Support NeoGAF

[Shiggy]

What are the chances this will go through congress? Fearing the worst for TTIP already.

 

[Pedrito]

It amounts to a subsidy because the foreign company gets a benefit that other companies do not have access to.

I don't know if it is a fact that the foreign company and government will always be adversaries. ISDS is a perfect avenue to cut secret deals.

It's not a benefit if the foreign company was wronged. It's just reparation. And nothing stops another company from suing for the same reason.
If I sue my city because of a flood and I get compensated, it doesn't mean my neighbour is screwed because he doesn't have access to the same "benefit". It just means he didn't sue.

As for your second point, it's a valid concern, but it's 100% in conspiracy theories territory. Has there been such cases in the past? Nothing stays secret forever.

 

[numble]

It's not a benefit if the foreign company was wronged. It's just reparation. And nothing stops another company to sue for the same reason.
If I sue my city because of a flood and I get compensated, it doesn't mean my neighbour is screwed because he doesn't have access to the same "benefit". It just means he didn't sue.

As for your second point, it's a valid concern, but it's 100% in conspiracy theories territory.

I don't think the analogy works, because 1) it isn't about physical harm, but "regulatory harm" that is harder to quantify and 2) domestic investors do not have access to ISDS.

This is why there was so much discussion about tobacco companies suing about being "harmed" by public anti-smoking laws.

Most secret ISDS rulings have stayed secret.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

It is a free trade agreement and that's what almost all free trade agreements are.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

How does the TPP align with the definition of free trade if they're simultaneously raising trade barriers and introducing new regulations net? Moreover, trade barriers between the countries involved are already low.
http://www.vox.com/cards/trans-pacific-partnership/what-is-the-trans-pacific-partnership

There are also issues with the fundamental claims of liberalization.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596915986/?tag=neogaf0e-20

And even if we put those things aside we still have to deal with the estimated gains from this plan probably being too small to measure. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1692509/err176.pdf

So, it sucks as a summary.

 

[Pedrito]

I don't think the analogy works, because 1) it isn't about physical harm, but "regulatory harm" that is harder to quantify and 2) domestic investors do not have access to ISDS.

This is why there was so much discussion about tobacco companies suing about being "harmed" by public anti-smoking laws.

Most secret ISDS rulings have stayed secret.

1)Well, I could instead give the example of an unsuccessful bidder in a call for tenders that sue the government for lost profits.
2)True

Anyway, I think we could go on and on. I don't really disagree with you but I just don't think there's something inherently sinister with ISDS. It could be used in nefarious ways, but so can many other things.

Even if the courts were involved, it often ends up with a settlement anyway and the content is just as secret.

 

[AmyS]

It is interesting to see the more Sanders Left and Tea Party Right essentially on the same side on this issue. The exact reasoning for wanting to see it be killed may be different, but they are clearly allies on this issue.

Most GOP candidates support it. Exceptions are Trump, Santorum, and Huckabee. Cruz is more unclear I think. I think he supports it, but is being a bit critical because he knows it is hated by the Tea Party. Carson used to hate it, but told the WSJ he now supports it yesterday.

Yep, saw that...

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Friday that he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiated by the White House – aligning himself more with the GOP’s establishment wing than with the social conservatives who have powered his campaign.

Mr. Carson’s backing of the 12-nation Pacific trade deal places him at odds with Donald Trump, his chief rival for support among anti-establishment Republicans. Mr. Carson had expressed skepticism about the TPP, saying in a June interview with the Huffington Post that he would not give President Barack Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate the deal.

Now, a day after the White House posted the text of the TPP deal online, Mr. Carson’s campaign said Friday that he supports the final product.

Mr. Carson, spokesman Doug Watts said, “believes the agreement does help to level the playing field in key markets and is important to improve our ties to trading partners in Asia as a counterbalance to China’s influence in the region.” Mr. Watts said Mr. Carson is “now inclined to support TPP, with reservations.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/06/ben-carson-backs-white-houses-tpp-trade-deal/

:/

 

[noshten]

It is interesting to see the more Sanders Left and Tea Party Right essentially on the same side on this issue. The exact reasoning for wanting to see it be killed may be different, but they are clearly allies on this issue.

So Obama and Carson are also interesting allies, by that same logic.

You'd be suprised how politics make for strange bedfellows

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You need some mechanism to enforce the deal, and they're going with an established system. I haven't heard of any alternatives to ISDS. The ideal trade deal for a particular country would have exactly one signatory. Countries have diverse interests, so laws are always messy. The meat of the TPP is simple - should we further entangle our economies? I think the protectionist argument is legitimate, but I think we should do it. I thank you and the previous poster for discussing free trade, but this thread is not about that at all. It's about how this is the moment where America turns into V for Vendetta. Revealing scary-sounding provisions is pretty shameless, imo. That tactic is always used to challenge otherwise banal proposals. Let's be real - anything truly odious will be blocked by federal courts.

You really don't understand how ISDS works then. The whole point of ISDS is that it gives supranational power to corporations. They can take a grievance with any individual nation's government to a tribunal of judges who are appointed by a completely unknown mechanism involving the aggrieved corporation. This "Corporate Supreme Court" tribunal meets secretly, rules on the grievance, and then the nation's government either follows this ruling or risks being removed from the trade bloc. The government of the nation is essentially no longer sovereign over it's own state, the corporation has more power than the government of that nation in the ISDS judgment.

Because the ISDS corporate tribunal's ruling takes precedence over any laws passed by the sovereign government of said nation, it can't be "blocked" by the nation's own courts. The nation's courts don't even know about the ruling because the entire process occurs in secret to begin with. Furthermore, the nation's own courts are superseded by the tribunal because the corporate tribunal's jurisdiction is effectively the entire 12-nation trade bloc covered by the TPP, so even if the ruling wasn't secret, there isn't anything the nation's own court system could do about it.

If revealing the truth is shameless, then this world is already doomed anyways.

 

[Pedrito]

You really don't understand how ISDS works then. The whole point of ISDS is that it gives supranational power to corporations. They can take a grievance with any individual nation's government to a tribunal of judges who are appointed by a completely unknown mechanism involving the aggrieved corporation. This "Corporate Supreme Court" tribunal meets secretly, rules on the grievance, and then the nation's government either follows this ruling or risks being removed from the trade bloc. The government of the nation is essentially no longer sovereign over it's own state, the corporation has more power than the government of that nation in the ISDS judgment.

Because the ISDS corporate tribunal's ruling takes precedence over any laws passed by the sovereign government of said nation, it can't be "blocked" by the nation's own courts. The nation's courts don't even know about the ruling because the entire process occurs in secret to begin with. Furthermore, the nation's own courts are superseded by the tribunal because the corporate tribunal's jurisdiction is effectively the entire 12-nation trade bloc covered by the TPP, so even if the ruling wasn't secret, there isn't anything the nation's own court system could do about it.

If revealing the truth is shameless, then this world is already doomed anyways.

Well you're in luck, it's not so unknown afterall:

Within 20 days of the delivery of the request for the establ ishment of a panel,under Article 28.7.1 (Establishment of a Panel), the complaining Party or Parties on the one hand, and the responding Party, on the otherer, shall appoint a panellist and notify each other of those appointments.
[...]
if the disputing Parties fail to appoint a chair pursuant to subparagraph (d)(i) by the time the second panellisthas been appointed or within 35 days of the delivery of the request for the establishment of a panel under Article 28.7.1 (Establishment of a Panel), whichever is longer,the two panellists appointed shall, by common agreement,appoint the third panelist from the roster established pursuant to Article 28.10.3 (Qualification of Panellists and Roster Members). The third panellist shall serve as chair.

So the same exact mechanism as in any other commercial arbitration.

 

[Lafiel]

What's profoundly amazing is if politicians and the mainstream media were actually honest about what the TPP entails they would be mass protests and riots worldwide.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What's profoundly amazing is if politicians and the mainstream media were actually honest about what the TPP entails they would be mass protests and riots worldwide.

Everyone's basically trying to bury it so no one knows about it in the hopes it can pass without notice. The amount of power and influence being brought to bear to ensure that this thing passes is pretty impressive TBH. Too bad the people who have power in this world don't care about something like the Syrian Civil War, they could have had it resolved yesterday.

 

[kame-sennin]

I really can't work out what's in this for Obama.

Same. I don't get why Obama is pushing this at all.

Obama has always been a corporate politician. He gets the same thing from this that he gets from any other pro corporate deal.

 

[Kurdel]

Here in Canada an open and public debate was an election promise of the newly elected Liberal Party.

Hopefully that actually means something.

 

[daycru]

Obama is a neoliberal. No idea why many don't get this.

He looks cool in sunglasses and delivers well timed zingers against the bad guy party.

 

[noshten]

The TPP and State Sovereignty: A Toothless Preamble, Weak Code of Conduct, Secret Proceedings, and a Tobacco Carve-Out That Might Not Carve Out

Conclusion

In summary, then, the FT coverage of the ISDS chapter of the TPP ranges from outright wrong to weakly mis- or disinformative.

1) The Preamble is only, as it were, informative. It is not normative, and in itself does not establish the rights of states to regulate for the welfare of their citizens;

2) The ISDS “Code of Conduct” is no such thing, since it does not include ethical canons or guidelines for outside activity;

3) ISDS proceeedings are most definitely not required to be public; the parties can agree that they be secret, and the confidentiality clause is a loophole even a bad lawyer could drive a truck through;

4) The so-called tobacco carve-out still permits challenge, and hence does not change the power imbalance between rich and threatening corporations and states that are small or poor.

In other words, if NC were WaPo, it would be awarding the FT multiple Pinocchios for its coverage of the ISDS.[4] Could do better!

The TPP is a major international agreement. Is it too much to ask that the financial press take this story seriously?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015...bacco-carve-out-that-might-not-carve-out.html


There you go guys, a dissection of the legal ramification of the TPP, it's a fairly long article but feel free to challenge it's stance by applying the "have you read the 6000 pages defense"

 

[FuuRe]

I'm actually scared... Chile here

Wll have to speed up that plan to move to Iceland i guess...

 

[Daniel B·]

Kyle's take (video), from Secular Talk.

Obama should lower his head in shame (one of the worst aspects of TPP, the kangaroo tribunals, have made it into the final draft)...

And, according to a recent Guardian article, despite Hillary Clinton's recent statements, on TPP, she would "come around" on the issue. Yeah, no surprise there:

But many moderates believe she will come around once the primary contest is over, particularly over trade when her opposition to Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal is the biggest thorn in the side of pro-business Democrats.

“I’d lie if I said I wasn’t disappointed with the statement that she made on TPP,” says Representative Kind. “Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be, but given the necessities of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially.”

From agreed. “Hillary will bend a little bit, but not so much that she can’t get herself back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing,” he said.

 

[Antiwhippy]

The article didn't say that she would accept it, just some moderates believe that she will.

 

[JustenP88]

It is interesting to see the more Sanders Left and Tea Party Right essentially on the same side on this issue. The exact reasoning for wanting to see it be killed may be different, but they are clearly allies on this issue.

Most GOP candidates support it. Exceptions are Trump, Santorum, and Huckabee. Cruz is more unclear I think. I think he supports it, but is being a bit critical because he knows it is hated by the Tea Party. Carson used to hate it, but told the WSJ he now supports it yesterday.

Uh, isn't Hillary against it (now) too? Is this a lame attempt to tie Sanders with the Tea Party or am I being defensive?