Economists Krugman and Sachs were strong supporters of NAFTA. Both oppose the TPP

[cali]

Why?

Krugman was originally meh about it, but has been growing more and more opposed, in part due to the lies used to sell it, and because he believes it grants corporations too much power. Sachs has been opposed to the TPP since the get go.

Why Fast Track Is a Dangerous Gift to Corporate Lobbies

The Obama Administration is now on track to get "fast track" legislation through the Senate, heading towards a close vote in the House. The end goal is to conclude two major business treaties: the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). The House Democrats are right to withhold their support until key treaty positions favored by the White House are dropped.

One of the key reasons to fight fast track is the Administration's insistence on including Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the two draft treaties. ISDS is a dangerous policy that undermines the case for TPP and TTIP. The ISDS framework is an unjustified grant of exceptional power to multinational companies above and beyond the legal system in which the companies operate.

<snip>

The alarming evidence from recent cases shows that investors are using ISDS to contest a virtually unlimited range of government actions including tobacco regulation, measures relating to taxation, environmental regulation, water and electricity tariffs, health insurance regulation, and health and safety restrictions on pharmaceutical imports, among others.

<snip>

ISDS is just one of the gifts to big business hidden in the draft TPP and TTIP agreements. These are treaties written behind closed doors by the lobbyists, for business interests, not for the public's interest. Fast track is a way to jam these lousy provisions down the public's throat, without a proper public airing of the issues. Other dangers include further empowerment of international drug companies to strengthen their patent claims, thereby continuing to gouge consumers with sky-high prices.

President Obama and the Republican Senators know what they are doing. They are handing gifts to the business lobbies out of sight of the American people, and attacking the opponents of fast track as anti-trade or ignorant, when in fact the opponents are merely pro-public interest. If the President and the Republicans believe these draft agreements are so good, and therefore merit fast track, let them make the agreements public, so that the public could say a resounding NO to ISDS and other threats to the common interest hidden within the draft agreements.

<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/why-fast-track-is-a-dange_b_7312034.html

[Hoyt]

1. So I guess all those countries that use ISDS in their trade agreements - like the EU -are wrong too.

We aren't even part of those agreements, yet they find ISDS desirable.

And the agreements - assuming they are ever finalized and submitted to Congress by Obama - will he available for you to read at least 90 days before Congress takes it up.

As to Krugman, while he said "thumbs down" in March, he went on to say, "I don’t think the proposal is likely to be the terrible, worker-destroying pact some progressives assert. . . . . ."

[cali]

2. That claim is simplistic and not true.

At this moment, there are a lot of voices in the EU speaking out against the ISDS in the TTIP.

I realize you think handing corporations more power and influence is a wonderful idea. Most people aren't that naive, or.....

And once the TPA is passed, the TPP and TTIP are guaranteed passage. That must be the worst kept secret in DI and corporate boardrooms. If the votes are there for TPA, they're there for the TPP and TTIP. That has held true 100% in the past. Everyone knows that the battle for and against the TPP is being fought over passage of TPA.

Cheer Hoyt, for higher drug prices and many more cases like the recent COOL one, only brought by corporations.

You seem to either ignore these ramification or support them- and the misinformation you spew is disgraceful. The only question is Why.

[Hoyt]

3. But similar agreements between EU countries still include ISDS.

Fact is, countries are always going to include dispute mechanisms under UN/WTO auspices because it is the only thing that makes sense in international trade.

There are more people in Europe who believe Elvis is alive, than are opposed to the trade agreements. They realize trade is desirable.

[cali]

4. They don't have to be so one sided. There is no mechanism within existing or

or proposed trade deals for organizations representing the public interest to bring a complaint against corporate malfeasance. How is it that a nation's court system is supposedly good enough for that but for corporations?

and another bullshit claim from you. You make one bullshit claim after another and you NEVER provide links to back them up. why on earth would that be, you brave corporate defender?


Put up or... pipe down, hoyt.

[Hoyt]

5. The country can sue the the nation's court system where presumably they will get fair treatment.

Like you are truthful on this, or anything that has to do with Obama.

[cali]

6. bwahahahaha

As I said Hoyt:

Put up or pipe down, oh valiant corporate defender

You got nothing. As is always the case with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Trade between EU countries is governed by EU law

which is passed by the council of EU governments, and the EU parliament, and overseen by the European Court of Justice. That's very different from tribunals consisting of lawyers who also make their living representing multinational companies like the ones they're ruling on.

Support for "a free trade agreement" with the USA varies in the EU; overall, in Autumn 2014, 58% were in favour, 25% against, and 17% said 'don't know'. More opposed it than favoured it in Germany, for instance.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_first_en.pdf

When it comes to ISDS, it's about as popular as cholera:

The European Commission has received 149,399 responses to its public consultation, published on 15 January, on the Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which is contained in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). But “nearly none of them was in favor of ISDS,” reports the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Thirty-five per cent of the total responses came from the United Kingdom, 23 per cent from Austria and 22 per cent from Germany. There was next to no participation in the eastern European states. According to the Commission, 97 per cent of all responses were mass replies forwarded by non-governmental organisations. The paper writes —

This though is not the end of the free trade agreement with the United States, according to trade commissioner Cecilia Malström. The consultation was not meant to be a referendum, sources close to the Swedish commissioner said. “We now need an open Discussion on the basis of the consultation,” she said in Strasbourg.

The paper stresses that Malström did not put forward concrete proposals to fix ISDS but only said the commission would work on several issues, such as “making sure TTIP does not restrict rights of states in terms of protection of the environment and of consumers”.

http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4884616-overwhelming-majority-against-arbitrage-courts

No TTIP deal with ISDS, warns parliament

Freshly returned from Washington, DC, European trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström was in parliament's internal trade committee to present her revised proposal for an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.

ISDS has been a hugely controversial subject throughout the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) talks and has been met with fierce opposition from national governments, MEPs and civil society.

With an ISDS system in place, corporations would be able to challenge governments in a private trade tribunal. There are concerns that such a system would give companies excessive power over national authorities and allow them to sue governments every time legislation was introduced that might harm their profits.
...
Yet despite the commissioner's best efforts to muster up MEPs' support for ISDS, most groups remain wary of such a mechanism.

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/no-ttip-deal-isds-warns-parliament

[joshcryer]

8. Any criticism that invokes ISDS is a non-starter for me.

Seriously, I've gone over literally hundreds of pages and texts of ISDS crap, it's designed to be in the US's favor (whether trade states realize that or not, oh well). The US has never, not once, lost an ISDS case, and given the environmental and IP protections in TPP, the US will likely never, NEVER, lose an ISDS case under TPP. NEVER.

(And since it will pass, I bet $1000 to anyone who thinks magically the US loses an ISDS case under a treaty it designed. I am 100% serious. ISDS is NOT why TPP sucks. TPP sucks because of its lackluster environmental protections.)

[cali]

9. josh, why continue being coy?

Any criticism of the tpp is a non-starter for you. You support it whilst pretending to be undecided. Sorry, until you can be honest about that, discussing it with you is non-starter for me

[TimeToEvolve]

10. check this out!

http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/#!environment/c1wa0