It's a lie: There are no enforceable standards in the TPP

[cali]

or the TPA which spells out governing principles for all future ftas. Section 103(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 2015 dictates simply that progress must be made toward meeting such objectives. It doesn't say how much progress. That's a honking big loophole.
And the U.S. Peru fta is a historical object lesson in the cynical uselessness of so-called enforceable standards as regards the environment and labor. That was also a "gold standard" agreement. And then there's the literally murderous example of Columbia.

In order to buy into these lies you have to be a gullible dupe, a single minded partisan or a greedy pig who stands to benefit.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/244375-fast-talk-from-the-fast-track-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/09/obama-tpp-trade-congress-pushback-column/28683599/

column/28683599/http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/244311-perus-story-haunts-the-tpp

[Agony]

1. Investor rights trump peoples rights

Will Statoil bring action against NYS for blocking fracking on its leases in the state and causing corporate losses? Ya got 60 days to figure it out!

"Sadly, the FTA’s initial implementation foreshadowed the pact’s threats. In Peru, we remember the day six years ago when 32 people died, including indigenous protestors and police, in what is called the “Bagua massacre,” an incident that was widely reported in your newspapers. On June 5, 2009, Peruvian security forces attacked several thousand indigenous Awajun and Wambis protestors, including many women and children, who were blocking the “Devil's Curve,” a jungle highway near Bagua, 600 miles north of Lima. The protestors were demanding revocation of decrees providing new access to exploit their Amazonian lands for oil, gas and logging that had been enacted to comply with the FTA’s investor rights requirements.

The decrees, enacted by Peruvian President Alan Garcia, violated the indigenous peoples’ rights both under the Peruvian Constitution and treaties Peru had signed guaranteeing prior informed consent by indigenous communities on projects involving their land. Thanks to WikiLeaks’ publication of diplomatic cables between the U.S. State Department and the U.S. embassy in Lima, we know that four days before the killings, a State Department cable addressed the growing indigenous protests, proclaiming: “Should Congress and President Garcia give in to the pressure, there would be implications for the recently implemented Peru-US Free Trade Agreement.”

What has become known as the “Amazon’s Tiananmen” brought the realities of the U.S.-Peru FTA into sharp relief. Rather than being a new trade agreement model, as it was sold, at its heart were the same extreme investor rights that animated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Although the Obama administration is now trying to use the same sales pitch to sell the TPP as “new” and “progressive,” thanks to another leak from Wikileaks of the TPP’s Investment Chapter, we know it would extend further the Peru FTA’s extraordinary privileges and rights for foreign investors."

[cali]

3. thanks for letting me know about the links.

They worked for me but I replaced them anyway. Hopefully they all work now.

[raouldukelives]

33. "Some animals are more equal than others."

Nobody tramples on my personal democratic principles, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, quite like investors and the legions of lobbyists they spawn.

To the point that my ecosystem, the one that fed and clothed and fueled the hopes and ambitions of every generation of my family spanning the ages, is in jeopardy from them. Pretty amazing if you think about it. It would almost be impressive if it wasn't so mind numbingly horrific.

[Art_from_Ark]

52. We're peering into the farmhouse

and can't tell the two-legs from the four-legs.

[TBF]

2. Related - Ecuador's Global Challenge

4 June 2015 - 05:49 PM Analysis Ecuador's Global Challenge

On World Environment Day, government representatives are gathering at U.N. talks in Bonn, discussing strategy ahead of the crucial U.N. Paris climate change conference at the end of the year. A farmer rinses fruit and vegetables using water from a new irrigation system in Ecuador. There, world leaders need to adopt a long-term, binding agreement to replace the Kyoto Treaty, the world’s only legally binding global emissions treaty, which ran out in 2012, but temporarily extended. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has taken a pragmatic lead, pushing for a greenhouse emissions reduction agreement that will not have to passed by the U.S. Congress, which means no legally binding international targets. As the planet hurtles towards a 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature, irreversible and with catastrophic effects on extreme weather conditions, others are calling for tough mandatory international regulation. A number of Latin American countries, especially the ALBA group, have been particularly punchy in their stance, with Bolivian president, Evo Morales showing a take-no-prisoners approach to global warming, pushing for the nations that mainly caused the problem to finally take responsibility.

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Ecuadors-Global-Challenge-Tackling-Poverty-and-Climate-Change-20150604-0047.html. If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english

[cali]

5. thanks for adding that

[Divernan]

4. I'd add: "a bought & paid for, sockpuppet, soulless politician"

to your list:
In order to buy into these lies you have to be a gullible dupe, a single minded partisan or a greedy pig who stands to benefit.

but actually that is a subset of "greedy pig who stands to benefit"

[pampango]

6. Didn't see anything at the links about enforceable standards, or a lack thereof, in the TPP.

Did I miss it or were the links more directed at the "gullible dupe", single minded partisan" or "greedy pig" part of your post? (BTW, that first link did not work for me.)

Thanks for the referencing the Trade Act of 2015 (the fast track or TPA bill). For others here is the link to it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1314/text#toc-H6F355A1181ED41BE83521DB37C27CAE1

[cali]

9. TPA governs standards in all future ftas

[pampango]

27. TPA includes negotiating guidelines for the executive branch. It does not set the standard

for how enforceable or unenforceable the standards (or how high or low they are) in any agreement are. The executive branch does the actual negotiating.

If the final agreement the executive branch negotiates and submits to congress does not meet the guidelines that congress set out in TPA, congress can decide not to proceed with 'fast track' and open it up to amendment and filibuster. That's why TPA is not a 'carte blanche' that lets the executive negotiate any kind of agreement it wants and then requires congress to act with a deadline and no amendments. Such a 'carte blanche' TPA bill would just give no guidelines and would just constrain congress. Not surprisingly, congress does not work that way.

But there are just guidelines in the TPA. Still the executive decides what topics are included in the negotiation and how enforceable or not any standards are, under the realization that if the final document does not adhere to the guidelines in the TPA, there is the risk that congress will decide that 'fast track' does not apply.

[bvar22]

44. Its been 25 years since NAFTA.

Do you really believe ANY of these so called "Free Trade" Deals contain "enforceable standards"?

Please cite an example where the People WON a NAFTA Tribunal against the Corporations.

[Romulox]

23. Just link to the language in the TPP with the enforceable standards, pamapango!

I just *know* that you (of all people!) wouldn't shill for a trade deal without actual knowledge of its content. I just *know* it!

Er....

[pampango]

28. Oh I have 'shilled' (not to be too judgmental) for many deals (Iran, Cuba) that I have not seen.

I will probably end up 'shilling' for any climate agreement that comes out of the conference going on in Paris, if we are lucky enough to get one.

Hey, republicans blasted FDR for his "secret" trade deals. (I suppose his supporters in the Democratic Party were accused of 'shilling' at the time.) I know that attacking secrecy is an effective strategy.

And if there are 'enforceable standards' many at DU won't be happy about that. National sovereignty and all. They won't mind 'enforceable standards' as applied to Vietnam, Mexico or Malaysia but 'enforceable standards' enforced against the US by multilateral arbitration panels (read: foreigners) will greatly upset the 'national sovereignty matters more than anything else' folks - most of whom are on the right but are present on the left as well.

[Romulox]

29. LOL. I don't think that this admission helps your case. You seem to be in the bag, regardless

of the contents (or consequences!) of these trade deals.

[pampango]

37. Perhaps not. Democrats were accused by republicans of "shilling" for FDR's 'secret trade deals'.

Sometimes 'shilling' is in the eye of the beholder.

[JDPriestly]

36. How would you enforce standards against Vietnam, Mexico or Malaysia.

I cannot think of any way to do that short of going in and inspecting plants owned by local as well as multinational companies. The idea is absurd. Is Viet Nam going to agree to allow American inspectors to check working conditions in their factories? How could you possibly adequately enforce labor standards in other countries unless you retain the ability to deny trade advantages and place tariffs on goods imported from that country. We are nearly completely dependent on imports for certain goods already. That dependence means that it would be extremely difficult to replace the imports and enforce labor standards by refusing the imports.

The concept of giving up our ability to impose tariffs and refuse to trade, and the concept of allowing our industrial base to be virtually destroyed or diminished to the point that we cannot supply our most basic needs is a threat to our national security/. Those policies give people in other countries too much power over our economy and our ability to provide for ourselves. You can't talk about being an independent country when you are so dependent on other countries to supply the most basic things you need.

[pampango]

38. The EU and the WTO have a history of effective enforcement standards. It can be done.

... unless you retain the ability to deny trade advantages and place tariffs on goods imported from that country.

Good point. Indeed, when the US did not comply with some aspects of NAFTA, arbitrators allowed the Mexican government to impose substantial tariffs on selected imports from the US as a penalty. A similar thing happened in the WTO when Brazil sued the US over our continued sugar subsidies. Brazil was allowed to impose tariffs on some imports from the US.

To your point, tariffs frequently have been and probably will still be a likely outcome, when one country does not comply with some provision of an international agreement.

Those policies give people in other countries too much power over our economy and our ability to provide for ourselves.

Our 1% has much more power over our economy than "people in other countries" have.

You can't talk about being an independent country when you are so dependent on other countries to supply the most basic things you need.

I suspect that progressives in Sweden, Germany and any other progressive country, still consider their countries to be 'independent' even though they do not supply 100% of what people need from domestic sources. They do not fear involvement with and even reliance on "people in other countries" as a negative thing but as the way things are and an indication that we all are part of the global community and should rely on each other. That is one reason that they trade so much more than we do and are not afraid of it.

[JDPriestly]

32. This is a bit of a joke:

SEC. 108. Sovereignty.

(a) United States law To prevail in event of conflict.—No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 103(b), nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.

(b) Amendments or modifications of United States law.—No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 103(b) shall prevent the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States, that State, or that locality (as the case may be).

(c) Dispute settlement reports.—Reports, including findings and recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant to any trade agreement entered into under section 103(b) shall have no binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of the United States.

(My comment: We may declare that our sovereignty will not be lessened by the trade agreement and that the trade agreement cannot affect our laws, but when a trade court decides to award a corporation a large sum of money in damages allegedly caused by a law our legislature(s) have enacted, we will in reality be forced to change our laws or pay that fine and possibly other similar fines based on other similar damage claims. That is a loss of sovereignty. What is more damages imposed by these WTO and other trade organization courts amount to taxation without representation and are reminiscent although not precisely the same as the very taxes that Britain imposed on us in the 18th century and that led to our Revolution. How are we to pay any potential damage awards without increasing our taxes?)

(This is the pronouncement on labor standards

(7) CORE LABOR STANDARDS.—The term “core labor standards” means—

(A) freedom of association;

(B) the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

(C) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor;

(D) the effective abolition of child labor and a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor; and

(E) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

(Good luck enforcing these standards within corporate structures in other countries. What are we going to do if we discover the standards have been violated? Invade a factory in Bangla Desh? Exact damages on behalf of our government (which will not change any labor standards)? Stop trading with the country that violates these standards? Dream on.)

Again, is the TPP giving to corporations the status to sue countries? If so, why? How can that work? And labor unions, are they being given the status to sue countries? The trade courts or arbitration courts are a terrible idea. These multinational agreements will be impossible to enforce. The comforting provisions, the provisions that "guarantee" rights cannot have sufficient enforcement procedures. Are we to end trade with a country that violates the agreement? Are we to invade a country that violates the agreement? And can the US sue corporations that violate the agreement? Or is the situation such that only corporations can sue the US and other countries? These multinational agreements tie the hands of countries like the US and will be difficult to enforce against countries in which the rule of law is less systematic and the government less capable of enforcing these agreements against multinational corporations with financial resources greater than the countries themselves.

Further, we have a perfectly good, constitutional court system that permits corporations to seek remedies within the US. We should not allow international arbitration or trade courts to impose damages on our country in ways that violate our Seventh Amendment which provides for the possibility of a jury trial in civil cases valued at over a certain dollar amount. It is one thing if two consenting parties agree to resolve a dispute in an arbitration court. But it is quite another when the US government allows an arbitration court to decide disputes when the settlement or decision ending the dispute will bind our country and/or American citizens.

The quoted portions are from

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1314/text#toc-H6F355A1181ED41BE83521DB37C27CAE1

[pampango]

35. Granted, the balance between "enforceable standards" and "national sovereignty" is a tough one.

If standards are to be enforceable on one country that have to be enforceable on all. It is easy for me to call for 'enforceable standards' on labor rights in Vietnam or Mexico. What if Canadian or Australian union, sues Mississippi or Wisconsin claiming that 'right-to-work' is an abridgment of labor rights in the US? Do I support our 'national sovereignty' to have whatever weak labor laws we want? And if the US has that right, does Vietnam? Or do I side with the 'enforceable labor rights' side to the benefit of American workers but to the detriment of the principle of state sovereignty?

These multinational agreements will be impossible to enforce. The comforting provisions, the provisions that "guarantee" rights cannot have sufficient enforcement procedures.

The WTO and the EU would beg to differ. The have a history of effective enforcement of standards agreed to in multilateral agreements using multilateral arbitration to resolve disputes. FDR's International Trade Organization had enforceable standards using a similar enforcement mechanism. You may be right (and FDR, EU and WTO wrong) that such standards are 'unenforceable'.

Arguing that multilateral agreements are impossible to enforce seems to be an argument against diplomatic negotiations as a way to resolve international conflicts. Many of us prefer multilateral negotiations and agreements as a better way to resolve global problems than the alternative of the US acting unilaterally, and everyone else playing by our rules, or just ignoring the problems.

And labor unions, are they being given the status to sue countries?

Obama has claimed that enforcement procedures will be the same for labor rights and environment standards as they are for the protection of investors. (Again, that would be similar to FDR's ITO.) That would imply that, yes, unions and environmental organization could sue countries as well, since that seems to be one aspect of the enforcement process.

It is one thing if two consenting parties agree to resolve a dispute in an arbitration court.

In the case of the TPP is would be 12 consenting parties. National governments do make agreements with other national governments that are binding on the citizens of both, though libertarians, and perhaps others, may wish that were not the case.

[JDPriestly]

41. I can understand that agreements among countries can be enforced by international courts.

But what I do not think appropriate in these trade agreements is that, as with the NAFTA court, investing corporations can sue countries. That is to me an unacceptable challenge to national sovereignty.

And I do not think that, on a practical level, we can enforce fair labor or fair environmental standards, say, in Viet Nam or Sri Lanka. Nor can a country that has more generous laws than we do on the rights of workers to organize into labor unions impose those rights on the people in states like Mississippi. I don't think it can be done without violence.

How in the world would you get someone like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana to impose the right to organize unions that Germany or perhaps even Australia enjoys in Louisiana? The US government does not do that. How could a trade organization do that.

Here is what will happen: Competition will reduce, not raise, labor standards around the world. American workers fought hard to get the rights they enjoyed during the mid-twentieth century. It was a long, arduous battle. And thanks to international trade, the rights of American workers, the strength of our unions, the confidence working people have in their ability to improve their pay and working conditions has diminished. American workers are in many respects in greater jeopardy now than they have been for many years. And it is primarily because they are constantly told that they have to compete with workers in other countries who are willing to work for nearly nothing, inadequate workman's compensation, inadequate OSHA regulations, just bad working conditions all around.

To the extent that Obama is pushing yet another trade agreement that will reduce the ability of American workers to push the world's workplace fairness and safety standards higher, he is doing Republican work.

FDR hoped to obtain peace with increased trade. That is not an unrealistic hope. But, at this oint, we have enough trade to allow trade to do what it can to establish peace. At this point, increased trade agreements that are multilateral merely reduce workplace and pay standards and do nothing to increase peace. That is because as the US enters into larger and larger trade groups, the US position and ability to deny the entry of goods or allow the entry of goods to accomplish diplomatic goals is diluted.

So i disagree strongly with these multinational trade agreements for many reasons.

The idea that China will somehow become a nation that plays be the rules and does not cheat just because we eventually allow it to join the TPP is naive. It won't. It is a bigger country with greater economic potential than we have, and it will make the rules for the world's economy, no matter how many trade agreements we enter into with other countries.

Again, a naive idea.

[pampango]

42. If too many trade agreements and not enough national sovereignty were the causes of our problems,

then German and Swedish workers (to mention just two progressive countries) should be in a world of hurt compared to us. They are not, despite having much more 'free trade' than we do and being subject to the EU's effect on their national sovereignty - two things the far-right hates there.

I do not think that, on a practical level, we can enforce fair labor or fair environmental standards, say, in Viet Nam or Sri Lanka. Nor can a country that has more generous laws than we do on the rights of workers to organize into labor unions impose those rights on the people in states like Mississippi.

We disagree. I think there are real world examples of countries having to comply with agreements they have signed even when they do not want to comply. The key is to have them complying with high standards rather than low ones.

If you are right, there is no reason to even try to negotiate an international climate agreement if enforcement is hopeless.

And thanks to international trade, the rights of American workers, the strength of our unions, the confidence working people have in their ability to improve their pay and working conditions has diminished.

We disagree. I would argue that Taft-Hartley (passed by republicans over Truman's veto) with its 'right-to-work' provision has been much, much more harmful to the strength of our unions. And that is something that we (specifically, republicans) did to ourselves.

International trade does not weaken unions and take away the rights of workers. This is obvious from the fact that the countries with strong unions and empowered workers trade much, much more than the US trades. If international trade was as much to blame as you contend, Germany, Sweden and many other progressive, high-trade countries would be wastelands of broken unions and low-paid workers. They are not. In fact they are the opposite.

... it is primarily because they are constantly told that they have to compete with workers in other countries who are willing to work for nearly nothing, inadequate workman's compensation, inadequate OSHA regulations, just bad working conditions all around.

We disagree. Why do German and Swedish workers not listen to the same voices that you claim American workers listen to? Again, if true, a country like Germany where international trade is 70% of the economy would be a wasteland of weak unions and exploited workers. It is not.

In fact, German manufacturing workers make more than ours make. How is that possible when "they are constantly told that they have to compete with workers in other countries who are willing to work for nearly nothing, inadequate workman's compensation, inadequate OSHA regulations, just bad working conditions all around." Do German workers not hear the same voices that American workers hear? Perhaps our 1% is just better at scaring our workers with the threat of poor countries than the German 1% is. I wonder why that would be the case.

And, if the amount of trade was the determining factor of the health of labor in a country, the US would be a haven for strong unions and empowered workers since international trade is only 24% of our economy - a pittance by German standards. Almost no country trades less than we do.

... as the US enters into larger and larger trade groups, the US position and ability to deny the entry of goods or allow the entry of goods to accomplish diplomatic goals is diluted.

We agree. And FDR proposed and Truman negotiated and signed an agreement with 53 countries (the ITO) for that very reason. Their experience of what republicans did in the 1920's convinced them that our congress (and legislatures in most countries) will seek to blame foreigners for economic problems because it's good politics. Foreigners don't vote here. Playing the "Us vs. Them" card is appealing to national politicians.

FDR and Truman did not want a return to the trade policies of the 1920's and believed that large trade groups would minimize the risk that would happen. Such groups dilute the power of any one country to call the shots. Countries are treated equitably regardless of their size and power.

Again, a naive idea.

Perhaps you are right. Liberals have often been accused of being naive - usually by conservatives who prefer a 'realistic', 'practical' approach - in many areas of public policy. I suspect that FDR was considered 'naive' by many conservatives for his vision of a better society and world.

[JDPriestly]

46. So let's reform our social system so that it is more like Germany's and Scandinavia's, provide

free health care, free education, free job training, worker participation on the boards of directors of large companies, etc. and then, once we have a healthier economy and a more decent, supportive society for all, talk about negotiating trade agreements.

I've lived in Germany and other European countries. Germany in particular has a long, long tradition of strong trade organizations beginning with the guilds in the Middle Ages and the trade unions of today. Traditionally, German companies and employees have better relationships than American companies and their American employees. Let's change our workplace culture and then negotiate trade agreements.

To negotiate trade agreements without first healing our economy and society is putting the horse before the cart.

[pampango]

51. I agree wholeheartedly. Using our energy to support or oppose trade agreements is a distraction

from what really needs to be done: "reform our social system so that it is more like Germany's and Scandinavia's, provide free health care, free education, free job training, worker participation on the boards of directors of large companies, etc. and then, once we have a healthier economy and a more decent, supportive society for all ..."

I agree that we would be much better off if we followed your suggestion to take care of the most important things first. In the 'cart before the horse analogy', if the "horse" is a 'social system .. more like Germany's and Scandinavia's', then it really does not matter what we have in the 'cart' in terms of trade agreements (few or many). Our middle class is not going to make any progress without a 'horse' and that requires major reforms to our social and economic system.

We kid ourselves that we can cure, or at least alleviate, the problems of our middle class by changing the contents of the 'cart' (more trade, less trade) without giving equal or greater attention to the fact that we have no 'horse' to pull the contents of the 'cart'. It really does not matter whether the 'cart is before the horse' or behind it, if the 'horse' is dead. I agree that getting a strong 'horse' is more important than what is in the 'cart'.

[JDPriestly]

54. Unfortunately, what is in the cart does matter.

If the load in the cart is too heavy for the weakened horse, then the horse will not be able to move the cart.

And that is the problem with the TPP and entering into more trade deals that load our middle class and working people down with having to compete with countries that have low wages, being pushed into service economy jobs for which there is limited demand rather than the industrial jobs that actually produce marketable products.

The TPP makes the cart much harder for the horse to pull. We just cannot afford the TPP and other trade agreements until we get our own horse and cart into better balance.

The TPP is just a corporate coup. And if you read the article posted from the Guardian here on DU about the amounts of money that corporations paid the senators to vote for fastrac and the TPP, you will see the evidence that the TPP is just a corporate coup.

I would not be surprised if the corporations paid money to people just to go and post on discussion forums like DU in favor of the TPP. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

[pampango]

55. I disagree. If we don't revive our 'horse', changing the contents in our 'cart' won't matter.

The US tried to empty the "cart" under republicans before FDR. We raised tariffs, had no trade agreements and trade disappeared. But republicans also killed the 'horse' since we had no progressive social system. The result of an 'empty cart' and a 'dead horse' was a devastated middle class and historic income inequality. Emptying our 'cart' of trade and trade agreements cannot be our main priority. republicans did it. By itself, emptying the 'cart', only enriches the already rich.

When FDR came into office he concentrated on making the 'horse' stronger then went about adding trade and trade agreements to the 'cart' in 1934. Then he tried to add larger numbers of countries to the trade agreements so that the contents of the 'carts' and the strength of the 'horses' were equalized and rules were governed with the consent of many countries.

FDR believed in international cooperation on trade and other issues. Germany, Sweden and other progressive countries today operate under the same principle of international cooperation rather than viewing other countries as evil forces out to undermine the prosperity of their workers.

If TPP does not pass, it does not pass. (It won't affect my modest stream of income in the slightest. ) Nothing changes with NAFTA or the WTO or our other trade agreements. At best, defeating TPP would mean that nothing changes in terms of the content of our 'cart'. It does nothing to strengthen our 'horse'.

Even if we use a TPP defeat as a stepping stone to unloading existing trade agreements from our 'cart' without strengthening our 'horse', we will only be replicating the republican strategy of the 1920's. We will not be replicating what works in progressive countries today and what FDR strove to achieve back in his day.

[stonecutter357]

7. .

[cali]

8. lame.

[marmar]

13. When you have nothing to refute the OP with, you can always resort to emoticons, right?

[Art_from_Ark]

50. Maybe he thinks that if Sid can get an appreciation thread for using emoticons,

he can, too.

[daleanime]

25. ......

[TBF]

34. ...

Ready for ... whatever they are told. It should be called the BORG rather than BOG.

[JDPriestly]

10. Could not load the Hill article, but the USATODAY article is devastating.

[jwirr]

11. Thank you Cali.

[Doctor_J]

12. which of the three categories do the BOG members fall into?

They seem to be 100% on board with this travesty.

[Fred Sanders]

14. The "we trust our twice elected Democratic Party leader and American President" folks are confident

enough not to resort to name-calling.

We who trust Obama to be a warrior for the middle class have no need to call fellow Democrats vicious names...folks who are in the right rarely have to do such stuff.

Who needs enemies with friends like these?

The GOP sits back and applauds the vacuous internal attacks.

What do folks think of all the pro-labor NLRB rulings made possible by Obama's reconstitution of it's authority, not to mention his pro-labor executive orders?

Ignoring that is best if name-calling is the plan.

Must be addictive to attack Obama knowing a few folks will reliably Rec anything anti-Obama, am I right?

[Doctor_J]

19. so that would be #2

Thanks for clearing that up

[Fred Sanders]

20. Thank you for clearing up how right I am. Repeating name-calling is just repeating nothing.

[Doctor_J]

45. trust all of the Dem congress, senators, pundits, and rank and file, who say that this

piece of shit is a piece of shit. So what?

[deutsey]

21. LOL

[Logical]

40. Quit whining, anti-TPP is not anti-obama, people like you who blindly support....

Him with no questions asked scare me!

[Fred Sanders]

53. The "blindly support" brigade is blind to logic. Logic becomes whining, the history of Obama's many

pro-labor positions and actions are ignored...to face the facts would be to face the illogical conclusion that President Obama is anti-labor.

I prefer evidence to speculation, but, free country.

[GeorgeGist]

47. So that's why >90% of Obama's recovery has gone to th R I C H.

[MisterP]

43. last I saw they were tying Bithiah to a big cow

[SwankyXomb]

15. I'm sure the usual

gullible dupes and single minded partisans will be along shortly to attack you.

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. I called my Senators and the Whithouse this morning. Will you, please?

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[valerief]

17. Pigs gotta oink. nt

[Enthusiast]

18. They don't mind lying at all.

Honestly, they do not possess the morals of the average citizen. Are they just misguided? No, they are bad people. Sorry to step on the toes but that is just the way I see it.

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

[Thespian2]

24. Guardian UK

Here is a link to a long article in the Guardian. I started a thread a few moments ago, but I don't believe the link is on the thread.

Excellent read from people who actually work in the system...


K & R, cali


http://gu.com/p/49jbf/sbl

[cali]

30. thanks so much. of the dozens of articles that I've read on ISDS, that may well be the best

[KoKo]

48. Just three quick examples (from the Guardian Article) about how this works

and how wealthy corporations can harm countries who try to protect their sovereign rights...

----------------

Fifteen years ago, Parada’s work was a minor niche even within the legal business. But since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)

Parada’s first case was defending Argentina in the late 1990s against the French conglomerate Vivendi, which sued after the Argentine province of Tucuman stepped in to limit the price it charged people for water and wastewater services. Argentina eventually lost, and was ordered to pay the company more than $100m.

Now, in his most high-profile case yet, Parada is part of the team defending El Salvador as it tries to fend off a multimillion-dollar suit lodged by a multinational mining company after the tiny Central American country refused to allow it to dig for gold.

The suit was filed in 2009 by a Canadian company, Pacific Rim – later bought by an Australian mining firm, OceanaGold – which said it had been encouraged by the government of El Salvador to spend “tens of millions of dollars to undertake mineral exploration activities”. But, the company alleged that when valuable deposits of gold and silver were discovered, the government, for political reasons, withheld the permits it needed to begin digging. The company’s claim, which at one point exceeded $300m, has since been reduced to $284m – still more than the total amount of foreign aid El Salvador received last year. El Salvador countered that the company not only lacked environmental permits but also failed to prove it had obtained rights to much of the land covered by its request: many farmers in the northern Cabañas region, where the company wanted to dig, had refused to sell their land.

[KoKo]

49. Recommend Article

[ctsnowman]

26. We don't protect

labor in the US territory of Saipan there is no way we are going to protect workers in Vietnam.

Smoke and mirrors.

[JEB]

31. K&R for the original post and subsequent informative posts and links.

[historylovr]

39. K & R