7 ms·
>As for whether this is a problem, again, I think that boils down to a valence issue. Either you believe that free trade and trade rule harmonization led by the
by crdoconnor 11y ago
>As for whether this is a problem, again, I think that boils down to a valence issue. Either you believe that free trade and trade rule harmonization led by the US is a good thing, or you (reasonably) do not.
Not really.
The TPP is largely a mechanism for stripping sovereignty from signatory countries and handing it to corporations. It does this by creating a mechanism whereby they can sue governments in secret courts for lost profits.
Sure, there are probably a few provisions in there about agricultural tariffs, but trade liberalization isn't really what it's about.
- emodendroket 11y agoWell that's basically the endpoint of the free trade stuff, isn't it?
- contravariant 11y agoImperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.
- frozenport 11y agoYeah like how Belgium is colonized by the Netherlands under EU agreements! Or is it the other way around?
- rodgerd 11y agoMore like how the King of Belgium colonised the Congo as a private citizen, or the East India Company colonised India.
- ChrisLomont 11y agoI take it you have read it?
- crdoconnor 11y agoI've read parts of it, yes. The more heinous chapters were leaked.
- roymurdock 11y agoHow do you know what it is really about if it is still being negotiated behind closed doors? Not trying to be snarky, just wondering if you could direct me to parts of the actual document that you are using to draw this conclusion because I would really like to read up on some of the provisions of the TPP.
- socket0 11y agoParts of the draft agreement have been leaked before. The EFF has links to relevant bits: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
- tptacek 11y agoNo, parts of earlier draft agreements have been leaked; the version people are commenting on is from (I think) 2011.
- socket0 11y agoThe last leaked draft the EFF have on their site is from May 2014 (specifically the chapter covering intellectual property). Other bits and pieces have surfaced over the last two years as well, not all of them obtained legally, which is presumably why the EFF don't have them on their site. I do believe Cryptome has them, but I'm at work, I can't risk visiting Cryptome to get the links right now.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jcranmer 11y agoThat is as accurate an assertion as saying that Obamacare enables death panels to ration health care. A better way to describe the relevant clauses is that corporations can sue governments under an international tribunal system if governments are failing to uphold their commitments to an international law. It's basically the same sort of process that was used when, say, the US and Great Britain had a dispute about the boundary of Maine.
- crdoconnor 11y ago>A better way to describe the relevant clauses is that corporations can sue governments under an international tribunal system if governments are failing to uphold their commitments to an international law It's got jack shit to do with international law. The wording in the agreement uses the term "indirect expropriation". It's defined as "where an action or series of actions by a party (government) has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure". i.e. lost profits caused by legislation. kinda like when Australia decided to put warning labels on cigarette packs. Oh, and the supra-national court will be adjudicated by some corporate lawyers who can probably relied upon to interpret the wording of the above agreement in the "right" way.
- tptacek 11y agoOnce again: the TPP excluded tobacco from ISDS.
- crdoconnor 11y agoAnd? It's still a clear example of how the ISDS would be used (by other corporations).
- tptacek 11y agoMaybe instead of repeatedly providing an example that the treaty specifically excludes, you could find one that would be enabled by the treaty.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoIn much the same way, USC Title 42 is a mechanism for stripping sovereignty from state governments and handing it to individuals and interest groups. It does this by creating a mechanism where (certain) groups get to sue the government for damages based on certain types discrimination. Various state laws give up sovereignty and allow individuals and corporations to sue the state for negligent actions taken by state employees. The Tucker Act strips sovereignty and allows various contracts to be enforced against the government. Governments sometimes give up sovereign immunity. It's actually a very important component of the rule of law, allowing the government to be bound by law in addition to the people.
- crdoconnor 11y agoFederal law is still subjected to democratic oversight. You vote in elections, don't you? Stripping states of sovereignty and giving it to the federal government is still moving it from one democratically accountable government to another. This is not quite the same thing as stripping the federal government of sovereignty and giving it to a secret court of supposedly (but not really) independent lawyers. If you think that it was a great thing that Philip Morris was able to sue Australia or Uruguay for lost profits for putting warning labels on cigarette packets then I suppose you'd be in favor of the ISDS provisions in the TPP. If, on the other hand, you think governments should legislate for the benefit of their citizens' health, then perhaps not so much.
- tptacek 11y agoAccording the very article you're commenting on, the TPP specifically excludes tobacco from the ISDS process.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoDoes it exclude the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries as well? Those are two of the big areas people are concerned about with the TPP/TTIP/TISA/CETA.
- 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]