TPP leak: states give companies the right to repeal nations' laws

[Permalink]

3 Likes

Probably not.

1 Like

Explain?

and I thought ā€œTerroristsā€ were the enemy.

3 Likes

All these agreements on so-called ā€œfree tradeā€ are negotiated outside the World Trade Organizationā€™s (WTO) framework. Conspicuously absent from the countries involved in these agreements are the BRICs countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

I for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

Yeah. And the Australian Philip Morris is mentioned every single time ISDS comes up, which makes me think there arenā€™t many to choose from. There are over 1400 ISDS arrangements in place in Europe, and we donā€™t see a widespread repealing of laws. It certainly doesnā€™t mean you can just ā€œrepealā€ standards at will. Sometimes, even if they win, all a company can get is compensation.

Criticism of free trade agreements is welcome, but Coryā€™s coverage is sensationalistic bordering on dishonest.

Wha? Couldnā€™t almost all laws be viewed as ā€˜undermining future profitsā€™?

Minimum wages = high staff costs = fewer future profits
Environmental protection = higher operating costs = fewer future profits
Worker health and safety = higher operating costs and/or lower productivity = fewer future profits

When corporate profits become the only thing that matters, we are comprehensively fucked.

12 Likes

If memory serves, thereā€™s a few hints in Dune that the Great Houses began as corporations that got too big for their britches. Life imitates art - is it too soon to choose a megacorp to swear fealty?

5 Likes

Huh? Donā€™t large multinational corporations already have this power?

4 Likes

I donā€™t think so. Would people rather suck it up and enjoy a future as slaves? Or secede from the treaty nations? If the profits only matter to a few, most people arenā€™t going to care about them.

1 Like

And thatā€™s where the militarized police comes to the scene.
Obey, or eat tear gas. Or worse.

4 Likes

The comment you quoted was in the context of, and inextricably linked to, this

[quote=ā€œJonS, post:8, topic:54380ā€]Minimum wages = high staff costs = fewer future profits
Environmental protection = higher operating costs = fewer future profits
Worker health and safety = higher operating costs and/or lower productivity = fewer future profits[/quote]
If you think that no minimum wage, no environmental protection, and no OSH protections (remember this gem?) donā€™t matter, then you have truly achieved zen enlightenment.

Most of the rest of us mere mortals are probably likely to retain at least some interest in being able to eat, breath, drink water, and retain possession of all our limbs, even if we donā€™t care much about corporate profits per se.

2 Likes

So? Itā€™s still a vast minority. At least it makes the fight more honest.

Quite the opposite. As a proponent of self governance, I think that protection is too important to trust people who you donā€™t know with. Donā€™t leave the decisions which matter most to shadowy, unaccountable institutions. These are your responsibility and mine, as much as they are anybody elses.

1 Like

Then ā€¦ Iā€™m not sure if you quite understand what the TPP is proposing. Because, while I agree with your latest post, itā€™s completely at odds with the provision in the TPP which is being discussed, which is what prompted my comment being comprehensively fucked.

To put that another way; you saying we wouldnā€™t be comprehensively fucked by corporate profits being the only criteria by which laws are judged (because profits just arenā€™t very interesting, or sumfink) because of some hippie daydream about succeeding to go live on the commune isnā€™t really practical.

I donā€™t think that [rigourously enforced corporate warfare] OR [global civil war] is the kind of choice we should be working towards.

I do understand. I was planning on seceding and starting a global network of crypto countries anyway, even if the TPP hadnā€™t come along. It doing so only strengthens my resolve. The signatories would be fucked, so thereā€™s a great incentive to not belong to a signatory.

Corporate charters have been groomed to be like this over generations. They get their authority from their host countries. Use your authority to instate corporate charters for new businesses to take their place. Your ā€œhippie daydreamā€ crack just makes it sound like ā€œothersā€ can magically start countries, corporations, or other groups while the average person cannot. You donā€™t seem to think itā€™s utopian idealism when some others do it. So, figure out who your friends are.

Umā€¦ did anybody here suggest any such thing? Iā€™d rather just start a lot of new countries. If the old ones donā€™t like it is pretty much their problem to stew in.

1 Like

Yeah, you did.

Right-oh, then. Good luck with that.

See @Shaddackā€™s earlier point about teargas.

4 Likes

No - donā€™t go putting declarations of war in my mouth. I am being positive about this, encouraging people to create something new. I never said anything about interfering with already existing countries. The important thing is for people to know that they are not a captive audience, they have options.

Geeā€¦ one group wants to set me up to make my own countries with people I trust, another tells me that I need to line their pockets or die. Whichever should I choose?

1 Like

I think Apple might have a head start here.

1 Like