EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 79
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
| ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
and on what part of what i have written? everything? | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
a government decides that they want to cut down cigarette use. and the company that sells the cigarettes now sue the state for compensation. and thats what? totally normal for you? as it should be? maybe mexican drug cartels should sue the US government for banning cocaine :D | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
i dont pretend i have read 100 sites of law gibberish, and i dont think anyone here should read it, but other sites read it, mostly german ones, maybe there are other english sources, or i guess they will show up in the next days. so until that happens i would hold back on the bias judgment cause i guess nobody here did read it. and the other 2 cases with the big companys suing "small" states, you can find plenty of sources for that. EDIT: but i understand how americans do not care about TTIP, cause to be honest i dont think it will negatively impact america. and on the other hand i also understand why americans dont get why europeans are so against it. the europeans lost through the EU very much sovereignty, yes the EU also brought many good things, but right now in the wake of the NSA scandal, Russia-Ukraine Crisis, Debt Crisis, many EU citizens feel powerless. There seems to be no Plan for the future europe works towards. There is a strong doubt of the leadership of nations and the EU under EU citizens. So the last thing many people think we need is, that the US pulls a fast one on europe right now with some shady treaty that is totally kept secret. so maybe you can at least try to see things through my eyes, even if we dont agree on details of how much sense a certain agreement has on economics in europe. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay That's what you get from this. If a government wants to create legislation that would improve their citizens life some company, who's job pretty much boils down to making people addicted and giving them cancer, will step in and sue your ass. We all need that in our lives. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 30 2015 04:11 WhiteDog wrote: You nitpicked the contradiction because two different people made two different article taking two different point of view (american for the first and european for the second). Good job. I didn't ask for subjective points of view, I asked for facts. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
As to the morris case, that one hasn't even finished litigation yet. I see no reason to conclude the treaties or their methods are bad until we have real results. A filed suit is far different from one that's finished. Also on the morris case, there's a valid underlying point to the logic of the system, just because we hate cigarettes doesn't mean the principle is bad. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 30 2015 04:18 phil.ipp wrote: so to add to the discussion of the second law system Source: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html So we see Philip Morris sues Australia for changing Laws regarding packaging. And Chevron cause they fear a fine for polluting the environment. everything points to the fact that this agreement is only designed to give company's the option to overrule national laws, cause they maybe cut their profits. the fact that these agreements should stay secret even AFTER the treaty is finished, sadly shows that we cant trust our politicians. there are very few things a state should keep secret from his citizens and the details of a trade treaty are certainly not one of them. A law suit is not a legal right to overturn laws. You have to win, and states typically win in arbitration. When businesses win, they typically get ~10% of what they ask for. Moreover, without arbitration you can still end up with lawsuits. Yeah arbitration means that your domestic courts may not have ultimate authority (they still will in the majority of cases) but since we're talking international your domestic courts probably won't have ultimate authority all the time anyways. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On March 30 2015 06:44 zlefin wrote: just because we hate cigarettes doesn't mean the principle is bad. so you think a government should not be allowed to regulate the sale of a product? or what do you mean with principle? also who do you think pays the lawyers, judges, people who fight years against a cooperation in court?! thats not a negative effect for you already?! you have to wait until its finished? to be honest at this point i think some people are trolling really hard. you cant be serious. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
The system doesn't prohibit the government from regulating products, it means they may have to pay damages if they do so. Disputes have costs to resolve, so? That's just part of dispute resolution. The principle in question is that if you harm people, you may have to compensate them. Which is a pretty reasonable principle. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On March 30 2015 06:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote: A law suit is not a legal right to overturn laws. You have to win, and states typically win in arbitration. When businesses win, they typically get ~10% of what they ask for. Moreover, without arbitration you can still end up with lawsuits. Yeah arbitration means that your domestic courts may not have ultimate authority (they still will in the majority of cases) but since we're talking international your domestic courts probably won't have ultimate authority all the time anyways. wow, best argument ever. so you think they make a court, where they know beforehand that one side is nearly always winning. makes sense. and to make it even more logical, the ones who push for these courts are companys, of course cause they know they typically lose. it amazes me how grown up people can not even for one second step back and say: yeah there should be caution when agreeing on such a court, cause as it is with all laws, often there will be not expected outcomes, and maybe big companys could use this to their advantage, and undermine regulations made by the state. instead you act like no politician ever signed something that proved not really positively in retrospect. no you analyzed ALL the different investment treatys and its totally logical that this can only be for the best for all people cause why would any politician especially US ones, decide something thats not in the best interest of all people. is that your position? or is it possible for you to maybe imagine that even a little, tiny bit of this investment protection agreement could, you know .. maybe, not be in the best interest of people? | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On March 30 2015 07:01 zlefin wrote: The principle in question is that if you harm people, you may have to compensate them. Which is a pretty reasonable principle. so how would you ban a product, without harming the company who sells it? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 30 2015 07:16 phil.ipp wrote: so how would you ban a product, without harming the company who sells it? obviously you can't. That's the point. If you ban a company's product, you may (note MAY) have to provide them compensation. It's quite similar to eminent domain really. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On March 30 2015 07:42 zlefin wrote: obviously you can't. That's the point. If you ban a company's product, you may (note MAY) have to provide them compensation. It's quite similar to eminent domain really. see, and now there are many people who think that this is **** stupid. i think that it should be, like it ever was. that is that the company gets to make no claim at all. it worked like a charm for like forever, and i think it should stay that way  | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11616 Posts
I just do not see how any possible benefit could outweight this negative effect. A company suing a country for damages because that country changed it's laws in such an effect as to negatively impact that countries business is just plain weird. The countries government should be the final arbiter of it's laws, not some foreign company. Rich multinational companies already have uncomfortable amounts of power, blackmailing whole countries by threatening lawsuits should not be added to that list. As one can see by the blatant abuse of that power by Philipp Morris as mentioned above. Countries enact laws to combat a major health risk for their citizens, and they get bullied around by the company that instigates that health risk to stop them from infringing on their profits. This should be a cautionary tale for any country even thinking of agreeing to similar treaties to avoid getting into a position where a multinational corporation is able to sue you over changing your laws in a way that they don't like in any place except for your own courts. These companies will use their power in their own interests, which are almost certainly NOT the interests of that countries citizens. Giving up the right to write laws in your own country for some ethereal possibly existing but almost certainly not very large advantage seems insane. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 30 2015 07:01 zlefin wrote: The principle in question is that if you harm people, you may have to compensate them. Which is a pretty reasonable principle. yeah, how about we start applying that to the cigarette companies lol. Oh no I forgot, when sovereign governments harm companies that's evil but when companies harm whole populations that's just good business. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11616 Posts
Somehow cigarette companies have managed to not have to pay for the insane amount of damage they cause for a very long time. I personally have no idea how they do that. Everyone knows how much damage tobacco causes. It is a well-known scientific reality. And still tobacco companies have a business that basically consists of selling addictive poison to teenager to make them addicted to it for the rest of their lives, and not pay any damages for doing that. And now they have managed to get into a position where they can actually sue countries for trying to stop them. How is that not insane? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 30 2015 07:47 phil.ipp wrote: see, and now there are many people who think that this is **** stupid. i think that it should be, like it ever was. that is that the company gets to make no claim at all. it worked like a charm for like forever, and i think it should stay that way so you believe its' right to take property from people and give them no compensation at all. That is in fact what you're claiming, even if you don't realize it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 30 2015 07:51 Simberto wrote: The right to be able to make laws in a country is something rather important to its sovereignity, and being able to do so without foreign companies suing the country sounds like a right that no country should ever willingly give away. I just do not see how any possible benefit could outweight this negative effect. A company suing a country for damages because that country changed it's laws in such an effect as to negatively impact that countries business is just plain weird. The countries government should be the final arbiter of it's laws, not some foreign company. Rich multinational companies already have uncomfortable amounts of power, blackmailing whole countries by threatening lawsuits should not be added to that list. As one can see by the blatant abuse of that power by Philipp Morris as mentioned above. Countries enact laws to combat a major health risk for their citizens, and they get bullied around by the company that instigates that health risk to stop them from infringing on their profits. This should be a cautionary tale for any country even thinking of agreeing to similar treaties to avoid getting into a position where a multinational corporation is able to sue you over changing your laws in a way that they don't like in any place except for your own courts. These companies will use their power in their own interests, which are almost certainly NOT the interests of that countries citizens. Giving up the right to write laws in your own country for some ethereal possibly existing but almost certainly not very large advantage seems insane. you are lying, just straight out lying. It's not a blatant abuse of power to use the provisions of a lawful treaty. You simply lied. Also, the treaties do not in any way infringe on the right of countries to pass their own laws, so there you're just plain wrong. Please don't talk in subjects if you're going to ignore the facts of how they work. The point is to have a dispute resolution mechanism rather than forcing everything to become an international incident between the two countries. | ||
| ||
