3
98

[–] mHtt 3 points 98 points (+101|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Headline should be:

"Canadian Mining firm attempts to bankrupt Romanian Government for exercising democracy."

1
19

[–] Had 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

You can't make a clickbait title when one of the corporate overlords might look bad.

Plus that website actually seems legit and non-Gawkerish.

2
10

[–] mHtt 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

What if they always look bad because they are bad... so fuck 'em?

:)

11
-4

[–] [deleted] 3 points 55 points (+58|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

3
15

[–] YikYak 3 points 15 points (+18|-3) ago 

And they want to put a fucking cyanide pool in the mine too.

What a bunch of asshats.

3
25

[–] Deacon_Reds 3 points 25 points (+28|-3) ago 

This is a statement born of ignorance. Cyanide leaching is how the vast majority of gold, silver, copper, and zinc processing occurs. Including the metals in your smartphone and computer. Furthermore, cyanide degrades to harmless chemicals very rapidly in sunlight. Obviously there are some risks associated with spills not exposed to sunlight, but this is why environmental standards and regulations exist. If you are really so concerned about cyanide metal recovery, feel free to stop buying products that drive the demand for these metals. Alternatively, as such a smart guy, you could develop an extraction method that's safer and economically viable on a large scale. Something that the current alternatives have yet to prove.

1
7

[–] ShinyVoater 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

The standard rule of lawsuits is that you bring the biggest, scariest number to court you can remotely excuse, partly as a shakedown and partly because most cases aren't allowed bigger damages than initially claimed and I'm quite certain that applies in this one as well. Given that they didn't even invest a billion above board if the article's to be believed, I doubt they'll even win two.

0
1

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The point is that the lawsuit itself should not exist or should be thrown out on summary grounds. Corporations are not entitled to peoples' money just "cause".

0
3

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

Seriously, who will make the government pay?

0
2

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

Exactly. Specially a country that is so close to the Western/Russian front. No way the EU will risk a geo-political catastrophe over one Canadian mining company with their so called claim.

1
1

[–] josemon 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I would just say fuck it, I'm not paying. Invade us if you want. If they want to sanction Romania because of one Canadian mining company? Well... we'll just leave the EU and join the Russian side. It will never escalate that far.

1
51

[–] Konstamokh 1 points 51 points (+52|-1) ago 

Vattenfall is suing Germany, because we stopped using nuclear power.

That is what could happen to all European countries. It's ridiculous and anti-democratic.

0
10

[–] FlintRockBone 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

So why doesn't the government solve problems like that with force? I mean the US government kidnapped and tortured suspected terrorists for years (assuming that they ever stopped). It seems like it would only take a few disappearances for these types of legal problems to go away. The fact they corps and sue states and not have their ranks decimated lend credence to the theory that they are all working for the same powerful elites.

0
11

[–] NeedleInAHaystack 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

i think you're right. the governments and these massive multinational corporations are becoming more and more apart of the same entity.

It's not the politicians money that gets taken, it's public funds, our funds.

1
5

[–] josemon 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It's Germany. They can't because of WW2. They have to lay low when it comes to martial power for a few generations. But yeah, maybe politicians are getting cuts from this. Actually, they are politicians, so for sure there is some gain for them.

0
1

[–] Lodley 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So why doesn't the government solve problems like that with force?

Because the World Trade Organization (WTO) doesn't have any enforcement power. If Romania losses, it's up to Romania to pay up. If Romania won't then the company can go back to the WTO and ask to allow corrective tariffs to extract that money from Romanian imports to Canada. Then Canada has to create tariffs against Romanian imports, if Canada doesn't want to do that then the mining company is just out of luck.

0
0

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They kidnapped and tortured random people that were turned in via bounty hunters, you mean. "Suspected terrorist" is pushing it. Some were, obviously, but the vast majority, nope.

And really, let's not pretend they did that in the service of stopping terrorists.

The aim of the "War on Terrorism" is to bilk US taxpayers of their money by funneling it to no bid contracts. Torturing random people, who they knew were uninvolved, is in service to that goal, by creating more actual terrorists to keep the public scared.

0
9

[–] 1421929? 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

/v/TPPrally

We need to put a stop to this.

0
1

[–] bazaarcluster 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wow so basically the Swedish goverment is suing Germany (as Vattenfall is owned by the state).

0
34

[–] SterlingItachiArcher 0 points 34 points (+34|-0) ago 

This is bonkers.

A foreign company is going to sue a country for adhering to the will of her citizens.

Is this what the future has in store for us? Companies destroying environments and countries to afraid to say no for fear of litigation?

Bonkers I tell ya.

0
9

[–] 1421812? 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Hopefully not. We have /v/TPPrally here to fight it.

4
2

[–] woofcat 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

It kinda makes sense. If I buy land from a town that is zoned commercial and intend to build a mall. Then once I go to start building the mall the town goes 'naa we're zoning it a park'

Now you're out hundreds of thousands of dollars due to a bait and switch.

I haven't read into this specific case but normally these cases are brought about because the land was zoned one way and they had a green light from the government. Then at the last minute it was changed, do they deserve no compensation for this change?

If you say no, then you must be fine with the government changing safety requirements for cars and outlawing all cars that lack the option. Basically sticking you with the need to buy a new car.

0
9

[–] philomath 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I think you've got a good analogy except I read it to say the land was zoned residential, the company did a half billion in research assuming it would be rezoned to commercial, and the politicians noped the rezone in the final hour. Corporation is pissed all those palms they greased went with the public instead, so now they're suing.

0
1

[–] Devilbiter 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ah, the ol' bacon swiss.

3
14

[–] didntsayeeeee 3 points 14 points (+17|-3) ago 

So a case brought forth under current law is a "foreshadowing" of a future law? I thought it was an indication of what's present in the current law.

And if the Romanian government back flipped on permitting something after money had already been spent on the assumption it would be allowed then, heck yeah they owe compensation.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

5
4

[–] didntsayeeeee 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago 

If they give you the permit and then take it away, then you have a good case.

I don't trust this clearly agenda-driven article to have the correct timeline if events.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

2
-2

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

Right now it's a bit of a stretch on the part of the Canadian company - they have to stitch together bits of law to make the case that they have a cause of action against Romania, and then it's still iffy if the court will see it the same way.

In what way is the current situation any different than the proposed situation in the TPP drafts? From my point of view it looks exactly the same. The company doesn't have to "stitch together bits of law" there is an existing treaty they have to cite, the same with the TPP.

0
1

[–] daskapitalist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is the only comment in here that matters. If Romania backed out on this deal, then this is a straight up bust-a-deal-face-the-wheel breach of contract case that Romania should lose in five minutes. If there was no contract that Romania bailed on, then this case is absurd and will be tossed.

Here's a hint: It's extraordinarily unlikely to be the latter, because it would just be a waste of legal fees for the corporation.

Does anyone have a better source that isn't from an anti-corporate circlejerk site?

0
1

[–] canbot 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No contract no money. Assumptions mean nothing.

1
8

[–] InsectGuy 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Isn't this exactly what Canada are trying to avoid by getting out of the TTIP?

0
1

[–] brotoes 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

TTIP =/= TPP

5
5

[–] aurizon 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

Sounds reasonable. Romania granted them permits and everything went forward, and they an Romanian oligarch said lets steal this from them and hired a bunch of agitators and bribed some politicians.

So it is reasonable the Canadian company should be compensated.

Many of the former Soviet SSRs have pulled this. Look at Kazakstan and world wide minerals. They found a Uranium mines and government thugs stole it. Long story, but if there is no rule of law between nations on contracts, we all lose.

That said I do not want Walt Disney Corporation to shove US copyright laws onto all these foreign lands for the sole reason of balancing the US balance of trade via these royalties,

0
2

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

Sounds reasonable. Romania granted them permits and everything went forward, and they an Romanian oligarch said lets steal this from them and hired a bunch of agitators and bribed some politicians.

Could you provide me with a link to that info? I couldn't find anything like that in the article.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] aurizon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

go to the company web site, read all the press releases. See where the approval was given and then withdrawn.

I have no shares in the company, but I see this crooked bribery in former USSR fragments all the time

0
0

[–] aurizon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

go to the web site, read all the press releases. See where the approval was given and then withdrawn.

I have no shares in the company, but I see this crooked bribery in former USSR fragments all the time

1
0

[–] aurizon 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

look on company website 3-4 years back

1
2

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

Interesting, I did not know this was the case

2
0

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

This is how all the disputes companies win go. The company bought something from the government or a domestic business, then the country passes an "environmental law" that only applies to the thing owned by a foreign company. The other disputes are the one's like Phillip Morris's plain packaging dispute, it makes a lot of headlines when it's filed but the second it's in front of the tribunal it's thrown out.

2
1

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

I finally founds someone I agree with. In this case Romanian government is clearly at fault.

0
1

[–] aurizon 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yes they are driven by greed for the oligarchs bribes. Watch, if they kick El Dorado off this mine, in a little while they will announce a new and better deal - with the oligarch's company in the drivers seat.

1
5

[–] BustyChicksFTW 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Proud to be Romanian, not proud of being in Canada.

0
0

[–] Kain 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's the small group of people who ruin it for the many.

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)