European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 76

On March 24 2015 12:23 Nyxisto wrote:
they already have and they've thrown them out lol

On March 25 2015 00:58 lord_nibbler wrote:
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.

On March 25 2015 05:50 lord_nibbler wrote:
Say what? I don't know what made you interpret my post in this direction, but I most definitively not hint at anything like that.

It is a fairly well known fact (especially among lawyers and constitutional scholars) that there are some laws in Germany that would not fly in any independent country and can only be explained by the conditions of when they were written.

On March 25 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Oh really? Last I heard was Germany saying to Greece “they have to fulfill their obligations.” How undemocratic!

On March 25 2015 07:52 Simberto wrote:


Well, i guess the relevant part is what is being unsaid. They have to fulfill their obligations if they expect people to keep lending them more money. Nobody is threatening war on greece or other shit like that, the only threat is to stop throwing money into a hole where you know you won't get it back, ever.

On March 25 2015 08:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

No one is threatening war on Germany either. The request is that Germany allows foreign firms to bring their grievances to the agreed upon forum.

As for Greece a stronger economy is a better credit risk. Don't forget that bit.

On March 25 2015 08:44 ACrow wrote:

You do know that the TTIP is not in effect yet, yes? So, there is no agreed upon forum yet, and hopefully there will not be, at least if our representatives actually represent us in the negotiations.

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.

On March 25 2015 09:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If you think there's a better forum for dealing with these disputes, fine. But acting as if you're getting sold down the river because of them is unwarranted.