Who needs formal censorship when the oligarchy funded corporate media simply stops reporting the news?
"The standstill clause freezes the extent of liberalization in certain
sectors, which means the markets of TISA state can never be less
liberalized than they were at the time they signed the deal."
Not 100% sure what this means but I guess it's that the neoliberal policies can't be pulled back or adjusted for greater public control.
Way to go! -To the poorhouse and climate Armageddon for us. But hey, since corporations can't die, they have nothing to be concerned about.
Anyway, I'm going to read what was leaked. Ought to be interesting.
There's an interesting exception section that allows New Zealand to comply with its treaty obligation with the Maori. Will there be one, somewhere else that pertains to the USA and its treaty obligations to the Native Americans?
None of these acronyms (TISA, NAFTA, TPP.......) really say what the current trade agreements are really about. Maybe CFFR would be more descriptive (Corporate Freedom From Responsibility). Or how about DLJS (Don't Look Just Sign)? Or WWYM (We Want Your Money)? Personally, I like OIOP (Obama Is Our Poodle). Or WBBTD would sum it all up (Wave Bye-Bye to Democracy).
These corporate monsters will not stop until individual nation state sovereignty is a thing of the past. The cost will be ever greater inequity with masses of disenfranchised powerless people struggling to survive in impossible circumstances. But the privileged will survive and prosper in protected enclaves until the point is reached where our climate will not support any living thing. Perhaps it is not too late to stop this, but alternative options by all appearances are rapidly disappearing.
The TISA must go, because TINA is bullsh**. In fact, TAMA.
This article says nothing of the arbitration and trade tribunal provisions of TISA , perhaps the most heinous aspect within the agreement. Chris Hedges interviewed Kevin Zeese last November discussing all three agreements, TTP, TTIP, and TISA
"ZEESE: And then they have another agreement, the TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which was with Europe. And then the third one, which is the biggest one that’s got the least attention and maybe have the most impact, is TiSA, the Trade in Services Agreement. And that covers services, which is 80 percent of U.S. economy.
HEDGES: Yeah, we’re talking about postal,–
ZEESE: The postal services, educational services,–
ZEESE: –health services, accounting, legal services, 80 percent of the U.S. economy. And so that’s a massive deal.
So these are three deals–TiSA has 50 countries involved.
What’s not in any of these deals, by the way, is the BRICS countries–Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS countries are kept out. Pretty interesting. I think that’s because what we’re looking at here is really a next stage of the global capitalist empire dominated by the United States and Western corporations. That’s what this is part of. And so I think it’s important to put in that context. It is not a coincidence that while we’re negotiating TPP, we’re also doing–Obama is also doing a Asian pivot, surrounding China with the military, it’s not that we’re doing TTIP with Europe at the same time that Obama is ringing Russia with NATO military troops, because this is part of a global empire that the U.S. runs pretty much on behalf of global transnational corporations."
But, anyway, in our federal court system, an individual can sue a corporation. They can find a lawyer who takes it on retainer, only get paid if they win. You get a jury of your peers to decide it. That’s a real court system. It has lots of weaknesses that need to be improved on. They’ve been cutting back on it is much as they could with so-called tort reform–as Ralph calls tort deform. And so it’s getting weaker. But it’s still an important branch of government.
This overrules that. Our courts cannot review what a trade tribunal does. The trade tribunal judges are three corporate lawyers who can also represent corporations in other cases. So there’s a real conflict of interest here, because if you’re a lawyer who’s filing suits on behalf of corporations at these trade tribunals, you want to broaden the power of the trade tribunal and the corporation. So as a judge, you can decide things that, say, corporations have this power, corporations have that power, no, that the security issue doesn’t matter, the corporation still wins. They can create legal fictions.
HEDGES: So give me some examples of how this trumps domestic law, how it would, potentially.
ZEESE: Well, in fact, what’s really interesting about it, as we saw during the fast track debate when President Obama was saying this does not affect legislation, during the fast track debate, the World Trade Organization was ruling on a case from Mexico and Canada against the United States on labeling of meats and country-of-origin labeling so we knew where our meat came from at every stage of the process. And the World Trade Organization says, you’re going to lose that, you’ve got to repeal that law, or you’re going to face fines. During the fast track debate, they repealed COOL, and Obama signed it while he’s saying it doesn’t affect legislation. You know? Right–happening at the same time. It’s just, like, mind-boggling that they could say one thing and be doing the exact opposite. So that means that the trade tribunal decided U.S. law, a very popular U.S. law. People want to know where their food comes from. And that law was repealed during the fast track debate."
I guess you can thoroughly explain each of the various trade deals to us, without any hyperbole, and what they would mean for workers and corporations in the US and other countries?
Just because the ISDS clauses aren’t new doesn’t mean they aren’t terrifying. Many things have been going downhill regarding workers’ rights and safety and environmental protection since the 1980s. These protections should not just be “level” throughout the world they need to be leveled and strengthened so that people and the environment are truly protected. Much of the arbitration is done in secret as are the initial negotiations which benefit those doing the negotiating, i.e. the corporations/investors from what I can see.
So you believe in "free trade?"
Did it ever occur to you that there is no such thing as free trade?
And why should the United States give a rats ass about how workers in Togo are being treated when the workers and the poor right here in America are already living in third world conditions?
How has the TPP helped any but the wealthiest of Americans?
And why won't the TTIP make things even worse for the bottom 30% of income earners?
Recently an agreement was made by the Obama Admin (following a threat to take the issue to a trade deal court) to drop the country of origin from food imported into the USA. I really would like to know my steak came a cow down the road .....not off the road in some Central American country. A Canadian pipe line company has sued the US for billions citing a trade deal ..... when it is said we will lose control of our right to address environment issues ... it is here!! When the "Free Traders" say free, they mean free for them but billions in cost for the rest of us.
Clearly all of the economics that you know you learned from Glenn Beck.
Ray is another of our flock of newbies.
There's a trade war on and we're the enemy.
Two hours since he joined.
ON EDIT: Which you already pointed out. Shouldn't respond when reading on my phone.
Yes, the enforcement practices are selective. I realize "leveling up" is what is implied but I don't see that happening.
With the help of toady politicians and their administrators, corporations and their attorneys manipulate enforcement actions to a disgusting degree. Laws are either weak or vaguely (and sometimes clearly) worded so that they, for all practical purposes, benefit corporations. The US must have stronger laws and the teeth to enforce them (and actually follow through with the enforcement) if they expect to make a positive impact for anyone other than those monetarily profiting. We should not deal with countries that don’t protect their workers and the environment - as the US should/would do if the current laws and associated rules and regulations were enforced and/or not watered down or repealed.
Is there any reason for anyone to believe that while, in the US, laws have been and continue to get weaker, less protective of workers and environment, and continue to be enforced less stringently than they should be while protective laws are virtually non-existent in many countries we trade with that we would expect any new secretive trade agreement to more protective? It doesn't make sense and corporations would lose money.
There won’t be a positive impact (for people) while the laws are written, discussed and negotiated in secret and are written by the corporations the laws regulate. Negotiations must be open for anyone to see, review, and oppose or approve. Small notices in the depths of a large paper aren’t sufficient to say people have been given the option for review, for example. President Obama and other government leaders declaring that these trade deals are best for us isn’t proof of anything except perhaps that there is something to hide.
Where do the candidates stand on TISA?
I'd like to welcome to the forum Ray, a courageous fighter for "free markets". Like a ray of truth and light entering the dark underbelly of the leftist beast.
Fight on brave defender of the global corporate movers and shakers. Carry on brave one!
Thanks Ray for the comparison to an individual dealing with local zoning laws as to how it pertains to a contractor.
That helps the little people understand better how corporate power grabs like these trade deals are in actuality very beneficial to them. (sarcasm)