Oh dear. The trouble with getting all your information from old articles is that you continue to live in the dark, with conspiracy theories making your thinking muddled. I assume you're basing your wild but incorrect assumptions on articles such as this: https://www.gunowners.org/alert5072015.htm
1) The TPP is not a "... highly classified document that only a few have even read in its entirety". It is a public document, and has been so since the agreement was signed. You can read it here: https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
For example, should a company based on Malaysia have the right to sue the state of Oregon because it passed a regulation ( say a food safety or labeling requirement) that affected the profit margins of the Malaysian company's products?
On its own, no.
That's what TPP grants!
No it doesn't. For a start, the state of Oregon is not a party to the TPP. But the USA is, and a dispute could be raised with the USA if it is alleged that terms of the Agreement were breached, and as a result the profits of the Malaysian company were threatened.
I wonder if the fast track authority the US Congress gave to Obama for this bill will transfer to the next president, or if that has to be voted again?
FTA is a red herring. Let's suppose that Congress agrees with most aspects of TPP, except (say) ISDS. With FTA, it can only vote yes or no, so it could only express its displeasure by voting no.
Without FTA, it could debate each clause and, in theory, approve everything except ISDS. Given that the Agreement has been signed, and cannot now be changed, that is the equivalent of a no vote.
What is the difference, apart from more hot air on the Hill?
Ratification is very important. The agreement doesn't come into force until a sufficient number of countries ratify. And if either the US or Japan don't, it's dead in the water.
"Strings were pulled" is putting it mildly. I view it as out and out corruption by the US administration which, viewed with Malaysia's current corruption scandal, does not a pretty picture paint.
Re: Re: Good, but not as helpful as you might think
This try only cost them $7 million
It cost them a little more than that. $7 million was their contribution to Uruguay's costs. They also had to pay the costs of the tribunal itself, as well as their own costs, which would likely be in the same order as those of Uruguay.
Empty words from the Labor party. There is no mechanism to remove ISDS from a done deal such as the TPP. All the Government can do is not to ratify it. That would be a good thing of course.
"The key point is that it is not absolutely necessary to include corporate sovereignty provisions in a trade deal to protect companies, because there is always the state-to-state mechanism that can be invoked if necessary."
No it can't. Only if such a mechanism is specified in a relevant treaty.
"This is about a particular country (or group of countries) trying to impose its laws / censorship on the rest of the world".
Oh - as the US does through its trade agreements, for example. The TPP is a fine example of that, where increased copyright and patent terms are ratcheted up by the US.
Although to be fair, if other countries are stupid enough to sign such agreements, they deserve all they get ...
On the post: With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?
Re: Re: Re: Gun Control by Treaty
On the post: With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?
Re: Gun Control by Treaty
1) The TPP is not a "... highly classified document that only a few have even read in its entirety". It is a public document, and has been so since the agreement was signed. You can read it here: https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
2) The TPP makes no mention of gun control.
On the post: With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?
Re: Re: Seriously?
On the post: Not Just In The US: TPP Meeting More Resistance In Australia And Japan, Too
Re: Re: Re: fast track?
On the post: Not Just In The US: TPP Meeting More Resistance In Australia And Japan, Too
Re: fast track?
On its own, no.
No it doesn't. For a start, the state of Oregon is not a party to the TPP. But the USA is, and a dispute could be raised with the USA if it is alleged that terms of the Agreement were breached, and as a result the profits of the Malaysian company were threatened.
FTA is a red herring. Let's suppose that Congress agrees with most aspects of TPP, except (say) ISDS. With FTA, it can only vote yes or no, so it could only express its displeasure by voting no.
Without FTA, it could debate each clause and, in theory, approve everything except ISDS. Given that the Agreement has been signed, and cannot now be changed, that is the equivalent of a no vote.
What is the difference, apart from more hot air on the Hill?
On the post: Not Just In The US: TPP Meeting More Resistance In Australia And Japan, Too
Re: Re: Re: Auto Ratification
Which it doesn't ...
On the post: Not Just In The US: TPP Meeting More Resistance In Australia And Japan, Too
Re: Auto Ratification
On the post: Not Just In The US: TPP Meeting More Resistance In Australia And Japan, Too
Re: TPP or Toilet Paper?
Here is the repository of the text:
https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
Gun controls? Hardly.
On the post: Not Just In The US: TPP Meeting More Resistance In Australia And Japan, Too
Re: Well, of course
I've blogged more on this at http://welch.fr/us-corruption-critical-to-getting-the-tpp-over-the-line/
On the post: Defeat Of Philip Morris In Its Corporate Sovereignty Case Against Uruguay Likely To Open Floodgates For Tobacco Packaging Legislation
Three answers to three things
2) The respondent's costs (as claimed) were $17M, towards which the claimant had to pay $7M.
3) No, see 2). It was arbitration, not litigation.
On the post: Defeat Of Philip Morris In Its Corporate Sovereignty Case Against Uruguay Likely To Open Floodgates For Tobacco Packaging Legislation
Re: Re: Good, but not as helpful as you might think
It cost them a little more than that. $7 million was their contribution to Uruguay's costs. They also had to pay the costs of the tribunal itself, as well as their own costs, which would likely be in the same order as those of Uruguay.
On the post: Newt Gingrich: Merely Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony
I'm sunk. My life is over.
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies To Americans Travelling Abroad: Trust No One, Use Burner Phones, They're All Out To Get You
Re: One-Way logic problem.
Cliché ++
On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Finally Enters The Political Mainstream
On the post: The Cable Industry Threatens To Sue If FCC Tries To Bring Competition To Cable Set Top Boxes
Re: All the more reason...
On the post: Once Again All Of Whatsapp Is Being Blocked In Brazil Because A Judge Is Upset It Won't Turn Over Data
Re:
On the post: Senators Wyden And Paul Introduce SMH Bill To Stop Massive Expansion Of Gov't Computer Hacking
Re: Re: fREEDOM?
On the post: Australian Case Shows Why Corporate Sovereignty Isn't Needed In TPP -- Or In Any Trade Agreement
No it can't. Only if such a mechanism is specified in a relevant treaty.
On the post: Shoe Company New Balance Says US Gov't Basically Offered It A Bribe To Support TPP
Re:
"corporate attorneys who 95% of the time side with the company losing money over the country."
No they don't. I suggest you look up the freely available statistics on win/loss ratios for corporations and states.
On the post: France Still Thinks It Regulates Entire Internet, Fines Google For Not Making Right To Be Forgotten Global
Re: Re: Re: Re: GAAAAH!
Oh - as the US does through its trade agreements, for example. The TPP is a fine example of that, where increased copyright and patent terms are ratcheted up by the US.
Although to be fair, if other countries are stupid enough to sign such agreements, they deserve all they get ...
Next >>