Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Global Corporatocracy is Almost Fully Operational
In the last month alone world leaders from 12 countries, including the U.S., Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Mexico, pledged to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by the end of the year. On the other side of the globe, meanwhile, Europe has signed a sweeping free trade agreement with Canada. And what’s more, despite all the furore over allegations of NSA and GCHQ spying on European national leaders, most EU member states are determined to ensure that the fallout from the scandal does not derail ongoing talks for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a treaty that would effectively knit together countries with nearly half the world’s GDP into a massive free-trade zone.
Indeed, the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already suggested that it may be necessary to temporarily suspend negotiations — not out of concern for joining in partnership with a nation whose recent actions have betrayed every possible notion of mutual trust, but rather out of fear that continued negotiations in the current climate could feed anti-free trade sentiment:
“If such events continue, and more news comes out, I fear that those who are against the free trade agreement in principle will become the majority,” said Schulz during last week’s EU summit. “My advice is to stop for a moment and discuss how we can avoid such a development.”
All of which begs the question: why all the sudden newfound enthusiasm for more free trade? Even more important, why all the secrecy? Why are our leaders desperately reconfiguring the legal super structures of global trade without either consulting their respective voting constituencies or even divulging what is actually up for grabs in the negotiations?
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/the-global-corporatocracy-is-almost-fully-operational.html#dPUGuaf5k5QfpXXr.99
Indeed, the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already suggested that it may be necessary to temporarily suspend negotiations — not out of concern for joining in partnership with a nation whose recent actions have betrayed every possible notion of mutual trust, but rather out of fear that continued negotiations in the current climate could feed anti-free trade sentiment:
“If such events continue, and more news comes out, I fear that those who are against the free trade agreement in principle will become the majority,” said Schulz during last week’s EU summit. “My advice is to stop for a moment and discuss how we can avoid such a development.”
All of which begs the question: why all the sudden newfound enthusiasm for more free trade? Even more important, why all the secrecy? Why are our leaders desperately reconfiguring the legal super structures of global trade without either consulting their respective voting constituencies or even divulging what is actually up for grabs in the negotiations?
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/the-global-corporatocracy-is-almost-fully-operational.html#dPUGuaf5k5QfpXXr.99
Interesting to note the stance of the "Social Democratic" EU parliament leader, no?
I hope people understand that we are on the verge of allowing corporate lawyers, who will take turns being judge in an international and not appealable kangaroo court to rule the world. Here's the EFF on state-investor disputes:
Apparently a country’s own courts can’t be trusted to administer this kind of lawsuit, so investor-state also requires the creation of a new court. It would be comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being judge and/or corporate advocate.
Even if this kangaroo court ruled in favor of the defendant nation, court costs alone would scare countries from adopting (or enforcing) pro-user policies where they might potentially inhibit investor profits. The investor-state tribunal bills its time by the day and decides for itself how many days to work, so it can rack up as many days of work they want. Given this system, it's then no surprise that current investor-state court costs average about 8 million dollars per case. So even if it wins, the country has to pay those court fees, the lawyer fees, plus compound interest. That’s money that would doubtless be better spent elsewhere.
The process is absurd as well. Once a decision has been issued, there is no way to appeal it. That's right, if this court rules that the nation is at fault and has to pay huge fees that could even bankrupt a government, there's no other way for the country to overturn that decision.
The supposed “cause” of these lost “investments” can include environmental standards, labor standards, and yes, even intellectual property rules. So far, countries have been forced to shell out almost half a billion dollars thanks to similar provisions in other trade agreements. The cases have mostly dealt with environmental protection regulations (challenged by oil companies), or pharmaceutical companies (complaining about regulations invalidating their medicine patents). Ecuador was ordered to pay 2.3 billion dollars in damages and fees to Occidental Petroleum last year, in a dispute over oil exploration. Eli Lily and Company, a pharmaceutical giant based in the U.S., filed a $500 million lawsuit against Canada last month under a similar investor-state provision contained within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Even if this kangaroo court ruled in favor of the defendant nation, court costs alone would scare countries from adopting (or enforcing) pro-user policies where they might potentially inhibit investor profits. The investor-state tribunal bills its time by the day and decides for itself how many days to work, so it can rack up as many days of work they want. Given this system, it's then no surprise that current investor-state court costs average about 8 million dollars per case. So even if it wins, the country has to pay those court fees, the lawyer fees, plus compound interest. That’s money that would doubtless be better spent elsewhere.
The process is absurd as well. Once a decision has been issued, there is no way to appeal it. That's right, if this court rules that the nation is at fault and has to pay huge fees that could even bankrupt a government, there's no other way for the country to overturn that decision.
The supposed “cause” of these lost “investments” can include environmental standards, labor standards, and yes, even intellectual property rules. So far, countries have been forced to shell out almost half a billion dollars thanks to similar provisions in other trade agreements. The cases have mostly dealt with environmental protection regulations (challenged by oil companies), or pharmaceutical companies (complaining about regulations invalidating their medicine patents). Ecuador was ordered to pay 2.3 billion dollars in damages and fees to Occidental Petroleum last year, in a dispute over oil exploration. Eli Lily and Company, a pharmaceutical giant based in the U.S., filed a $500 million lawsuit against Canada last month under a similar investor-state provision contained within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Of course, in some places people do get off their duff to protest "free trade" corporatocracy, like in Colombia.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
