7 ms·

Correct me if I am wrong, but under ISDS rules (a la TPP/TTIP), companies could now sue Sweden for potential lost profits as a result of this legislation, right

Correct me if I am wrong, but under ISDS rules (a la TPP/TTIP), companies could now sue Sweden for potential lost profits as a result of this legislation, right? (Assuming Sweden is signed onto an ISDS treaty, which it probably is not).

danohu 10y ago
They will be once the EU signs CETA next month.
- pathy 10y ago
  ISDS aren't exactly new. I believe current trade deals already include them so CETA would not materially change that. ISDS is a red herring
pathy 10y ago
What makes you think that? Tax breaks on repairs would not adversely and unfairly impact companies possibility to sell in Sweden.
- bendbro 10y ago
  It would advsersely affect profits and the argument would be that it's unfair
  - celticninja 10y ago
    But not to the detriment of any one specific company.
    - s_kilk 10y ago
      But any one company could claim to have been affected, and produce the paperwork/numbers to back it up.
      - mynameislegion 10y ago
        Especially certain electronics companies.
      - celticninja 10y ago
        it would fail on the public good criteria, that is the law is aimed at improving recycling rates not harming companies bottom line. If there was some protectionism going on it would be different. It should have the effect of making companies improve repairability (is that a word?) to make themselves more attractive to buyers.
        ab5tract 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but how do you develop a worldview where "public good" is determined via corporate lawsuits? Is it simply in the intention of the law? Because from what I can see of the history of ISDS, harming a companies bottom line is the exact criteria by which these cases are judged. Outside of the tobacco labelling suit, I am hard pressed to find a case where ISDS did not result in a ruling against a government.
        celticninja 10y ago
        It's in the law.
        ab5tract 10y ago
        Which law are you referring to? This law contains, in plain language, assertions that laws enacted to encourage repair are considered "public good"? I'll believe it when you post a link. What if there was a large company, RomeRepairCo, already operating in Sweden? Wouldn't they then have a claim to some form of protectionist angle to this law? Do you see where I am going with this? You say "it is in the law", yet you are neglecting the fact that court cases hinge on the interpretation of law. Why are laws designed to nationalize (ahem) national resources not qualifying as "for the public good"? When do governments enact any law that is not (ostensibly, at least) "for the public good"? The history of ISDS law shows that the validity of "for the public good" is determined by these corporate courts^Wroom of corporate lawyers and according to their own corporate interpretation. This is why the outcomes they have so far produced run so contrary to any non-libertarian interpretation of a moral society.
throwawaze 10y ago
Your question is somewhat tautological: ISDS provisions typically define how investor suits work, so of course investors can sue. That does not mean an investor has any chance of winning in this instance under a hypothetical TTIP suit. TTIP includes a provision protecting regulations enacted for public good.
- ab5tract 10y ago
  Sounds like a luxury not granted to, for instance, Central America under CAFTA. Edit: Fixed typo.
madgar 10y ago
In the US, I can sue you just for making this hacker news comment. Doesn't mean I'll make it past the first hearing.
- anotherarray 10y ago
  What if this comment hurt you and you had millions of dollars in a legal department?
- ab5tract 10y ago
  That lawsuit would be in a civil court, with civil lawyers and actual judges. Not a room full of round-robin corporate laywers. My comment was not about whether it would be successful. My question was whether it provided the means to initiate a lawsuit.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    So you'd rather the case be decided by a single lawyer^H^H^H^H^H^H judge than a panel of lawyers. Even in common law jurisdictions, most of these sorts of cases tend to focus on disputes over issues of law (hence tried by a judge), not issues of fact (which are the only issues which proceed to a jury trial). Judges are usually lawyers before becoming judges--that's not terribly surprising, considering that judges are expected to know a lot of legal theory, which is essentially the same training you undergo to become a lawyer. Fearing the provisions of ISDS would undermine the principles of justice means that you would rather trust the judgements of a single, likely overworked, lawyer who is expected to know the entire relevant body of law and case history for his or her jurisdiction over the judgements of a panel of lawyers who are likely to have somewhat specialized in the area of dispute being covered.
    - ab5tract 10y ago
      You have thrown up a false equivalency and are pursuing it in an odd manner. What I would prefer is that there is absolutely zero mechanisms for a corporation to sue a government over "potential lost profits". This is just not at all the same as discussing a potential lawsuit over defamation / libel / whatever "you" would be suing me over a comment for. And, yes, in that case I would still prefer to go through the normal court system with laws written by my legislature rather than a room full of mega corps and trade representatives.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Wouldn't that only be if they apply the rules unfairly to international companies in favor of domestic companies? If both domestic and international companies received the same tax break, they would be fine.
blibble 10y ago
looks like a VAT cut, so I expect the EU commission will be after them too
- jakobegger 10y ago
  It's perfectly legal to lower tax rates on certain products or services. Most EU countries already have multiple VAT rates; eg. in Austria food is taxed at 10% whereas most other stuff is taxed at 20%
  - blibble 10y ago
    it isn't, the minimum rate is 15% EU wide. there's a lot of rates which were grandfathered in when countries joined the EU, but lowering the VAT on any new products requires unanimous approval in the council. all details are here: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rules-topic/vat-rates_en http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rul... additionally, the commission wants to phase out reduced rates (see my other comment)
- skrause 10y ago
  Different VAT rates for different types of products are not a problem in EU, in fact almost all European countries also have a reduced VAT rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax#VAT_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax... Quite often the reduced rate applies e.g. to food, but it really can be any product category.
  - blibble 10y ago
    this is an anachronism, the commission regards reduced rates as "an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market"[1] for quite a while the commission has attempted to reform VAT, ostensibly for a "simpler, more efficient and robust VAT system" with the intent of "broadening the tax base and limiting the use of reduced rates" to "generate new revenue streams", which is reported in the media as "EU wants to add VAT to food, childrens clothes and books". [1]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0851&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...
specialist 10y ago
Some apparently fruitless legislative efforts are still useful, if only for signaling, dragging the Overton Window back to the left, kicking and screaming. For example, states (in the USA) legalizing marijuana, even though our Feds still don't agree. Ditto gay marriage rights. Etc.

danohu 10y ago

They will be once the EU signs CETA next month.

pathy 10y ago
ISDS aren't exactly new. I believe current trade deals already include them so CETA would not materially change that. ISDS is a red herring

pathy 10y ago

What makes you think that? Tax breaks on repairs would not adversely and unfairly impact companies possibility to sell in Sweden.

bendbro 10y ago
It would advsersely affect profits and the argument would be that it's unfair
- celticninja 10y ago
  But not to the detriment of any one specific company.
  - s_kilk 10y ago
    But any one company could claim to have been affected, and produce the paperwork/numbers to back it up.
    - mynameislegion 10y ago
      Especially certain electronics companies.
    - celticninja 10y ago
      it would fail on the public good criteria, that is the law is aimed at improving recycling rates not harming companies bottom line. If there was some protectionism going on it would be different. It should have the effect of making companies improve repairability (is that a word?) to make themselves more attractive to buyers.
      - ab5tract 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but how do you develop a worldview where "public good" is determined via corporate lawsuits? Is it simply in the intention of the law? Because from what I can see of the history of ISDS, harming a companies bottom line is the exact criteria by which these cases are judged. Outside of the tobacco labelling suit, I am hard pressed to find a case where ISDS did not result in a ruling against a government.
        celticninja 10y ago
        It's in the law.
        ab5tract 10y ago
        Which law are you referring to? This law contains, in plain language, assertions that laws enacted to encourage repair are considered "public good"? I'll believe it when you post a link. What if there was a large company, RomeRepairCo, already operating in Sweden? Wouldn't they then have a claim to some form of protectionist angle to this law? Do you see where I am going with this? You say "it is in the law", yet you are neglecting the fact that court cases hinge on the interpretation of law. Why are laws designed to nationalize (ahem) national resources not qualifying as "for the public good"? When do governments enact any law that is not (ostensibly, at least) "for the public good"? The history of ISDS law shows that the validity of "for the public good" is determined by these corporate courts^Wroom of corporate lawyers and according to their own corporate interpretation. This is why the outcomes they have so far produced run so contrary to any non-libertarian interpretation of a moral society.

throwawaze 10y ago

Your question is somewhat tautological: ISDS provisions typically define how investor suits work, so of course investors can sue. That does not mean an investor has any chance of winning in this instance under a hypothetical TTIP suit. TTIP includes a provision protecting regulations enacted for public good.

ab5tract 10y ago
Sounds like a luxury not granted to, for instance, Central America under CAFTA. Edit: Fixed typo.

madgar 10y ago

In the US, I can sue you just for making this hacker news comment. Doesn't mean I'll make it past the first hearing.

anotherarray 10y ago
What if this comment hurt you and you had millions of dollars in a legal department?
ab5tract 10y ago
That lawsuit would be in a civil court, with civil lawyers and actual judges. Not a room full of round-robin corporate laywers. My comment was not about whether it would be successful. My question was whether it provided the means to initiate a lawsuit.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  So you'd rather the case be decided by a single lawyer^H^H^H^H^H^H judge than a panel of lawyers. Even in common law jurisdictions, most of these sorts of cases tend to focus on disputes over issues of law (hence tried by a judge), not issues of fact (which are the only issues which proceed to a jury trial). Judges are usually lawyers before becoming judges--that's not terribly surprising, considering that judges are expected to know a lot of legal theory, which is essentially the same training you undergo to become a lawyer. Fearing the provisions of ISDS would undermine the principles of justice means that you would rather trust the judgements of a single, likely overworked, lawyer who is expected to know the entire relevant body of law and case history for his or her jurisdiction over the judgements of a panel of lawyers who are likely to have somewhat specialized in the area of dispute being covered.
  - ab5tract 10y ago
    You have thrown up a false equivalency and are pursuing it in an odd manner. What I would prefer is that there is absolutely zero mechanisms for a corporation to sue a government over "potential lost profits". This is just not at all the same as discussing a potential lawsuit over defamation / libel / whatever "you" would be suing me over a comment for. And, yes, in that case I would still prefer to go through the normal court system with laws written by my legislature rather than a room full of mega corps and trade representatives.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

Wouldn't that only be if they apply the rules unfairly to international companies in favor of domestic companies? If both domestic and international companies received the same tax break, they would be fine.

blibble 10y ago

looks like a VAT cut, so I expect the EU commission will be after them too

jakobegger 10y ago
It's perfectly legal to lower tax rates on certain products or services. Most EU countries already have multiple VAT rates; eg. in Austria food is taxed at 10% whereas most other stuff is taxed at 20%
- blibble 10y ago
  it isn't, the minimum rate is 15% EU wide. there's a lot of rates which were grandfathered in when countries joined the EU, but lowering the VAT on any new products requires unanimous approval in the council. all details are here: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rules-topic/vat-rates_en http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rul... additionally, the commission wants to phase out reduced rates (see my other comment)
skrause 10y ago
Different VAT rates for different types of products are not a problem in EU, in fact almost all European countries also have a reduced VAT rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax#VAT_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax... Quite often the reduced rate applies e.g. to food, but it really can be any product category.
- blibble 10y ago
  this is an anachronism, the commission regards reduced rates as "an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market"[1] for quite a while the commission has attempted to reform VAT, ostensibly for a "simpler, more efficient and robust VAT system" with the intent of "broadening the tax base and limiting the use of reduced rates" to "generate new revenue streams", which is reported in the media as "EU wants to add VAT to food, childrens clothes and books". [1]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0851&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...

specialist 10y ago

Some apparently fruitless legislative efforts are still useful, if only for signaling, dragging the Overton Window back to the left, kicking and screaming. For example, states (in the USA) legalizing marijuana, even though our Feds still don't agree. Ditto gay marriage rights. Etc.