4 ms·

FTAs aren’t magically more democratic. The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership. FTAs also bi

FTAs aren’t magically more democratic. The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership. FTAs also bind countries to laws the citizens may oppose and even if changing a law is OK, it might still result in an expensive investor state dispute at a court of arbitration.

rayiner 8y ago
I don't know how FTA's work in New Zealand, but in the U.S., any treaty must be "implemented" by domestic legislation (except for in narrow cases where the subject matter falls within executive discretion to begin with). In the EU, by contrast, a regulation can be imposed on the citizens of a particular member nation even if those citizens' representatives oppose it. To give an example, if the U.S. entered into an FTA requiring a $15 minimum wage, that provision would be ineffective until Congress passed a law making that the minimum wage. But Congress could impose a $15 minimum wage effective in Alabama, even if every Alabama Senator and Congressman opposed it. EU regulations are like the latter.
- fmajid 8y ago
  That's just false. CETA, the recent EU-Canada FTA had to be ratified by all national parliaments, and in the case of Belgium, by provincial parliaments as well.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The EU has multiple forms of laws, some of which require ratification by the national parliaments and some of which don't. EU Regulations are the equivalent of Acts of the United States Congress--they have automatic effect in all member states and override any conflicting national law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union). Treaties have their own intricacies, but they do not necessarily require ratification either. The EC initially asserted that CETA did not require ratification by the national governments, but backed down citing the "political situation": http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7492/CBP-7492.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7... (page 13). I think many EU supporters really don't understand the sweeping powers of the EU. All the legal underpinnings are in place to turn the EU member countries into demi-sovereigns inferior to an EU government, just as happened to the U.S. states. They may be used sparingly now, but Brussels is getting bolder all the time.
jhanschoo 8y ago
> The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership. Can I have a citation for this?
- jashmatthews 8y ago
  Sure, I'll keep it tech related since it's HNews but: "...raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities." https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
  - jhanschoo 8y ago
    Thanks!

rayiner 8y ago

I don't know how FTA's work in New Zealand, but in the U.S., any treaty must be "implemented" by domestic legislation (except for in narrow cases where the subject matter falls within executive discretion to begin with). In the EU, by contrast, a regulation can be imposed on the citizens of a particular member nation even if those citizens' representatives oppose it. To give an example, if the U.S. entered into an FTA requiring a $15 minimum wage, that provision would be ineffective until Congress passed a law making that the minimum wage. But Congress could impose a $15 minimum wage effective in Alabama, even if every Alabama Senator and Congressman opposed it. EU regulations are like the latter.

fmajid 8y ago
That's just false. CETA, the recent EU-Canada FTA had to be ratified by all national parliaments, and in the case of Belgium, by provincial parliaments as well.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The EU has multiple forms of laws, some of which require ratification by the national parliaments and some of which don't. EU Regulations are the equivalent of Acts of the United States Congress--they have automatic effect in all member states and override any conflicting national law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union). Treaties have their own intricacies, but they do not necessarily require ratification either. The EC initially asserted that CETA did not require ratification by the national governments, but backed down citing the "political situation": http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7492/CBP-7492.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7... (page 13). I think many EU supporters really don't understand the sweeping powers of the EU. All the legal underpinnings are in place to turn the EU member countries into demi-sovereigns inferior to an EU government, just as happened to the U.S. states. They may be used sparingly now, but Brussels is getting bolder all the time.

jhanschoo 8y ago

> The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership. Can I have a citation for this?

jashmatthews 8y ago
Sure, I'll keep it tech related since it's HNews but: "...raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities." https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
- jhanschoo 8y ago
  Thanks!