I am opposed to the TPP.
The biggest single reason I oppose it has to do with
investor-state dispute settlement. The
Economix link you provided illustrated well the textbook case for why I find the inclusion of this aspect of the trade deal a deal killer.
Quote:
In 2011, the Australian government announced that it would discontinue the practice of seeking inclusion of investor state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements with developing countries. It stated that it:
Quote:
|
"...supports the principle of national treatment — that foreign and domestic businesses are treated equally under the law. However, the Government does not support provisions that would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses. Nor will the Government support provisions that would constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters in circumstances where those laws do not discriminate between domestic and foreign businesses. The Government has not and will not accept provisions that limit its capacity to put health warnings or plain packaging requirements on tobacco products or its ability to continue the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme... In the past, Australian Governments have sought the inclusion of investor-state dispute resolution procedures in trade agreements with developing countries at the behest of Australian businesses. The Gillard Government will discontinue this practice. If Australian businesses are concerned about sovereign risk in Australian trading partner countries, they will need to make their own assessments about whether they want to commit to investing in those countries... Foreign businesses investing in Australia will be entitled to the same legal protections as domestic businesses but the Gillard Government will not confer greater rights on foreign businesses through investor-state dispute resolution provisions."[26]
|
This statement is a reaction to Philip Morris' ISDS claim under UNCITRAL rules to challenge Australian tobacco Advertising Restrictions.[27] It may also be, that future BITs involving Australia shall not have ISDS-provisions. However, in the two years since that statement, Australia has not terminated a single bilateral investment treaty allowing for ISDS. Even if it would, most such treaties foresee post-termination-protection for many years after the termination has become effective.
|
The idea that corporations can take a government to ... not court, ... binding arbitration or somesuch and win a case in direct conflict to popular and legal laws horrifies me. I *think* the US would push for such a situation because we believe we have superior laws (some, yes, all, not even close) and that we have bigger, badder lawyers (maybe, but not always). I also think, cynically, that the opinions in favor of this trade deal, and *WORSE*, "fast track authority" (a separate abomination, itself alone worthy of a poisonous tide of bitter rants) are created, directed, popularized, and marketed by those with the money to purchase my attention at every turn--corporations. I am wary of the motivations of corporations; this is my logic:
Corporation: do (pressure your lawmaker to vote for) this thing (TPP) that is in my (corporate) favor. All things I (the corporation) do are in favor of my shareholders; this is my
raison d'ętre. This leaves nothing done in favor of anyone that is not a shareholder (this is the group to which I belong). I therefore withhold my trust and my support.
07-08-2015, 06:21 PM
Linear Mode
