What TTIP will be like: canadian company sues Romania for hypothetical profits

[DetlefK]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-cernea-clark/whose-sovereignty-gabriel_b_7939596.html
http://www.mining.com/fresh-setback-for-gabriel-resources-in-romania-rosia-montana-named-historic-site/
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2013-09/rosia-montana-gold/komplettansicht
(article in german)

Europe's biggest natural deposit of gold lies in Romania, near the village Rosia Montana.

The canadian mining-company Gabriel Resources made investments to mine there. All in all a bit less than $2 billion.

But the villagers sued in a romanian court: Gold-mining involves toxic chemicals like cyniade. The whole region, which depends on agriculture and tiny farms, would be economically wiped out if anything went ever wrong. The romanian court decided that the risks are too high. Gabriel Resources didn't get the mining-permit.



Where it gets interesting:

Romania entered free-trade agreements similarly to those in TTIP. Gabriel Resources is suing Romania in an arbitration-court at the WTO since 2015.

Romania is not only being sued for the $2 billion Gabriel Resources wasted on building up the mine-project.
Romania is also being sued for the hypothetical profits that the company would have made from the gold-mine and now won't make, bringing the total number to $4 billion.

[House of Roberts]

1. If the company made investments prior to receiving permits

it is their own fault they wasted their money.

[randome]

3. It might depend on what kind of investments were made.

If they did have an understanding with the government -official permit or 'rights' or something else- then they should get the investment money back. Otherwise, Romania can keep pushing for further investments and never need to actually provide a thing. But the 'expected profits' part should not be part of it. And just because a company is reaching for the sky (what plaintiff does not do that in a court of law?) doesn't mean they should get it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dustlawyer]

2. Even if they are right, they would have costs associated with setting up and production.

If they should get anything at all it should be net profit. Where would you find what the company historically made as profit, look at their past taxes! Oh, they haven't shown a profit on their taxes, too bad so sad!

[stillwaiting]

4. I love the posters that scream "the U.S. Has never lost one of these lawsuits!"

The pathological self-centered nature of these people makes me quite sad that I share a political party with them.

And, I'm pretty sure the day will come that corporations will successfully sue the U.S. Government for oodles of noodles if these FTA's continue to be enacted. This would be in addition to all of the back room strong-arming that would give corporations tremendous clout while bribing, er lobbying, "our" Congresscritters to do their will (even as it clearly would hurt average Americans).

Just say no to corporations being able to sue ANY country for expected future profits lost because a country had the nerve to pass legislation that benefits their citizens lives in some way, shape, or form. The nerve of these countries!!!

[fasttense]

16. But the US has lost in many cases.

"This is the second time the WTO has ruled against the U.S. in this dispute. After passing mandatory COOL rules in 2008, the U.S. amended COOL in 2012 following an earlier WTO ruling against them."

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/10/wto-rules-against-country-of-origin-labeling-on-meat-in-us/#.VxzeJ_mDGko

AND

"When the WTO’s Appellate Body upheld Brazil’s claim that U.S. cotton subsidies were depressing world prices and hurting Brazilian cotton farmers in the process, the United States did not amend its subsidies to make them compliant. Rather, it agreed to pay Brazil $147 million a year for the privilege of continuing to subsidize its own farmers in a WTO-inconsistent way. This week, the United States reached another settlement, buying Brazil’s peace once more, this time to the tune of a $300 million lump sum payment."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/12/why-the-deal-to-pay-brazil-300-million-just-to-keep-u-s-cotton-subsidies-is-bad-for-the-wto-poor-countries-and-u-s-taxpayers/

These awful trade deals are already hurting this country and making others rich.

[stillwaiting]

19. Wasn't COOL repealed in '15? And was it a requirement of a FTA?

Regardless, COOL is clearly part of the same global agenda whether or not they were related specifically to one of our previous FTA's so your point is taken.

[jeff47]

38. It was repealed after the loss at the WTO. That loss is why it was repealed. (nt)

[fasttense]

40. Yea, it was repealed. Thanks WTO. Do we relly need the TPP, when the WTO is doing

The bidding of the billionaire maniacal sociopaths?

[pampango]

41. Th WTO is the status quo and the status quo ain't good.

3 options: Withdraw from the WTO which seems to be Trump's plan to 'rip 'em up' (can't impose unilateral tariffs on Mexico, China, Japan or any other country if you belong to the WTO);
Renegotiate WTO rules like Bernie says he will do with NAFTA - doable but cumbersome and time-consuming given the number of countries (practically the every country in the world) involved;
Negotiate smaller agreements that supercede and improve upon WTO rules with individual countries or small groups of countries.

European negotiators are upset with the US in the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU that Obama is refusing to budge on protecting "Buy American" provisions in the working agreement. For that to work TTIP would have to have COOL as part of the agreement. At least that would be an improvement on WTO rules.

[A Little Weird]

5. Romania should counter-sue for the cost of a theoretical disaster

These free trade deals are bullshit. It's a shame we seem to be headed into another one.

[drm604]

7. That's a good point.

At the very least mining operations might result in a loss of surrounding property values. That theoretical loss should be deducted from any theoretical profits. And don't forget the theoretical taxes on those theoretical profits.

[Hortensis]

6. We know Obama is absolutely opposed to using

trade agreements to empower international business over nations. Why not go find out why he supported the TPP anyway?

And vote Democrat to continue the battle against the rise of corporate power.

[Ferd Berfel]

10. Once the TPP is in place

there will ONLY be Corporate power.

Only 5 sections of TPP relate to trade. All of the rest define Corporate sovereignty over Government


Both parties, Federal, State and Local Laws will all become irrelevant.

[Hortensis]

11. If it were that enormously evil, and ridiculously simple,

it would all be over, wouldn't it?

Think.

[fasttense]

12. No, because the world is very, very, big.

It takes awhile for new laws, even bad ones, to evolve into practice. With each new suit the law is defined and expounded on. That takes time. And humans (especially large groups) need time to get over their shock before they can come together to fight back. In the mean time the rich through their corporate monsters grab up everything they can while everyone is trying to figure out what is going on.

[Hortensis]

22. I think you must underestimate both Obama's

capacity for stupidity, or is it evil betrayal? (Both?), and the locusts' commitment to greed. Clue: They're not doing it for their descendants. If it's happening, in a nation like the U.S. where we are all completely dependent for life itself on support systems that will be controlled by "them," that evolution will happen pretty fast. If you don't have your secret bugout hole ready in the mountains or distant desert ravine, I suggest you get to work.

Better do a sarcasm thing to ward off the malicious:

But, please consider. Pull the pieces you have, or think you have, of the picture together and ask yourself if the picture makes sense?

To me the notion of President Obama handing not just our nation, but given our position in this world the entire planet, over to international locusts to plunder and destroy simply does not fit. Nor does helping those in America build a business-serving fascist state here. President Obama is very, very smart, as are the experts who help him formulate policy, and he wouldn't do that. If he were that kind of person, he would have joined the Republican Party and had the backing of business, instead of their enmity.

Btw, I'm also helped in my confidence that we are not committed to our own destruction by reading informative articles about the pros and cons of the TPP and other international agreements in foreign policy and economics journals. If I had looked for arguments about why they are all bad, bad, bad wherever I could find those, I would have found them instead.

[Ferd Berfel]

25. TPP: Only 5 Of 29 Sections Are About "Traditional Trade,"

Julian Assange On TPP: Only 5 Of 29 Sections Are About "Traditional Trade," Covers "Essentially Every Aspect Of A Modern Economy"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/28/julian_assange_on_tpp_only_5_of_29_sections_are_about_traditional_trade_essentially_every_aspect_of_a_modern_economy.html

The others are about regulating the internet, and what information internet service providers have to collect, they have to hand it over to companies under certain circumstances, the regulation of labor conditions, regulating the way you can favor local industry, regulating the hospital, health care system, privatization of hospitals, so essentially every aspect of a modern economy, even banking services are in the TPP.

So that is erecting and embedding new ultramodern neoliberal structure over U.S. law and the laws of other countries. And putting it in treaty form.

----------

Secret TPP Text Unveiled: It's Worse than We Thought
https://www.citizen.org/tpp

If passed, the TPP would:

make it easier for big corporations to ship our jobs overseas, pushing down our wages and increasing income inequality,

flood our country with unsafe imported food,

jack up the cost of medicines by giving big pharmaceutical corporations new monopoly rights to keep lower cost generic drugs
off the market,

empower corporations to attack our environmental and health safeguards,

ban Buy American policies needed to create green jobs,

roll back Wall Street reforms,

sneak in SOPA-like threats to Internet freedom,

and undermine human rights.
---------------------------------
Why are Only 5 of TPP's 29 Chapters -- actually about Trade?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373697/-Why-are-Only-5-of-TTP-s-29-Chapters-actually-about-Trade

(snip)
Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.

The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.

------------------------------------------------
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/13485-trans-pacific-partnership-secret-surrender-of-sovereignty

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Secret Surrender of Sovereignty

(snip)
uch procedures bypass the U.S. court system and the Constitution by abolishing the due process owed to those accused of crimes. Rather than require a person to present evidence of an alleged violation of a copyright to an impartial judge, the TPP would also demand that the outlet’s ISP immediately remove the content in question. Any legal proceedings on the merits of the charges would occur after the damage has been done.

TPP Finishes the Integration
Begun by NAFTA

Americans who study the subject realize that the redrawing of national boundaries and domestic legal processes being carried out in secret by the globalists sitting around the TPP negotiating table is an attack on American laws, American courts, American freedom of expression, American sovereignty, and the American Constitution.

[Hortensis]

27. I've read a bunch of this stuff, Fred. The idea I'm

trying to get across is that OBAMA WOULDN'T DO THAT. He is a Democrat, a liberal, a progressive, a constitutional scholar, a former community organizer, and a good man.

The Republican Party, otoh, has many people who would do just that. All its candidates except Trump (and maybe him also) are sucking up to locusts like the truly evil leadership of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 700+ plutocrats who've join the Kochs to stop us.

Understand who your enemies are so you can fight them.

Understand who your allies are so you don't fight them for your enemies.

Confusion and ignorance always empower our enemies.

[Csainvestor]

30. You do know paul ryan pushed for the tpp right?

Same goes for Mitch McConnell. The most repugnant senators pushed for the tpp. Your ignorance or misdirection on the tpp is over the top.

[Hortensis]

31. What is the purpose of your misdirection, CSAInvestor?

You must have some reason for so completely misstating my message. Don't you want people to wonder IF Obama would enter into a trade agreement as completely despicable as some are claiming?

(ONLY some, btw. Many people read magazines like The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, New York Magazine, Time, etc., etc., and have a much more complex and nuanced understanding.)

Don't believe any statement that includes an absolute. They're (almost) always wrong.
Vote Democrat to battle corporate power.
Take a very, very careful look at those who tell you the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans this election season. Not by 20 country miles. Why are they?

[Csainvestor]

32. If paul ryan and mitch want the tpp

It can only hurt the working class.

It's a very simple concept to understand.

If you deny this simple fact, you must love -no free school lunch - Ryan.

[Hortensis]

33. Don't be seduced by promises like

"It's simple, Folks. Just believe me and you'll be smarter than everyone else, and all will be well."

The fact that both ultra-right-wing Paul Ryan and progressive liberal Barack Obama support the TPP is proof that it is far from simple.

[Cassiopeia]

35. If it were Mitt Romney

along with all of the other Republicans pushing this deal would you still believe it to be a good thing for the American worker?

Probably not.

[Ferd Berfel]

37. You're kidding

Obama put Social Security on teh chopping block - they wet dream of the Third Way

Clinton claimed to be a Dem and became the best republican president since Eisenhower. He was instrumental in making a huge right turn and turning the party of FDR into the neo-Dems and a Corporate Shill.

[ronnie624]

13. He opposes corporate power, by promoting TTIP and TPP?

I don't think it's possible to find a better example of cognitive conflict.

These agreements would obviously increase the profits and power of the wealthy.

[Hortensis]

26. No, it's how they're done. And, yes, business is

currently so powerful that we cannot immediately strip them of their power to control the decisions of governments, which I suspect by both your and my definition is entirely excess and entirely unacceptable.

They have lost some excess power in the U.S. under Obama, however, and in some other nations under other leadership. The world's getting smaller and its frontiers are no longer as wild and woolly, and this is definitely not to business's advantage. Business was on the right side of history for a few decades, a conservative anti-regulation era during which it used new information and technology to extend its power and wealth tremendously, but the wheel has turned and it is now on the wrong side of history. Bernie's acceptance by the electorate is just one indicator of a much larger picture.

But we HAVE to win this election. The locusts are embattled but far from out.

[ronnie624]

28. Your claim that corporate power is decreasing,

is completely at odds with the well-known facts of the increasing concentration of control over resources and wealth, which is the very thing that provides power, to begin with.

[elljay]

18. Not all Democrats are opposed to the TPP

At least one Democratic presidential candidate supported it strongly before the primaries then opposed "what she currently knows about it." Other Democratic representatives in Congress also supported it.

It is naive to think that any Democratic president and Congress will oppose TPP. It will be back, with a few minor amendments, and blessed as having overcome the problems. This won't be true, but this particular candidate's supporters will take her word for it, no questions asked.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-revisionist-history-tpp/

http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/10/the-19-democrats-in-the-tpp-hall-of-shame/

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

[Enthusiast]

20. How do we know Obama is opposed to using

trade agreements to empower international business over nations?

I get the impression that Obama is always business first.

If he really feels that way why would he place nations in a position to be damaged by these trade deals?

We do not need another horrible trade deal on either ocean.

[Old Codger]

24. Yes vote Dem.

For the only real and true Democrat... A small hint, it isn't her..

[kacekwl]

8. Great time to

get into corporate law.

[Ferd Berfel]

9. Trans-Pacific Partnership: Secret Surrender of Sovereignty

and we've learned a lot more of how dangerous TPP is since this one was written.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/13485-trans-pacific-partnership-secret-surrender-of-sovereignty

(snip)

In his statement formally welcoming Canada to the TPP negotiations, Kirk said

Inviting Canada to join the TPP negotiations presents a unique opportunity for the United States to build upon this already dynamic trading relationship. Through TPP, we are bringing the relationship with our largest trading partner into the 21st century. We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress and domestic stakeholders regarding Canada’s entry into the TPP as we move closer to a broad-based, high-standard trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.

In an address to the heads of state gathered at the G-20 conference held in June in Los Cabos, Mexico, Calderón praised the TPP as “one of the free trade initiatives that’s most ambitious in the world” and one that would “foster integration of the Asia Pacific region, one of the regions with the greatest dynamism in the world.”

“Integration” is a word that is painful to the ears of constitutionalists and those unwilling to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a committee of globalists who are unelected by the American people and unaccountable to them.

All “partners” to the pact, including foreign corporations, would be exempted from abiding by American laws governing trade disputes. Moreover, the sovereignty of the United States and the Constitution’s enumeration of powers would once again be sacrificed on the altar of global government by subordinating U.S. laws passed by duly elected representatives of the people to a code of regulations created by a team of trans-national bureaucrats.

If you’re as fond of NAFTA and what it did for our economy and our sovereignty as Mexico and Canada are, then you’ll love what the TPP has in store.

[sulphurdunn]

14. I'll be happy to consider ceding some national sovereignty

to a world body when we defer to the UN the same way we do to the WTO and structure the latter to function in a manner similar to the former.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. American, Canadian,Australian Billionaires involved with this suit

Gabriel Resources Ltd., backed by billionaire hedge-fund manager John Paulson, threatened to seek as much as $4 billion of damages should Romanian lawmakers vote to oppose its gold mine project in the country.


“We have a very, very robust case, and we believe we have claims up to $4 billion that we can send to the Romanian state,” Gabriel Resources Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Henry said today in a telephone interview. “We will go ahead and do that if the vote is against.”


Gabriel Resources, also backed by Newmont Mining Corp. and BSG Resources Ltd., has spent more than a decade trying to build the $1.4 billion mine amid opposition by campaigners to the use of cyanide to extract gold. It agreed last month to increase the government’s stake to 25 percent from about 19 percent and accept a jump in mining royalties to 6 percent from 4 percent.



Some of the players

John Alfred Paulson

(born December 14, 1955) is an American hedge fund manager and billionaire US $9.8 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paulson




Frank Timiș owner of mining company Australian, Canadian and elsewhere

net worth of £1.34 billion (US$2.13 billion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Timi%C8%99





Total worth of Romania

367.5 billion

https://www.google.dk/search?q=romania+gnp&rlz=1C1VFKB_enDK644DK644&oq=romania+gnp&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.6544j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



Countries and Corporations........this doesn't cover it alll

?w=610

[MrModerate]

17. Romania is so corrupt . . .

That you'd be hard pressed to find a business deal without a measure of fraud built in.

The mining company probably left someone off the payoff list, and now they're getting whacked for it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Oh and Hedge Fund Masters, Mining mongrels are just to peachy

and beyond corruption........ give me a break

[ronnie624]

23. Americans have a very limited, self-serving definition of the term, 'corruption',

reinforced by those bogus corruption indexes that are promoted here, from time to time.

[MrModerate]

42. Not at all. The corruption runs from the top to the bottom . . .

And is the single-most destructive factor in Romanian culture.

When I lived there I was regularly offered "deals" -- like the guy who was supposed to empty my septic tank and was willing to underreport the volume removed if I made it worth his while (a $10 bribe to duck a $200 cost). Shopgirls would offer you 'discounts' on merchandise for a small consideration.

And at the same time, the president was selling Romania's Black Sea navy to Indian scrap merchants.

Top to bottom. Plus multinationals.

[Ichingcarpenter]

43. Glad you support the billionaires and arsenic poisoning.

in this case.

[MrModerate]

44. Dumb remark. Why did you bother? n/t

[bhikkhu]

29. Back in the old days before agreements and arbitration, they'd just stage a coup

buy an election, fund a revolution, bribe a government minister, manipulate things somehow or other until they got their way. I'm not against the WTO process, as it replaces much worse things.

[pampango]

34. They are doing this under current WTO rules. If we don't either negotiate new agreements or

change the old WTO rules, this is going to continue to happen without TTIP.

Or we can just elect the Donald. He will unilaterally rip up the WTO, NAFTA and every other international agreement we are party to so that the US can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants for for whatever reason it wants. That will 'make American great again' or so the story goes. It will be like the good old 1920's before FDR and his damned international organizations.

[silvershadow]

36. K&R

[Scuba]

39. Why is Obama pushing this shit sandwich down our throats? And why do some here ...

... still refer to him as the most progressive President even after he pushed for it?