3 ms·

> But even if they're not impartial, is that necessarily bad here? Shouldn't the health of a countries' citizens take priority over the interests of shareholder

> But even if they're not impartial, is that necessarily bad here? Shouldn't the health of a countries' citizens take priority over the interests of shareholders? It is in CETA. > The nature of how trade deals are negotiated means we don't necessarily know who came up with it. Arbitral tribunals predate modern day FTAs by 150 years or more. If you have an interest in this you can easily read up on why they exist. > Plenty of these cases have been lost by governments. I am aware since I read about all of them in the last few months but this is going into details. Out of the ones that have been lost, the initial NAFTA case has even been controversial among the signatories. However there are plenty of other court decisions in traditional courts that I would argue are not any less controversial. > It's because of existing ISDS provisions that we know of their problems. Why do we need even more? I am not sure about Canada, but the EU does not want more, they want better ISDS provisions since the current ones are quite defective in many ways. > “All the way up to the highest European courts”? That's not how the EU's legal system works. You can't just appeal cases to the EU level. You can definitely drag cases in front of the ECHR. Case in point: Yukos. Anyways. This entire conversation is something that is completely removed from the original point of the article which was moving goalposts. I do not actually see a value having a conversation about CETA, particularly now.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
> This entire conversation is something that is completely removed from the original point of the article which was moving goalposts. Perhaps. I feel that your article misrepresented the argument against CETA when it used it as an example. I realise that you probably don't want to argue about this (nor do I, really), but I felt it was important to provide a contrary perspective. That's all.
onli 10y ago
When you bring an example for "people stick to negative attitudes even when the things improve or are not like another bad thing", and the example you bring is actually a really bad thing – out of state tribunals are fully unacceptable, also in the way CETA modeled them – then it is very valid to question that example. It could be that your whole observation is wrong, that people do not really stick to negative perspectives, but rather that you became unwilling to see them as valid. Your Python3 example works for me. But CETA does not. It just does not support your point.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  If you consider where CETA started and where it ended, the transparent tribunal solved the initial complaints same as with the restrictions on when you can sue. That now the new tribunals are also not good enough is a moved goalpost.
  - TillE 10y ago
    You really think that's true for everyone, or are you just looking at a subset of complaints? There have been huge protests against TTIP and CETA in Germany and around Europe, and you can't resolve their legitimate concerns by saying "excuse me sir, but by your own logic, you just proved my point".
    - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
      > You really think that's true for everyone, or are you just looking at a subset of complaints? That is true for the group of people that nearly derailed CETA in Austria (green party and the right wings party). I don't think I wrote everybody.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

> This entire conversation is something that is completely removed from the original point of the article which was moving goalposts. Perhaps. I feel that your article misrepresented the argument against CETA when it used it as an example. I realise that you probably don't want to argue about this (nor do I, really), but I felt it was important to provide a contrary perspective. That's all.

onli 10y ago

When you bring an example for "people stick to negative attitudes even when the things improve or are not like another bad thing", and the example you bring is actually a really bad thing – out of state tribunals are fully unacceptable, also in the way CETA modeled them – then it is very valid to question that example. It could be that your whole observation is wrong, that people do not really stick to negative perspectives, but rather that you became unwilling to see them as valid. Your Python3 example works for me. But CETA does not. It just does not support your point.

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
If you consider where CETA started and where it ended, the transparent tribunal solved the initial complaints same as with the restrictions on when you can sue. That now the new tribunals are also not good enough is a moved goalpost.
- TillE 10y ago
  You really think that's true for everyone, or are you just looking at a subset of complaints? There have been huge protests against TTIP and CETA in Germany and around Europe, and you can't resolve their legitimate concerns by saying "excuse me sir, but by your own logic, you just proved my point".
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    > You really think that's true for everyone, or are you just looking at a subset of complaints? That is true for the group of people that nearly derailed CETA in Austria (green party and the right wings party). I don't think I wrote everybody.