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

#1

[Permalink]

3 Likes
#2

Probably not.

1 Like
#3

Explain?

#4

and I thought “Terrorists” were the enemy.

3 Likes
#5

All these agreements on so-called “free trade” are negotiated outside the World Trade Organization’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?

#6

I for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

#7

Yeah. And the Australian Philip Morris is mentioned every single time ISDS comes up, which makes me think there aren’t many to choose from. There are over 1400 ISDS arrangements in place in Europe, and we don’t see a widespread repealing of laws. It certainly doesn’t mean you can just “repeal” standards at will. Sometimes, even if they win, all a company can get is compensation.

Criticism of free trade agreements is welcome, but Cory’s coverage is sensationalistic bordering on dishonest.

#8

Wha? Couldn’t almost all laws be viewed as ‘undermining future profits’?

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
#9

If memory serves, there’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
#10

Huh? Don’t large multinational corporations already have this power?

4 Likes
#11

I don’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 aren’t going to care about them.

1 Like
#12

And that’s where the militarized police comes to the scene.
Obey, or eat tear gas. Or worse.

4 Likes
#13

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

[quote=“JonS, post:8, topic:54380”]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?) don’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 don’t care much about corporate profits per se.

2 Likes
#14

So? It’s still a vast minority. At least it makes the fight more honest.

#15

Quite the opposite. As a proponent of self governance, I think that protection is too important to trust people who you don’t know with. Don’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
#16

Then … I’m not sure if you quite understand what the TPP is proposing. Because, while I agree with your latest post, it’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 wouldn’t be comprehensively fucked by corporate profits being the only criteria by which laws are judged (because profits just aren’t very interesting, or sumfink) because of some hippie daydream about succeeding to go live on the commune isn’t really practical.

I don’t think that [rigourously enforced corporate warfare] OR [global civil war] is the kind of choice we should be working towards.

#17

I do understand. I was planning on seceding and starting a global network of crypto countries anyway, even if the TPP hadn’t come along. It doing so only strengthens my resolve. The signatories would be fucked, so there’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 “hippie daydream” crack just makes it sound like “others” can magically start countries, corporations, or other groups while the average person cannot. You don’t seem to think it’s utopian idealism when some others do it. So, figure out who your friends are.

Um… did anybody here suggest any such thing? I’d rather just start a lot of new countries. If the old ones don’t like it is pretty much their problem to stew in.

1 Like
#18

Yeah, you did.

Right-oh, then. Good luck with that.

See @Shaddack’s earlier point about teargas.

4 Likes
#19

No - don’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.

Gee… 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
#20

I think Apple might have a head start here.

1 Like