0
0

[–] Lodley ago 

Now that banks will be covered the author is claiming that ISDS will be used in some new and terrifying way. The only examples of "bad" ISDS that it links two are both clear cases of protectionism. Canada had a provision that made oil companies spend money in the local economy, which is something NAFTA banned. And the US created a "country of origin label" that charged only foreign meat with extra fees.

1
2

[–] WhoFramedReaderRabit 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

"Trump Card" subtle way to create negative feelings towards Donald Trump

0
2

[–] BigCheeze 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Nice. I love searching for things like this in our media.

0
3

[–] Rosenkavalier [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You might be right, but Trump has also said that he thinks the TPP is a terrible deal.

0
0

[–] TheKobold ago 

I think that is just a way to get more votes, he stands to benifit from the tpp being a big business owner.

0
3

[–] weezkitty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I got a chuckle out of "Trump card". There is nothing good that will come out of the toilet paper partnership

0
7

[–] Rosenkavalier [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

"The TPP, a 12-nation pact with countries in Asia and the Americas that requires congressional approval, includes an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. This allows foreign companies operating in TPP member countries to enforce the agreement without using that country’s court system. Instead, corporations can sue for monetary damages in independent tribunals before corporate lawyers who can rotate between advocating for investors and judging the cases themselves.

The lawyers have an inherent incentive to encourage more challenges with favorable rulings, so they can be paid to arbitrate them. Labor unions who allege violations of the trade deal cannot use ISDS directly; only international investors, i.e. large corporations, can."

"Article 11.2 of the agreement confirms that financial services providers are covered under the minimum standard of treatment obligation. This means that almost any change in financial regulations affecting future profits could be challenged in an extra-judicial tribunal, even if they equally applied to foreign and domestic firms and even if they were enacted in response to a crisis."

"Public Citizen estimates that ISDS rulings carried out under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral treaties have ordered over $3.6 billion in compensation to investors. To use one example, Exxon-Mobil won $17.3 million from Canada this year in an ISDS tribunal, after claiming that a law forcing offshore oil drillers to spend a percentage of revenues on local economic development violated the North American Free Trade Agreement. With the far larger amounts at stake in U.S. financial regulations, the compensation awards could be much higher.

Importantly, there is no ability to appeal an ISDS ruling, so even if countries believe it has been interpreted poorly, they cannot change the outcome and would owe potentially billions in compensation."

0
6

[–] Rosenkavalier [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is a disaster IMO; labor, environmental, and financial regulations will all be superseded by corporate lawyers. It's sad the degree to which we are being sold out just in one sweeping action.