5 ms·

> They allow investors to sue nations over legislative and administrative rules alleging that they harm their profits. This is much bigger than copyright. This

> They allow investors to sue nations over legislative and administrative rules alleging that they harm their profits. This is much bigger than copyright. This is removing substantive power from existing governments and transferring it to a new structure. The fast-tracking should be seen, not just as evading scrutiny by the public, but also as evading scrutiny by Congress and by other legislatures whose power is being stolen from them. When you write your representative, you might warn them that this puts them on track to end up like the Queen of England: powerless figureheads.

themartorana 11y ago
You imagine those writing this deal are giving away their power. I rebut with, if the government wasn't already a mouthpiece for mega corps, the deal would never be written to begin with. Now that business owns government, it makes sense for them to start transforming it to a more directly profitable model.
jpollock 11y ago
The goal of those sections of the agreement are to force governments to treat foreign investment the same as if it had arrived from a resident. The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America, where they look around, see an oil company sitting there that is majority foreign owned and nationalise it to fix a balance of payments issue[2]. Some organisations (like Philip Morris) will try to use it as a hammer, but that's because anyone can sue. The US is already party to similar agreements - NAFTA being one. They've even got a standard set of terms for them [1]. First world countries with strong court systems already have these protections in place. This is aimed at other countries who don't have quite as strong a rule of law. As for secrecy... Just because congress gives the President fast-track negotiation rights doesn't mean that the deal has to pass. It just means that congress has to have a straight up or down vote on it, without amendments. There will still be time to review and debate it. Agreements are negotiated in secret. Can you imagine a trade agreement negotiated in the current US Congress? [1] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy
- sdepablos 11y ago
  Sorry, but I still prefer the current state of affairs than having secret pacts that diminish the sovereignty of my country in favor of big transnationals, that only look for themselves, justify everything with a "we only look after our investors interest" and don't know the meaning of morality. The Philip Morris - a company that sells products that kill people - case against Australia is a clear example on how bad things end up with this kind of pacts.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Most international agreements are negotiated in secret. When it's time for Congress to vote on it, you'll be able to chew over the terms. I have to say I'm really tired of the willfully ignorant memes around this trade deal, as if it were some unprecedented thing in history.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America, where they look around, see an oil company sitting there that is majority foreign owned and nationalise it to fix a balance of payments issue[2] This was normally done to channel the vast oil wealth into the country where it could help people rather than into the pockets of wealthy foreigners. Call it 'fixing a balance of payments issue if you will'. Or, call it "helping the poor". It's both. >First world countries with strong court systems already have these protections in place. This is aimed at other countries who don't have quite as strong a rule of law. Foreign corporations will be able to sue the American government for lost profits under the TPP. This will undoubtedly be used to try and stifle new labor & environmental protection laws. >Agreements are negotiated in secret. Sure. When you've got something you desperately want to hide from the public.
- gnud 11y ago
  As someone who has benefitted a whole lot from nationalized industries, I feel it would be immoral for me to deny other countries the same opportunity. For me, the shareholders in an oil company are less important than the inhabitants of the oil rich countries.
- 11y ago

themartorana 11y ago

You imagine those writing this deal are giving away their power. I rebut with, if the government wasn't already a mouthpiece for mega corps, the deal would never be written to begin with. Now that business owns government, it makes sense for them to start transforming it to a more directly profitable model.

jpollock 11y ago

The goal of those sections of the agreement are to force governments to treat foreign investment the same as if it had arrived from a resident. The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America, where they look around, see an oil company sitting there that is majority foreign owned and nationalise it to fix a balance of payments issue[2]. Some organisations (like Philip Morris) will try to use it as a hammer, but that's because anyone can sue. The US is already party to similar agreements - NAFTA being one. They've even got a standard set of terms for them [1]. First world countries with strong court systems already have these protections in place. This is aimed at other countries who don't have quite as strong a rule of law. As for secrecy... Just because congress gives the President fast-track negotiation rights doesn't mean that the deal has to pass. It just means that congress has to have a straight up or down vote on it, without amendments. There will still be time to review and debate it. Agreements are negotiated in secret. Can you imagine a trade agreement negotiated in the current US Congress? [1] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy

sdepablos 11y ago
Sorry, but I still prefer the current state of affairs than having secret pacts that diminish the sovereignty of my country in favor of big transnationals, that only look for themselves, justify everything with a "we only look after our investors interest" and don't know the meaning of morality. The Philip Morris - a company that sells products that kill people - case against Australia is a clear example on how bad things end up with this kind of pacts.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Most international agreements are negotiated in secret. When it's time for Congress to vote on it, you'll be able to chew over the terms. I have to say I'm really tired of the willfully ignorant memes around this trade deal, as if it were some unprecedented thing in history.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America, where they look around, see an oil company sitting there that is majority foreign owned and nationalise it to fix a balance of payments issue[2] This was normally done to channel the vast oil wealth into the country where it could help people rather than into the pockets of wealthy foreigners. Call it 'fixing a balance of payments issue if you will'. Or, call it "helping the poor". It's both. >First world countries with strong court systems already have these protections in place. This is aimed at other countries who don't have quite as strong a rule of law. Foreign corporations will be able to sue the American government for lost profits under the TPP. This will undoubtedly be used to try and stifle new labor & environmental protection laws. >Agreements are negotiated in secret. Sure. When you've got something you desperately want to hide from the public.
gnud 11y ago
As someone who has benefitted a whole lot from nationalized industries, I feel it would be immoral for me to deny other countries the same opportunity. For me, the shareholders in an oil company are less important than the inhabitants of the oil rich countries.
11y ago