TPP - ISDS's

[kalm]

Carrying over from a conversation on trade with Ganny on the Benghazi thread here.

The TPP sounds like a great deal...if you like having our sovereignty usurped and exempting large financial institutions and Pharmaceuticals, and those evil liberals at the Google and in Hollywood from anti-trust and common sense financial regulations.

It's one of those complicated issues which won't be talked about much but has the potential for a huge impact.

Ganny, I thought ISDS's were a thing of the past? Please help unravel this mess and shed some light.

Banks and other financial institutions would be able to use provisions in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership to block new regulations that cut into their profits, according to the text of the trade pact released this week.

In what may be the biggest gift to banks in a deal full of giveaways to Hollywood, the drug industry and technology firms, financial institutions would be able to appeal any national rules they didn’t like to independent, international tribunals staffed by friendly corporate lawyers.

That could nullify a proposal by Hillary Clinton to impose a “risk fee” on financial firms — or the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders plan to reinstate the firewall between investment and commercial banks.

Financial firms could demand compensation for these measures that would make them too expensive to manage.

The TPP, a 12-nation pact with countries in Asia and the Americas that requires congressional approval, includes an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. This allows foreign companies operating in TPP member countries to enforce the agreement without using that country’s court system. Instead, corporations can sue for monetary damages in independent tribunals before corporate lawyers who can rotate between advocating for investors and judging the cases themselves......

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office claims in a fact sheet that they improved the ISDS process to ensure that countries have the right to “regulate in the public interest,” including in the financial sector. And they point to this language in the investment chapter: “The mere fact that a Party takes or fails to take an action that may be inconsistent with an investor’s expectations does not constitute a breach” of minimum standard of treatment, “even if there is loss or damage to the covered investment as a result.”

But according to Wallach, “The language the Administration has pointed to as the fix is identical to what [size=200has been in trade agreements since CAFTA,”][/size] referring to a free trade deal with Central America. “Tribunals have systematically ignored it and continue to make broad interpretations.”..........

Public Citizen estimates that ISDS rulings carried out under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral treaties have ordered over $3.6 billion in compensation to investors. To use one example, Exxon-Mobil won $17.3 million from Canada this year in an ISDS tribunal, after claiming that a law forcing offshore oil drillers to spend a percentage of revenues on local economic development violated the North American Free Trade Agreement. With the far larger amounts at stake in U.S. financial regulations, the compensation awards could be much higher..............

Public Citizen also estimates that over 1,000 new corporations from TPP member countries, representing over 9,200 subsidiaries in the United States, would now be able to launch ISDS cases. This nearly doubles the companies eligible for the ISDS process. It comes as ISDS cases have surged, with as many claims launched in the last four years as in the previous three decades.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp ... gulations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Carrying over from a conversation on trade with Ganny on the Benghazi thread here.

The TPP sounds like a great deal...if you like having our sovereignty usurped and exempting large financial institutions and Pharmaceuticals, and those evil liberals at the Google and in Hollywood from anti-trust and common sense financial regulations.

It's one of those complicated issues which won't be talked about much but has the potential for a huge impact.

Ganny, I thought ISDS's were a thing of the past? Please help unravel this mess and shed some light.

Banks and other financial institutions would be able to use provisions in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership to block new regulations that cut into their profits, according to the text of the trade pact released this week.

In what may be the biggest gift to banks in a deal full of giveaways to Hollywood, the drug industry and technology firms, financial institutions would be able to appeal any national rules they didn’t like to independent, international tribunals staffed by friendly corporate lawyers.

That could nullify a proposal by Hillary Clinton to impose a “risk fee” on financial firms — or the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders plan to reinstate the firewall between investment and commercial banks.

Financial firms could demand compensation for these measures that would make them too expensive to manage.

The TPP, a 12-nation pact with countries in Asia and the Americas that requires congressional approval, includes an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. This allows foreign companies operating in TPP member countries to enforce the agreement without using that country’s court system. Instead, corporations can sue for monetary damages in independent tribunals before corporate lawyers who can rotate between advocating for investors and judging the cases themselves......

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office claims in a fact sheet that they improved the ISDS process to ensure that countries have the right to “regulate in the public interest,” including in the financial sector. And they point to this language in the investment chapter: “The mere fact that a Party takes or fails to take an action that may be inconsistent with an investor’s expectations does not constitute a breach” of minimum standard of treatment, “even if there is loss or damage to the covered investment as a result.”

But according to Wallach, “The language the Administration has pointed to as the fix is identical to what 'has been in trade agreements since CAFTA,” referring to a free trade deal with Central America. “Tribunals have systematically ignored it and continue to make broad interpretations.”..........

Public Citizen estimates that ISDS rulings carried out under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral treaties have ordered over $3.6 billion in compensation to investors. To use one example, Exxon-Mobil won $17.3 million from Canada this year in an ISDS tribunal, after claiming that a law forcing offshore oil drillers to spend a percentage of revenues on local economic development violated the North American Free Trade Agreement. With the far larger amounts at stake in U.S. financial regulations, the compensation awards could be much higher..............

Public Citizen also estimates that over 1,000 new corporations from TPP member countries, representing over 9,200 subsidiaries in the United States, would now be able to launch ISDS cases. This nearly doubles the companies eligible for the ISDS process. It comes as ISDS cases have surged, with as many claims launched in the last four years as in the previous three decades.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp ... gulations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rapacious.

[Ivytalk]

I'm sensing a second career here!

[kalm]

I'm sensing a second career here!

[GannonFan]

Carrying over from a conversation on trade with Ganny on the Benghazi thread here.

The TPP sounds like a great deal...if you like having our sovereignty usurped and exempting large financial institutions and Pharmaceuticals, and those evil liberals at the Google and in Hollywood from anti-trust and common sense financial regulations.

It's one of those complicated issues which won't be talked about much but has the potential for a huge impact.

Ganny, I thought ISDS's were a thing of the past? Please help unravel this mess and shed some light.

Banks and other financial institutions would be able to use provisions in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership to block new regulations that cut into their profits, according to the text of the trade pact released this week.

In what may be the biggest gift to banks in a deal full of giveaways to Hollywood, the drug industry and technology firms, financial institutions would be able to appeal any national rules they didn’t like to independent, international tribunals staffed by friendly corporate lawyers.

That could nullify a proposal by Hillary Clinton to impose a “risk fee” on financial firms — or the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders plan to reinstate the firewall between investment and commercial banks.

Financial firms could demand compensation for these measures that would make them too expensive to manage.

The TPP, a 12-nation pact with countries in Asia and the Americas that requires congressional approval, includes an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. This allows foreign companies operating in TPP member countries to enforce the agreement without using that country’s court system. Instead, corporations can sue for monetary damages in independent tribunals before corporate lawyers who can rotate between advocating for investors and judging the cases themselves......

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office claims in a fact sheet that they improved the ISDS process to ensure that countries have the right to “regulate in the public interest,” including in the financial sector. And they point to this language in the investment chapter: “The mere fact that a Party takes or fails to take an action that may be inconsistent with an investor’s expectations does not constitute a breach” of minimum standard of treatment, “even if there is loss or damage to the covered investment as a result.”

But according to Wallach, “The language the Administration has pointed to as the fix is identical to what [size=200has been in trade agreements since CAFTA,”][/size] referring to a free trade deal with Central America. “Tribunals have systematically ignored it and continue to make broad interpretations.”..........

Public Citizen estimates that ISDS rulings carried out under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral treaties have ordered over $3.6 billion in compensation to investors. To use one example, Exxon-Mobil won $17.3 million from Canada this year in an ISDS tribunal, after claiming that a law forcing offshore oil drillers to spend a percentage of revenues on local economic development violated the North American Free Trade Agreement. With the far larger amounts at stake in U.S. financial regulations, the compensation awards could be much higher..............

Public Citizen also estimates that over 1,000 new corporations from TPP member countries, representing over 9,200 subsidiaries in the United States, would now be able to launch ISDS cases. This nearly doubles the companies eligible for the ISDS process. It comes as ISDS cases have surged, with as many claims launched in the last four years as in the previous three decades.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp ... gulations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh please, kalmie, you're starting to be more drama than substance these days. I miss the days of you being able to have reasoned discussions where points of views could be changed rather than this sensationalism.

To help sort it through for you, then, since you seem unable to do so yourself anymore, yes, old fashioned ISDS, like those seen in NAFTA, are going the way of the dodo. You can see that by the vitriol and backlash that has happened when they were put back into the TPP. There's no way the TPP is ever going to be passed with that ISDS setup in it, so that's the change. And if the changes put in place for new ISDS, like in CAFTA, are still not giving governments the flexibility they want to be able to regulate the common good, then look for ISDS's to continue to be parsed and restricted until they are brought to heel.

Your highlighting of the number of cases brought to ISDS's in the last few years is silly - heck, most ISDS's didn't come into being until the 90's so comparing it now versus three decades ago is always going to be a curve on the upswing. To think they wouldn't have "surged" compared to the time when we didn't hace ISDS's is silly and betrays a lack of understanding on your part. And those treaties have long shelf-life's on them so we will have to deal with some of these obsolete albatrosses for some time. But that doesn't mean that the ship hasn't started to turn or in fact has turned - again, the furor over the TPP is proof of this. We don't need to decide to push back against ISDS's because we already are doing so.

Like I said in the other thread, another thread where your understanding of the matters at hand is sadly wanting, you're coming out in favor of a policy (i.e. more limited ISDS compared to what unfortunately came into being 20 years ago) that has already been generally universally accepted. Sure there will be rogues who try to swim against the tide (like the drafters of the TPP) but those folks are already feeling the pushback of the accepted thought for the past few years. I'm just glad you seem to have finally caught up with the rest of us, even if it took you a few years to digest it all.

[kalm]

Carrying over from a conversation on trade with Ganny on the Benghazi thread here.

The TPP sounds like a great deal...if you like having our sovereignty usurped and exempting large financial institutions and Pharmaceuticals, and those evil liberals at the Google and in Hollywood from anti-trust and common sense financial regulations.

It's one of those complicated issues which won't be talked about much but has the potential for a huge impact.

Ganny, I thought ISDS's were a thing of the past? Please help unravel this mess and shed some light.



https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp ... gulations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh please, kalmie, you're starting to be more drama than substance these days. I miss the days of you being able to have reasoned discussions where points of views could be changed rather than this sensationalism.

To help sort it through for you, then, since you seem unable to do so yourself anymore, yes, old fashioned ISDS, like those seen in NAFTA, are going the way of the dodo. You can see that by the vitriol and backlash that has happened when they were put back into the TPP. There's no way the TPP is ever going to be passed with that ISDS setup in it, so that's the change. And if the changes put in place for new ISDS, like in CAFTA, are still not giving governments the flexibility they want to be able to regulate the common good, then look for ISDS's to continue to be parsed and restricted until they are brought to heel.

Your highlighting of the number of cases brought to ISDS's in the last few years is silly - heck, most ISDS's didn't come into being until the 90's so comparing it now versus three decades ago is always going to be a curve on the upswing. To think they wouldn't have "surged" compared to the time when we didn't hace ISDS's is silly and betrays a lack of understanding on your part. And those treaties have long shelf-life's on them so we will have to deal with some of these obsolete albatrosses for some time. But that doesn't mean that the ship hasn't started to turn or in fact has turned - again, the furor over the TPP is proof of this. We don't need to decide to push back against ISDS's because we already are doing so.

Like I said in the other thread, another thread where your understanding of the matters at hand is sadly wanting, you're coming out in favor of a policy (i.e. more limited ISDS compared to what unfortunately came into being 20 years ago) that has already been generally universally accepted. Sure there will be rogues who try to swim against the tide (like the drafters of the TPP) but those folks are already feeling the pushback of the accepted thought for the past few years. I'm just glad you seem to have finally caught up with the rest of us, even if it took you a few years to digest it all.

I must admit, you talk a great game and your snark is second to none!

Now, please provide a link(s) to support your opinions.

Thanks!