiction there is a risk (almost a certainty in some jurisdictions) that the Court will not be impartial, fair or properly qualified.  Who would want their dispute considered in a Zimbabwean Court

[Stu Littlefair]

Yes, I think that's the same article you cited before. 

I forget who's "law" it is which says that no matter how ridiculous the proposition you can always find a professor to support it, and given the politicised nature of the subject I'm not surprised that there's a wide body of academics (who are more likely to be left leaning than practitioners) who argue against it....

Thanks for the detailed response. My first post on this thread, actually, but I see finbarr posted it before and I don't expect you to be able to keep track whilst dealing with the frothing of a thousand incoherent and ignorant tools.

[Sloper]

Apologies, I recognised the document and incorrectly assumed you had posted it before. As for my ability to keep track on the incoherent ravings of drivelling idiots, it is of course limited (and presently focused on the gift that keeps giving, the leadership of the Labour party (i've given up on the Tories for the moment).

Incidentally I did a bit more reading on the article and it seems that some of their points are  very minor and academic indeed, i.e. varying definitions of reasonableness.

The broad brush opposition to TTIP is that it allows corporations to take over from democratic governments and quite simply this is not the case.

[SA Chris]

I admit to being a bit of a luddite and very thick when it comes to these things, so found this useful

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/free-trade-explained-in-an-excellent-comic/

[Sloper]

I wonder if they do one on nuclear physics?

A slightly more informed view can be obtained here

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/1846684307

[SA Chris]

Yeah I'm sure it is, but the bit where it says "560 pages" kind of dampens my enthusiasm a tad.