General Discussion

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)

2. Okay, that's one side of the arguement - but doesn't address the if x, then y part of my question

Sun Jun 19, 2016, 12:57 PM

Jun 2016

And in fact, it is not clear, but many groups whose main concern is global warming, that secret panels (I know, that sounds so Bilderberg, but what else to call them?) will be able to challenge carbon emission decisions by sovereign states.

So say, that is the hypothetical, and you've answered not x, so not y. But others are saying x - and my question was - then what about y? Would companies simply move abroad to be able to take advantage of the international review panels?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question about the TPP [View all] floppyboo Jun 2016 OP

Read it yourself - we don't need speculation. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #1

Okay, that's one side of the arguement - but doesn't address the if x, then y part of my question floppyboo Jun 2016 #2

No secret panels in TPP. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #3

that's why I put 'secret' in quotes. Can we settle on 'independant'? floppyboo Jun 2016 #5

Why are you against AFL-CIO being able to sue foreign countries over labor violations? Recursion Jun 2016 #15

huh? was that question for me or yellowdog? floppyboo Jun 2016 #16

That was for you. Why do you oppose AFL-CIO being able to sue foreign governments when they violate Recursion Jun 2016 #18

I don't want that at all, and never said as much. floppyboo Jun 2016 #25

and seriously off-topic floppyboo Jun 2016 #17

Something isn't "off-topic" just because you have no positive way to address it. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #29

Uh no- its off topic because it doesn't address the OP and has nothing to do with anything in the OP floppyboo Jun 2016 #34

Here is an interesting take on what would need to change in the wording of the agreement floppyboo Jun 2016 #4

How does this relate to the specific guidelines in TPP? yallerdawg Jun 2016 #6

You wrote: floppyboo Jun 2016 #7

just to add - how will this prevent a analogous repeat of off-shore banking? floppyboo Jun 2016 #9

The title of this OP is very misleading. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #11

It is NOT speculation, any more than your platitudes are. floppyboo Jun 2016 #8

Facts are not "platitudes." yallerdawg Jun 2016 #10

no - YOU cited an article which mentions independant review panels floppyboo Jun 2016 #12

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #13

You're citing speculation from last year? yallerdawg Jun 2016 #19

Did the leaked text change much from the later release? brentspeak Jun 2016 #22

You know the full text is available, right? Recursion Jun 2016 #14

You are kidding, right? floppyboo Jun 2016 #20

"No time to read it... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #21

DU's 'Creative Speculation Group' yallerdawg Jun 2016 #23

Maybe you can ask Hillary what it is in the TTP's wording that she objects so strongly to floppyboo Jun 2016 #24

Her words. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #26

Exactly! So support the nominee and stop pretending everything is peachy. floppyboo Jun 2016 #27

I also support our Democratic President Barack Obama. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #30

Um, Hillary is not exactly a cheerleader for TTP floppyboo Jun 2016 #31

I am praying both are stopped and US pressure does not influence any swhisper1 Jun 2016 #35

These same "tribunals" have been in trade agreements since 1959, even trade Hoyt Jun 2016 #28

Wow - I can't believe 3 people on this thread have read the whole thing! floppyboo Jun 2016 #32

US companies use ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) courts to pollute other countries. Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #33

such atrocities would happen daily if they pass swhisper1 Jun 2016 #36

Hasn't happened under NAFTA and hundreds of trade agreements with the same provisions since 1959. Hoyt Jun 2016 #38

they were not written by corporations, they were at the table, but were controlled in those days swhisper1 Jun 2016 #39

There's much more to the story. Canada could not ban MMT under its environmental laws, so they Hoyt Jun 2016 #37

interesting, thank you. It is these nuanced terms that allow the citizens to be screwed swhisper1 Jun 2016 #40

Almost every advanced country is party to TPP or the Trans-Atlantic negotiations. I believe Hoyt Jun 2016 #41

That was under Harper - our Bush. Nothing to be proud about. floppyboo Jun 2016 #42

Fine, Trudeau is free to change environmental laws, although it's really not needed Hoyt Jun 2016 #43

Why didn't Canadian legislators add an MMT ban to CEPA? Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #44