|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2015 08:07 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +arbitrary is normally a private process and this facilitates dealmaking. some of the evidence can be sensitive trade secrets and i really don't see a legitimate public interest reason to make this public.
it depends on the case, but there certainly can exist a legitimate public interest to make it public/more transparent. the parties involved are not just to private agents, but also the state, aka the representative of the public. Show nested quote +again, international treaties and international law in general are not undemocratic i never disputed that. in fact, i am a big friend of international law and treaties in certain cases.
look, requiring arbitration involving sensitive trade information to be made public would severely disadvantage the private party. i recognize the need for fairness and transparency but the selection process for arbitrators can reflect those interests.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2015 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:
oh yes, the poor international investors, what a shame they don't have more rights! I'm beginning to think we might have different definitions of democracy
we can criticize capitalism etc but certain ways of demonizing investors isn't appropriate. at the very least, market participants should play by the same rules?
|
you make it sound as if the private parties involved are some poor farmers who got expropriated by a stalinist state.
nyxisto is right, the current implementation is undemocratic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the arguments for that seem prejudiced against international arbitration. i don't think your domestic arbitrations are public nor are they subject to direct democracy.
|
hey guys, nice to see the discussion moving on to what really matters.
some more informations
1. i dont speculate, the courts are not speculation, there is another treaty with Canada its called CETA, its already finished its the blueprint for TTIP, and guess what the courts are in it and not in a new shiny way. its just the worst case everyone expects - so at the EU Parliament they try to go back on the finished deal and reopen negotiations with Canada. Cause obviously you cant deny the US something you have given to Canada a week ago.
2. dont do like europe is some third world country which is in desperate need of all kind of products - this is europe we are talking - every product on this earth - you can buy it in europe. every company on earth with a name, does sell its products in europe, and not just recently. so all these trade barriers cant be that fucking huge. some of you talk like this will bring big growth to both countrys but even in the optimistic forecasts we are talking about 1%, but not p.a., distributed over 10 years. as is said, we have already from every product more than we can buy.
which brings us to
3. everybody secures their markets against foreign competitors, especially the US uses all means to get as much influence in every country as possible, dont be naive. there is a trade war going on since ... forever. in europe we have socialism and high quality standards not everywhere but in most industrial sectors, and of course thats the reason why we lose the war. we cant compete with anyone. but whats the solution? lower every standard there is, kill every social benefit there is and then production comes back to europe and we can work like chinese slaves in factorys, but at least we have fucking +10 % economic growth, fuck that.
politicians get desperate and before they really start thinking to change the system, they just sacrifice everything we ve build, so they can get 10 years more of some pseudo economic growth.
another thing what bugs me, politicians in europe are WEAK. you cant compare that with China and the US. the US and China have on agenda over all, they want to win the trade war and will do everything to achieve this - on the other side we have in europe 28 mostly little countrys in a trade union, one the UK is already completely undercut, basically a US pet, which even helps to spy on half of europe. Also The US made sure to have influence on most of the little countrys.
you have to understand the EU Parliament is not like the US Senat, they just vote on some bullshit trading standards between the EU Countrys, there is no bigger Foreign Policy Agenda, and certainly no instance who could execute it even if there would be one. every one of the 28 countrys has its own goals. the EU is not an ideological union. its a trade union. we dont stand a chance politically speaking against other big countrys like china, us, russia and so on ..
so when im hearing the EU Commission negotiates a secret treaty, every alarm bell in my head starts to ring.
these are never ever fair negotiations, the US has an agenda, they build a global spy network to intercept every communication known to men. you dont think that would put them in a favorable position in as good as every negotiation?
if someone wrote this 2 years ago, i would have laughed and said: you have a really pessimistic view of things.
but come on a trade treaty with the guy who fought a war half around the world, based on lies ( IRAK ), and took every last shred of privacy away from us? and you think the outcome will BENEFIT THE PEOPLE? i dont want to even talk about america destabilizing the whole middle east, who deals with the millions of war refuges !?!
and before someone says im an US hater, im not. the EU is weak, and weakness is exploited.
/rage over 
|
Would you guys favor any treaty reducing trade barriers between the US and the EU? Do you give any value to Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage or none at all?
|
^ Discuss it openly. No open discussion is an automatic no go.
Other than that... If there's scientific evidence favoring policy change (eg allowing GMOs) go for it. However, do not go for it without regulating it, ie don't let farmers become seed slaves if you can avoid it, have a vetting process for putting stuff on market etc.
If it's about expediting bureaucratic processes, go for it. Adopting common tech standards for example. If it's about expediting the vetting process by simply removing it, no go.
And so on. The main thing is transparency. With transparency informed opinion follows. And informed opinion (well, at least the possibility of having an informed opinion) is the basis for democracy. No transparency, no go. Lowering quality standards, no go. Updating quality standards and procedures according to scientific data, go. Simple.
|
According to the EC, the TTIP only applies if one country is discriminating against foreign competitors. And no, you don't have the sovereign right to steal from foreigners.
|
This report is an empirical review of ISDS, based on the record of disputes under existing investment treaties. The key findings are as follows: Over 90 percent of the nearly 2400 BITs in force have operated without a single investor claim of a treaty breach. There has been an increase in the number of disputes filed in the past ten years. Overall, the rise in disputes has been proportional to the rise in outward foreign capital stock. There are more disputes, but there are also more investors and more capital invested abroad. Investors from large capital-exporting economies are active users of ISDS. European countries are a party to over 1200 BITs and account for 47 percent of global FDI stock; in the past decade European investors have filed more than half of investment arbitration claims. Similarly, the United States is responsible for 24 percent of outward FDI stock; U.S. investors have filed 22 percent of ISDS claims. Many disputes arise in economic sectors characterized by high levels of state intervention. About 40 percent of filed ISDS claims are in oil, gas, mining, and power generation sectors which often feature prominent state involvement. Disputes are also most frequent in states with weak legal institutions. Argentina (53 claims) and Venezuela (36 claims) are the leading respondent states. About a third of ISDS cases are settled in advance of a ruling. For disputes which end in an arbitral decision, states win about twice as often as investors. When investors do prevail, awards are a small fraction of the initial claim—on average, less than ten cents on the dollar. + Show Spoiler +
This hardly sounds toxic. Moreover, if you guys are suddenly feeling high minded about democracy, let the Greeks vote on all Troika decisions 
|
they already have and they've thrown them out lol
|
so after this bullshit gets negotiated, signed and ratified, how easy would it be for a country(or more) within the EU trade agreement to quit it then switch to a trade with Russia or China for ex?.
|
On March 24 2015 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
so after this bullshit gets negotiated, signed and ratified, how easy would it be for a country(or more) within the EU trade agreement to quit it then switch to a trade with Russia or China for ex?.
It depend : if you are German no pb, you can quit when you desire to do so, if you're not never because germany will make sure you respect the treaty.
|
On March 24 2015 22:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
so after this bullshit gets negotiated, signed and ratified, how easy would it be for a country(or more) within the EU trade agreement to quit it then switch to a trade with Russia or China for ex?. It depend : if you are German no pb, you can quit when you desire to do so, if you're not never because germany will make sure you respect the treaty.
(-.-)
you are hilarious sometimes
a single country in general can not quit the treaty, it has to be decided by the whole EU
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you just walked into whitedoge's trap wiht that one.
|
On March 24 2015 23:20 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 22:38 WhiteDog wrote:On March 24 2015 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
so after this bullshit gets negotiated, signed and ratified, how easy would it be for a country(or more) within the EU trade agreement to quit it then switch to a trade with Russia or China for ex?. It depend : if you are German no pb, you can quit when you desire to do so, if you're not never because germany will make sure you respect the treaty. (-.-) you are hilarious sometimes a single country in general can not quit the treaty, it has to be decided by the whole EU
it makes no sense. what will they do if countries just leave it?. wage war?. it's funny!
Edit:or, leaving the trade agreement, as far as TTIP goes, would be a breach of contract or a contract termination thinggie?
|
On March 24 2015 22:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
so after this bullshit gets negotiated, signed and ratified, how easy would it be for a country(or more) within the EU trade agreement to quit it then switch to a trade with Russia or China for ex?. It depend : if you are German no pb, you can quit when you desire to do so, if you're not never because germany will make sure you respect the treaty. I am fairly convinced that there is a fundamental difference between 'normal countries' and Germany in cases like these.
While France was able to leave NATO or Sweden can remain 'neutral' for example, Germany is simply not allowed to make such decisions! Germany lost the war and therefore has no say when it comes to for example deploying US nuclear weapons on it's soil or choosing it's military or economic alliances.
Two years ago in the course of the revelation of the NSA total surveillance activity some telling facts came to the surface. Like for example, that US intelligence services (NSA, CIA and all their civilian contractors) have the guaranteed right to operate inside the country with complete freedom, that there is no right to privacy or lawyer's secrecy of Germans vis-à-vis the NSA.
Or how about the fact, that no Eurofighter jet can take off without a start code from the NSA. And there are dozens of these secret laws. At lot of scholars of law sad that technically Germany is not an independent country but still occupied territory.
I once heard the story of Willy Brandt (one of the best Chancellors we ever had). He had won the election and was ready to be sworn in as the head of state, but before he had to sign an agreement that apparently to this day all German Chancellors have to. He was furious for hours and refused to sign away fundamental rights you would expect from a head of state. But the US made very clear, that there is no Chancellery without his signature, so he buckled.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no Eurofighter jet can not take off without a start code from the NSA
source?
the nsa is indeed involved in building security tools for military assets but this claim here is absurd.
|
It would be nice if people could provide sources for their claims. Otherwise the discussions get ridiculous.
On March 24 2015 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
so after this bullshit gets negotiated, signed and ratified, how easy would it be for a country(or more) within the EU trade agreement to quit it then switch to a trade with Russia or China for ex?.
TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is exactly that. It does not restrict trade with other countries. Russia included.
Personally I'm no friend of the ISDS courts as the U.S. and Europe both have a fair justice system where corporations can sue if they feel they were not treated fairly.
@xM(Z: http://www.beuc.eu/blog/the-micula-case-when-isds-messes-with-eu-law/
|
I can't find an English source (and the original Austrian source in gone as well  ).
The gist of it was that you can take off without the codes but you will immediately be identified as a foe not a friend. Apparently all communication and identification codes of NATO are handled by the NSA.
The original story was about two NSA officers who work inside Austria's only interceptor fighter jet air base (normally the highest security area in any nation where no foreign military personal should ever have access to because it is the last and only defense against enemy air attacks). The Austrian army response to these revelations was "but we can not fly without these two guys giving us the codes and it was much more practical to have them here on base".
So later it became clear that this is the norm in Germany as well, no one is flying anywhere without the NSA allowing it...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
do you need your bank's approval to spend money just because they are maintaining the security system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/isds.PNG)
