Companies should be able to sue governments. Companies have been able to sue governments for years.
-
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.
TTIP and CETA close to dead
- Thread starter KDR_11k
- Start date
- Status
Companies should be able to sue governments. Companies have been able to sue governments for years.
C
Contica
Unconfirmed Member
You know, I think it really is true that the way you say things is more important than what you actually say.
If you weren't so busy belittling everyone and stroking your ego, maybe you'd get your point accross better.
Because it sounds like you're saying precisely what you now claim to not be saying. You're clearly knowledgeable, but right now I don't have a very firm grasp of what you're for and against. So, you know, chill.
TheLaughingStock
Member
How so when deals like TTP and TTIP are heavy on protectionism, it's likely enforcement mechanisms for arguably good things like labor and environmental protection will be repeatedly violated as has been the case in the past, AND barriers are already low between many of the countries involved?
The ignorant folks are the ones pushing these deals way too hard. They should give up and stop selling out.
I bet you can cite all of this.
When i see that 30% of the public market in canada will be open for europeans and 90% of the public market in europe will be open for canadians i'm wondering about the fairness of ceta
And ceta could be a trojan horse for the us corporations to fight domestics laws like the standstill agreement about fracking via their canadian branches
And ceta could be a trojan horse for the us corporations to fight domestics laws like the standstill agreement about fracking via their canadian branches
It's alright, we don't get it. You do and we should listen to you for our own good.
This is definitely one way of saying 'I have problems with the agreements but I can't verbalise them, therefore I'm going to act dismissively towards people asking for these problems because it's more about the feels than the reals'.
Legit I've asked half a dozen times for citations, from literally any source, and nobody has backed up a single thing they've said while I have any time it was asked of me. The lack of intellectual honesty is staggering.
So, I just got a notification that another part of Belgium has joined the fray and is blocking CETA.
Democracy at work, I guess. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, this is front edge of the seat territory. Amazing, for better or worse.
To think we wouldn't be sitting in this thread had Brexit not kicked Juncker and Co in the family jewels. They were so close to pushing it through amidst mounting pressure and had to cave in at the last minute of a several-year-marathon after that British stunt, knowing full well that the deal would probably not survive the ratification by national parliaments. That's gotta hurt.
Democracy at work, I guess. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, this is front edge of the seat territory. Amazing, for better or worse.
To think we wouldn't be sitting in this thread had Brexit not kicked Juncker and Co in the family jewels. They were so close to pushing it through amidst mounting pressure and had to cave in at the last minute of a several-year-marathon after that British stunt, knowing full well that the deal would probably not survive the ratification by national parliaments. That's gotta hurt.
What does this even mean? I've provided links from independent experts. There's no Illuminati controlling the flow of information here.
Nothing says rollover and accept like three years of negotiations so far and another four projected, followed by a period of two or three years before those in the negotiations must sign it.
HarryHengst
Member
Yes, and that is bad. The only time a company should be able to sue a government is when the government isnt following its own laws.
If a government decides to enact new environmental laws or raise the minimum wage or some other law that might cost a company profits? Sucks for the company but there should never ever be a way for a company to sue a government because of that. And TTIP and CETA are ways to give more room for companies to do exactly that.
ClosingADoor
Member
Every national parliament has agreed however. One local one in Belgium opposed, so the national one there couldn't formally go through with it.
What do you think these lawsuits would be about then? It is when the country is not following the international law agreed upon. I don't really see the need for it, considering Europe has good enough systems as is for this, but the complaints about companies suing governments is a bit strange. This can happen already and is being done where needed.
This is not how ISDS provisions work. Companies can only sue and win if this change in legislation impacts on a pre-existing agreement (for instance Egypt raised the minimum wage but Veolia's investment was contingent on a labour costs remaining the same in their agreement) or imposes on existing or planned investment without compensation, scientific basis in the case of environmental regulations, or disproportionately impacts foreign companies without basis.
You cannot sue and win for lost profits.
RocknRola
Member
This other thread seems relevant (to the question of food quality control in NA/Europe).
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1286510
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1286510
ClosingADoor
Member
Europe has plenty of recalls for food problems also. I don't know what that thread is supposed to tell us?
What other region has declined to accept CETA? Brussels or the Flemish?
RocknRola
Member
Nothing in particular. The food thing was being discussed a few pages back, just thought it was relevant nothing more.
And yes, just recently Nestle had to recall a crapload of Kitkats in Europe because they had something in them (can't recall exactly what, but I think it was metal or glass bits for some reason).
Edit:
Ah, there we go. Neither metal or glass, plastic. In the Kitkat Chunky varieties.
https://www.dinheirovivo.pt/economia/nestle-recolhe-kit-kat-com-bocados-de-plastico-portugal-nao-esta-na-lista/ (In Portuguese)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21913847 (In English)
Brussels.
I can only offer a German language link since I'm on mobile, but I'm sure it will find its way to international news sites eventually.
That's the whole point of negotiations, eventually someone is going to find a loophole that they do not agree with while everyone else agrees, though they may have overlooked things. The deal will eventually go through but the concerns of the Belgian government should be addressed and it shouldn't be done true bullying. Brussels telling the Other part of Belgium they have until Wednesday to agree is clearly bullying.
HarryHengst
Member
Would be quite amazing if Brussels blocks Brussels. :lol
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Remind me to buy some....*googles Belgian food* waffles tomorrow to celebrate.
Brussels has four tiers of government: the city council, the regional parliament, the Belgian Government, and the European Parliament.
It has to happen from time to time lol
Better some mussels or frites.
really? 10 seconds on Google show numerous economists included Krugman answer Van Reenan that disagree with cuts in corporate tax, let alone total repeal.
I'm curious in regard to the PMI Australia case though, what do you feel was expropriated and do you see any problems in MNCs trying to intimidate states into behaving a particular way?
YourMaster
Member
You say that like it is less bad. Sure if a company makes an investment and assumes certain labor costs, and than minimum wage increases, that sucks for them.
But if I as an individual quit my job at age 63 with 2 years worth of saving with the knowledge that my state pension kicks in at age 65, it sucks just as much when they raise the retirement age by 2 years.
Governments should always balance their policies to both be as stable as possible so people can plan for the future, and have optimum progress, but it is up to them to pick that balance. And to the voters to find balanced politicians.
A company may have 'almost as much' rights as a person, never more.
Krugman is... a little special when it comes to some topics. His writings on the company tax are just wrong, to put it bluntly. He holds that companies feel the burden of the tax, which is just untrue: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/08/incidence.html
PMI's case was that Australia expropriated their branding and associated goodwill towards the brand. This was thrown out.
And clearly this is an issue (and the TPP, TTIP and CETA are part of a push to modernise ISDS provisions to allow governments further rein in exactly how they regulate in regards to public health and public goods). But the issue isn't ISDS per se, it's that we have four options in regards to how we regulate disputes between investors and governments:
1: The investors take it through ISDS provisions, which can change state behaviour for the worse (halting public health regulations, although this shouldn't be as problematic with newer agreements as it was with older ones), or;
2: The investors take their money and go home, which results in everyone losing. ISDS provisions are responsible for gains in excess of 10% of GDP in poorer countries lacking effective rule of law culture with un-biased judicial and legislative institutions, or;
3: The investors take their dispute through the countries court system, which can be problematic when legislatures can simply legislate away any concerns the investors may have, while judiciaries can turn into kangaroo courts for the home team, or;
4: The investors take their dispute to their home country, resulting in a state-on-state dispute, and possibly extreme tensions and violence between nation-states. The US was involved in 88 military interventions prior to WWII to protect American private investors.
Like most things, you can look and see an issue, but when you ask: 'what's the alternative?', there isn't much that pops out.
Personally, I believe governments should never enact retrospective policy unless there is a clear and pressing need for it. But unless you have a contractual obligation from the government showing you were guaranteed a retirement age of 63 then you have far less standing than Veolia did.
I wrote above why this is balanced.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I wouldn't bother with darkace. He is intentionally obtuse and never states clearly in one place his position on matters like PMI vs governments (seriously look how he has danced around different positions ITT) to make it difficult to argue against him. He really likes pretending that there is consensus for his points of view, even when they are highly controversial. He has done this ITT on the topic of ISDS with statements such as this:
Even though that is highly controversial. For example, here is a study from the University of Wisconsin Law School, which first reviews the available literature and reaches the conclusion that there is no consensus and then presents evidence arguing that they have very little effect on investment decisions (the term used in the paper is bilateral investment treaties, but the focus is on investor-state arbitration).
Here is free-trade think tank Cato Institute coming out against ISDS with the following main arguments (I omitted some of them, and added some of my own editorializing to some of them):
-ISDS is overkill as many governments are already doing what they can with their policies to attract international investment. Investments are risky by nature. Multinational companies (MNCs) are quite capable on their own to calculate risks, purchase insurance or include specific contractual agreements with governments in any deals made. If you believe in the magic of the market, then surely countries which want to expropriate assets (which almost never happens these days) would scare away future investors, and so the problem solves itself.
-ISDS discriminates against domestic investors as ISDS cases are only available to foreign investors and not domestic investors.
-ISDS may limit domestic sovereignty on issues pertaining to environment, health and public safety. Sure, there is language in there that is supposed to limit exploitation but what good is that when
-The language is often highly unspecific and open to interpretation. How exactly is fair and equitable treatment of foreign investment defined? Environmental and health laws should be based on science but what if scientific results are inconclusive? Or for protection of areas with unique and beautiful nature, maybe softer values should be allowed to inform decisions through local democracy, even if they are not fully based in hard science?
Libertarian free-trade think tank Cato Institute recommended the US government to drop its insistence on ISDS in TTIP.
I think maybe some free-trade enthusiasts become a bit too passionate in defense of free trade agreements and their urge to fellate corporations and so allow themselves to outright make shit up in order to state their positions as facts even though they are far removed from reality. (Case in point emotional breakdown) It's all about the feels over the reals.
ClosingADoor
Member
Setting deadlines when in negotiations is not bullying. It is kind of necessary when you have a ton of countries that need to do things, otherwise everyone is waiting forever on other parties to get stuff done.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Do you really think any of the bolded is likely between the EU and Canada, or the EU and USA. Seriously?
His Majesty
Banned
Brussels. The Wallonian socialists are in the local government of the Brussels-Capital region and of Wallonia and they're the driving force behind this whole ordeal.
The Flemish and federal government (centre-right) has already approved the agreement but needs the approval of every region to give the go ahead.
I also don't think that the parliament of the German speaking community has given its approval yet.
(yes we have a lot of parliaments and governments)
michaelius
Banned
I admire their courage to speak against unfovourable deal when rest of Europe tries to bully them into signing it.
Or rather I'm jelouse that their goverment is willing to stand for their people unlike ours which quietly accepted and tried to hide it by opening (pro-life/pro-abortion conflict)
Or rather I'm jelouse that their goverment is willing to stand for their people unlike ours which quietly accepted and tried to hide it by opening (pro-life/pro-abortion conflict)
Do you ever feel physical pain with the mental contortions you subject yourself to?
Mmmm. Controversy. For instance, let's look at the controversy in these papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01063.x/abstract
The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on FDI Dynamics said:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jae.721/abstract
https://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/FDI2011/papers/pps.pdf
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/41281/70462_1.pdf
http://www.hec.unil.ch/agoyal/docs/Persistence_JoF.pdf
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/627/1/World_Dev_(BITs).pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09692290903333103
If you look at the literature, there is near-consensus that ISDS provisions are, in the purely economic sphere, responsible for a small-to-medium sized gains in FDI. However, the gains are much larger in countries without the rule of law culture seen in countries such as the US and the UK.
Hold on, is this the bit where I attack the source because I can't argue the point?
Nah I'm intellectually honest, I'll tackle what you've actually said rather than misrepresenting.
Uh, what? The point is I want all countries to be better off. Restricting the ability for FDI to flow to countries without the institutional structure seen in richer countries in some mis-guided belief in the market (these are the institutions within the nation we are talking about, I'm not really sure what the market has to do with it) seems like a bit of a miss.
Last I checked countries don't have a history of discriminating against domestic investment in favour of foreign investment.
Well yea. But only in specific areas and under specific circumstances. The entire point of trade agreements is to limit domestic sovereignty in some areas. And newer trade agreements limit the ability for certain industries to access ISDS provisions almost entirely. The TPP has explicit provisions for health and environmental safety, for instance. I imagine TTIP will, but it's still in negotiation.
It's always amused me how the left and the right will use the exact same language in different areas. The sovereignty argument and Brexit was dismissed out of hand, but suddenly it's viable for trade agreements?
They're more than welcome to do whatever they want. As long as they compensate investors for their decisions. You cannot be successfully sued if you provide adequate compensation for expropriation.
And one of the points of these trade agreements is to modernise the areas where ISDS are valid, including updating definitions. The definitions CATO has given are seriously out of date.
Your inability to think critically just got to me. There's only so many times you can watch somebody lie about your position to push an agenda.
Also I have no interest in fellating corporations. IDK why some lefties have issues with things like compensating investors and ensuring a rule-of-law based societies. I understand you'd nationalise everything without compensation comrade, but this hurts over the long-run.
About as likely as you arguing honestly.
Nicktendo86
Member
With darkace on this one and, I must say, I'm kinda shocked to see so many people against free trade agreements.
Massively embarrassing for the EU. All eyes on whether the summit on Thursday is cancelled or not.
Massively embarrassing for the EU. All eyes on whether the summit on Thursday is cancelled or not.
Coriolanus
Banned
Where has that happened?
gutter_trash
Banned
especially when they are between progressive countries that have labour laws and environmental standards
if the EU can't strike a deal with friendly Canada, then good luck
Vigilant Walrus
Member
What the fuck are you talking about?
A corporation shouldn't be compensated because it feels it was robbed of potential profit. Particularly not when said company endangers people or the environment.
All the time? Venezuela has done it dozens of times. Canada has done it a few. Russia did it recently in a massive way with Yukos.
There are far more examples of countries unfairly expropriating assets than their are of companies winning ISDS cases when they shouldn't have (zero so far that I know of).
IDK why you bother responding to me when you don't respond to what I say in return.
Corporations can't sue for lost profit. The fact I have to repeat this over and over again makes me wonder.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I am not against free trade. Trade is already very free between US, Canada and EU. I don't mind them getting rid of the last percentage point in protections.
What I do mind is them sneaking in stuff like American IP protection laws, or ISDS behind our backs, while pretending it's about removal of customs.
I would fully support trade deals without these nefarious clauses.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
How is Belgium even governable with all these regions having vetos over something all EU governments are ready and willing to sign? The EU is guaranteed to take more control over trade deals in the future because they don't want to lose credibility and the rest of the EU is probably pissed off at Wallonia for refusing to sign, and they don't want such delays in the future.
The summit will probably be cancelled until a compromise is reached, which could take months.
The summit will probably be cancelled until a compromise is reached, which could take months.
gutter_trash
Banned
the worst part of Wallonia's protest has nothing to do with the trade agreement, it's a power play in local Belgium politics
Phantast2k
Member
It's democracy though if 0.3 percent of the EU population can block EU legislation. Very legit, much democracy.
YourMaster
Member
Many people are against free trade - they are afraid people will import the stuff cheaper than they can make it - but not all people against TIPP or CETA are against free trade. It is hardly controversial anymore to state that everything the EU does is detrimental for the well-being of the European citizens. Even in their own summary there are hints that the EU wants to project their awful policies onto - in this example - Canada.
They for instance specifically mention 'Feta cheese' in the treaty, which is exemplary for everything that's wrong with the EU. Feta cheese is a cheese originally from the Balkan states and Greece, but recently the highest quality Feta comes from Scandinavia(Denmark in particular). Now due to purely political reasons - Greece had no product with a 'protected origin' the EU determined that only Greece may make Feta, and that Feta from the other side of the border may no longer be called Feta. And now we call it 'Free trade' to try and get Canada to give into this silliness.
People are fooled into believing that governments can arrange free trade, while instead they are the only ones who stand in the way of free trade. A free trade arrangement can be short and sweet: No import tariffs on anything that meet local health and safety (and environmental) standards, and foreign companies have all the same rights as local companies with only exceptions to national security.
Nicktendo86
Member
I agree with much of this to be honest, the fewer barrier to trade the better.
The Feta cheese thing sounds familiar, we had something similar here in the UK a few years ago with Cornish pasties which were given a similar designation. It's why you can only get 'beef and veg pasties' rather than Cornish pasties in supermarkets now. They are the same bloody thing.
ClosingADoor
Member
Your example is exactly a measure to protect smaller companies and countries. Otherwise every multinational could just make their cheese the cheapest and call it after a region known for better quality. You now pick maybe one example where the Greeks don't make the highest quality. But there are plenty where the protection of a name like that is a good thing. This is not an awful policy at all, but one protecting the smaller producers from multinationals hijacking their name.
And everything the EU does is against the well-being of European citizens? Give me a break. The EU has ruled countless times in favor of things that are better for citizens here, protecting them from companies abusing the system and giving people equal rights across the union.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
Their protest is just as short sighted as Brexit, Canada is so compatible and so similar to Europe in terms of culture and social values. I would understand if they objected to TTIP because the US is definitely not compatible with Europe in these ways, but Canada?
Only thing good about Brexit is that it will be a bit easier to sign these deals. The Tories will gleefully fuck over the average person in the process though, plus a very large proportion of the UK's trade is with Europe so making them isn't going to be as beneficial as some think (not enough to replace the lost value of increased trade barriers with Europe). The UK just doesn't trade that much with Canada or Australia, etc at all.
Yeah, development of CETA and TTIP was coached by special interest groups so they could play by rules of their own choosing. And they like everything in one big package deal, so it's impossible to get rid of.
I'm all for eliminating tariffs and harmonizing standards but CETA and TTIP is much more than that.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Just posting a bunch of papers without summarizing them is a very lazy way to argue. So you will post some links supporting your argument I will post some supporting mine. Doesn't lead us anywhere. It's also dishonest because the papers you link to don't support your point. You claim there is consensus yet the papers you link acknowledge that there is no consensus. The final study you linked had this to say:
I am starting to think that you just want to overwhelm those you debate with with a bunch of links you know they won't read, rather than actually want to have a discussion. Very dishonest. The fifth paper doesn't even seem to be related to the topic we're discussing ffs.
Also, I would have liked to see you address the study by Yackee that I posted. None of the papers you linked to did.. For example, I would have liked to see you take on the result of his survey where only 5 % of GCs considered the presence or absence of BITs important for investment in foreign countries. (This is my fault though because I was lazy and only provided a link rather than talk through the paper.)
Also, like you say yourself, even the papers that find them be positively related to investment only really sees a big effect for developing countries. So even the studies you provided can't really be used as an argument for the need to have ISDS in treaties between US, EU and Canada.
YourMaster
Member
But that's the thing,... it's not about the few products where it actually makes sense to protect the name. It's about the fact that when such a policy is in place the bureaucracy and corruption takes over and applies it hundreds of times more to situations where it should not apply. Where people are swindled out of their livelihood for political gain, while purposefully opening loopholes for large companies to be able to get ahead.
EU regulations are made in such a way that only big existing companies can operate on the market, because startups cannot afford a handful of international lawyers.
And yes, you're right, there have been some instances where an EU ruling was fine. But when most of their policies are absolutely crippling it is not surprising that people are skeptical when they come with something new.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll