TTIP and TPP will end Democracy as we know it

[kiwitt]

These agreements are less about trade and more about a partnership between corporates and governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

These agreements have their roots in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment

Which were one of the main the main causes Seattle Riots of 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

Where are these protesters now? They can not see the texts now because unless they are leaked - http://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html - so they are armed only with hearsay. Meanwhile of 700 corporate lobbyists are part of the negotiations

Once the agreements are passed, they are to remain 'secret' until the last nation has ratified the agreement (probably the US, who will only ratify once all the other nations have ratified theirs) and then a few years after that. This secrecy should be the most alarming, and I suspect it is there to avoid another 'Seattle Riots'

Once these agreements are in place, every nation who is a signatory will need to ensure any legislation they pass does not impact on corporation's right to profits. And disagreements will need to be settled by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_Disputes

For a full list of actions against a nation's sovereignty by corporates already, look no further than this.

https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Pages/default.aspx

So are you happy, with all new legislation, to be first vetted, to ensure corporate profits are not affected. Meanwhile the corporate mainstream media are happy to provide the majority of the public with a range of distractions.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

These agreements are less about trade and more about a partnership between corporates and governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

These agreements have their roots in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment

Which were one of the main the main causes Seattle Riots of 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

Where are these protesters now? They can not see the texts now because unless they are leaked - http://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html - so they are armed only with hearsay. Meanwhile of 700 corporate lobbyists are part of the negotiations

Once the agreements are passed, they are to remain 'secret' until the last nation has ratified the agreement (probably the US, who will only ratify once all the other nations have ratified theirs) and then a few years after that. This secrecy should be the most alarming, and I suspect it is there to avoid another 'Seattle Riots'

Once these agreements are in place, every nation who is a signatory will need to ensure any legislation they pass does not impact on corporation's right to profits. And disagreements will need to be settled by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_Disputes

For a full list of actions against a nation's sovereignty by corporates already, look no further than this.

https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Pages/default.aspx

So are you happy, with all new legislation, to be first vetted, to ensure corporate profits are not affected. Meanwhile the corporate mainstream media are happy to provide the majority of the public with a range of distractions.

The intellectual property section of the TPP lays out a minimum level of protections signators must enforce for trademarks, copyright, and patents. Trademarks may be visual, auditory or scents, and are granted exclusive use for trade.

What does it mean, a trademark may be a scent?

Scents are created by mixing chemicals a certain way, and aren't the formulas for such things already protected by patents?

 

[kiwitt]

I am disappointed, but not surprised that there does not seem to be any debate on this change in our democracy in this forum. I think that maybe, people have accepted that democracy has already died in the USA, and it has become a bit of a 'joke'. I think the 'joke' on the USA began when they voted an actor as President in 1980 and it has been downhill since then.

However, the problem now is that the 'joke' is now going to affect the rest of western world with these agreements. And because we are all worried about our own stuff, or media/sports crap, this change to our society will happen regardless.

Welcome to our new corporate overlords!

 

[BvBPL]

Where are these protesters now? They can not see the texts now because unless they are leaked - http://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html - so they are armed only with hearsay. Meanwhile of 700 corporate lobbyists are part of the negotiations

Gee, if it was such a popular movement you'd think they'd hire their own lobbyists.

What does it mean, a trademark may be a scent?

Scents are created by mixing chemicals a certain way, and aren't the formulas for such things already protected by patents?

Rather, a scent may be a trademark. And, yeah, it can be, although there are some weird limitations on it. In the US a trademark cannot be a functional part of the product being marked. For example, you may have noticed that in the last few years individual bottles of water have gone from being a straight up and down cylinder to being more contoured. That contour is a functional piece of the product because that contour design allows an equal volume of water to be stored using less bottle material. That contour can't be trademarked, but the Coca-Cola classic contour can be because that was a product identification choice rather than a functional one.

Applied to scents, you could trademark the scent in your, say, printing paper but not the scent in your perfume.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am disappointed, but not surprised that there does not seem to be any debate on this change in our democracy in this forum. I think that maybe, people have accepted that democracy has already died in the USA, and it has become a bit of a 'joke'. I think the 'joke' on the USA began when they voted an actor as President in 1980 and it has been downhill since then.

However, the problem now is that the 'joke' is now going to affect the rest of western world with these agreements. And because we are all worried about our own stuff, or media/sports crap, this change to our society will happen regardless.

Welcome to our new corporate overlords!

I believe marking it as 1980 is awfully late.

 

[Antilogic]

I am disappointed, but not surprised that there does not seem to be any debate on this change in our democracy in this forum. I think that maybe, people have accepted that democracy has already died in the USA, and it has become a bit of a 'joke'. I think the 'joke' on the USA began when they voted an actor as President in 1980 and it has been downhill since then.

However, the problem now is that the 'joke' is now going to affect the rest of western world with these agreements. And because we are all worried about our own stuff, or media/sports crap, this change to our society will happen regardless.

Welcome to our new corporate overlords!

I have been listening to Sam Seder's show, which does a fairly good job at covering this issue, but I haven't had the time to make a real thread about it. Thought about it, though.

But yeah, there is very little to like in this agreement unless you are a corporate person.

 

[BvBPL]

I am disappointed, but not surprised that there does not seem to be any debate on this change in our democracy in this forum. I think that maybe, people have accepted that democracy has already died in the USA, and it has become a bit of a 'joke'. I think the 'joke' on the USA began when they voted an actor as President in 1980 and it has been downhill since then.

Why is an actor as president more of a joke than a peanut farmer?

(Exempting that the actor did play comic roles.)

 

[Ajidica]

I forgot that these are the agreements that would let corporations sue the government over lost profits.
I honestly am struggling to envision why any government would look at that for more than a second before laughing at whatever numbskull inserted that in there. That's some sovereignty violations right there.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Applied to scents, you could trademark the scent in your, say, printing paper but not the scent in your perfume.

Because the paper is a tangible object and the perfume isn't? (sorry, I find this sort of thing confusing)

Speaking of paper, I have noted that some kinds of books/publishers use paper with distinctive smells. I've no idea if that was deliberate or for some other reason. For example, the Penguin paperback books manufactured in the UK and shipped to Canada... I enjoy the smell of those books. But contrast those with a couple of reference books I bought - hardcovers, part of a classical/medieval history encyclopedia. Turns out there is something in those books that gave me an instant headache and made me cough. They had to be aired out for several days before I could even breathe around them. I never bought the rest of the set.

Why is an actor as president more of a joke than a peanut farmer?

(Exempting that the actor did play comic roles.)

At least the peanut farmer produced tangible goods of benefit to other people in a practical way.

I forgot that these are the agreements that would let corporations sue the government over lost profits.

I honestly am struggling to envision why any government would look at that for more than a second before laughing at whatever numbskull inserted that in there. That's some sovereignty violations right there.

This is something we have never been able to fathom, why Stephen Harper and his cronies (I will not call them a "government" as they don't deserve that much courtesy) are okay with. I can only hope that enough people are angry about this so they cast their votes carefully this coming October.

Once again, it's coming down to strategic voting - if you want the fake Conservatives out, vote for the local non-Conservative candidate with the best chance of winning, even if you have to hold your nose to do so.

 

[BvBPL]

Because the paper is a tangible object and the perfume isn't? (sorry, I find this sort of thing confusing)

Because the scent of the paper isn't related to its function. The function of the paper isn't improved by it being scented. For perfume, one could track mark an element that isn't related to the function of the perfume, the scent. So that could be the color of the perfume or even the sound of the perfume as it comes out of the nozzle.

 

[kiwitt]

I forgot that these are the agreements that would let corporations sue the government over lost profits.
I honestly am struggling to envision why any government would look at that for more than a second before laughing at whatever numbskull inserted that in there. That's some sovereignty violations right there.

Because essentially we have reverted to a new 'aristocracy' by stealth, since neo-liberalism was launched in 1980s.

1%ers > Corporations > Government > People

Which is very much like - 'old aristocracy'

Emperors > Kings > Lords > Serfs

And the end of - 'Democracy'

People > Government > Business.

Because this has happened over a very long time (40 years plus), people have not really noticed it happening (GATS, WTO, Globalisation, 'Free-Trade' agreements, etc.) and the TPP and TTIP are the final stages of this transformation to our corporate overlords.

Take a look at my last link in my OP. It has a list of cases where corporations are taking countries to 'court', based on the already existing 'Free-Trade' agreements.

As for why any politician would agree to these, it is because they don't get to see the texts until it is too late. Here in NZ, our opposition politicians have been asking to see these agreements, but because of the 'secrecy' they are not allowed to until it is ratified by all parties including the US.

This is how democracy has died. Meanwhile we will rejoice in minor issues like same-sex marriage getting the passed, and feel democracy is working when in actual fact, such laws have no impact on corporate profits.

For example, if we wanted to pass more stringent environmental laws to reduce the effects of climate change, or pass laws to improve the health of people (e.g. anti-tobacco legislation), we can't because corporate profits will be affected.

 

[Sonereal]

These agreements are less about trade and more about a partnership between corporates and governments.

No they're not.

Where are these protesters now? They can not see the texts now because unless they are leaked - http://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html - so they are armed only with hearsay. Meanwhile of 700 corporate lobbyists are part of the negotiations

Yes. Unsurprisingly, when you're drafting a massive trade deal with dozens of countries which together control a fair chunk of global GDP, you're going to need people who actually know about the industries being negotiated over. I think it is extremely unfortunate anything was leaked in the first place, because it weakens everybody's hand when leaks happen.

Once the agreements are passed, they are to remain 'secret' until the last nation has ratified the agreement (probably the US, who will only ratify once all the other nations have ratified theirs) and then a few years after that. This secrecy should be the most alarming, and I suspect it is there to avoid another 'Seattle Riots'

Secret, except for the fact they'll be open to public debate in Congress before ratification.

Once these agreements are in place, every nation who is a signatory will need to ensure any legislation they pass does not impact on corporation's right to profits. And disagreements will need to be settled by

This is, quite frankly, not true on any level except for the fact that disagreements do need to be resolved by the ISDS measures (for extremely good reasons). A country is not allowed to pass laws that unduly impact a foreign company. These measures were often implemented to allow trade agreements with countries with volatile political structures to even exist without forcing the volatile country into giving concessions. This is something countries want because it makes trade easier and fairer.

The reason domestic courts aren't used because people can't be trusted to not be biased against foreign companies. Therefore, you have a court of impartial professionals and people deeply familiar with the laws in question.

So are you happy, with all new legislation, to be first vetted, to ensure corporate profits are not affected. Meanwhile the corporate mainstream media are happy to provide the majority of the public with a range of distractions.

Lets take a quick look of the statistics of the ISDS.

The total number of known treaty-based cases reached 568. The overwhelming majority of these cases (85 per cent) have been brought by investors from developed countries. Together, claimants from the EU and the United States account for 75 per cent of all disputes.

In 2013, investors challenged a broad range of government measures, including changes related to investment incentive schemes (such as 13 cases against Czech Republic and Spain regarding the changes in the renewable-energy policies); alleged breaches of contracts; alleged direct or de facto expropriation; revocation of licenses or permits; regulation of energy tariffs; allegedly wrongful criminal prosecution; land zoning decisions; invalidation of patents; and legislation relating to sovereign bonds.
ISDS tribunals issued 37 known decisions last year, 23 of which are in the public domain. The award of US$935 million in the Al-Kharafi v. Libya case ranks as the second highest known award ever.

By the end of 2013, the overall number of concluded cases reached 274. Of these, approximately 43 per cent were decided in favour of the State and 31 per cent in favour of the investor. Approximately 26 per cent of cases were settled.

Over half of all cases (of which there are very little) are decided in favor of the state, or there is a settlement.

Lets make it clear that the lawsuits aren't just because of "lost profits". It is a question of why the profits were lost, and whether the profit loss was fair under existing treaties. That isn't an issue in the developed world, and is a reason why the US has never lost a ISDS case levied against it. The issue is when a country lacks the rule of law and begins to pass anti-competitive laws that ultimately target foreign businesses, despite there being a free trade agreement in effect. The ISDS says that if you nationalize a factory of a company from my country, that company can sue your government for nationalizing that factory. Most cases, clearly, aren't that black and white, but the ISDS is something both developed and developing countries ask for because it boosts investor confidence.

1%ers > Corporations > Government > People

Which is very much like - 'old aristocracy'

Emperors > Kings > Lords > Serfs

And the end of - 'Democracy'

People > Government > Business.

This is veering into /r/badhistory territory.

 

[warpus]

I forgot that these are the agreements that would let corporations sue the government over lost profits.

I don't see this as a problem for democracy and freedom in the long run. In the short run though, certainly.

My prediction is that some of this will lead to a confrontation of political and economic forces in Europe at some point in the possibly medium to not-so-far future. It is still possible to do freedom in Europe, and there are plenty of institutions in place for the people to make themselves heard in political terms. The EU also has some very ideological ideas enshrined in its core institutions that might make such a confrontation inevitable. America and most of the world is for the forseeable future headed wherever corporate interests take it, but heads are going to butt at some point. I think.

 

[kiwitt]

No they're not.

Have you not read that point that most of the clause are about government regulations that are allowed or not allowed.

Here are a list of sections

1. Market Access for Goods
2. textiles and apparel chapter
3. Customs
4. trade facilitation
5. Sanitary and phytosanitary (quarantine)
6. Technical Barriers to trade (labelling and standards)
7. Trade Remedies
8. Subsidies
9. Government Procurement
10. Investment
11. Cross Border Services
12. Financial Services
13. Telecommunications
14. E-commerce
15. temporary movement of natural persons
16. Intellectual Property
17. Labour
18. Environment
19. Development
20. Trade Capacity Building
21. Competition
22. State owned enterprises
23. Supply chains
24. Transparency
25. Regulatory Coherence
26. Initial Provisions
27. Dispute Settlement
28. Exceptions
29. Final Provisions

Yes. Unsurprisingly, when you're drafting a massive trade deal with dozens of countries which together control a fair chunk of global GDP, you're going to need people who actually know about the industries being negotiated over. I think it is extremely unfortunate anything was leaked in the first place, because it weakens everybody's hand when leaks happen.

This should be an agreement between foreign/trade ministers only and not corporations ... sheesh there are 700+ corporate lobbyists in them.

Secret, except for the fact they'll be open to public debate in Congress before ratification.

This says it all http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/nz-governments-tppa-secrecy-put-to-the-test/

The government clearly has no intention of telling New Zealanders or elected MPs what is happening, or of asking the other parties to revoke their extraordinary pact to keep all background documents secret for four years after the agreement comes into force.’

If that is not secrecy I don't know what is.

A country is not allowed to pass laws that unduly impact a foreign company.

Why not? Which is more important? - The health and well being of its citizens or a foreign corporations profits.

Lets take a quick look of the statistics of the ISDS.

Over half of all cases (of which there are very little) are decided in favor of the state, or there is a settlement.
...

Again ... a Nation's government should have sovereignty over its people and its land. And if it wants to end/terminate the conditions of a free-trade agreement, it should be allowed to whenever it decides it wants to. Because at the end of the day it is the 'People's choice', not some many years old agreement, they may not have had a part of in signing. Governments and public sentiments change over time and is not concrete.

This is veering into /r/badhistory territory.

Yeah you are probably right, but I make no apologies for recognising the fact that agreements like these take away our rights as a people to determine our own destinies and write laws for our benefit. Hence the "end of democracy' as we know it.

sources: www.itsourfuture.org.nz

 

[tokala]

My prediction is that some of this will lead to a confrontation of political and economic forces in Europe at some point in the possibly medium to not-so-far future. It is still possible to do freedom in Europe, and there are plenty of institutions in place for the people to make themselves heard in political terms.

Doesn't look much like it at the moment. From our perspective here, it looks like "political" and "economic" have pretty much merged, as all parties short of the extreme left do their best to pander to corporate interests. Even nominally centre-left, social-democratic parties.
This system was aptly labeled by chancellor Merkel as "Marktkonforme Demokratie" (Market compliant democracy), equaling kiwitts
1%ers > Corporations > Government > People


The EU comission, and AFAIK pretty much all EU governments strongly support TTIP.
They tried their very best to push it through as fast and noiseless as possible. This failed due to the leaks, and now we do have some sort of public debate.
Nevertheless it is mostly controlled by corporate spin doctors, and most of the press and the public has swallowed the "free-trade" label and the "jobs" and "growth" killer arguments.
There is a vocal, but small opposition to TTIP, but I don't think it stands much of a chance to influence its contents, much less to stop it.

 

[kiwitt]

There is a vocal, but small opposition to TTIP, but I don't think it stands much of a chance to influence its contents, much less to stop it.

... and this in a nutshell is why I say "The end of Democracy".

Just look at what fills the off-topic threads, let alone mainstream media channels. Sad, really sad. This is the most important issue facing the western world's long-term future and as you say it will not be stopped.

 

[Sonereal]

Have you not read that point that most of the clause are about government regulations that are allowed or not allowed.

Here are a list of sections

1. Market Access for Goods
2. textiles and apparel chapter
3. Customs
4. trade facilitation
5. Sanitary and phytosanitary (quarantine)
6. Technical Barriers to trade (labelling and standards)
7. Trade Remedies
8. Subsidies
9. Government Procurement
10. Investment
11. Cross Border Services
12. Financial Services
13. Telecommunications
14. E-commerce
15. temporary movement of natural persons
16. Intellectual Property
17. Labour
18. Environment
19. Development
20. Trade Capacity Building
21. Competition
22. State owned enterprises
23. Supply chains
24. Transparency
25. Regulatory Coherence
26. Initial Provisions
27. Dispute Settlement
28. Exceptions
29. Final Provisions

This should be an agreement between foreign/trade ministers only and not corporations ... sheesh there are 700+ corporate lobbyists in them.

You can't have a trade agreement without discussing issues such as state-owned enterprises, labor policies, and the environment. You need somebody from your country's corporate lobby to tell you what your corporations want. I would be deeply unpleased with my government if it wasn't negotiating labor and environmental practices, because those affect trade just as much as regulatory coherence and intellectual property law do.

You are trying to get the best deal possible for your country when you design a trade policy. You have the number of corporate lobbyists off the top of your head, but I am surprised you don't mention the huge number of labor and environmentalist lobbyists present during the negotiations, and I feel as if there were 700+ labor union lobbyists, this thread wouldn't exist.

Instead, there are a combination of labor union representatives, environmentalist lobbyists, and corporate lobbyists. Is the majority of the lobbyists corporate and industry? Of course. Does that mean consumer advocate lobbyists are being ignored? Of course not.

This says it all http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/nz-governments-tppa-secrecy-put-to-the-test/ If that is not secrecy I don't know what is. Why not? Which is more important? - The health and well being of its citizens or a foreign corporations profits.Again ... a Nation's government should have sovereignty over its people and its land. And if it wants to end/terminate the conditions of a free-trade agreement, it should be allowed to whenever it decides it wants to. Because at the end of the day it is the 'People's choice', not some many years old agreement, they may not have had a part of in signing. Governments and public sentiments change over time and is not concrete.

It is secret because it isn't finished yet. This isn't exactly a brainbuster, given many treaties negotiated in the past ranging from peace treaties to trade treaties are negotiated behind closed doors before a final draft is presented to national legislatures for approval.

People vote for Senators who will approve or disapprove the final draft, but in America, the executive has the power to handle the negotiations and try to get the best deal possible for the US before a draft is presented. This isn't a flaw; this is a feature of American democracy. Every detail released to the public before the draft is finished is a lost bargaining chip for somebody, and because these details come from drafts, people are getting worked up over what isn't even the final draft.

Not everything is in duality. Again, the vast number of ISDS cases are launched by developed countries, and I live in a country that has a habit of not losing ISDS cases, and unless the United States become an Argentina or Venezuela, there's no reason to suspect that the US will suffer and lose a wave of ISDS cases after this treaty. There is no reason to believe that any developed country that is playing by the rules and fairly will suffer, but that is the point. If is a stick to get countries that think nationalization and attacking foreign companies because things are going sour (ala Argentina) to play ball, and I see no problem with that whatsoever.

Over the last 50 years, nearly 3,200 trade and investment agreements among 180 countries have included investment provisions, and the vast majority of these agreements have included some form of ISDS. The United States entered its first bilateral investment treaty (BIT) in 1982, and is party to 50 agreements currently in force with ISDS provisions. The United States has been a leader in developing carefully crafted ISDS provisions to protect the ability of governments to regulate, to discourage non-meritorious claims, and to ensure a high level of transparency.

Source

The US has over fifty of these agreements and yet has never lost an ISDS case in the thirty years it has been part of treaties with ISDS clauses.

There is nothing stopping a country from canceling the treaty at any time and simply ignoring ISDS rulings, but we live in a world where the developed world actually cares that international relations are governed by these things called "laws and treaties", and won't take kindly to that sort of populist behavior.

Just because a person wasn't born when a treaty was signed doesn't mean that treaty should somehow be less valid. Treaties should be updated as the world changes, but they shouldn't be treated as scraps of power to throw out every generation.

Yeah you are probably right, but I make no apologies for recognizing the fact that agreements like these take away our rights as a people to determine our own destinies and write laws for our benefit. Hence the "end of democracy' as we know it.

Except that they don't and unless you particularly live in an already undemocratic country, the final draft will be voted on in your country's legislature, just like in my country.

 

[kiwitt]

I hope you are right ... but I doubt it.