I am from that perspective. We're only spending that money because we want to...I.e because we benefit from that treaty in other ways.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
I am from that perspective. We're only spending that money because we want to...I.e because we benefit from that treaty in other ways.
Yep, so now consumer protection laws are tied to economic benefits, which is terrible.
Candescence
Member
ISDS provisions are both entirely unnecessary, and really only exist so corporations can waste a country's time and money in a private tribunal that has absolutely no accountability whatsoever - hell, the EU's attempt to actually bring accountability and a formalized set of rules to ISDS has been rejected by the US entirely on principle, which speaks volumes. There is literally no reason to agree to ISDS, it provides absolutely no benefit to any government, only restrictions.
Hell, the tobacco carve-out really only serves to highlight the problems with the provisions, AND it's bringing together strange bedfellows that could prevent the TPP from ever becoming ratified by the US, which would destroy the agreement altogether.
Hell, the tobacco carve-out really only serves to highlight the problems with the provisions, AND it's bringing together strange bedfellows that could prevent the TPP from ever becoming ratified by the US, which would destroy the agreement altogether.
Exactly, which would result in governments being scared into not passing certain laws (either internally or by the public shouting "if it's going to potentially cost us that much, don't do it"). So by association, isn't it kind of like that? Obviously only with bigger corporations, but I'm pretty sure they're the ones we should be scared about.
Didn't we almost back away from plain paper packaging of cigarettes?
But that's a political choice we make, we can unmake it. Plus it should be noted that the reason why the government is investing in this case is that it wants to win to set a precedent. If they lost the case, I highly doubt it would result in repeal. I personally, would not repeal them because of the case, I would prefer to take it to the public and do it properly and democratically.
Got a list of treaties we've withdrawn from?
The convention relating to the status of refugees, to cite a modern example.
Pretty sure we still belong to it, we just suck. We gave withdrawn from the convention, which as I understand it is not a treaty. Could be wrong though.
It was a poor attempt at trolling. We're still a party to it. Should explain it a bit more though, there are no general mechanisms from withdrawing from treaties in international law. International law doesn't really care what the local laws of a country are, and conversely Australian law (unlike American law) doesn't really care what international law says.
Signing a treaty has zero legal impact in Australia by itself. What it does is it gives the federal government, who are limited in the types of subject matter they can legislate, the power to legislate on the subject matter of the treaty.
For example, Tasmania wants to build a dam, federal government opposes, signs a treaty about environmental protection and proceeds to sanction the area so that Tasmania can't build a dam there. (See the famous Tasmanian Dams case). Without having signed the treaty, the federal government would have had zero power to interfere with Tasmania's plenary power on the matter.
In order for a treaty to become law we have to actually pass legislation giving effect to that treaty. We can pass as little or as much of the treaty as we wish in order to make it law. In the case above, we are still technically a party to the convention but we have overridden the previous passages with more recent and specific legislation. (I don't know off hand how much of the convention in question is actually a part of Australian law).
P.S: Conventions are generally treaties but are named as such because they usually have multiple parties as opposed to a treaty which have traditionally been bilateral.
Were you banned or have we not just seen you for a while? Seems like yonks since I last saw your avatar.
bobnowhere
Member
Last night was great with the new PM and new Minister. Must be writing on the fly or they rewrote one to match the Abbott/Turnbull change or possibly they just saw it coming. 22c!
BTW: For those with Netflix, it's called Dreamland there.
I've tried watching it, and while I agree it's brilliant, it's just too fucking aggravating. Working in an office teeming with bureaucracy doesn't help much, either.
Too fucking close to home.
I also find it difficult to watch Curb as well, even though I kinda love that show too.
I watched season 1 on Netflix and while it had some good stuff in it, I found the combined incompetence of pretty much every character to just be overwhelming. Couldn't deal with it. If they were being held back by "the system" then okay, if not well overdone. But no, they all seem to be naturally useless.
I don't recall thinking season 1 was that amazing either. I don't know if season 2 is that much better or if I'm just feeling more receptive to it at the moment. To me, Nat and Tony come across as fairly competent. I wouldn't call Jim, Rhonda, or Karsten incompetent either. They're actually great at what they do, it's just their jobs are frustrating by design.
Hey legend166, here's a good article about censorship and "the left" that I think is pretty much saying what you were saying: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eres-something-i-can-do-defend-his-awful-book
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, pretty much. Reading the comments on the article make me want to bang my head against a wall though. Same old 'but it's not the state therefore it can't ever be censorship!' arguments. Who needs the state to censor if you've got ready and willing fringe groups who are passionate and loud enough to do the job by themselves?
Also, on Utopia,I watched the first season and it was hilarious. A really good send up of both offices and the government. But it was exhausting to watch by the end of it (especially considering I went through it fairly quickly on Netflix). Even The Office UK gave you little moments here and there to lift the spirits, and Tim was a great character to cheer for. I feel like Utopia is missing that - Rob Stitch and Nat are obviously the competent ones, but they're not exactly super likable.
Also Lehmo's character became incredibly grating by the end. The character had one trick and they kept riding it.
It probably doesn't help I can't fucking stand Kitty Flanagan or Lehmo, and given between them they have the most intentionally annoying roles either, it just tips me over the edge.
It probably doesn't help that the first season is literally the last building I worked in before my current one (Orica/ICI House).
See above. And I agree with you on The Office UK, there were little bits to cheer for. But nothing in Curb and no-one really in Utopia either.
Fun fact: I fired up Netflix with my region set to the US and Utopia came up as "Dreamland". Different intro and everything (well, different title card).
Trying, but I noticed via Twitter that they're not live. What's the point then if they're not going to interact with a live audience? And do they even have an audience?
http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...g-match-offence-expected-indulged?CMP=soc_567
That channel 9 Q&A show was a complete disaster.
According to Mark Latham Western Sydney has a "Muslim problem", and according to Jaquie Lambie alternative medicine should be used to treat mental health issues.
That channel 9 Q&A show was a complete disaster.
According to Mark Latham Western Sydney has a "Muslim problem", and according to Jaquie Lambie alternative medicine should be used to treat mental health issues.
sigh
Didn't we use to have an "Asian problem"?
Jaquie Lambie is very bemusing for me because
I know she means well and tries her best
but shes got some god awful ideas to go about it
D.Lo
Member
That article is pure bullshit from 'desperate to be offended' reactionary lefty wankers.
I watched the show, it was rough and a bit more rowdy with some gimmicks, but pretty much identical to what you see on Q&A, positions wise. Half the panel or more had made previous appearances on Q&A and made the same points. Any time someone said the standard 25 year old Facebook slactivist position the audience cheered and clapped, just like Q&A "I think women should be equal" (despite nobody arguing to the contrary) *cheers*.
It was garbage but so is Q&A.
I dont know what my opinion on free speech is really, but I think it would have something to do with power.
Target banning GTA might be censorship, but while EB and JB still sell it, it doesn't seem like that big a deal. If either of those two banned it, it would seem like a significant statement because of their power in the games retail market.
In a lot of cases, money equals speech. Companies pour billions into say climate change denial, or denying that that cigarettes cause cancer, or downplaying the link between soft drinks and obesity, or into educational institutions in return for hiring economists that they agree with.
I think free speech is used to justify all kinds of shitty things too. Lots of gamergaters on Twitter argued that blocking them on Twitter constituted censorship.
So my answer to free speech might be that censorship is entirely justified in some cases. Yes, inevitably mistakes will be made, but I think there are examples of mistakes in the opposite direction too, eg the media insisting on "both sides" in the climate change "debate" for far too long.
I dont think you're using the right word here tbh.
they're idiots. if i shut my ears that's not censorship. if i shut your mouth, then that's censorship. (If i shut your mouth through pressure enforced by a lot of people agreeing with me, that's censorship? tyranny of the majority? democracy? idk)
fire, crowded theatre, etc.
It's in the context of shared block lists though, so that's a little closer to the latter, although definitely still the former.
Imagine it a positive policy-based election. Wouldn't that be something.
Interesting direction we're heading in, if this analysis is accurate.
Interesting direction we're heading in, if this analysis is accurate.
Its still optional though. Would be different if say twitter or an isp (or a government) installed it by default.
People publishing their block lists is not much different to me posting the contents of my neogaf ignore list.
Yeah caught part of this, it was terrible. Not just what was being said but that half the time you couldn't hear anyone as they were all shouting over each other.
Latham's comments were characteristically horrific (even deciding to endorse Trump at one point), Lambie was a joke and I had to turn it off.
Yeah, on the Twitter thing - block away. But probably don't campaign for Twitter to shut down the account (not that they did this (I think), just as an example).
Its refreshing at the moment. After Labor's announcement for $10 billion infrastructure fund/projects, Scott Morrison said he's open to discussion on it! Bi-partisanship, what even.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...alls-to-move-rape-victim-to-australia/6842482
And probably not an abortion.
This poor lady is going to get PTSD
And probably not an abortion.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Is he wearing a fucking ned kelly hoodie while protesting the death of a police worker?
Oh, there's been plenty of bi-partisanship this term! Boat people, data retention, all the good things!!
sigh
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
LMAO. Eureka flag too, which always reminds of one of the rallies that John Safran covered. Furious unionist vs Eureka flag waving nazi.
Forty-five nationalities at Eureka, you fucking clown. Go read a bit of history, genius, hey?
Seriously, so many people are going to emerge from their time on Nauru with permanent trauma. It is sad and disgusting.
Should crop out the "No More" from the top of that poster so it looks like she's for all those things.
bobnowhere
Member
D.Lo
Member
Lol very good.or:
or:
*like*
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared
EFF looks at the leaked final build of the IP chapter of the TPP.
Awesome. Sad that I feel I have to put my albeit vain hope in the americans not ratifying it.
EFF looks at the leaked final build of the IP chapter of the TPP.
Awesome. Sad that I feel I have to put my albeit vain hope in the americans not ratifying it.
Between this and chinas new credit system the world is taking a step into cyberpunk dystopia
bobnowhere
Member
I was going to make a joke about more teeth than brain cells.
bobnowhere
Member
Yeah, the Tories have brought in Aussie Lynton Crosby and they've gone full brown people scare campaign. Amazingly their election campaign is going for more than 100 days, you'd give up the will to live by the end of it.
I could ultimately put up with the election campaign if at the end the Tories actually lost.
Candescence
Member
Well, they brought him over because the Tories are in panic mode and Harper is well on his way towards getting booted out of government, so that's a positive, at least.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked