Trump's Card
It's hard to be pro labor and pro Goldman Sachs at the same time, the two interests are often going to be at odds, whose "US interests" are those? How did GS' interests align with those of the citizens of Greece?
And yes, the ISDS provisions are one key sticking point, imposing new property rights of foreign investors that supersede local business, environmental or labor standards. The TPP is more of a sovereignty transfer deal than a trade deal. Here are a few short articles that flesh out its downfalls:
Beware of TPP’s ISDS Provision
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/
TPP would let foreign investors bypass the Canadian public interest
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/tpp-would-let-foreign-investors-bypass-the-canadian-public-interest/article27463985/
TPP's clauses that let Australia be sued are weapons of legal destruction, says lawyer
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer
Why Canada must reject the Trans Pacific Partnership
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/tpp-need-to-know/read-more
Ten ways the TPP gives too much power to foreign investors
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/09/ten-ways-tpp-gives-too-much-power-to-foreign-investors
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I don't get this.
Bernie Sanders put forward a strongly pro-labour agenda, and HRC took a few points on board. Now you tell me they couldn't do it without being buried under an avalanche of NAFTA suits? Same with California's plans to raise its minimum wage.
How? They allow for- and I certainly recognise it's controversial- arbitration for loss on investments. The multinational doesn't special dispensation to ignore the law.
I can see why you don't like the ISDS, and I see that, but trade is surely very important, albeit more as a means than an end. It's intended to bind the region closely to US "interests" rather than Chinese ones or Russian ones.
multinationals would be able to sue local governements on items like changes in environmental regulations, or changes in labor law like increases in minimum wages.
Bernie Sanders put forward a strongly pro-labour agenda, and HRC took a few points on board. Now you tell me they couldn't do it without being buried under an avalanche of NAFTA suits? Same with California's plans to raise its minimum wage.
Those kinds of toxic provisions which enable multinationals to supersede national or local legislation
It was never really just about "free trade" and tariffs, those were sweeping laws which would have profoundly altered the regulatory environment in favor of multinationals.
And yes, the ISDS provisions are one key sticking point, imposing new property rights of foreign investors that supersede local business, environmental or labor standards. The TPP is more of a sovereignty transfer deal than a trade deal. Here are a few short articles that flesh out its downfalls:
Beware of TPP’s ISDS Provision
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/
TPP would let foreign investors bypass the Canadian public interest
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/tpp-would-let-foreign-investors-bypass-the-canadian-public-interest/article27463985/
TPP's clauses that let Australia be sued are weapons of legal destruction, says lawyer
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer
Why Canada must reject the Trans Pacific Partnership
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/tpp-need-to-know/read-more
Ten ways the TPP gives too much power to foreign investors
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/09/ten-ways-tpp-gives-too-much-power-to-foreign-investors
Comment