Elizabeth Warren- The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose

[n2doc]

By Elizabeth Warren


The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html?tid=rssfeed

[CincyDem]

1. And right-wingers hate the UN because it "cedes authority" to a non-US government body???

How is this any different ? Oh...wait...this serves the corporate masters.

[billhicks76]

10. Exactly

We cannot give up US sovereignty just because we have representatives that are essentially taking corporate bribes.

[QuestionAlways]

33. This is the New World Order for real

And we should not be afraid to ban together with Tea-Baggers to fight it, no matter how crazy we think they are on other things

[billhicks76]

34. Agreed

The big boys employ divide and Conquor for a reason.

[Vincardog]

35. Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. are TREASON by definition:treason |ˈtrēzən| noun (also

treason |ˈtrēzən| noun (also high treason)
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government:

[Martin Eden]

38. Ka-Ching!

We have a winner!

[LuvNewcastle]

2. Every time I turn around lately,

Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is saying something I totally agree with. I hope a lot of people are hearing what's being said.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. They both have vision with action

Hillary needs to see the polls and talk to her strategists

[Scuba]

4. Hillary supporters, please comment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[ReRe]

5. K&R

Sen Elizabeth Warren needs to throw her hat in the ring RIGHT NOW, and trumpet this all over the country. And Bernie Sanders too, after he changes his party affiliation to Democrat.

It is NOT acceptable, it is NOT OK to stand back now. The People need to hear all these facts right up until the Primary next year. Yes, Hillary may be inevitable, but I can guarantee you she will not be discussing what Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would be talking about.

And most importantly, the TPP needs to be discussed right now! It is beyond belief that PO is going to go along with the TPP, which will sign our sovereignty away with his signature.

[leftofcool]

6. Obama will sign it then everyone can blame Hillary.

[ReRe]

8. You're after me, aren't you?

I welcome your hatred, like FDR did back in the old days.

[leftofcool]

14. Sorry, I don't hate anyone. I was just waiting for Hillary to get the blame.

[ReRe]

18. Well...

During her time as SOS, much of her time was spent working on the TPP. How can you say she's blameless?

[djean111]

20. Hillary helped write it, and is in favor of it.

I think this is why Obama is pushing for Fast Track - the Third Way wants the blame to fall on him, not Hillary, when this corporate-licking piece of crap is pushed through - with the help of the GOP.

[magical thyme]

22. Hillary helped to draft it.

She's as culpable in this as anybody.

[Recursion]

7. Those are the same clauses that have let AFL/CIO sue Mexico dozens of times in NAFTA

when local regulations have interfered with worker organization. The suits have had something like an 80% success rate. Canada does it to us, too.

EDIT: DAMN IT! Sorry, I just saw this is the EWG, not GD (I linked here from the front page). I don't like invading groups confrontationally, so I'll head out now. Sorry, guys; I thought this was a GD thread.

[ReRe]

9. Are you saying the TPP...

... Trade deal will be good for our country?

[TBF]

11. It will be awesome if you like outsourcing jobs

and restrictive intellectual property laws.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

[ReRe]

19. Sorry, Recursion...

... I'm tired and I just took it wrong. Of course I don't like the things you mentioned.

[Recursion]

16. Doubtful from what I've seen; It's just freezing the existing bilaterals in-place

It's mostly just an attempt to forestall China; I don't think it will have much of a direct impact one way or the other.

EDIT: DAMN IT! Sorry, I just saw this is the EWG, not GD (I linked here from the front page). I don't like invading groups confrontationally, so I'll head out now. Sorry, guys; I thought this was a GD thread.

[JDPriestly]

31. It is a big deal.

Do you have a link to prove that we have trade courts in our bilateral deals?

I'd like to see that.

I am very familiar with the NAFTA court and don't want to see another court of that kind, thank you. It usurps our sovereignty and in particular our legal system. That is simply wrong.

I strongly, strongly, strongly oppose these trade agreements and in great part because of the courts they establish.\

I assume that you have never dealt with any of these courts. Am I right?

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. AFL/CIO nafta

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which includes Canada, Mexico and the United States, was passed by Congress in 1993 with the promise it would create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Unfortunately for American working families, the opposite has occurred.

To date, nearly 700,000 U.S. jobs have been lost or displaced since NAFTA took effect in 1994, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The main reason for the job loss is a skyrocketing U.S. trade deficit with Mexico—reaching $66 billion in 2010. To put that in perspective, in 1993, one year before NAFTA was implemented, the United States had a $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico.

Nearly 20 years after NAFTA was passed, all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have seen jobs lost or displaced to Mexico.


http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/NAFTA


NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) have rigged the rules of the global economy to benefit multi-national corporations while leaving everyone else-- workers, the environment, small farmers, and consumers-- behind. These trade deals are hundreds of pages long and are the playbook for the global economy.

http://www.maineaflcio.org/nafta-and-free-trade.html


yeah they loved nafta

so they could pay lawyers to sue on something that shouldn't have happen in the first place

[JDPriestly]

32. If you look at the list of lawsuits brought before the NAFTA court, you see

that many of them involve environmental restrictions.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/investor-state-chart.pdf

Remember, win or lose, defending a case costs taxpayers or companies a lot of money. We should not enter into agreements that set up courts that do not answer directly or indirectly to the American people.

If you look at the cases, you will realize that in most of those involving environmental issues were tried in the US, the Constitution would provide the right to a jury trial. The idea behind the trade courts and perhaps the agreements themselves is to circumvent the guarantee in the US Constitution for a jury trial unless the parties have agreed to arbitration.

[FairWinds]

12. Recursion is incorrect, to put it politely . .

Here is what Public Citizen says about ISDS . .
"This extreme "investor-state" system already has been included in a series of U.S. "trade" deals, forcing taxpayers to hand more than $400 million to corporations for toxics bans, land-use rules, regulatory permits, water and timber policies and more. Under a similar pact, a tribunal recently ordered payment of more than $2 billion to a multinational oil firm. Just under U.S. deals, more than $38 billion remains pending in corporate claims against medicine patent policies, pollution cleanup requirements, climate and energy laws, and other public interest policies."

[JDPriestly]

29. Thank you.

[AzDar]

15. K & R

[Babel_17]

21. Not enough reason to trust this bill (nt)

[valerief]

23. Two points. (1) I'll bet the fines are less than the cost of a day at WAR, and

(2) the U.S. bans toxins????

Thanks, EW, for addressing this, but until young people "demedicate" and care about these issues, we're fucked.

[F4lconF16]

26. Blaming the TPP on young voters who smoke weed?

[valerief]

36. No, the young people who take antidepressants and other "behavior" prescribed meds.

You know, a kid is a little rowdy and lives on Ritalin until another med is prescribed.

I don't consider weed medication (why would you???). That's recreation.

I also don't blame the kids for being over-medicated.

[F4lconF16]

39. Okay, thanks for clarification.

I still think you're completely wrong, and it's a little bit (actually quite a bit) offensive to say that.

Kids on ritalin are nowhere near a significant reason why this country is going off the cliff. I mean, seriously--young people who are on antidepressants are the ones responsible for our problems? That's complete and utter crap. We haven't even had a chance to fuck everything up even worse yet.

While I would definitely agree that anti-depressants and "behavior" medications are over-prescribed, that in no way translates to an ignorance of the world around us. There are so many other causes of ignorance, demotivation, and withdrawal today that have been pushed by the oligarchs and corporate powers for years now, but you choose to set the blame on young people who take meds. How ridiculous. I'm sure I'd say this more eloquently, but I'm really at a loss for words.

By the way, I've had a number of friends on anti-depressants, Ritalin, amphetamines, etc., and every last one of them needed it, because their life got fucked up in a hurry if they didn't. But you know, meds are just causing them to stick their heads in the ground and ignore the real world, so maybe they should just stop.

Second, weed is most definitely a medication for many of us. Ever heard of medical marijuana? It's something you might want to look up. Kept my ex-girlfriend alive at least a couple of times, helps her sleep, eat, and function normally. It's helped me recover from injuries and sleep when I otherwise wouldn't have. I've known a couple people who use it for depression. I know older folks who need it for arthritis. And there's plenty of other reasons. So that's why I consider a medication. It can be recreational, but it definitely can be medicinal.

I also don't blame the kids for being over-medicated.

No, you just said that we're fucked unless they pull their over-medicated little heads out of their asses. Wouldn't want to blame them for being medicated, just for everything else.

My apologies if my tone is ott, but what you said is pretty stupid, and would be hurtful to a lot of people I know.

[valerief]

40. I'm no fan of Big Pharma and its push to medicate everyone into inertia. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

24. TPP is the death knell for the working/Middle Class in this Country. Kiss your childrens' future

goodbye, and say hello to the new slavery. Thanks, Obama!!!

[awoke_in_2003]

25. Oppose the entire thing. nt

[Omaha Steve]

27. This

[JDPriestly]

28. Thank you, Washington Post, for publishing it and thank you, Elizabeth Warren,

for writing the letter.

Absolutely true. Absolutely true. The international courts established by NAFTA and trade agreements are an infringement on our liberty and our national sovereignty. I do not think that these trade agreements are compatible with or legal under our Constitution because of the courts and the nullification of our laws that they entail.

We fought the American Revolution against taxation without representation. The trade courts are worse than the Stamp Act, worse than anything the British conceived of doing.

If trade courts like those Elizabeth Warren describes (and which already exist under NAFTA and perhaps other trade agreements) are included in the trade agreements we should say "no" to those agreements. I say that as a patriot and one with at least a little knowledge of history.

No to the TPP and all other trade agreements that require the creation of trade courts.

[a2liberal]

30. John Oliver has a great segment

on how this sort of thing is already grossly abused by tobacco companies (sorry, on my phone, just Google John Oliver tobacco). TPP will just make it way worse.

[Sentath]

37. YouTube Link

[a2liberal]

42. Thanks :) (n/t)

[BrotherIvan]

41. We need to be fighting this NOW

We can talk about who will be president in 2016 and do they support it, but this thing is going through NOW. President Obama, the leader of our party, is working with Republicans to get it done NOW. It needs to be stopped NOW. We need to tell the president that we want it stopped RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

[gregcrawford]

43. I was ranting about this very provision a year ago

Somewhere in the bowels of the DU video archives is a "Friday News Dump" rant of mine addressing this very topic. I am delighted that Ms. Warren, whom I greatly admire, is drawing attention to it as well.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

44. kicking. !

And saving.

[99th_Monkey]

45. "Worse, (ISDS) would undermine U.S. sovereignty." Yep. Thank you Sen Warren. nt

[sulphurdunn]

46. Nothing in the US Constitution

permits any branch of the federal government to outsource its powers and consequently the sovereignty of the United States. These trade arrangements aren't even legally binding treaties. They're just some damn thing called executive-congressional agreements, which means they are not the highest law of the land and can be ratified or nullified by a simple majority vote. We must get rid of the gerrymandered, corporatist traitors in congress, and on the Supreme Court, or we're all dead.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Glad she's saying it

Many of us in the UK and elsewhere in Europe are worried that it could lead to corporations suing governments for reversing privatization agreements: e.g. if a left-wing government reversed its predecessor's sell-offs of healthcare and other public services.

[cascadiance]

48. This is why corporatists and other supporters of this rot are UNAMERICAN!!!

And that can't be emphasized enough!

They should have their citizenship taken away from them, but that wouldn't stop them from using these "courts" to screw us all!

[whereisjustice]

49. Conservative Democrats are shoving this down our throats, millions of jobs to Asia

and when millions lose their jobs, they'll tell you that at least you have ACA to go along with your poverty.

[Populist_Prole]

50. Pretty much

The main thrust among pro-TPP Dems is pretty much this: "Well OKAY, we'll admit it'll be bad for for working class livelyhoods, but we'll make up for it by trying to expand the safety net....and don't forget all social issue gains we've won".

It's like trying to cut off one end of a blanket and then sewing on to the other end.

Looks good on paper to technocrats but ignores externalities and disruptions to those actually affected.

They live in a different world............

[whereisjustice]

53. Fucking conservadems think getting laid of from your job every 2 or 3 years with wage cuts each

job change is the perfect vision for American families.

[Scootaloo]

52. "What are you gonna do, vote Republican? Haw, haw, haw!"