6 ms·

I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press confer

I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press conference.

touristtam 12y ago
There is a nicely explained article about the potential threat to democracy that is TTIP: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta. Incidently techdirt just ran an article on how Bolivia broke their own trade agreement with similar clauses: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/bolivia-shows-how-to-dismantle-corporate-sovereignty-provisions-treaties-without-losing-foreign-investment.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/boliv...
- Orinocco 12y ago
  Thanks, very informative - I see why this is a problem now!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
pizza234 12y ago
One of the major concerns of the TTIP is the Investor State Dispute Settlements, which allows US investors to be able to sue EU Member States in cases where their investment has been diminished due to regulatory changes made in the public interest (1). This is corporatocracy at its finest. Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article. The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy. The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products. I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions. (1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-investor-state-dispute-settlement-and-the-future-of-international-investment-law-in http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...
- Orinocco 12y ago
  Thanks! I'm signed up. Philip Morris vs. Australia sounds like it should be satire :(
- pathy 12y ago
  >The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy. Vattenfall suing the German state makes sense considering the business impact the change had. Add to that, Vattenfall is wholly owned by the Swedish state so the TTIP should have no impact what so ever on their dealings.

I agree, could someone please explain why CETA and TTIP are worth stopping? Given that the link doesn't seem to, and I don't have time to watch the press conference.

touristtam 12y ago

There is a nicely explained article about the potential threat to democracy that is TTIP: http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta. Incidently techdirt just ran an article on how Bolivia broke their own trade agreement with similar clauses: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/bolivia-shows-how-to-dismantle-corporate-sovereignty-provisions-treaties-without-losing-foreign-investment.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/10031927860/boliv...

Orinocco 12y ago
Thanks, very informative - I see why this is a problem now!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pizza234 12y ago

One of the major concerns of the TTIP is the Investor State Dispute Settlements, which allows US investors to be able to sue EU Member States in cases where their investment has been diminished due to regulatory changes made in the public interest (1). This is corporatocracy at its finest. Interesting, the canonical examples have been removed from the Wikipedia TTIP article. The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy. The second is Philip Morris vs. Australia, because of the decision to require plain packaging on tobacco products. I can't certainly argue against an agreement made against two parties, but the problem here is that TTIP is made in secret, between arguably corrupted representatives of populations which wouldn't certainly agree with such decisions. (1)=I've rephrased this from http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-investor-state-dispute-settlement-and-the-future-of-international-investment-law-in http://blogg.uio.no/jus/smr/multirights/content/the-ttip-inv...

Orinocco 12y ago
Thanks! I'm signed up. Philip Morris vs. Australia sounds like it should be satire :(
pathy 12y ago
>The first example is Vattenfall vs. Germany. The former, an energy provider, sued and won against the latter, for the decision to phase out nuclear energy. Vattenfall suing the German state makes sense considering the business impact the change had. Add to that, Vattenfall is wholly owned by the Swedish state so the TTIP should have no impact what so ever on their dealings.