Trans Pacific Partnership

[WarK]

This is a trade agreement that allows corporations to sue governments for, get this:

Peruvian Newspaper Reveals TPP Favors Foreign Companies[/url]"]The chapter also specifies that companies will be able to sue the state in private courts when they lose profits, or the expectation of profits, due to social conflicts and changes in the public health or environmental codes of a nation.

Is this the end of democracy? Corporations seem to be very powerful today. They own politicians and probably will use them to erode democracy further by passing laws that are favourable to them.

Tobacco industry fought for decades to keep cigarettes easily accessible to people. They used all the dirty tricks to hide the impact of smoking on human health. Now fossil fuel industry use the exactly same tricks. Bribe politicians (or is it called lobbying in English?), pay for bogus research that supposedly shows there is no climate change, especially not due to human activity.

Financial corporations' greed caused the financial crisis and they got more money thrown at them as thanx.

It seems like history has turned a full circle only now it's the corporations that rule us and not aristocracy. Last time humanity managed to break out but this time corporations are more powerful than governments.

So that's my little rant. What do you think the future holds for us?

 

[Laurens]

The end of democracy and probably the end of civilization if allowed to run it's course.

Something like this could see the end of any state intervention to curb corporate carbon emissions. I can already see Exxon suing the government for attempting to harm it's profits.

 

[Inferno]

Please don't give in to the hype!

Yes, these partnerships are pretty bad, but they're not as bad as they're made out to be.

Let's look at the actual document as well as the analysis from Wikileaks, upon which the news reports are based.

The leaked text shows that foreign investors would be able to demand compensation if new policies that apply to domestic and foreign firms alike undermine their
“expectations” of how they should be treated. This includes a right to claim damages for government actions (such as new environmental, health or financial policies) that reduce the value of a foreign firm’s investment (Article II.7 and Annex II-B on indirect expropriation)

So how about we look at Article II.7 and Annex II-B?

Article II.7 is concerned with expropriation, meaning the seizing of assets by a country because it may be in the best interests of the country. If assets are expropriated (eg. medical supplies in an epidemic) then all the country has to do is pay the company for the goods. It basically pays for the goods, nothing else.

Annex II-B again deals with expropriation. Annex II-B directly counters what WikiLeaks claims:

the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred;

In other words: If a country changes the law and the price/stock/"expectations" of a company drop, then so much the worse for the company. There will be no money paid to the company.

Policies to create domestic jobs, support domestic businesses or foster economic development would be subject to foreign investors’ demands for compensation.

Again, let's read the relevant article. (Article II.9.)
As far as I can tell, the article simply prohibits the country from imposing a limit on the production of the company.





________________________________________________________________________


And so on and so forth. As far as I can tell, there's nothing particularly untoward in the document. It looks like a pretty standard ISDS-document to me.
Which brings up the question if ISDS are a good thing or not. Please note that the official report on ISDS shows that 42% of all cases were awarded to the state... but only 32% were awarded in favour of the company. The rest (~27%) were settled. In general, companies think very hard if they want to challenge a country in such a case.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[WarK]

I've just noticed there's a fresh episode of BBC4's Analysis that deals with this topic. May be interesting.

Analysis Extra: Company vs Country