Citizens United was about Corporate Personhood...TPP is about Corporate SOVEREIGNTY

[Faryn Balyncd]

To put it mildly, to mis-characterize the TPP as a "trade" agreement is simply fraudulent.

The TPP is a direct corporatist attack on popular sovereignty disguised as a "trade" agreement.

Fortunately, and bringing me to the second and more important reason the TPP undermines popular sovereignty, the investment chapter for the TPP was leaked, and the excellent Public Citizen[2] published it (link to the PDF). Their summary in relevant part describes the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions:

These provisions are so extreme that many people unfamiliar with them tend to dismiss description of them or their implications…

Procedural rights that are not available to domestic investors to sue governments outside of national court systems, unconstrained by the rights and obligations of countries’ constitutions, laws and domestic court procedures (Section B). There is simply no reason for foreign investors to pursue claims against a nation outside of that nation’s judicial system, unless it is in an attempt to obtain greater rights than those provided under national law. Moreover, many of the TPP partners have strong domestic legal systems . For example, TPP partners New Zealand, Australia and Singapore are all ranked by the World Bank as performing at least as well as the United States with regard to control of corruption and adherence to rule of law. Yet in a manner that would enrage right and left alike, the private “investor-state” enforcement system included in the leaked TPP text would empower foreign investors and corporations to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments in foreign tribunals. There, they can demand cash compensation from domestic treasuries over domestic policies that they claim undermine their new investor rights and expected future profits. This establishes an alarming two-track system of justice that privileges foreign corporations in myriad ways relative to governments or domestic businesses. It also exposes signatory countries to vast liabilities, as foreign firms use foreign tribunals to raid public treasuries.

So that explains the “new kind of” “regulatory structure,” the “binding international governance system” a lot better than I can. Because this new “governance system” is literally, and not metaphorically, revolutionary[3], I took a look at the actual text of the Investment Chapter, made some screen shots, and added some (really sloppy) yellow magic marker highlighting. I should say that I am by no stretch of the imagination a subject matter expert in the language of international trade treaties, though I do know a “shall” when I see it; my purpose in highlighting the text is simply to show passages that the cynical would characterize as “weasel wording,” or subject to “lawyerly parsing,” or containing, in the vulgate, “loopholes that you could drive a truck through.” Also, you may wish to contrast the majesty of the language of the U.S. Constitution with the fluorescent-lit, Orwellian bureaucratese of the Investment Chapter. Also too, you’ve really got to read this stuff to believe it.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/the-tpp-if-passed-spells-the-end-of-popular-sovereignty-for-the-united-states.html

[Faryn Balyncd]

1. This is certainly NOT to imply that TTP is worse than CU... but that they are 2 aspects of the ...

...corporate castration of popular governance.

[fadedrose]

25. When is TPP planned to take effect?

When's it supposed to get to Congress (I mean the part they're allowed to see) and signed?

So very scary. If Mexico and Canada have been hurt by NAFTA, why in the world would they sign this? They must be oligarchies too..

[sabrina 1]

2. the “binding international governance system” ! Putting it in non-Orwellian speak, our government

is about to hand over power to Foreign Corporations. No wonder they are trying to keep it secret.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that any elected official who permits this pass, is a traitor.

[truebrit71]

3. So that would be all of the republican party...

...and a shamefully large number of democrats...

We are SO screwed....

[840high]

4. Why is Prez oBAMA FOR IT?

[truebrit71]

6. Legacy?

Because he isn't who we thought he was? Because 'Hope' and 'Change' were just bullshit campaign slogans after all?

The answer is, I really don't know....but after 6+ years of a very centre-right administration, nothing surprises me anymore..

[sabrina 1]

9. Maybe because no one can get to the WH without the willingness

to continue the policies that are now apparently entrenched. I'm not sure when it happened exactly, but something happened that made it impossible for any president to try to reverse these destructive policies, even if they wanted to. But all we get now are choices between two candidates neither of whom will cause any damage to the real bosses of this country.

[sabrina 1]

7. Yes, both parties are needed to get these things done.

[woo me with science]

18. "I don't think it's hyperbole to say that any elected official who permits this pass, is a traitor."

The truth is extremely disturbing, but it has to be faced. I think it is well past time to stop pretending that these corporate politicians are merely another flavor of Democrat or Republican within a functioning democracy.

They are purchased political infiltrators for corporate fascists, and the goal and outcome of these policies - mass surveillance, militarized police, indefinite detention, propaganda machines, murder of journalism, suppression of protest, and subversion of democratic protections through "trade agreements" - is a corporate overthrow of democracy.

A corporate police state is being systematically constructed around us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5915944

[daleanime]

5. Good way to state it....

Oh and K&R.

[sakabatou]

8. Corporatocracy

Just what we need.

[Initech]

10. Corporations have become self aware.

[fadedrose]

11. I tried reading the TPP Link

but my head is too stuffed up and allergies make it difficult to understand. Even on my best days in my best years I doubt that I would have understood it..

I understand about "We the people," in the constitution means that the union is run by the people, and the government is decided by the people. So, if corporations are now sovereign, it means that, what?, the world is run by corporation governance? The TPP would be akin to our constitution, and would give corporations power worldwide?

So that I could understand what I just said, I need a hypothetical where a corporation sues another corporation or another country for screwing up their profits.

If anyone knows about this sovereignty, a hypothetical or two examples would be very welcome and appreciated....

[Faryn Balyncd]

22. Here are a couple examples of NAFTA lawsuits by corporations:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/04/eli-lilly-lawsuit-nafta-canada_n_3861869.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/03/quebec-fracking-ban-lawsuit_n_4038173.html




The strategy is to cripple the ability of all levels of government to exercise their legitimate rights and duties to protect the general welfare by passing laws in areas of environmental protection, worker protection, public safety, etc.

It is ironic that these are still being peddled as "trade" deals ---- despite the fact that, historically, free trade deals were made to REDUCE monopolistic influences by opening up borders to competition (by lowering/eliminating tariffs and/or other restrictions...... But these new deals have the precise effect of INCREASING monopolistic power by erecting stronger walls in the form of intellectual property laws, in particular. And the strategy is to forge an agreement in secret which will destroy the ability of state and local governments to pass and enforce laws, under threat of bankruptcy from judgements in corporate influenced tribunals.

[fadedrose]

23. First response

"The strategy is to cripple the ability of all levels of government to exercise their legitimate rights and duties to protect the general welfare by passing laws in areas of environmental protection, worker protection, public safety, etc."

Maybe after I read your links I will understand better, but I think I see a glimmer of hope in TPP just from the above.

Is it possible for us (US or Corps) to sue a government that does not provide worker protection, public safety, the environment, etc... Asian or Latin American countries or corporations if these things are being ignored? For other countries to provide this stuff they would have to raise wages and other factors, which would increase the price of their goods, and thus, we profit on a more level playing field when their operating costs are close to ours?

Sounds good to me.

I will read your links soon, and may comment tomorrow...need time to understand. Slower and dumber than I used to be...no, I mean I am slower and dumber now than I used to be (see what I mean)....

[fadedrose]

24. That's horrible

Is Canada going to go through with signing the TPP agreement?

Only the 1% in every country will benefit. The planet is screwed....

Thank you.

[FairWinds]

12. The point of the post on the TPP is also true of . .

all other recent trade agreements - NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, . . all of them.
And it would help if posters did not take such a USA-centric view of the issue.
ALL the people (except the ONE PERCENT), from any of the signing countries, are hurt by these agreements.
The Mexican people, for example, have arguably been hurt even more than the US by NAFTA.

[pa28]

13. K&R a million times.

[99th_Monkey]

14. Somebody needs to tell Obama about how undemocratic TPP is

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh wait, he must already know, because he's talking it up with Business Roundtable corporate CEOs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025911398

Never mind.

[FiveGoodMen]

15. And Obama can't get enough of it!

Anyone who can't see the Trojan Horse by now must have their eyes closed.

[woo me with science]

16. K&R Fascism comes to America.

Post by Maedhros:

33. This cannot be overstated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5912261

The TPP will allow foreign corporations to sue communities for loss of expected (not actual) profits if said communities enact progressive labor or environmental laws that impact the corporations' operations.

Want to pass a Right To Know law so that you can find out what Monsanto is dumping into the wetlands behind your house? Too bad, chump! Monsanto can threaten the city/county/state with a huge lawsuit and - POOF! - there goes your Right To Know.

I'd hate to see what the "lost expected profits" from the stalled Keystone XL pipeline would be..

It's a de-facto loss of sovereignty to the multinationals.

The TPP will reduce our ability to use our own democratic institutions to protect ourselves against corporate predation. Add that to the militarized police state, the surveillance machine, the murder of journalism, and the profiteering war machine.

These aren't "centrists" and "moderates" from the Third Way. They are corporate-bankrolled, deliberate infiltrators of the party.

They are systematically carrying out a corporate coup of democracy itself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5838257

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Kick nom and I give you another companion piece

that is on the same lines but another reason
this is a shitty 1 percent scam on democracy
and humanity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025915870

[RiverLover]

19. But, but, but Krugman said its not so bad....

[Faryn Balyncd]

21. Actually, Krugman's views have shifted against the TPP.

It is true that he once said it was "no big deal", but he later admitted that what was no big deal was the actual trade aspects of the deal, which truly are not a big deal because their are not significant protectionist laws left to tear down.

He then admitted that the attacks on governmental regulatory powers were negative, and that he would assess these and "get back" on these.

Krugman Opposes TPP

Paul Krugman is a progressive economist, but he does have a history of being a "free trader." Don't believe me? He'll tell you the same thing:

"I am in general a free trader, but I’ll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away."

NY Times, Paul Krugman: "No Big Deal"

As the quote shows, notwithstanding his free trading tendencies, Krugman opposes this deal.

Krugman thinks that proponents and opponents overstate the importance of the TPP because there already is extensive trading without barriers between many of the nations in the TPP negotiations. So what's TPP about?

"What the T.P.P. would do, however, is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think drug patents and movie rights."

....

And he thinks that it's not a deal in this nation's interest:

"Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of property rights we’re talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies. True, temporary monopolies are, in fact, how we reward new ideas; but arguing that we need even more monopolization is very dubious — and has nothing at all to do with classical arguments for free trade.......Now, the corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But this doesn’t mean that the T.P.P. is in our national interest. What’s good for Big Pharma is by no means always good for America."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/28/1281099/-Krugman-Opposes-TPP-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Trade-Agreement

[CJCRANE]

20. Global Corporate Oligarchy.

That's what the 1%ers want.

We have to move to direct democracy in the form of protests, marches, demonstrations, consumer boycotts etc. and speaking out whenever we can because our corporate-owned elected politicians and media won't listen to us.

[Prophet 451]

26. Corporations uber alles

This is literally Fascistic.