statement from some learned men with serious concerns:https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html
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.pdfI am sure that if you trawl the internet you can find plenty of academics who support the treaty/its rationale.
'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.
I am more than willing (and indeed able) to engage in considered, thoughtful and reasoned debate but sadly the opportunity for dialogue is lacking.
PS I know you're really a tory (even if you don't know it yet)
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.htmlIs 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?
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
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....