7 ms·

The most alarming features of this proposed legislation are the facts that it contains this: ".. it also contains an ‘investor protection’ provision allowing c

The most alarming features of this proposed legislation are the facts that it contains this: ".. it also contains an ‘investor protection’ provision allowing corporations to effectively sue governments for taking action to harm their business." (source: http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-big-business-could-sue-governments-over-tax-profits http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/02/ttip-...) So .. effectively, this could mean that a corporation could overrule a government in legislation if it would be harming it's profits. The big problem with this for example here in Finland is that through these measure big corporations could try to take over the nations natural resources, like water and forest, which are and should be protected by local laws. But through this kind of legal means, these corporations could be allowed to sue the government over the loss of a profit due to protecting legislation, in order just to make a profit out of it. Which is complete and total bullshit.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
My biggest issue with the TTIP; thanks for calling it out.
- jakub_g 10y ago
  And if someone thinks this is a virtual threat, google for "Philip Morris vs. (Australia|Uruguay)" (countries being sued for anti-tobacco regulations hurting business of PM)
  - pas 10y ago
    That's a frivolous suit. They are grasping at straws. http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-morris-scores-an-own-goal-4967 http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-m... Yes, it's a virtual threat.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be entirely clear. The case you refer to in Australia was apparently thrown out because of some dubious changes to the company ownership arrangements that appeared to have been made just for the purposes of bringing a lawsuit, when the change in cigarette packaging rules was already public knowledge by that time. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra...
      - pas 10y ago
        Yes, they played an empty hand, and when their bluff was called they promptly lost.
- pas 10y ago
  Then you should read up on it, because it's basically the least problematic part of TTIP. ( here's a comment I just wrote trying to explain why people are mistaken about the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 )
pas 10y ago
Okay, first of all, that's bullshit. ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) is a sane concept. The implementation might have problems (for example closed courtroom "trials"), but it's not about protecting profits. It's about protecting equality and fairness for all before the law, and in case of States, holding them accountable to make fair and egalitarian laws. What's the typical example? A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh, a) better make a law against whatever they are doing, or b) better make a law against (that specific or all) foreign companies doing whatever. Which one(s) is (are) problematic? Also, the other thing, fairness, comes in when a State wants to buy out a company but doesn't want to pay market price. Basically eminent domain without unfair compensation. The same goes for ending tax breaks (or other investment incentives) sooner than promised. Because that's a breach of agreement. Your link (publicfinanceinternational.org) refers an article from globaljustice.co.uk which has a list of problematic ISDS arbitration cases, that's the real data, anything else is just fluff. ( http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/taxes-on-trial-how-trade-deals-threaten-tax-justice-global-justice-now.pdf http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/re... ) Let's look at the big bully US agribusiness vs Mexico (the rules of arbitration are set by NAFTA). http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0133_0.pdf http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita... the concrete "award" (findings of the tribunal). It turns out that these tribunals are looking at laws and apply them. Like courts. And they are much likely more objective than any court in either host country. And then that award was reviewed by the courts of a place chosen by the parties (the Ontario court system). Seems quite like due process to me. I'm not saying all of the cases are jolly good and there was absolutely no problematic awards, but just looking at the Vodafone vs India one, the "retrospective capital gains tax" hits us and makes you wonder, what the fuck were the Indians thinking, first rule of how to legislate. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty ) But enough on ISDS. There are big problems with TTIP, but not this one.
- mikemoka 10y ago
  "A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh," when this has been done and when it has happened not in the interest of public well being? on the other hand here is an example of what some corporations actually do in the present https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s
Hockenbrizzle 10y ago
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Obama's stance on this particular part of the legislation? He was just in Hanover and was asked about this by the public, but avoided giving a clear answer. Are there any records of him explaining why he actually might think this is a good thing?

toomuchtodo 10y ago

My biggest issue with the TTIP; thanks for calling it out.

jakub_g 10y ago
And if someone thinks this is a virtual threat, google for "Philip Morris vs. (Australia|Uruguay)" (countries being sued for anti-tobacco regulations hurting business of PM)
- pas 10y ago
  That's a frivolous suit. They are grasping at straws. http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-morris-scores-an-own-goal-4967 http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-m... Yes, it's a virtual threat.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be entirely clear. The case you refer to in Australia was apparently thrown out because of some dubious changes to the company ownership arrangements that appeared to have been made just for the purposes of bringing a lawsuit, when the change in cigarette packaging rules was already public knowledge by that time. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra...
    - pas 10y ago
      Yes, they played an empty hand, and when their bluff was called they promptly lost.
pas 10y ago
Then you should read up on it, because it's basically the least problematic part of TTIP. ( here's a comment I just wrote trying to explain why people are mistaken about the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11608281 )

pas 10y ago

Okay, first of all, that's bullshit. ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) is a sane concept. The implementation might have problems (for example closed courtroom "trials"), but it's not about protecting profits. It's about protecting equality and fairness for all before the law, and in case of States, holding them accountable to make fair and egalitarian laws. What's the typical example? A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh, a) better make a law against whatever they are doing, or b) better make a law against (that specific or all) foreign companies doing whatever. Which one(s) is (are) problematic? Also, the other thing, fairness, comes in when a State wants to buy out a company but doesn't want to pay market price. Basically eminent domain without unfair compensation. The same goes for ending tax breaks (or other investment incentives) sooner than promised. Because that's a breach of agreement. Your link (publicfinanceinternational.org) refers an article from globaljustice.co.uk which has a list of problematic ISDS arbitration cases, that's the real data, anything else is just fluff. ( http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/taxes-on-trial-how-trade-deals-threaten-tax-justice-global-justice-now.pdf http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/re... ) Let's look at the big bully US agribusiness vs Mexico (the rules of arbitration are set by NAFTA). http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.state.gov/s/l/c42198.htm http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0133_0.pdf http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita... the concrete "award" (findings of the tribunal). It turns out that these tribunals are looking at laws and apply them. Like courts. And they are much likely more objective than any court in either host country. And then that award was reviewed by the courts of a place chosen by the parties (the Ontario court system). Seems quite like due process to me. I'm not saying all of the cases are jolly good and there was absolutely no problematic awards, but just looking at the Vodafone vs India one, the "retrospective capital gains tax" hits us and makes you wonder, what the fuck were the Indians thinking, first rule of how to legislate. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty ) But enough on ISDS. There are big problems with TTIP, but not this one.

mikemoka 10y ago
"A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh," when this has been done and when it has happened not in the interest of public well being? on the other hand here is an example of what some corporations actually do in the present https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8?t=6m54s

Hockenbrizzle 10y ago

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Obama's stance on this particular part of the legislation? He was just in Hanover and was asked about this by the public, but avoided giving a clear answer. Are there any records of him explaining why he actually might think this is a good thing?