Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Sign Elizabeth Warren's Petition against TPA fast track for the TPP (please!)
May 7, Warren blog~
I have serious concerns about ISDS – a policy in the new TPP trade agreement that would let foreign companies challenge American laws outside of American courts.
I’ll give you a recent example of how it works: A big mining company wanted to do some blasting off the coast of Nova Scotia. The Canadian government refused to provide permits because it thought the blasting would harm the local environment and scare off fish that local fishermen needed to make a living.
Thanks to an ISDS provision in a past trade agreement, that mining company didn’t have to go to a Canadian court to challenge the permit decision – they went right to a special ISDS panel of corporate lawyers. Last month, the international panel ruled in favor of the mining company, and the decision cannot be challenged in Canadian courts.
Now the Canadian taxpayers may be on the hook for up to $300 million in “damages” to the mining company – all because their government had the gall to stand up for its environment and the economic livelihood of its local fishermen.
And the next time a foreign company wants a blasting permit, what will the Canadian government do?
ISDS isn’t a one-time, hypothetical problem – we’ve seen it in past trade agreements. Just in the past few years:
A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.
The Obama Administration has said that they have fixed all the problems, and nothing like that will happen here. They just won’t show you how.
Let's send a loud message to our trade officials: No vote on a fast-track for trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – ISDS and everything else. Sign the petition right now.
I’m not the only one worried about ISDS. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in her book last year:
"We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."
In March, more than a hundred law professors from all around the country wrote a letter about their concerns about ISDS. And five of the country’s top legal and economic experts – Joseph Stiglitz, Larry Tribe, Judith Resnik, Cruz Reynoso, and H. Lee Sarokin – all agree:
"ISDS weakens the rule of law by removing the procedural protections of the legal system and using a system of adjudication with limited accountability and review. It is antithetical to the fair, public, and effective legal system that all Americans expect and deserve. Proponents of ISDS have failed to explain why our legal system is inadequate to the task. For the reasons cited above, we urge you to uphold the best ideals of our legal system and ensure ISDS is excluded from upcoming trade agreements."
This isn't a partisan issue. I don’t often agree with the conservative Cato Institute, and I suspect they don’t often agree with me. But the head of Cato’s trade policy program said:
"[ISDS] raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of power... Sen. Warren’s perspective on ISDS is one that libertarians and other free market advocates should share."
The Obama Administration says you have nothing to worry about – to trust them that nothing could possibly go wrong. But they won’t release the text of the TPP agreement to the public for you to see it for yourself.
Frankly, "just trust us" isn’t good enough – not for a trade deal that multinational corporations have been working on for years while the public has been kept in the dark.
Tens of thousands of people have already signed our petition: No vote to fast-track trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – including ISDS.
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog
I have serious concerns about ISDS – a policy in the new TPP trade agreement that would let foreign companies challenge American laws outside of American courts.
I’ll give you a recent example of how it works: A big mining company wanted to do some blasting off the coast of Nova Scotia. The Canadian government refused to provide permits because it thought the blasting would harm the local environment and scare off fish that local fishermen needed to make a living.
Thanks to an ISDS provision in a past trade agreement, that mining company didn’t have to go to a Canadian court to challenge the permit decision – they went right to a special ISDS panel of corporate lawyers. Last month, the international panel ruled in favor of the mining company, and the decision cannot be challenged in Canadian courts.
Now the Canadian taxpayers may be on the hook for up to $300 million in “damages” to the mining company – all because their government had the gall to stand up for its environment and the economic livelihood of its local fishermen.
And the next time a foreign company wants a blasting permit, what will the Canadian government do?
ISDS isn’t a one-time, hypothetical problem – we’ve seen it in past trade agreements. Just in the past few years:
A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.
The Obama Administration has said that they have fixed all the problems, and nothing like that will happen here. They just won’t show you how.
Let's send a loud message to our trade officials: No vote on a fast-track for trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – ISDS and everything else. Sign the petition right now.
I’m not the only one worried about ISDS. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in her book last year:
"We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."
In March, more than a hundred law professors from all around the country wrote a letter about their concerns about ISDS. And five of the country’s top legal and economic experts – Joseph Stiglitz, Larry Tribe, Judith Resnik, Cruz Reynoso, and H. Lee Sarokin – all agree:
"ISDS weakens the rule of law by removing the procedural protections of the legal system and using a system of adjudication with limited accountability and review. It is antithetical to the fair, public, and effective legal system that all Americans expect and deserve. Proponents of ISDS have failed to explain why our legal system is inadequate to the task. For the reasons cited above, we urge you to uphold the best ideals of our legal system and ensure ISDS is excluded from upcoming trade agreements."
This isn't a partisan issue. I don’t often agree with the conservative Cato Institute, and I suspect they don’t often agree with me. But the head of Cato’s trade policy program said:
"[ISDS] raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of power... Sen. Warren’s perspective on ISDS is one that libertarians and other free market advocates should share."
The Obama Administration says you have nothing to worry about – to trust them that nothing could possibly go wrong. But they won’t release the text of the TPP agreement to the public for you to see it for yourself.
Frankly, "just trust us" isn’t good enough – not for a trade deal that multinational corporations have been working on for years while the public has been kept in the dark.
Tens of thousands of people have already signed our petition: No vote to fast-track trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – including ISDS.
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog
Please sign the petition now.
She's seen it, she's against it, she's not allowed to tell us what's in it but she wants us to know. Please sign. Give her some leverage with public support for transparency!
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Social media-savvy true blue friend!!! That's awesome. 
...anti-democratic.
The idea that a President should not negotiate a deal that will need Congressional approval until Congress agrees to give up a portion of its constitutionally designated powers is neither what the founders intended, nor what is best for ythe American people.
Any deal that cannot stand up to Congressional scrutiny and be approved without Congress surrendering its powers to participate in the process (backed up by its constitutional power to amend, which is the power the executive branch wants to dispense with) is not a deal that should be made.
And, speaking of dishonesty, it is dishonest to misrepresent what Sen. Warren's petition supports.
Fast Track is NOT simply about the TPP. It would surrender Congress's power to amend, or to filibuster, any trade agreement whoever happens to be President for the next 6 years decides to present to Congress.
Senators Warren and Brown's petition is demanding that this Fast Track process for the next 6 years not be approved until we see the results of the TPP negotiations. If those negotiations result in a deal in any way similar to what has been leaked, then not only should TPP be trashed, but we certainly would not advance democratic governance by putting in place a process that would expedite futue bad deals for the next 6 years.
Everything we know about TPP stinks.
TPA will allow a "trade" agreement that stinks to be more able to pass, by allowing a process that expedites its passage primarily by surrendering Congressional powers before the stinking details are made public.
And additionally will allow future "trade" deals to be expedited no matter how bad they stink.
Supporting democratic process is not "low". . . What is "low" is expediting stinking deals by short-circuiting democratic processes.
...deal without the details (which, if they are anything like what has been leaked regarding the negotiations, will result in such a public outcry as to strongly diminish the likelihood of passage) being released to the public.
That the final text may not yet have been negotiated is not the point.
The point, and what Senators Warren and Brown's petition democratically & rightfully demands, is that no process to expedite "trade" deals should be established before the details are made public.
...are "dishonest", and falsely claiming that they are "misrepresenting" a Democratic initiative", and continuing to refuse to deal with the substance of what Americans are rightfully demanding, does not make a convincing case for Congress to abdicate its responsibility by expediting stinking "trade" deals in advance of publication of the damning details.
We're starting to really be a voice here. I love it!!! 
99 thank yous for signing!!!
Thanks m-l!!! 
Thank you A-S!!!
peace!
So glad you saw this & signed!!!
oh yes you can! Thanks!!
If enough sign, she can use that in her senate battle. As early as Tuesday, I read.
Thanks CountAllVotes!
We're really racking up the signs! Love it!