3 ms·

This is pretty funny, for many Europeans ISDS is one of the main reasons why they oppose TTIP [1]. They fear US companies suing European countries because of st

by danbruc 12y ago

This is pretty funny, for many Europeans ISDS is one of the main reasons why they oppose TTIP [1]. They fear US companies suing European countries because of stricter regulations, with food and environmental standards being popular examples. [1] https://stop-ttip.org/ https://stop-ttip.org/

taejo 12y ago
I don't see why it's funny. It's not that ISDS is good for America and bad for Europe, or good for Japan and bad for America; according to opponents, it's good for big business and bad for ordinary people.
- danbruc 12y ago
  Because I was not aware that there are exactly the same concerns in the USA. In Europe TTIP is - as far as I can tell - mostly seen as a one-way street, empowering US companies over EU countries. The article kind of suggests the same view for the USA and TPP, empowering foreign companies over the USA. It would now be interesting to know whether these are just one-sided views ignoring the potential damages EU companies could do to the USA respectively US companies to the other TPP countries, or if these agreements would really turn out to be one-way streets, Vietnamese companies hurting the USA and US companies hurting Germany because there is a very real gradient with regard to the relevant standards. So can somebody tell what the US view on TTIP is? Are there the same concerns getting hurt by companies from EU countries?
  - walterbell 12y ago
    This article has links to trade (not specific to TTIP) viewpoints from different US stakeholders, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms-opposition-mounts-corporate-friendly-trade-deals http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms... Watch the John Oliver video elsewhere in this thread about Philip Morris using Hong Kong to sue Australia. No one knows how companies will use these proposed powers, it may become less legally clear what constitutes the home-nation of a corporation. See also corporate inversions, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2014/09/25/97827/the-skinny-on-corporate-inversions/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/20...
lumberjack 12y ago
It's stupid to see this as US companies vs. EU consumers and vice versa. It should be seen as gigantic companies against small companies and consumers. American or European makes little difference. It's still an affront to democracy that commercial entities with enough political clout can sue whole countries because those countries dared to believe in their sovereignty. I understand that it is a mechanism to reduce risk and therefore incentive wealth creation but when you have to make exceptions to democracy and sovereignty is when I say that your pursuit of wealth creation has become a bit too fanatical.
- danbruc 12y ago
  The opinions are not all that simple, I just focused on that because the article also focuses an it. But big US oil companies vs European tax payers compensating them because they are denied to use fracking techniques does obviously not require many words to explain and therefore opinions are certainly dominated by simple arguments.
  - kretor 12y ago
    The oil companies could only successfully sue for compensation for being banned from fracking, when the ban only applies to foreign companies, i.e. only when the ban is discriminatory. Source: The EU commission says “The protection given covers a limited number of specific actions which can concretely affect an investor’s daily business operations in a foreign market, i.e. discrimination, denial of access to justice, expropriation without compensation and the inability to transfer capital to invest.“
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Some rebuttals to EU commission rebuttals on ISDS, http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-iii-3569416/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-up...
- snarfy 12y ago
  Weakening sovereignty is the goal, IMO. This is nothing about trade.
kretor 12y ago
The myths those fears of ISDS are based on are so widespread in Germany, that the EU commission felt the need to debunk them, by stating (among other things): “ISDS is not about giving unlimited rights to multinationals to challenge any legislative measure taken by sovereign states in any area of regulation. Under TTIP, investors will not be compensated with taxpayers’ money just because of a fall in profits due to a change in the law. Nor will it be possible for investors to override bans of practices like fracking. The protection given covers a limited number of specific actions which can concretely affect an investor’s daily business operations in a foreign market, i.e. discrimination, denial of access to justice, expropriation without compensation and the inability to transfer capital to invest. Legitimate policy measures taken by public authorities to protect the environment or public health and which apply to all firms in the same way – foreign or national – cannot be successfully challenged under these provisions under the guise of investment protection.“ (from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1008 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1008)
- lumberjack 12y ago
  That's very nice language but the whole point is that commercial entities can challenge what is or isn't a legitimate policy to protect public health or the environment. They shouldn't be able to do that in the first place. They have no such right. Not to mention that you make it sound like ISDS is a new thing that was marketed ineptly when in fact the notoriety stems from foreign businesses suing counties who tried to reduce trade in asbestos. And besides, I'm not even sure whether it would be economically wise for a country to always threat foreign business and local business equally. Right now I'm sure many Europeans wish they had more local alternatives to US tech. http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/749.full http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/749.full
  - kretor 12y ago
    I cannot imagine a policy that, in order to protect public health or the environment, had to discriminate between companies with foreign investors, and those with domestic investors. Why shouldn't commercial entities be able to sue the government? When a government has agreed to an ISDS agreement (if they hadn't, the agreement wouldn't be in effect), it's only appropriate that they are held accountable to keep up on their promise. An ISDS agreement is simply about a government promising “We will not discriminate against foreigners (and also don't do a bunch of other terrible stuff, like expropriating foreigners), and if we still do, we will at least compensate them.“

by danbruc 12y ago

taejo 12y ago

I don't see why it's funny. It's not that ISDS is good for America and bad for Europe, or good for Japan and bad for America; according to opponents, it's good for big business and bad for ordinary people.

danbruc 12y ago
Because I was not aware that there are exactly the same concerns in the USA. In Europe TTIP is - as far as I can tell - mostly seen as a one-way street, empowering US companies over EU countries. The article kind of suggests the same view for the USA and TPP, empowering foreign companies over the USA. It would now be interesting to know whether these are just one-sided views ignoring the potential damages EU companies could do to the USA respectively US companies to the other TPP countries, or if these agreements would really turn out to be one-way streets, Vietnamese companies hurting the USA and US companies hurting Germany because there is a very real gradient with regard to the relevant standards. So can somebody tell what the US view on TTIP is? Are there the same concerns getting hurt by companies from EU countries?
- walterbell 12y ago
  This article has links to trade (not specific to TTIP) viewpoints from different US stakeholders, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms-opposition-mounts-corporate-friendly-trade-deals http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/fast-track-looms... Watch the John Oliver video elsewhere in this thread about Philip Morris using Hong Kong to sue Australia. No one knows how companies will use these proposed powers, it may become less legally clear what constitutes the home-nation of a corporation. See also corporate inversions, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2014/09/25/97827/the-skinny-on-corporate-inversions/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/20...

lumberjack 12y ago

It's stupid to see this as US companies vs. EU consumers and vice versa. It should be seen as gigantic companies against small companies and consumers. American or European makes little difference. It's still an affront to democracy that commercial entities with enough political clout can sue whole countries because those countries dared to believe in their sovereignty. I understand that it is a mechanism to reduce risk and therefore incentive wealth creation but when you have to make exceptions to democracy and sovereignty is when I say that your pursuit of wealth creation has become a bit too fanatical.

danbruc 12y ago
The opinions are not all that simple, I just focused on that because the article also focuses an it. But big US oil companies vs European tax payers compensating them because they are denied to use fracking techniques does obviously not require many words to explain and therefore opinions are certainly dominated by simple arguments.
- kretor 12y ago
  The oil companies could only successfully sue for compensation for being banned from fracking, when the ban only applies to foreign companies, i.e. only when the ban is discriminatory. Source: The EU commission says “The protection given covers a limited number of specific actions which can concretely affect an investor’s daily business operations in a foreign market, i.e. discrimination, denial of access to justice, expropriation without compensation and the inability to transfer capital to invest.“
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Some rebuttals to EU commission rebuttals on ISDS, http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-iii-3569416/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-up...
snarfy 12y ago
Weakening sovereignty is the goal, IMO. This is nothing about trade.

kretor 12y ago

The myths those fears of ISDS are based on are so widespread in Germany, that the EU commission felt the need to debunk them, by stating (among other things): “ISDS is not about giving unlimited rights to multinationals to challenge any legislative measure taken by sovereign states in any area of regulation. Under TTIP, investors will not be compensated with taxpayers’ money just because of a fall in profits due to a change in the law. Nor will it be possible for investors to override bans of practices like fracking. The protection given covers a limited number of specific actions which can concretely affect an investor’s daily business operations in a foreign market, i.e. discrimination, denial of access to justice, expropriation without compensation and the inability to transfer capital to invest. Legitimate policy measures taken by public authorities to protect the environment or public health and which apply to all firms in the same way – foreign or national – cannot be successfully challenged under these provisions under the guise of investment protection.“ (from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1008 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1008)

lumberjack 12y ago
That's very nice language but the whole point is that commercial entities can challenge what is or isn't a legitimate policy to protect public health or the environment. They shouldn't be able to do that in the first place. They have no such right. Not to mention that you make it sound like ISDS is a new thing that was marketed ineptly when in fact the notoriety stems from foreign businesses suing counties who tried to reduce trade in asbestos. And besides, I'm not even sure whether it would be economically wise for a country to always threat foreign business and local business equally. Right now I'm sure many Europeans wish they had more local alternatives to US tech. http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/749.full http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/749.full
- kretor 12y ago
  I cannot imagine a policy that, in order to protect public health or the environment, had to discriminate between companies with foreign investors, and those with domestic investors. Why shouldn't commercial entities be able to sue the government? When a government has agreed to an ISDS agreement (if they hadn't, the agreement wouldn't be in effect), it's only appropriate that they are held accountable to keep up on their promise. An ISDS agreement is simply about a government promising “We will not discriminate against foreigners (and also don't do a bunch of other terrible stuff, like expropriating foreigners), and if we still do, we will at least compensate them.“