|
steinrokkan posted:Companies should be able to sue public entities for not following the law, but shouldn't be able to use litigation to force a change in policy or to retroactively demand compensation for another private subject being offered better terms in a different contract. I reluctantly concede to your first point.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Foulbrood posted:If the Walloons give in to the pressure is there any other way to get it vetoed or sidetracked since the trade agreement bypasses the European Parliament? CETA doesn't bypass the EU parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:CETA doesn't bypass the EU parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:How can you support the EU (and many other agreements that you just listed that have built-in dispute resolution mechanisms or supranational rules that override national policy on things like state aid) but oppose "any kind of ISDS"? I do not support the current implementation of the EU anyway. Any sort of dispute between a state organization and a third party should go through an administrative court. Any sort of private, independent organism cannot be trusted to judge on matters of legislation voted for by democratically-elected representatives in Parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I do not support the current implementation of the EU anyway. Well it's hard to take you seriously then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Cat Mattress posted:I do not support the current implementation of the EU anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Quite honestly, Europe is better off as a large country with a bunch of formerly-relevant provinces that get to continue having their own football teams and/or other sentimental carryovers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Quite honestly, Europe is better off as a large country with a bunch of formerly-relevant provinces that get to continue having their own football teams and/or other sentimental carryovers. Full communism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I do not support the current implementation of the EU anyway. How is dispute resolution in the ILO (as an example) or the EU (through EU courts/the commission) any different from a trade agreement using some judge/arbitrator determine whether member states violated the terms they agreed to when they entered into the trade agreement? Just because it's not formally called a court doesn't mean that it isn't doing the exact same thing, i.e. enforcing the rules that the country has agreed to abide by as part of the trade agreement. Not to mention the fact that I don't think many of the institutions you listed actually resolve their disputes through administrative courts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:How is dispute resolution in the ILO (as an example) or the EU (through EU courts/the commission) any different from a trade agreement using some judge/arbitrator determine whether member states violated the terms they agreed to when they entered into the trade agreement? Just because it's not formally called a court doesn't mean that it isn't doing the exact same thing, i.e. enforcing the rules that the country has agreed to abide by as part of the trade agreement. Not to mention the fact that I don't think many of the institutions you listed actually resolve their disputes through administrative courts. Because courts and judges are appointed via a democratic process, and corporate arbiters are not? I know a libertarian like yourself isn't too keen on the concept of democracy, but surely you can understand the desire of common fleshbags in the public to keep some semblance of democratic rule
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Quite honestly, Europe is better off as a large country with a bunch of formerly-relevant provinces that get to continue having their own football teams and/or other sentimental carryovers. never gonna happen, give it up
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Morticia makes me hard posted:never gonna happen, give it up gonna happen, or all the little lovely european countries will sink into the sea
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Brussels has now also decided to give CETA the finger. Hopefully it's dead now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because courts and judges are appointed via a democratic process, and corporate arbiters are not? I know a libertarian like yourself isn't too keen on the concept of democracy, but surely you can understand the desire of common fleshbags in the public to keep some semblance of democratic rule Well that totally makes your reasoning less inconsistent and retarded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Do we need an FTA to trade with Canada or the USA? Are the tariffs high? The whole thing about how the EU not automatically rubber-stamping every trade agreement that comes its way is a proof that it's dysfunctional and backward is really ridiculous. Hey Cat, a quick remark about all this and a couple answers to your initial questions. Trade tariffs in Europe can be quite high, depending on the product. The full table may be found here. Of course, that won't help you, because there's just so much stuff in there, but according to my experience with the Tariff, there are generally high customs duties on clothes, plastics, certain metals, and foodstuffs. As for the rest, it really depends on the mood of the Commission. Most machines have very low tariffs, except for some electronic stuff. Of course, this table is almost meaningless for another reason, and that reason is that we already have FTAs with over 90% of the countries on Earth. Well, they're not really FTAs, just a list of countries for which the Commission has unilaterally said "well, given that you're a developing country, you'll be getting reduced/no customs duties". This is dubbed "development aid". I'm sorry to report that considerations over human rights and the environment are completely forgotten for the poorest countries, and a mere pretence for the other countries of the Generalized System of Preferences. Here's a cool pdf (in French) about all this. So there are few countries with which we don't have trade agreements. China is one, and so are the US, Canada, Russia, Australia and Japan. And, uh, that's about it I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
If the generalized system of preferences were tied to human rights and liberal democracy, people would be complaining about economic imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Riso posted:Brussels has now also decided to give CETA the finger. Gonna print out this post and jerk off on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:gonna happen, or all the little lovely european countries will sink into the sea you can rule europe, like Karl der Große! but you better be prepared to kill everyone. and you better start with me! because I will raise an army and beat you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:lol so the big difference here is that CoE members (unelected) vote for ECHR judges but CETA members would appoint arbiters (who enforce the rules of CETA, agreed upon by elected governments). Oh my god, what a huge blow to human rights and democracy. Supranational bodies appointing arbiters instead of voting for them? How can they ever enforce the rules if some bureaucrat somewhere doesn't vote for them??? The EU clearly agrees with the criticisms though, since otherwise they wouldn't have ditched ISDS in CETA for a more permanent Investment Court System. Anyway, take some time and partake of some terrific journalism by Buzzfeed of all places (rest of the series here) and see if you can maintain your righteous anger on behalf of the ISDS system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
I haven't read it but can I guess it's basically kill the rich, reason #48763578963896
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
In a dispute between a state and a private company, the state should always be deemed right, and the private company should be nationalized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 12:52
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:The EU clearly agrees with the criticisms though, since otherwise they wouldn't have ditched ISDS in CETA for a more permanent Investment Court System. Anyway, take some time and partake of some terrific journalism by Buzzfeed of all places (rest of the series here) and see if you can maintain your righteous anger on behalf of the ISDS system. I don't see a problem with those cases, it's basically the ISDS sticking to the principle that pacta sunt servanda, which is something the states in question agreed to because they wanted foreign investment and that you can't exploit a lovely legal system to pursue populist claims against foreign investors. Sounds like a good thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't see a problem with those cases, it's basically the ISDS sticking to the principle that pacta sunt servanda, which is something the states in question agreed to because they wanted foreign investment and that you can't exploit a lovely legal system to pursue populist claims against foreign investors. You're a really fast reader.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:In a dispute between a state and a private company, the state should always be deemed right, and the private company should be nationalized. This is truth
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
International agreements are void if made under conditions constituting a threat according to the Charter of the UN, or if they are in violation of a peremptory norm of international law. If a new peremptory norm arises, all contracts are deemed void that are in violation of it. In a just world, the validity of contracts and treaties made by corrupt and despotic regimes would be revoked based on this principle, similar to how the concept of odious debt has entered international finances. And I believe that the alienation of a nation's right to legislate over its own land and natural resources by a government without democratic legitimacy is deserving of being elevated to the jus cogens area of peremptive norms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:lol so the big difference here is that CoE members (unelected) vote for ECHR judges but CETA members would appoint arbiters (who enforce the rules of CETA, agreed upon by elected governments). Oh my god, what a huge blow to human rights and democracy. Supranational bodies appointing arbiters instead of voting for them? How can they ever enforce the rules if some bureaucrat somewhere doesn't vote for them???
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:International agreements are void if made under conditions constituting a threat according to the Charter of the UN, or if they are in violation of a peremptory norm of international law. If a new peremptory norm arises, all contracts are deemed void that are in violation of it. In a just world, the validity of contracts and treaties made by corrupt and despotic regimes would be revoked based on this principle, similar to how the concept of odious debt has entered international finances. And I believe that the alienation of a nation's right to legislate over its own land and natural resources by a government without democratic legitimacy is deserving of being elevated to the jus cogens area of peremptive norms. Quite so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:No one cares about the Church of England. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:The EU clearly agrees with the criticisms though, since otherwise they wouldn't have ditched ISDS in CETA for a more permanent Investment Court System. Anyway, take some time and partake of some terrific journalism by Buzzfeed of all places (rest of the series here) and see if you can maintain your righteous anger on behalf of the ISDS system. Yeah, clearly the EU agrees and isn't just window dressing to get all the anti-trade morons to shut up. steinrokkan posted:International agreements are void if made under conditions constituting a threat according to the Charter of the UN, or if they are in violation of a peremptory norm of international law. If a new peremptory norm arises, all contracts are deemed void that are in violation of it. In a just world, the validity of contracts and treaties made by corrupt and despotic regimes would be revoked based on this principle, similar to how the concept of odious debt has entered international finances. And I believe that the alienation of a nation's right to legislate over its own land and natural resources by a government without democratic legitimacy is deserving of being elevated to the jus cogens area of peremptive norms. So the European Commission should have no power over member state policies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't see a problem with those cases, it's basically the ISDS sticking to the principle that pacta sunt servanda, which is something the states in question agreed to because they wanted foreign investment and that you can't exploit a lovely legal system to pursue populist claims against foreign investors. The argument for ISDS is basically, "what if tomorrow Germany elects Chavez and they nationalize everything, won't that drive away foreign investors?" and so it basically assumes that EU countries are third-world dictatorships. It's just adding insult to injury. The idea that you have to sacrifice democracy and sovereignty to capital in order to bring investors to Europe is a complete loving lie and therefore proponents of ISDS should be the one exception to the ban on capital punishment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:19
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The argument for ISDS is basically, "what if tomorrow Germany elects Chavez and they nationalize everything, won't that drive away foreign investors?" and so it basically assumes that EU countries are third-world dictatorships. It's just adding insult to injury. We have at least 2 countries in the EU in which the current government is trying get their supreme court under their control to get judgements favorable to their interests (Greece, Poland). The best solution for this problem would probably be a permanent supranational court that settles this kind of disputes, but ISDS are not the devil they are made out to be or do you have examples where they judged against countries with functioning legal systems.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The argument for ISDS is basically, "what if tomorrow Germany elects Chavez and they nationalize everything, won't that drive away foreign investors?" and so it basically assumes that EU countries are third-world dictatorships. It's just adding insult to injury.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The argument for ISDS is basically, "what if tomorrow Germany elects Chavez and they nationalize everything, won't that drive away foreign investors?" and so it basically assumes that EU countries are third-world dictatorships. It's just adding insult to injury. That same argument is the argument for the ECJ, the ECHR and so on
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:We have at least 2 countries in the EU in which the current government is trying get their supreme court under their control to get judgements favorable to their interests (Greece, Poland). The best solution for this problem would probably be a permanent supranational court that settles this kind of disputes, but ISDS are not the devil they are made out to be or do you have examples where they judged against countries with functioning legal systems. Counterpoint: political interference is just another risk of doing business, and that risk should be borne by investors. In a functioning democracy foreign investors can lobby to protect their interests just like any other interest group can, and there's no need to grant them any special favours in the form of an additional veto point on domestic politics. Also: read the articles I linked above. Geriatric Pirate posted:Yeah, clearly the EU agrees and isn't just window dressing to get all the anti-trade morons to shut up. And people wonder how the EU got a bad rap. Pluskut Tukker fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:43
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Counterpoint: political interference is just another risk of doing business, and that risk should be borne by investors. The idea of ISDS is to reduce this risk to encourage more foreign investment.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The idea of ISDS is to reduce this risk to encourage more foreign investment. No poo poo, Sherlock. My point is that the cost to society of reducing those risks for investors isn't worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:So the European Commission should have no power over member state policies? The EU isn't a private organization, and it adopts decisions through voting, and only accepts members with elected governments, and it permits laws to change to reflect the will of a majority, i.e. it preserves the right of each member to back out of its arrangements unilaterally, it merely delegates authority on voluntary basis. If a democratically elected government made, let's say, a commitment to grant a corporation a license to exploit manganese deposits in a certain plot of land for thirty years, then another government was elected and decreed that all mining in that zone was illegal, I believe the corporation would be more than justified to ask for a fair compensation for wasted investments and lost opportunities, but not to seek an overturning of the new law. If, however, a dictator starts doling out mining concessions to boost his Swiss bank account, those contracts should have no binding force for the posterity, and the beneficiaries of such contracts should have little to no right to claim any indemnities on account they willingly made business with an illegitimate government. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Riso posted:Brussels has now also decided to give CETA the finger. The coalition governing Brussels is almost the same as the one in Wallonia, so I don't know why this would suddenly sound the death knell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
FAZ reports that the most likely "deal" will be that the EU "rescues" a certain Caterpillar factory in Wallonia in trade for which they will stop vetoing CETA. Surely corporate handouts are what every leftist wanted out of this deal...
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Phlegmish posted:The coalition governing Brussels is almost the same as the one in Wallonia, so I don't know why this would suddenly sound the death knell. Because it is two Belgian states giving it the finger now and not just one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 17:02
|
|