General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can we agree that jobs are not the problem with TPP? [View all]cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Wait, I know, because the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks don't want the 99% to see the truth.
Elizabeth Warren and Rosa DeLauro: Who Is Writing the TPP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026720019
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30340-who-is-writing-the-tpp
The president argues that the TPP is about who will write the rules for 40 percent of the worlds economy the United States or China. But who is writing the TPP? The text has been classified and the public isnt permitted to see it, but 28 trade advisory committees have been intimately involved in the negotiations. Of the 566 committee members, 480, or 85 percent, are senior corporate executives or representatives from industry lobbying groups. Many of the advisory committees are made up entirely of industry representatives.
A rigged process leads to a rigged outcome. For evidence of that tilt, look at a key TPP provision: Investor-State Dispute Settlement where big companies get the right to challenge laws they dont like in front of industry-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside of any court system. Those panels can force taxpayers to write huge checks to big corporations with no appeals. Workers, environmentalists, and human rights advocates dont get that special right.
Most Americans dont think of the minimum wage or antismoking regulations as trade barriers. But a foreign corporation has used ISDS to sue Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage. Phillip Morris has gone after Australia and Uruguay to stop them from implementing rules to cut smoking rates. Under the TPP, companies could use ISDS to challenge these kinds of government policy decisions including food safety rules.
The president dismisses these concerns, but some of the nations top experts in law and economics are pushing to drop ISDS provisions from future trade agreements. Economist Joe Stiglitz, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, and others recently noted that the threat and expense of ISDS proceedings have forced nations to abandon important public policies and that laws and regulations enacted by democratically elected officials are put at risk in a process insulated from democratic input. That was exactly what Germany did in 2011 when it cut back on environmental protections after an ISDS lawsuit.