8 ms·

TPP leak: states give companies the right to repeal nations' laws

180 points by etiam 12y ago

exo762 12y ago
Is this agreement negotiated by reptilians? Where are names of people who is working on this stuff? Were they elected? Were they appointed? By whom? How in the world contents of such agreement can stay secret? Donated money to wikileaks. https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
- reality_czech 12y ago
  I heard it was being negotiated by Joseph Manderley of the United Nations Anti-Terrorism Coalition (UNATCO). I'm sure it's all above board and the outcome will be majestic.
the8472 12y ago
Potentially - only after a trial - having to pay compensation is not exactly the same as repealing a law. Then again, disincentivizing the creation of such laws in the first place more or less has the same outcome as repealing them after they have been passed and may even be more surreptitious as the public may never learn how the law would have looked like without that kind of pressure.
bizocean 12y ago
that not good thing
CyberDildonics 12y ago
Interesting that current capitalism is about choice right up to the point where it comes to what kind of government and laws you want to live under. Then it is what you are born in to.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  How is capitalism about choice? I thought capitalism was about having the means of production privately owned and operated for profit.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Preferably (from the point of view of the owners) in an unregulated monopoly.
- pmontra 12y ago
  That's democracy and freedom of movement. They are orthogonal and orthogonal to capitalism too. We are used to live in countries with all of them but you can have any combination of them.
leesalminen 12y ago
I saw a TED Talk [0] a while back about how Git could transform the legislative process and help bring transparency to how our laws are formed. I've known about the TPP for a while. I tried to discuss it with people and no one had even heard of it. What if we had a Github-esque site where all of our legislation (and all revisions) are readily available with annotations. Would society be more interested in participating in the creation of our laws? I know I would be. [0] http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_o...
- pizza234 12y ago
  Well, it depends on which problem one wants to attack. In this case the problem is transparency; in a world where git would be the primary legislative tool, TTIP and TPP would be stored in private git repositories. On a related note, I remember somebody qualified in the field, who wrote here on HN how a version control tool would not be an appropriate tool to develop laws (since they are not developed like software), but unfortunately I can't find the thread.
  - leesalminen 12y ago
    Interesting point. There are a multitude of issues with our current system of governing a society. If the government were properly incentivized to bring transparency to our legislative process, why would this be stored in a private repo? Even if it were, every revision to every line would be stored and traced back to an individual author. In this case, the contents of TPP will be made public 4 years after executing the agreement. At that time, anyone would be able to scrutinize who wrote what when. This could be the proper incentive to House/Senate members to work in favor of their constituents. Politics is a career today - they don't want to screw that gravy train up.
    - pgeorgi 12y ago
      That "make public" part would probably be a copy out of the private repo and "git add" to the canonical one. No history except "first version".
azernik 12y ago
Title is complete biased linkbait. The actual content talks about companies being able to appeal to an international TPP tribunal, not being able to "repeal laws" themselves.
- hristov 12y ago
  Eventually it comes down to the same thing. No country can afford to pay continuing ongoing fines and compensations. So they will have to change the laws.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    Or just not pay the fines. Companies can't "force" countries to do anything, the idea is hilarious. Countries have police and jails and armies. Corporations have got nothing. They may nonetheless choose to pay the fines because they feel the overall framework is generally beneficial even if they chose to feel the pain in that specific case. Namely, their citizens want jobs and a growing economy, and companies want a predictable and stable business environment. In particular one thing they do NOT want is to spend years building a business in a country and then discover that some politicians have decided to try and grab a few quick votes by quickly passing some badly thought out "anti-Foo" law. See: UK and their new set of "anti Google" laws. That's the fundamental idea behind all this: countries and their trade negotiators know that their political masters are seen as flaky and unreliable by CEOs, which discourages trade and investment. So tribunals where companies could get compensated seems like one way to try and tackle that problem.
    - prawn 12y ago
      Companies can't "force" countries to do anything, the idea is hilarious. Countries have police and jails and armies. Corporations have got nothing. Corporations have got media clout/ownership, threats of capital flight, lobbyists and so on.
      - mike_hearn 12y ago
        The vast majority of all corporations don't own any media. Lobbying isn't some magic form of mind control: it's just them presenting their case to the government, which is free to ignore them and routinely does. Threat of capital flight is really just "if you screw us over we'll try and leave" which is hardly any power at all, especially as often companies can't leave because they have huge fixed assets there. Really, corporations have no power at all. They have the power to speak and maybe to leave. Whereas governments can do whatever they like.
addicted44 12y ago
Is anyone surprised that examples of this power being used currently and in the past includes an oil company complaining that environmental regulations hamper its profits and a tobacco company trying to prevent plain packaging? Most democracies do not create laws which scare away multinationals. There really is absolutely no incentive for it. Even corrupt politicians don't want to scare away multinationals because the bribes from those companies are their largest source of income. This law effectively neutralizes democracy. It's also hilarious in a macabre way to see supposedly nationalist Americans railing against Agenda 21 which is non-binding, while treaties such as TPP which allow an international tribunal which override national laws to be pushed forward by their govt.
- fsloth 12y ago
  I wouldn't way it neutralizes democracy, just makes it less effective. To me the core mechanic of modern democracies is control of society through legislative power and the democratic procedure to rotate those that have it. Taxation, even if just nominal, is one of the most powerful proven mechanisms to control human behavior. This is effectively a tax on changing legislation, thus impeding the democratic process. Effectively this says that the rights of the stock holders to profits are more valuable than the rights of the citizens. Which is a rule that has been historically enforced in various countries time and again. No wonder this is secret. Everyone who gets most of their livelihood through labor and not capital investment are the unwilling benefactors.
sandstrom 12y ago
An example of how this can play out: Australia enacts a law on cigarette labeling, requiring warnings on the package. Tobacco companies sues Australia under a Hong Kong - Australia trade agreement, to get them to revert the labeling law. (this isn't hypothetical, it's already happening) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging#Tobacco_industry_response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging#Tobac... I'm definitely a big champion of capitalism, but these investor-state dispute settlements seems really wrongheaded. Also, I cannot understand why these negotiations are secret? All in favor of trade-deals as long as they remove/reduce tariffs and tolls, but they should be conducted in the open.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  We already have very little tariffs and tolls. This is being negotiated in secret because the TPP isn't about "free trade" in the traditional sense; this is an attempt to allow the free movement of capital. A nice explanation of the realpolitik of the TPP, in comic form: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Could you explain why the free movement of capital implies or requires secrecy - and how this is different than other trade agreements freeing up the movement of capital that haven't been as secret?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Nitpick: you have stated that tobacco companies are suing Australia using a HK-AUS trade agreement to get them to "revert the labelling law". That's simply not true: they are suing for compensation, not trying to force a change in the law (they'd have to try and get the law struck down as violating some other constitutional law to do that). > I'm definitely a big champion of capitalism, but these investor-state dispute settlements seems really wrongheaded Why? Can you at least see the underlying motivation for them? As it happens I don't like tobacco companies at all. I'm very sympathetic to what Australia is doing and think other countries should adopt the same idea. Nonetheless, I'm OK with the idea of Australia paying compensation to Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies in this case, even though these companies are quite loathsome. The reason is the higher principle might still be worth it. The rationale for ISDS is simple: politicians answer to citizens, citizens want jobs and a growing economy. Period. They want that more than anything else. In hard times "the economy" is always at the top of voters concerns. Politicians know this and will do almost anything to juice the economy e.g. quantitative easing. One of the ways to boost the economy is to increase trade, it's classical economics and it seems to work. Hence there's always some free trade agreements being worked on somewhere. Free trade is a great idea. However in the developed world most of the easy, low hanging fruit has already been picked. Tariffs are mostly gone. The remaining bottlenecks to trade are often things like differing technical standards or different regulations, which are hard to fix. One bottleneck is that business values a stable and predictable business environment nearly as much as citizens value jobs, however "stable and predictable" is obviously in tension with the desire politicians have to change things around at a moments notice in order to try and win votes. In particular, businesses fear sudden and arbitrary banning of their business model or sudden seizure of their assets. This holds back trade: company executives say to themselves things like, "our factory is in the USA and lots of our customers are in the EU so we have high shipping costs. We could set up a factory in the EU but that will take five years and be a very expensive and complex project. If we do it and after seven years the laws change such that it's no longer economic for us to do that, we're screwed. And we don't trust the politicians over there not to screw with us, so maybe we'll just stay as we are". Result: Europeans have fewer jobs so are less happy, they pay more for the imports so are less happy, the company doesn't expand so it's also less happy. With ISDS maybe the decision looks like this instead: "we should set up a factory in the EU, because even if the laws there change and suddenly our factory can't operate or doesn't make sense any more, we'll be compensated and can use the compensation money to smoothly transition our business somewhere else ..... so let's do it". So by agreeing to compensate companies for changes in the political environment, the hope is that there will be more trade, more investment, more jobs and thus more happy wage-earning citizens. Of course, politically this is a hard sell because people like to think that if their elected politicians start whacking a foreign company doing business in their country it's because the dirty foreigners are immoral and nasty and generally deserve it .... and not, say, because their votes are easily bought by a bit of crafty populism. But then again, they really want the jobs too. So we'll have to see how this works out.
pdkl95 12y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corporate-sovereignty-provisions-tpp-agreement-leaked-via-wikileaks-would-massively-undermine-government-sovereignty.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corpo... This is a slightly better discussion of the problem in the recently leaked draft. edit: I guess they aren't bothering to even pretend this is would be anything other than a show trial: "...the tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers unaccountable to any electorate, system of precedent or substantive appeal. Many of those involved rotate between acting as “judges” and as advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Such dual roles would be deemed unethical in most legal systems." Regulatory capture is a helluva drug.
- fsloth 12y ago
  This sounds like a typical arbitral tribunal system that companies commonly use to settle various contractual disputes - nothing sinister or unheard of there. What is odd is that it appears to me the agreement would effectively equate changes in legislation that affect profits to a contract dispute.
fsloth 12y ago
I cannot understand how nation states can willfully enter into an agreement that actively curbs their sovereignty and moreover empowers global corporations to leverage profit mechanisms that can hurt their national interests. Sure, western capitalism especially in anglosaxon countries has always been neck to neck with foreign policy and had been able to leverage considerable national resources (including military) to the benefit of their shareholders. So this is a continuation of that tradition. I understand bilateral treaties where USA has considerable leverage but this... this is so many countries unanimously lowering their pants expectantly to wallstreet. What the fuck. Sure, most of the corporations that benefit from this have issued stocks so in a way 'everyone can benefit' but what I do not understand is this: why are so many countries passing away their sovereignty to companies. Or, to look this in another way, enable companies to tax countries for legislation that is incompatible for their nexy quarter strategy.
- rayiner 12y ago
  National sovereignty is unpopular these days, on both sides of the aisle. Liberals started it decades ago with their love of international criminal tribunals and increased UN power, and now the conservatives are getting in on the act. The underlying premise of both movements is that your pet issue is more important than the sovereign right of nations to have domestic processes free from foreign influence.
  - api 12y ago
    There's a long history of conservatives co-opting liberal ideas and techniques. During the 2000s the right played both identity politics and deconstructionism to great effect. The deconstructionism went into play in areas like the "intelligent design" assault on evolutionary science -- if you read the IDist arguments they are basically deconstructionist attacks on the validity of induction and reason in general. The right has always done identity politics better than the left.
- Nursie 12y ago
  It's not nation states as a whole entering into a deal. It's the legislatures of nation states, most of whom have come from big business and will probably go back to business at some point, who are acting in self interest. They are giving our sovereignty away. IMHO.
hristov 12y ago
It is completely unacceptable that this treaty is being written and negotiated in total secrecy. Its even more unacceptable that the thing is supposed to be secret even after it goes into force. This treaty will have a power of law and you will be subject to it without knowing what it actually says. God knows what it will contain when it comes out. International trade can be very beneficial for all countries involved. But they should be entered into force like all other treaties and laws. They should be publicly known and subject to public debate.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  Trade is good, secrets are bad. Worst part of secret trade agreements is that it is isn't fair to the future of workers affected by agreements. If your business or career is going to be affected, knowing about this as it happens is good to prepare and make a change. No doubt there is no changing what capital, corporations and wealth want to do but at least give the little guy a heads up. In secret, all you are doing is harming people and then when it affects them in the end it will be too late or put them in a bind. In an age of information and being smart about careers and futures, a secret trade agreement is feudal in nature and only for the kings.
fit2rule 12y ago
This is out and out fascism folks, only it should be being spelled with a capital "F", which of course can also be used to represent the huge FUCK YOU that is being sent the way of the sovereign citizens whose very rights of existence are being usurped by this agreement. And, it is an agreement, no less, to destroy the very fabric of the societies in which we all participate, enjoy, perpetuate and belong. Because .. after a 5 year evolution has occurred, once the pre-teens grow up and get used to the machinations of this agreement, and it 'becomes normal', and 'always how its been', then we can kiss our freedoms goodbye. Make no bones about this, it is a play for total fascism to take over. A new era of civilization will be in play - it will only take 5 years of this act to be compelled by the societies-at-large which it seeks to destroy - and this new age will be basically this: a trademarked boot, stomping hard on a human face. Fight this now, or watch your children devolve into a state of lesser being. What we enjoy now will not be possible in 5 - maybe 10 - years from now. The world is devolving, it is not getting better. Modern civilization is the perpetual fight against those who would bring us - all of us, not just a few at a time - down.
jaboutboul 12y ago
This is yet another example of how the Obama administration continues to undermine us. What happened to being the most "transparent" administration in history. Bullshit!
- cm127 12y ago
  Honest question: do you think Obama is writing the agreement himself, or do you think he lacks political power to stop international corporations from making these deals, or do you think he just doesn't care?
  - jaboutboul 12y ago
    I think he knows about the agreement and the process by which it is being put together and doesn't care enough to open the process and make it more transparent or is deliberately making sure that it's done in secret.
- coldcode 12y ago
  Pretty silly statement since both parties are in support of this agreement. Not every single politician of course but in general it's something both support.
  - jaboutboul 12y ago
    Right but the buck stops with him.
    - prawn 12y ago
      No, the buck stops with his party, and his party would want a political future rather than risk losing power. Corporate interests are just too strong and no party can afford to completely alienate big business.
coldcode 12y ago
I can't see how this agreement is supported in the US constitution since it essentially voids the judicial system in favor of some external agency. Even if they can't force a change in laws, fining the U.S. a trillion dollars or something or face crippling trade embargoes amounts to the same thing. Of course U.S. politicians see it as allowing U.S. corporations to dictate foreign laws but are blind to the likelihood of that backfiring terribly.
stefantalpalaru 12y ago
This reminds me of the corporate dystopia described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_%28TV_series%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_%28TV_series%29
zby 12y ago
On April 18 there are planned to be protests in many places across the globe in a Global Call to Action to Defeat Free Trade and Investment Treaties: https://www.globaltradeday.org/ https://www.globaltradeday.org/
cbd1984 12y ago
Flagged as obvious linkbait.

180 points by etiam 12y ago

Is this agreement negotiated by reptilians? Where are names of people who is working on this stuff? Were they elected? Were they appointed? By whom? How in the world contents of such agreement can stay secret? Donated money to wikileaks. https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate

reality_czech 12y ago
I heard it was being negotiated by Joseph Manderley of the United Nations Anti-Terrorism Coalition (UNATCO). I'm sure it's all above board and the outcome will be majestic.

the8472 12y ago

Potentially - only after a trial - having to pay compensation is not exactly the same as repealing a law. Then again, disincentivizing the creation of such laws in the first place more or less has the same outcome as repealing them after they have been passed and may even be more surreptitious as the public may never learn how the law would have looked like without that kind of pressure.

bizocean 12y ago

that not good thing

CyberDildonics 12y ago

Interesting that current capitalism is about choice right up to the point where it comes to what kind of government and laws you want to live under. Then it is what you are born in to.

EliRivers 12y ago
How is capitalism about choice? I thought capitalism was about having the means of production privately owned and operated for profit.
- VLM 12y ago
  Preferably (from the point of view of the owners) in an unregulated monopoly.
pmontra 12y ago
That's democracy and freedom of movement. They are orthogonal and orthogonal to capitalism too. We are used to live in countries with all of them but you can have any combination of them.

leesalminen 12y ago

I saw a TED Talk [0] a while back about how Git could transform the legislative process and help bring transparency to how our laws are formed. I've known about the TPP for a while. I tried to discuss it with people and no one had even heard of it. What if we had a Github-esque site where all of our legislation (and all revisions) are readily available with annotations. Would society be more interested in participating in the creation of our laws? I know I would be. [0] http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_o...

pizza234 12y ago
Well, it depends on which problem one wants to attack. In this case the problem is transparency; in a world where git would be the primary legislative tool, TTIP and TPP would be stored in private git repositories. On a related note, I remember somebody qualified in the field, who wrote here on HN how a version control tool would not be an appropriate tool to develop laws (since they are not developed like software), but unfortunately I can't find the thread.
- leesalminen 12y ago
  Interesting point. There are a multitude of issues with our current system of governing a society. If the government were properly incentivized to bring transparency to our legislative process, why would this be stored in a private repo? Even if it were, every revision to every line would be stored and traced back to an individual author. In this case, the contents of TPP will be made public 4 years after executing the agreement. At that time, anyone would be able to scrutinize who wrote what when. This could be the proper incentive to House/Senate members to work in favor of their constituents. Politics is a career today - they don't want to screw that gravy train up.
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    That "make public" part would probably be a copy out of the private repo and "git add" to the canonical one. No history except "first version".

azernik 12y ago

Title is complete biased linkbait. The actual content talks about companies being able to appeal to an international TPP tribunal, not being able to "repeal laws" themselves.

hristov 12y ago
Eventually it comes down to the same thing. No country can afford to pay continuing ongoing fines and compensations. So they will have to change the laws.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Or just not pay the fines. Companies can't "force" countries to do anything, the idea is hilarious. Countries have police and jails and armies. Corporations have got nothing. They may nonetheless choose to pay the fines because they feel the overall framework is generally beneficial even if they chose to feel the pain in that specific case. Namely, their citizens want jobs and a growing economy, and companies want a predictable and stable business environment. In particular one thing they do NOT want is to spend years building a business in a country and then discover that some politicians have decided to try and grab a few quick votes by quickly passing some badly thought out "anti-Foo" law. See: UK and their new set of "anti Google" laws. That's the fundamental idea behind all this: countries and their trade negotiators know that their political masters are seen as flaky and unreliable by CEOs, which discourages trade and investment. So tribunals where companies could get compensated seems like one way to try and tackle that problem.
  - prawn 12y ago
    Companies can't "force" countries to do anything, the idea is hilarious. Countries have police and jails and armies. Corporations have got nothing. Corporations have got media clout/ownership, threats of capital flight, lobbyists and so on.
    - mike_hearn 12y ago
      The vast majority of all corporations don't own any media. Lobbying isn't some magic form of mind control: it's just them presenting their case to the government, which is free to ignore them and routinely does. Threat of capital flight is really just "if you screw us over we'll try and leave" which is hardly any power at all, especially as often companies can't leave because they have huge fixed assets there. Really, corporations have no power at all. They have the power to speak and maybe to leave. Whereas governments can do whatever they like.

addicted44 12y ago

Is anyone surprised that examples of this power being used currently and in the past includes an oil company complaining that environmental regulations hamper its profits and a tobacco company trying to prevent plain packaging? Most democracies do not create laws which scare away multinationals. There really is absolutely no incentive for it. Even corrupt politicians don't want to scare away multinationals because the bribes from those companies are their largest source of income. This law effectively neutralizes democracy. It's also hilarious in a macabre way to see supposedly nationalist Americans railing against Agenda 21 which is non-binding, while treaties such as TPP which allow an international tribunal which override national laws to be pushed forward by their govt.

fsloth 12y ago
I wouldn't way it neutralizes democracy, just makes it less effective. To me the core mechanic of modern democracies is control of society through legislative power and the democratic procedure to rotate those that have it. Taxation, even if just nominal, is one of the most powerful proven mechanisms to control human behavior. This is effectively a tax on changing legislation, thus impeding the democratic process. Effectively this says that the rights of the stock holders to profits are more valuable than the rights of the citizens. Which is a rule that has been historically enforced in various countries time and again. No wonder this is secret. Everyone who gets most of their livelihood through labor and not capital investment are the unwilling benefactors.

sandstrom 12y ago

An example of how this can play out: Australia enacts a law on cigarette labeling, requiring warnings on the package. Tobacco companies sues Australia under a Hong Kong - Australia trade agreement, to get them to revert the labeling law. (this isn't hypothetical, it's already happening) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging#Tobacco_industry_response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging#Tobac... I'm definitely a big champion of capitalism, but these investor-state dispute settlements seems really wrongheaded. Also, I cannot understand why these negotiations are secret? All in favor of trade-deals as long as they remove/reduce tariffs and tolls, but they should be conducted in the open.

pdkl95 12y ago
We already have very little tariffs and tolls. This is being negotiated in secret because the TPP isn't about "free trade" in the traditional sense; this is an attempt to allow the free movement of capital. A nice explanation of the realpolitik of the TPP, in comic form: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Could you explain why the free movement of capital implies or requires secrecy - and how this is different than other trade agreements freeing up the movement of capital that haven't been as secret?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
mike_hearn 12y ago
Nitpick: you have stated that tobacco companies are suing Australia using a HK-AUS trade agreement to get them to "revert the labelling law". That's simply not true: they are suing for compensation, not trying to force a change in the law (they'd have to try and get the law struck down as violating some other constitutional law to do that). > I'm definitely a big champion of capitalism, but these investor-state dispute settlements seems really wrongheaded Why? Can you at least see the underlying motivation for them? As it happens I don't like tobacco companies at all. I'm very sympathetic to what Australia is doing and think other countries should adopt the same idea. Nonetheless, I'm OK with the idea of Australia paying compensation to Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies in this case, even though these companies are quite loathsome. The reason is the higher principle might still be worth it. The rationale for ISDS is simple: politicians answer to citizens, citizens want jobs and a growing economy. Period. They want that more than anything else. In hard times "the economy" is always at the top of voters concerns. Politicians know this and will do almost anything to juice the economy e.g. quantitative easing. One of the ways to boost the economy is to increase trade, it's classical economics and it seems to work. Hence there's always some free trade agreements being worked on somewhere. Free trade is a great idea. However in the developed world most of the easy, low hanging fruit has already been picked. Tariffs are mostly gone. The remaining bottlenecks to trade are often things like differing technical standards or different regulations, which are hard to fix. One bottleneck is that business values a stable and predictable business environment nearly as much as citizens value jobs, however "stable and predictable" is obviously in tension with the desire politicians have to change things around at a moments notice in order to try and win votes. In particular, businesses fear sudden and arbitrary banning of their business model or sudden seizure of their assets. This holds back trade: company executives say to themselves things like, "our factory is in the USA and lots of our customers are in the EU so we have high shipping costs. We could set up a factory in the EU but that will take five years and be a very expensive and complex project. If we do it and after seven years the laws change such that it's no longer economic for us to do that, we're screwed. And we don't trust the politicians over there not to screw with us, so maybe we'll just stay as we are". Result: Europeans have fewer jobs so are less happy, they pay more for the imports so are less happy, the company doesn't expand so it's also less happy. With ISDS maybe the decision looks like this instead: "we should set up a factory in the EU, because even if the laws there change and suddenly our factory can't operate or doesn't make sense any more, we'll be compensated and can use the compensation money to smoothly transition our business somewhere else ..... so let's do it". So by agreeing to compensate companies for changes in the political environment, the hope is that there will be more trade, more investment, more jobs and thus more happy wage-earning citizens. Of course, politically this is a hard sell because people like to think that if their elected politicians start whacking a foreign company doing business in their country it's because the dirty foreigners are immoral and nasty and generally deserve it .... and not, say, because their votes are easily bought by a bit of crafty populism. But then again, they really want the jobs too. So we'll have to see how this works out.

pdkl95 12y ago

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corporate-sovereignty-provisions-tpp-agreement-leaked-via-wikileaks-would-massively-undermine-government-sovereignty.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corpo... This is a slightly better discussion of the problem in the recently leaked draft. edit: I guess they aren't bothering to even pretend this is would be anything other than a show trial: "...the tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers unaccountable to any electorate, system of precedent or substantive appeal. Many of those involved rotate between acting as “judges” and as advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Such dual roles would be deemed unethical in most legal systems." Regulatory capture is a helluva drug.

fsloth 12y ago
This sounds like a typical arbitral tribunal system that companies commonly use to settle various contractual disputes - nothing sinister or unheard of there. What is odd is that it appears to me the agreement would effectively equate changes in legislation that affect profits to a contract dispute.

fsloth 12y ago

I cannot understand how nation states can willfully enter into an agreement that actively curbs their sovereignty and moreover empowers global corporations to leverage profit mechanisms that can hurt their national interests. Sure, western capitalism especially in anglosaxon countries has always been neck to neck with foreign policy and had been able to leverage considerable national resources (including military) to the benefit of their shareholders. So this is a continuation of that tradition. I understand bilateral treaties where USA has considerable leverage but this... this is so many countries unanimously lowering their pants expectantly to wallstreet. What the fuck. Sure, most of the corporations that benefit from this have issued stocks so in a way 'everyone can benefit' but what I do not understand is this: why are so many countries passing away their sovereignty to companies. Or, to look this in another way, enable companies to tax countries for legislation that is incompatible for their nexy quarter strategy.

rayiner 12y ago
National sovereignty is unpopular these days, on both sides of the aisle. Liberals started it decades ago with their love of international criminal tribunals and increased UN power, and now the conservatives are getting in on the act. The underlying premise of both movements is that your pet issue is more important than the sovereign right of nations to have domestic processes free from foreign influence.
- api 12y ago
  There's a long history of conservatives co-opting liberal ideas and techniques. During the 2000s the right played both identity politics and deconstructionism to great effect. The deconstructionism went into play in areas like the "intelligent design" assault on evolutionary science -- if you read the IDist arguments they are basically deconstructionist attacks on the validity of induction and reason in general. The right has always done identity politics better than the left.
Nursie 12y ago
It's not nation states as a whole entering into a deal. It's the legislatures of nation states, most of whom have come from big business and will probably go back to business at some point, who are acting in self interest. They are giving our sovereignty away. IMHO.

hristov 12y ago

It is completely unacceptable that this treaty is being written and negotiated in total secrecy. Its even more unacceptable that the thing is supposed to be secret even after it goes into force. This treaty will have a power of law and you will be subject to it without knowing what it actually says. God knows what it will contain when it comes out. International trade can be very beneficial for all countries involved. But they should be entered into force like all other treaties and laws. They should be publicly known and subject to public debate.

drawkbox 12y ago
Trade is good, secrets are bad. Worst part of secret trade agreements is that it is isn't fair to the future of workers affected by agreements. If your business or career is going to be affected, knowing about this as it happens is good to prepare and make a change. No doubt there is no changing what capital, corporations and wealth want to do but at least give the little guy a heads up. In secret, all you are doing is harming people and then when it affects them in the end it will be too late or put them in a bind. In an age of information and being smart about careers and futures, a secret trade agreement is feudal in nature and only for the kings.

fit2rule 12y ago

This is out and out fascism folks, only it should be being spelled with a capital "F", which of course can also be used to represent the huge FUCK YOU that is being sent the way of the sovereign citizens whose very rights of existence are being usurped by this agreement. And, it is an agreement, no less, to destroy the very fabric of the societies in which we all participate, enjoy, perpetuate and belong. Because .. after a 5 year evolution has occurred, once the pre-teens grow up and get used to the machinations of this agreement, and it 'becomes normal', and 'always how its been', then we can kiss our freedoms goodbye. Make no bones about this, it is a play for total fascism to take over. A new era of civilization will be in play - it will only take 5 years of this act to be compelled by the societies-at-large which it seeks to destroy - and this new age will be basically this: a trademarked boot, stomping hard on a human face. Fight this now, or watch your children devolve into a state of lesser being. What we enjoy now will not be possible in 5 - maybe 10 - years from now. The world is devolving, it is not getting better. Modern civilization is the perpetual fight against those who would bring us - all of us, not just a few at a time - down.

jaboutboul 12y ago

This is yet another example of how the Obama administration continues to undermine us. What happened to being the most "transparent" administration in history. Bullshit!

cm127 12y ago
Honest question: do you think Obama is writing the agreement himself, or do you think he lacks political power to stop international corporations from making these deals, or do you think he just doesn't care?
- jaboutboul 12y ago
  I think he knows about the agreement and the process by which it is being put together and doesn't care enough to open the process and make it more transparent or is deliberately making sure that it's done in secret.
coldcode 12y ago
Pretty silly statement since both parties are in support of this agreement. Not every single politician of course but in general it's something both support.
- jaboutboul 12y ago
  Right but the buck stops with him.
  - prawn 12y ago
    No, the buck stops with his party, and his party would want a political future rather than risk losing power. Corporate interests are just too strong and no party can afford to completely alienate big business.

coldcode 12y ago

I can't see how this agreement is supported in the US constitution since it essentially voids the judicial system in favor of some external agency. Even if they can't force a change in laws, fining the U.S. a trillion dollars or something or face crippling trade embargoes amounts to the same thing. Of course U.S. politicians see it as allowing U.S. corporations to dictate foreign laws but are blind to the likelihood of that backfiring terribly.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago

This reminds me of the corporate dystopia described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_%28TV_series%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_%28TV_series%29

zby 12y ago

On April 18 there are planned to be protests in many places across the globe in a Global Call to Action to Defeat Free Trade and Investment Treaties: https://www.globaltradeday.org/ https://www.globaltradeday.org/

cbd1984 12y ago

Flagged as obvious linkbait.