Hacker News Reader

Comment by ab5tract | Hacker News Reader

Correct me if I am wrong, but under ISDS rules (a la TPP/TTIP), companies could now sue Sweden for potential lost profits as a result of this legislation, right? (Assuming Sweden is signed onto an ISDS treaty, which it probably is not).

View on HN

Wouldn't that only be if they apply the rules unfairly to international companies in favor of domestic companies? If both domestic and international companies received the same tax break, they would be fine.

Your question is somewhat tautological: ISDS provisions typically define how investor suits work, so of course investors can sue.

That does not mean an investor has any chance of winning in this instance under a hypothetical TTIP suit. TTIP includes a provision protecting regulations enacted for public good.

Sounds like a luxury not granted to, for instance, Central America under CAFTA.

Edit: Fixed typo.

In the US, I can sue you just for making this hacker news comment. Doesn't mean I'll make it past the first hearing.

What if this comment hurt you and you had millions of dollars in a legal department?

That lawsuit would be in a civil court, with civil lawyers and actual judges. Not a room full of round-robin corporate laywers.

My comment was not about whether it would be successful. My question was whether it provided the means to initiate a lawsuit.

So you'd rather the case be decided by a single lawyer^H^H^H^H^H^H judge than a panel of lawyers. Even in common law jurisdictions, most of these sorts of cases tend to focus on disputes over issues of law (hence tried by a judge), not issues of fact (which are the only issues which proceed to a jury trial). Judges are usually lawyers before becoming judges--that's not terribly surprising, considering that judges are expected to know a lot of legal theory, which is essentially the same training you undergo to become a lawyer.

Fearing the provisions of ISDS would undermine the principles of justice means that you would rather trust the judgements of a single, likely overworked, lawyer who is expected to know the entire relevant body of law and case history for his or her jurisdiction over the judgements of a panel of lawyers who are likely to have somewhat specialized in the area of dispute being covered.

You have thrown up a false equivalency and are pursuing it in an odd manner.

What I would prefer is that there is absolutely zero mechanisms for a corporation to sue a government over "potential lost profits".

This is just not at all the same as discussing a potential lawsuit over defamation / libel / whatever "you" would be suing me over a comment for. And, yes, in that case I would still prefer to go through the normal court system with laws written by my legislature rather than a room full of mega corps and trade representatives.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. And if its Federal Court, it can cost a ton of money before a judge ever even looks at it to throw it out.

Some apparently fruitless legislative efforts are still useful, if only for signaling, dragging the Overton Window back to the left, kicking and screaming.

For example, states (in the USA) legalizing marijuana, even though our Feds still don't agree.

Ditto gay marriage rights.

Etc.

looks like a VAT cut, so I expect the EU commission will be after them too

It's perfectly legal to lower tax rates on certain products or services. Most EU countries already have multiple VAT rates; eg. in Austria food is taxed at 10% whereas most other stuff is taxed at 20%

it isn't, the minimum rate is 15% EU wide.

there's a lot of rates which were grandfathered in when countries joined the EU, but lowering the VAT on any new products requires unanimous approval in the council.

all details are here: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rul...

additionally, the commission wants to phase out reduced rates (see my other comment)

Different VAT rates for different types of products are not a problem in EU, in fact almost all European countries also have a reduced VAT rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax...

Quite often the reduced rate applies e.g. to food, but it really can be any product category.

this is an anachronism, the commission regards reduced rates as "an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market"[1]

for quite a while the commission has attempted to reform VAT, ostensibly for a "simpler, more efficient and robust VAT system" with the intent of "broadening the tax base and limiting the use of reduced rates" to "generate new revenue streams", which is reported in the media as "EU wants to add VAT to food, childrens clothes and books".

[1]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...

They will be once the EU signs CETA next month.

ISDS aren't exactly new.

I believe current trade deals already include them so CETA would not materially change that.

ISDS is a red herring

What makes you think that?

Tax breaks on repairs would not adversely and unfairly impact companies possibility to sell in Sweden.

It would advsersely affect profits and the argument would be that it's unfair

But not to the detriment of any one specific company.

But any one company could claim to have been affected, and produce the paperwork/numbers to back it up.

Especially certain electronics companies.

it would fail on the public good criteria, that is the law is aimed at improving recycling rates not harming companies bottom line. If there was some protectionism going on it would be different. It should have the effect of making companies improve repairability (is that a word?) to make themselves more attractive to buyers.

I'm sorry, but how do you develop a worldview where "public good" is determined via corporate lawsuits? Is it simply in the intention of the law? Because from what I can see of the history of ISDS, harming a companies bottom line is the exact criteria by which these cases are judged. Outside of the tobacco labelling suit, I am hard pressed to find a case where ISDS did not result in a ruling against a government.

It's in the law.

Which law are you referring to? This law contains, in plain language, assertions that laws enacted to encourage repair are considered "public good"? I'll believe it when you post a link.

What if there was a large company, RomeRepairCo, already operating in Sweden? Wouldn't they then have a claim to some form of protectionist angle to this law?

Do you see where I am going with this? You say "it is in the law", yet you are neglecting the fact that court cases hinge on the interpretation of law.

Why are laws designed to nationalize (ahem) national resources not qualifying as "for the public good"? When do governments enact any law that is not (ostensibly, at least) "for the public good"?

The history of ISDS law shows that the validity of "for the public good" is determined by these corporate courts^Wroom of corporate lawyers and according to their own corporate interpretation. This is why the outcomes they have so far produced run so contrary to any non-libertarian interpretation of a moral society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com